Chapter 8 Blog Assignment

 From figure 8.1 in the text, select one of the interest groups and do some research on their issues and beliefs.  What did you learn?  What did you find interesting?  Do you agree/disagree with their positions on issues? Why?

 I researched the APWU or American Postal Workers Union. It is a union that supports the postal workers. They have fought for dignity and respect for the workers they represent, as well as for decent pay and benefits and safe working conditions. They were formed after workers were not receiving raises. It is actually several unions that merged together. I could not find anything I did not agree with, I believe they are true to their mission statement.

Find an interest group with which you associate (positively).  What is the name of the group and what do you find persuasive about their position on issues?

I associate with the NRA. My husband and mother-in-law are concealed weapons carriers. They believe in information and training to be able to handle a weapon securely. The NRA helps train law enforcement, they have also started a program to teach children to "STOP. DON'T TOUCH. LEAVE THE AREA. TELL AN ADULT." Since guns will always be in our life I greatly appreciate all the NRA does to help train individuals. 

 

Do interest groups have enough/too much/the right amount of power in the political system?  Most believe it's a fine-line balance between freedom of speech for the groups and keeping unfair persuasion out of government.  Where is that line and when is it crossed?

I think there should be a more level playing field for interest groups. Important groups are often over looked due to lower membership or income. I do not feel they have to much power, yet I do feel they do not have enough laws governing them to make them fair. I think if the financial aspect was closer controlled we would see more fairness.  I also do not think that politicians should be able to serve or 'help' groups. Their should be more of a boundary.

Chapter7 Blog Assignment

1. Does objectivity still exist in the media's coverage of politics?  Of the major news outlets (CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, NPR, NBC, etc.), which are the most objective and which seem to have the most bias?

I think as a whole news coverage is not objective. That being said I tend to give more abjectivity to those that allow guest speakers from both sides. I can not comment on which one is most objective , as to be honest I am unsure. that being said I know Fax to be very conservative as a whole and CNN very conservative. 

2. How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Air America, etc.) affect your view of politics?  Why?

I can not give an opinion on this as I have NEVER listened to talk radio. Therefore I guess it has no affect on my view of politics.

3. Is media objectivity important?  Why or why not?

I am not sure media can ever truly be objective. The journalists are only human and EVERY human has an opinion on things in politics. I think it is important to showcase all ideals but I dont know we can ever achieve a truly objective media.

Chapter 6 Blog Assignment

1. Polls:  http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/pollingcenter/

Is American news media too dependent upon polls?  Is it appropriate for news agencies to create polls and then report on them?  Why or why not?

I believe that the media is too dependent upon polls. I do not feel they should create and report on them. There is no way to show the true scientific polling on their polls. This is what causes things like the Kerry/Bush fiasco. That being said I do not feel it would be okay to create laws against them.

2. How important is political party identification to you (e.g. as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc.)?  Was it more or less important to your parents & grandparents?  Does it seem voting. more or less important to your friends?  Why or why not?

 Political party identification is important to me. If asked I will always say I am a Republican; that being said it is not my ultimate decision when voting. I vote Republican unless there is a person that sticks out and hits home for me. I do feel party identification was a lot more important to previous generations. That being said I also feel the parties were more set on who and what they believed in and the lines were not as skewed between parties. I do not know where my friends stand on party lines as it has almost become taboo to talk about politics do to being "politically correct".

3. Do you feel that you opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues?  Why?

 I feel the opinion of politics in this day and age are influenced by economic issues. With the downturn of the economy there are so many people out of work or barely making it month to month. Important issues that people feel strongly about seem to not be as big when people are losing their homes, jobs, and not being able to provide for their family.

Chapter 5 Blog Assignment

1. The issue of race - does the government do too little or too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination?  Why or how so?

