The following is an excerpt from my final unit paper, entitled "Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Thought".
"The thing I really dislike about the media is that it never says anything different. All that is reported is that which should be obvious. The death toll in Iraq is up? Well, of course it is. The longer we stay there, the more fed up people are likely to be with it. The really important things are generally talked about under the radar, and when they’re found out, more often than not they are covered up. Recently in class we watched a movie called “American Blackout” about the suspected voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections. Voices of reason were mangled until everyone turned against the speaker. If news stations were able to do something like that so easily, they’ve clearly had some practice. I wonder how much of what we’re getting from mainstream news is true. This is not only blatantly against the Constitution in that it takes away people’s right to say what they want and be heard, it takes away another right. It takes away the right of the people to make their own choices and think for themselves. You might be saying “Come on, it’s not that serious. I can still think for myself and nobody will arrest me”, but how much of your free thought is influenced by the same media that lies so much about important issues? Doesn’t everyone turn to the news for the latest information on government activity? Isn’t that where we get nearly all of our information about all things politics? The mainstream news is just the government’s subtle way of controlling thought. How long until we become like that world described in “A Wrinkle in Time”? Same actions. Same voice. Same thoughts."
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The 2008 Election
When I started watching the election coverage, I was writing down a play-by-play sort of thing so that I would remember what happened. One of the things they talked about was how the choice of Sarah Palin actually lost McCain some votes, even though when she was first chosen it seemed to have given the campaign an advantage. I was not really surprised by that. Palin seemed like a good choice before anyone tried to get her to do or say anything conclusive, but after a short time it was clear she wasn't up to the job.
Something I noticed was that this election was a great example of how one candidate can lose even with the popular vote. The station I was watching had a running tally of the votes, and when I tuned in, McCain was ahead by a few hundred. Despite McCain's small lead in the popular vote, Obama was clearly leading at the time in electoral votes. As the night went on, he drew ahead in the popular vote as well. Even so, it was such a close race that when Obama was announced the winner, I didn't believe it at first. I knew that a lot of what the news stations were saying was an educated prediction about the outcomes in certain states, and I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously or not. When McCain gave his concession speech, then I believed that Obama had really won. Then I had to wait for Obama's victory speech. The wait probably wasn't very long, but it sure felt like half an hour.
When Obama gave his speech, I wanted to be there. Not just to see it in person (which would have been great in itself), but because the crowd there was exuding so much positive energy. They all believed that right then was the moment our country began a change for the better, and that unified them. At times, they spontaneously began chanting out "yes we can". I don't know how that could even happen in a crowd that big, it was like they were all on the same wavelength, and I wanted to be in on it. I hope that we can keep that unity in the future, because that's the sort of power that makes things happen. I know that about half of the country did not vote for Obama, and do not support him. My biggest concern is about those people. When people don't agree with what they are hearing, they can react badly. They can ignore it, refuse to help along any new ideas. Some of them might even react violently. Of course, they could also choose the path Obama talked about, and get involved in any new ideas. Getting involved is the best way to make sure your opinions are heard. But still, I know that we don't all agree on what is right. There's nothing that I could mention that everyone agrees on. Since the country is fairly evenly split with their opinions most of the time, I'm wondering how the majority will manage to compromise with the almost-equal-in-size minority. Will compromise even be possible in any of the major issues facing the country? A lot of them seem like they have to go either one way or another, and then what will happen to those who got their thoughts overruled?
Something I noticed was that this election was a great example of how one candidate can lose even with the popular vote. The station I was watching had a running tally of the votes, and when I tuned in, McCain was ahead by a few hundred. Despite McCain's small lead in the popular vote, Obama was clearly leading at the time in electoral votes. As the night went on, he drew ahead in the popular vote as well. Even so, it was such a close race that when Obama was announced the winner, I didn't believe it at first. I knew that a lot of what the news stations were saying was an educated prediction about the outcomes in certain states, and I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously or not. When McCain gave his concession speech, then I believed that Obama had really won. Then I had to wait for Obama's victory speech. The wait probably wasn't very long, but it sure felt like half an hour.
