Blog Assignment #7

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?
A) Yes, however, I think it is very rare nowadays for objectivity to remain intact. Primarily a lot of people view FoxNews as a biased news outlet due to the stories seemingly promoting the Republican and conservative, and I do think this is somewhat true. However, I think that a lot of other networks such as CNN and NBC are biased in the opposite way, pushing toward the Democratic and liberal views.
2. How does talk radio (Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, etc.) affect your view of politics?  Why?
A) I personally don't listen to much talk radio, though I sometimes hear advice stations, instead, but when I do listen to such things it can affect how I view certain political issues because conversations between the hosts can be interpreted, even by me, as accredited facts when they may not be. Thus, it pushed a political belief into my head or someone else's that in actuality may not have any basis.
3. Is media objectivity important?  Why or why not?
A)Yes, it is incredibly important because when opinions of right and wrong in political, social, and economic issues are voiced in a place that is designed solely for describing the news, it distorts the news itself and ends up encouraging its audience to pick sides. When the media is objective, then true opinions on the issue can be made because the real facts are all on the table.

Blogs I Commented On: Katelyn Dozier, Matthew Cooper, and Stephanie Steele

http://www.gamingpsych.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/44763666.jpg

Blog Assignment #6

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?
A) I think it is too dependent on the polls without additional data and research because they report on the general polls but many of these polls aren't comprehensive enough to really identify patterns and ideologies the of the people taking the polls. You could ask a question as simple as if the general public think Obama is doing a good job, and then make the answer choices too general, so it appears one way or another without explaining why. I think if the news wants to report on polls created by them, it has to be more detailed polls to give accurate answers.

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 more or less important to your friends?  Why or why not?
A) It isn't as important to me because there are things that one party or the other does on a case-to-case basis that I don't agree with. I think it was even less important to the previous generations because I think they really believed in the quality of the political officers, not their party. It's more important to many of my friends because they sometimes follow just what the media says about one party or the other and make an opinion based on that. If the media portrays one party as good this way or bad that way, many of my old friends based their opinions on that rather than the individual leaders in those parties.

3. Do you feel that you opinion of politics is more influenced by economic issues or by social issues?  Why?
A) Mine is more based around social issues because the economy will fluctuate back and forth, or maybe even crumble completely, but the humanity of people matters to me more. The morals of right and wrong are integrated back since the beginning of humanity and if my government wants to destroy what is right, I will fight it. I can't control where my paycheck comes from or if I will be able to afford milk tomorrow based on economic factors, but I can say if I think it's wrong for a person to take away another person's civil rights.

Commented on Student's Blogs: Matthew Cooper, Nikki Stair, and Taylor Wilson

Unreliable Polls

http://piazzablog.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/polls.jpg

Blog Assignment #5

Regarding civil rights and discrimination, please address;
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?
A) I think sometimes the government actually does a little too much to reduce the instances of racial discrimination. I don't say this to be confused with condoning discrimination, but because of it we have a nation of people who believe that they can say anything they want if it pertains themselves and little to nothing if it pertains to others. The issues of political correctness has become a double-edged sword. I think the actual legally regulations on discrimination are more relaxed than the public agenda promoted by the government on this issue, but it still is sometimes too involved in these disputes.
2. The issue of gender - same question as #1.
A) I think the government is neither too involved or too relaxed regarding gender discrimination. I think there are instances where gender discrimination is still alive in places, like the workforce sometimes, but I think that for the most part men and women have a lot more equality in these instances than they ever had. I also want to stress the term equality there, not feminism, because I truly believe that men vs women viewpoints can so easily be blown out of proportion today, and like I said about political correctness, it is also a double-edged sword.
3. The issue of sexual orientation - same question as #1 and #2.
A) This one I think the government is has done too little to reduce the instances of discrimination, but I think this is mainly due to it only recently gaining more civil rights movements to back it. I don't say this to promote sexual orientation as right or wrong, but more specifically the discrimination of it. The nation has to mature in this aspect so that we can learn to love all people and not shun them, regardless of if we agree for or against the issue. I have lost one too many friends to the hatred that has rallied against homosexuals and other sexual orientation groups.

Blogs I Commented On: Nikki Stair, Donna Fox, and Matthew Cooper

Double Standards

http://www.vrouwen.nl/files/0/0/0/3/00036581.jpg

(FYI, the picture is not meant to offend, it is meant to be comical, and if it did, you may have just proven my point...)

Blog Assignment #4

1. Freedom of Speech:  How important is it?  Does the freedom go "too far"?  What areas of speech should not be protected?
A) There are some forms of freedoms of speech that stretch the limit on what is too far. However, I don't think this should be confused with political correctness. Political correctness is more of an attempt to make certain things publicly acceptable to say. Such things that fall into the idea of "political correctness" is saying that a man shouldn't call a women certain terms due to it being degrading to women, or not calling different races different identification terms, such as not calling a person "Black," but instead "African American." While I think that there is some basis to political correctness, there is taking it too far in an attempt to censor the freedom of speech.
However, I think that any form of speech that limits or takes away another person's rights is going too far. For example, if a person threatens bodily harm against someone, that can be interpreted as a form of attempting to take away someone's civil rights. It depends, but I do think that any word that comes out of a person mouth or is written to forcefully take away another person's civil rights should not be protected.