It is my opinion the government does to much in the area of racial discrimination in so far as affirmative action.  Affirmative Action was a great thing that helped bring equality and a better life for ethnic people yet in my opinion, it is unneeded now. I would say after more than twenty years (closer to thirty or thirty five) since equality has been a mainstay it is time to get rid of it. I seen the races as in a competition as to who can be 'owed' more by our government. As a student I see Asian, African American, Hispanic loans/scholarships; yet where is the poor white fund? I am not say ethnic people do not need the help but instead of focusing on the color of our skin lets focus on things of importance.... deserving, need, background, etc. I have seen so many people act like they are owed something because the 'white' man did this or that. In reality this generation is not owed anything because they did not live through it, we are all equal and all deserve the same opportunities for our slice of the pie.... again regardless of the color of our skin.

2. The issue of gender - same question as #1.

I feel the same as question one in my answer. I do not see gender as something that should play a role in ANYTHING. I feel it should be based on skill, education, determination; if the best one is a female then so be it.... male then so be it. I would never want a job, role in society, or role in my own house to be from the fact I am a female. I want to EARN my way in life, not have it handed to me because my grandmother and great grandmother (etc) did not have the same equality in our society I do. I do not need their hand outs.

3. The issue of sexual orientation - same question as #1 and #2.

Wow, for me this week has been easy questions, or I am just really opinionated on these subjects. I feel the government needs to back off and out of peoples sexual orientation. What is it to any of us who someone calls a spouse, partner, bed mate? I am a Christian, therefore my religion teaches whats right and wrong, but I am also taught not to judge as that is my makers job. To love and respect and do unto others as I would have done unto me, ummmm well I was allowed to get married and was not told who to marry; therefore my gay friend Joe should be able to marry whomever he chooses regardless of gender. For a nation so bent on keeping church and state separate, I would honestly like to know where the Constitution grants the power of marriage. This to me is a religious issue not a government issue; especially one with no ties to religion. I am not condoning or condemning this act but I do think the government has not place governing it in any sense.

Chapter 4 Blog Assignment

Freedom of Speech:  How important is it?  Does the freedom go "too far"?  What areas of speech should not be protected?

Freedom of speech is extremely important. Without it why did we need to declare independence in the first place.... (okay plenty of other reasons BUT this was a main one). Without our freedom of speech changes would not be made in the world we live in, their would be no voice. I am a firm believer in it only takes one to start a stampede of change and if we did not have the freedom to voice our thoughts, opinions, etc then change would never get to take place. If you think over our history, the freedom of speech has been the moving force. I think of Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, the kids at the school, etc. Do I think it goes to far.... Absolutely not. I think we have the laws in place to protect people. I do not like what I see in tabloids and with gossip magazines but those people do put themselves into the public eye and know this is the product of that. In all honesty the only time I feel speech should be protected is in matters of national security and where someones life would be in danger. I am not pro abortion but I am in agreement that the abortion clinics should be protest free.

Freedom of Religion:  Is separation of church and state necessary?  Why or why not? 

Again I am of the mind this is necessary.  I am a Christian but I also do not feel I have the right to make anyone believe the way I believe, that is for the maker and that person. I do feel this right goes beyond the scope it was meant to. Our money and deceleration both mention God yet we now feel that praying at school is against that right. I do not agree with the ban on not teaching creation and yet evolution can be taught. I am also the first one to say teach about all the ways the start of life could have begun, until we have 100% undeniable proof of how we began teach all the 'theories' as that is what they are. I believe the separation is necessary in that we wanted independence in the first time to be able to choose our own way, if this was not included.... again I am going to say why did we seek independence.

Criminal Procedure:  Are defendant's rights crucial to our system of government?  Why or why not?  Many argue that defendants have too many rights - do you agree?  Why or why not?

This is maybe one of the hardest questions I have to answer thus far. I do believe a defendant's rights are crucial to our system. that is one of the biggest things that sets us apart from other countries. The rights of defendant's is what allows innocent people to walk free every day. that being said it also allows guilty people to walk without paying for their crimes. I walk a thin line with if defendants have to many rights. I think if we took rights away we would punish many more innocent people then guilty. That being said cases like the Anthony murder trial, child abuse, and rape cases make me question if in the end it is worth all their rights. Nothing is more sickening then when guilty people go free because of their 'rights'. 