When Obama gave his speech, I wanted to be there. Not just to see it in person (which would have been great in itself), but because the crowd there was exuding so much positive energy. They all believed that right then was the moment our country began a change for the better, and that unified them. At times, they spontaneously began chanting out "yes we can". I don't know how that could even happen in a crowd that big, it was like they were all on the same wavelength, and I wanted to be in on it. I hope that we can keep that unity in the future, because that's the sort of power that makes things happen. I know that about half of the country did not vote for Obama, and do not support him. My biggest concern is about those people. When people don't agree with what they are hearing, they can react badly. They can ignore it, refuse to help along any new ideas. Some of them might even react violently. Of course, they could also choose the path Obama talked about, and get involved in any new ideas. Getting involved is the best way to make sure your opinions are heard. But still, I know that we don't all agree on what is right. There's nothing that I could mention that everyone agrees on. Since the country is fairly evenly split with their opinions most of the time, I'm wondering how the majority will manage to compromise with the almost-equal-in-size minority. Will compromise even be possible in any of the major issues facing the country? A lot of them seem like they have to go either one way or another, and then what will happen to those who got their thoughts overruled?
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Judicial Branch
In what way do the other branches check the power of the Judicial branch?
Both the Legislative and the Executive branches exert checks on the power of the Judicial branch. The Executive branch has the power to pardon any person under trial for a crime. This branch can also nominate Supreme Court justices. The Senate must approve this nomination. The House of Representatives can impeach a justice. Congress can also set up lower courts, and amend the Constitution, which would change the way the Supreme Court judges things.
Is this branch more or less powerful than the other two?
I think it is not, because the only absolute power it has is to declare an action or a law unconstitutional. This is called judicial review. And even this power can be checked. If Congress changes the Constitution, what is constitutional also changes. The Executive branch has the power to decide who is on the Supreme Court, which could change the way they interpret the Constitution. The Executive branch can also give pardons to defendants, no matter what the court thinks of them. Some people disagree with me on this one. One big question that comes up when discussing the power of this branch is whether or not the justices on the Supreme Court should serve life sentence...I mean terms. Life terms. Yeah, that's what I meant. ...Moving on. The founders of the country thought that allowing the justices to serve life terms would help them to do their jobs by taking away the stress of "Oh, if I say this is Constitutional, people won't like it and they won't elect me again". I happen to agree with this opinion. But there are some people who think that justices should not serve life terms. One of their reasons might be that if one set of judges approves something, that's fine, but eventually with no change, they might get biased a certain way and make unfair decisions. I don't think this argument is very realistic, because one of the things that a Supreme Court justice should be is open minded. They should be able to see both sides of an argument, and not just decide something because it fits with what their friends believe.
Both the Legislative and the Executive branches exert checks on the power of the Judicial branch. The Executive branch has the power to pardon any person under trial for a crime. This branch can also nominate Supreme Court justices. The Senate must approve this nomination. The House of Representatives can impeach a justice. Congress can also set up lower courts, and amend the Constitution, which would change the way the Supreme Court judges things.
Is this branch more or less powerful than the other two?
I think it is not, because the only absolute power it has is to declare an action or a law unconstitutional. This is called judicial review. And even this power can be checked. If Congress changes the Constitution, what is constitutional also changes. The Executive branch has the power to decide who is on the Supreme Court, which could change the way they interpret the Constitution. The Executive branch can also give pardons to defendants, no matter what the court thinks of them. Some people disagree with me on this one. One big question that comes up when discussing the power of this branch is whether or not the justices on the Supreme Court should serve life sentence...I mean terms. Life terms. Yeah, that's what I meant. ...Moving on. The founders of the country thought that allowing the justices to serve life terms would help them to do their jobs by taking away the stress of "Oh, if I say this is Constitutional, people won't like it and they won't elect me again". I happen to agree with this opinion. But there are some people who think that justices should not serve life terms. One of their reasons might be that if one set of judges approves something, that's fine, but eventually with no change, they might get biased a certain way and make unfair decisions. I don't think this argument is very realistic, because one of the things that a Supreme Court justice should be is open minded. They should be able to see both sides of an argument, and not just decide something because it fits with what their friends believe.