2. Freedom of Religion:  Is separation of church and state necessary?  Why or why not?
A) Yes, I think that there is a time and place for religious matters and political matters. I do think, as a Christian myself, that there should be freedom to express those religions even in political matters as long as it doesn't take away another person's civil rights. For example, if I say a prayer at a lunch meeting with my coworkers as long as it doesn't interfere with their meeting or civil rights, then I find nothing wrong with my actions. Or if a person asks not do or eat something for religious preferences, they should be legally allowed within the limits that it isn't forcing others to adhere to the same ideals. Keep in mind the strictness I use the term "force" here because this has been an issue that has been strongly debated on when the freedom of religion is challenged in judicial interpretations.

3. 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?
A)Yes, they are because if defendants didn't have the rights they had such as the need for a warrant, freedom to plead the fifth, and so on then our judicial and legal system would be corrupt. People would be forced to speak in interrogations regardless of their civil rights. They could be charged of crimes that they weren't even aware they'd been accused of, and the police could seize and raid any property of the defendant. The rights to defendants are very important to keep the American public, both innocent and guilty equally safe and fairly treated in the judicial system.

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/222/965/lib.jpg

Bloggers I Commented on: Katelyn Dozier, Donna Fox, and Matthew Cooper

Blog Assignment #3

1. Is a strong national government necessary or should the state governments have an equal share of power?  Why?
A) It is important for there to be equilibrium in the amount of power between the states and government because if one or the other has too much power, it will at some point take over the other, like we saw in the America born around the Articles of Confederation, which caused the states to overpower the Congress. There are things that need to be stronger in some aspects for one side versus the other, I think, but only with the realization that it as a whole adds up to a equal checks-and-balance of political power.

2. 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?
A) This happened because as it reached the age of Reagan's administration, the economic situation in the US was improving and the need for reliance on the Federal government, economically was naturally decreasing as well. Reagan was attempting to ween the American public off the federal aid so that they wouldn't abuse the system and that the states could handle the smaller financial and political issues on their own.

3. 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?
A) It should be a bit of both because there sadly is too many states that by their own power are failing. I came from California which was one of the worst in that it spends some of the most tax revenue on education and yet produces the same or lower than average test scores. So, it's true that the Federal Government has to be involved somewhat. However, it doesn't need to be controlled solely by the Federal government because that results in more debt and changes needed to other parts of the national budget that could be used elsewhere.

http://i2.wp.com/www.sycmu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/60551_453075371416670_32171113_n.jpg?resize=366%2C411

Blogs I Commented On: Taylor Wilson, Nikki Stair, and Matthew Cooper

Blog Assignment #2

1. Why is the United States Constitution stronger than the Articles of Confederation?  How would the history of the United States have been different if the country still operated under the Articles?

The Constitution is more united in that it gives a more equalized approach to Federal and State government. The Articles of Confederation didn't have a checks-and-balances system to keep one from overpowering the others, so revolts and chaos ensued when the federal government would attempt to govern the states.

2. The first three articles of the Constitution establish/define the three branches of government - read these articles.  What did you learn that you didn't already know about our government?

I did not know that the Supreme Court had the power of judicial review, in other words, the power to remove a law that would break the rights presented in the Constitution. I always wondered why it seemed that judges were ruling against bills that the people and congress had passed such as Proposition 8 in California to retain the marriage definition as between a man and woman. It makes more sense as to why a Court judge can call something 'unconstitutional' and change it.

3. How important is the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison and why?

The importance of the ruling in this case was that it further established the rule that even Supreme Court was subject to rules and regulations of the Constitution. It showed that they couldn't judge on cases outside their jurisdiction, and further affirmed that they could not abridge the Constitution's guidelines. This paved the way to judicial review to prevent Congress from passing laws that gained power over the Constitution, thus proving the Constitution had supreme power over the law. This is important even today because it is one of the checks-and-balances that keeps the three branches of government equal in power.

4. Looking at the United States government today, is it more like what the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists envisioned and why?
I think it's more of what the Federalists envisioned because there is a lot more dependency and focus on the federal government's involvement in public interest, rather than state dependency. Slowly, I think that the Federal government is becoming the focal power of the American people rather than the State power due to government dependency and how the Constitution is interpreted today.

Bloggers I commented on: Dylan Thevenard, Stephanie Steele, and Donna Fox

Welcome to American Government-SHam

Hello, and welcome to my American Government Blog. If you are confused by the description in the far right corner that is because this blog is attached to my old blogger account (Brushfire1412).
Regardless, let me introduce myself. My name is Sarah Ham. I am a 20 year-old sophomore at Roane State. This is my fourth semester and also, my last before I plan to transfer to the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. My major here at Roane is a transfer major, Associates of Science in Education, Concentration, Special Education. I hope to graduate from UT with a Bachelor's of Science in Special Education, Concentration, Deaf Interpreting.
After graduation, I hope to become a Deaf Interpreter, and overall be a help to the Deaf community. I truly believe that Deaf people have so much more to offer than we give them credit, and I want to bring awareness to that fact.
I look forward to this semester in this class because I hope to learn more about the government that this nation was formed around. I have come to find myself complaining about things our government does that I don't agree with, and I'm tired of arguing about these things when I'm not educated enough to see what our government legally can and can't do. I hope this class will inform me of some of the stepping stones of where we as a nation have grown to be today.

http://m.memegen.com/fn135e.jpg