Chapter 3 Blog Assignment

 Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power?  Why?

I am tore on this one. I feel we need a strong national government, without it we risk our nation falling a part. We risk being taken over by other countries, we risk revolt and civil war as happened when President Lincoln took office. That being said I do believe the states should have a more equal share of power. I see since the constitution took effect more and more power being taken over by the federal government and all in the name of "necessary and proper". All in all I feel there are to many laws and in many ways the constitution is skewed to fit the governments wants at that time.

National power increased during the Great Depression but then power began to shift back to the states (somewhat) during the Reagan administration.  Why did that happen and is that shift appropriate?

 The Nixon administration began a trend called the new New Federalism that began shifting the power back to the states. The shift was primarily that money given to the states from the federal government had more leeway for the states to decide how to use it. I feel the shift happened and is appropriate because during the depression, World War 2, and civil rights movements the federal government gained to much power. That being said giving the states money and deciding how to use it was not a big enough shift of power back to the states. 

Education stirs much discussion relating to the issue of federalism.  Should the national government regulate education or is it a matter best left to state and local governments?  Why?

My opinions here differ so much it is hard to put into words. I do not feel it is constitutional for one, for the national government to regulate education. I do feel there is no clear line on who controls regulates what for there to be a clear agreement on that is to happen with education. My son was in headstart last year and they could not celebrate holidays and do certain things because the federal government regulates all of that. The headstart can not teach how to color in the lines, send homework home, and basically become a glorified daycare instead of teaching. This in no way prepared my son for Kindergarten which is held to a higher standard than when we were kids. How is that constitutional or beneficial for the peoples well being?  A lot of my thinking is that if the states and local government regulated things BUT at the same time we did not have so many petty rules and laws governing us, the issues that are of much more importance would be dealt with. I see a lot of power struggle between the federal and state governments that only result in added confusion and headache for the general people.

Chapter 2 Blog Assignment

We are studying the Articles of Confederation and shift to our current Constitution. I am asked to give my thoughts on three areas.

How important was the switch to the Constitution.

     The switch from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution were extremely important. As a starting free Country we had debt from war that was not getting paid and lowering out reputation. States did completely as they seen fit which kept us from being a country that looked out for the best interest of everyone combined. We were invaded and would have lost our country very fast as we had no set rules for how to respond or act, who to led a military. It was also to easy for a state to get mad or have issues and not participate/block crucial things to runt he country. If we had not switched to a Constitution we would have become the property of another country extremely fast as the blind was leading the blind, and essentially the states were still mini countries under the name of the United States of America.

How important are the bill of rights

     The bill of rights established what each citizen of this country has rightfully as their own. When I think of the powers that the government has taken over in my life alone, I shudder at the thought of being without the Bill of Rights. There is nothing that can not be construed to be for the welfare of the people. Rioting often results from free speech, so instead of making riots illegal they could simply say that it is for the peoples welfare that we will limit speech or press. Martin Luther King never would have made his famous speech. Our court proceedings would be very different. Needless to say I feel the Bill of rights was just as important as the Constitution. that being said I do feel that laws have been passed because we were not given the right spelled out int the Bill of rights. I also feel that things like prayer in school, In God we Trust on money, and One nation under God are challenged because the Bill of Rights. Those things I do not feel go against it as 'God' can be many religions and I still do not feel it was the intent of the Bill of rights. Like so many other things in this world..... everything is open for interpretation.

Comment on Capital Punishment and if it is Constitutional.

     I do not think the Constitution protects against Capital Punishment. I do think that it mandates more reform for it to be constitutional though. For it not to be cruel and unusual punishment I think that without a shadow of doubt the person has to be proved guilty; thus DNA proving it. I also think the laws on capital punishment have to be across the board so that all people are treated equal. If murder is going to constitute capital punishment I think it should have to in every state. That being said I also think that opens up so many more cans of worms. I am not for capital punishment so maybe that clouds my thinking as well. I would like it to be so hard to ever be sentenced to death that it never happens. I do not feel we can have double standard in laws. Don't kill but if you do then I can kill you......  but that is for another assignment.