The Nature of Government
The ideas of the philosopher John Locke were a base for the writing of the Declaration of Independence. To describe his ideas of what a government should do, Locke used a concept called the 'state of nature'. This concept illustrates a world in which there is no government, and all humans look out for themselves. Locke decided that all humans would act a certain way in this state of nature, because there are a few things that all humans would want to have and defend. He called these things the natural rights. Locke believed that these rights are unalienable, meaning that they are embedded into our very being, and nothing can take them away. He described them as life, liberty, and property. The right to life is, of course, simply being alive. The right to liberty means having the freedom to make your own choices and do what you will with your right of life. The right to property means that you can have things that are your own and nobody else's, and you may use them and defend them however you choose. Locke also believed that in a state of nature, these rights would always be threatened by other humans who would be seeking to protect their own rights. Without government, there would be no laws to prevent humans from killing each other over these rights, as humans in general are always looking out for themselves before others. He decided that a good government would be formed by the people to protect those rights. For the rights to be protected, the people would have to adhere to some laws that would make sure that no person was without them, such as a law against theft or murder. (Those of course are only the most obvious examples.) Locke said that the government would only have power as long as those governed chose to give it power. If they wanted to collapse the government and return to a state of nature, it was within their power to do so.
Democracy Discussion
(OK, I caved and made a new blog rather than trying to figure out all that technical mumbo jumbo. Anyway.)
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill
When first viewed, this quote appears to be saying that no form of government is without any flaws, but that a true democracy can come fairly close to flawless. Of course, this is only true if the people decide to take responsibility, because in a democracy, the government and the people are very closely connected. Without one half of that connection, the whole system is going to crash and burn. This may be the problem with the current state of things in the United States. Nearly everyone is complaining about things like the government, gas prices, and the environment, but very few of them actually take any action. If you think about that for a while, a new interpretation of the quote comes up. The quote could be talking about the tendency of people to dislike things they don't really know anything about. People could be complaining about the government while at the same time putting down other forms of government even more. Of course, Winston Churchill died in 1965, so the quote could hardly be talking about the state of things now in 2008, but I think that it still does apply.
Recipe for Democracy:
-First take several political parties.
-Mix them with some non-government organizations.
-Add a fair election system that gives the citizens a large share of the power.
-In a separate bowl, mix together some equality, freedom of speech, and basic human rights. Set this aside for later.
-Add a dash of change. You can't have your democracy falling flat because it failed to adapt to new things.
-Carefully layer your two different mixtures into the crust, which should of course include a constitution and a good tablespoon of integrity.
-Bake at 450 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes, or until the crust is golden-brown.
-Enjoy your democracy!
All silliness aside, I think our democracy in the United States may have gotten a little overcooked. We might want to check that out, there's certainly still hope that it can be salvaged.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -Winston Churchill
When first viewed, this quote appears to be saying that no form of government is without any flaws, but that a true democracy can come fairly close to flawless. Of course, this is only true if the people decide to take responsibility, because in a democracy, the government and the people are very closely connected. Without one half of that connection, the whole system is going to crash and burn. This may be the problem with the current state of things in the United States. Nearly everyone is complaining about things like the government, gas prices, and the environment, but very few of them actually take any action. If you think about that for a while, a new interpretation of the quote comes up. The quote could be talking about the tendency of people to dislike things they don't really know anything about. People could be complaining about the government while at the same time putting down other forms of government even more. Of course, Winston Churchill died in 1965, so the quote could hardly be talking about the state of things now in 2008, but I think that it still does apply.
Recipe for Democracy:
-First take several political parties.
-Mix them with some non-government organizations.
-Add a fair election system that gives the citizens a large share of the power.
-In a separate bowl, mix together some equality, freedom of speech, and basic human rights. Set this aside for later.
-Add a dash of change. You can't have your democracy falling flat because it failed to adapt to new things.
-Carefully layer your two different mixtures into the crust, which should of course include a constitution and a good tablespoon of integrity.
-Bake at 450 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes, or until the crust is golden-brown.
-Enjoy your democracy!
All silliness aside, I think our democracy in the United States may have gotten a little overcooked. We might want to check that out, there's certainly still hope that it can be salvaged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)