I read an article on the Huffington Post website entitled, "Chris Christie: Obama Inauguration Address Was 'Manifesto' Saying 'My Way Or The Highway'".
The link to the article is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/24/chris-christie-obama_n_2544725.html
Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey and other conservatives are castigating President Obama's second inaugural speech for its "absolutist" nature. They believe that the speech only catered to liberal views and did not propose to work together with the Republican Party. Chris Christie publicly stated, "Instead of trying to bring people together, it a was manifesto for 'Hey, it's my way or the highway!" Basically, Chris Christie thinks that the underlying message in Obama's speech was that he is unwilling to compromise and take other viewpoints into consideration. John Boehner, Speaker of the House of Representatives, stated that Obama's persuasive speech was evidence that he is out to "annihilate the Republican Party." Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky stated that Obama's speech showed that he was seeking to , start an "era of liberalism" that would perpetuate the divided government. As a whole, many conservatives are disillusioned by Obama's speech.
I strongly disagree with Chris Christie and other conservatives' opinions on this speech. I think that Obama's inaugural speech was masterful and extremely eloquent. He addressed a plethora of issues that the country is facing in a very poetic way. I felt that the tone of Obama's speech was urgent and pragmatic, but also very hopeful. His words were realistic and truthful, but not discouraging. I think that Obama addressed important issues that he will tackle in his second term, such as immigration, the environment, gay rights, equal pay, and et cetera.One of my favorite lines from Obama's speech is,"My oath is not so different from the pledge we all make to the flag that waves above and that fills our hearts with pride. They are the words of citizens, and they represent our greatest hope. You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course." President Obama's speech left me feeling very optimistic and sanguine about the future of the United States of America.
Furthemore, I am a very befuddled and frustrated by the criticism of Obama's speech by conservatives. I do not intend to offend anyone, but I feel that the conservatives are bitter because of their loss in the presidential election and the decadence of the GOP. I feel that the Republican Party is on life support right now and needs to seriously reevaluate what they stand for. Our nation has become extremely diverse. Statistics prove that Caucasians account for under half of the births in the United States. Our country is filled with African-Americans, Latinos, Muslims, Asians, gays, lesbians, and many different types of people. We need leaders that support every type of person in the United States. I personally do not feel that the Republican Party supports minorities, thus why they are losing support rapidly.
In addition, I think another problem with Republican leaders is their loyalty to their party over the people. Right now, the government is in a gridlock and minimal progress is being made. I feel that the Republican Party is mostly to blame because of their unwillingness to give up tradition for the current problems that our country is facing. Twenty innocent children were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. That event should have been a wake-up call that high powered guns should not be available to regular citizens, but many Republicans still oppose these ideas. How can we progress and fix serious problems if we cannot agree on the simplest ones? Republican or Democrat, the safety of children should be of the utmost importance. If you can look at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and dismiss it as one of the inescapable tragedies of our world, I question if you have a heart at all.
President Obama's speech calls for the government to put their differences aside and work together for the benefit of the people. In his speech Obama said, "Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time." I hope that the divided government can come together and improve our nation.
What do you think about Obama's second inaugural speech? Do you believe that it was too partisan?
Thursday, January 31, 2013
The Civil Rights Issue Of Our Day.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/lgbt-obama-inauguration_n_2528918.html
Inaugural Invitation to Activism
Article *SOURCE* : Obama's Invitation to Activism
I found this article to be most relevant to me and my thoughts on Obama's Inauguration Speech because, both the author and I had similar take a ways and thoughts.
The author made a strong reference to Obama calling upon how principle of equality guided out ancestors.Obama made a strong statement of our ancestors of men and women joined together at Seneca Falls, New York to protest the perversion of women in different areas of life, from social to political and economic to religious. Even though some rejoice at his notable words, not everyone is happy and not everyone will be. Words of negativity went about, something like "He's a lame duck; nothing will get through Congress; he's all talk and no fight; he's lip-syncing like Beyoncé."
I think he needs time to do all he has planned for this country. In time equality of women's rights, our gay brothers and sisters will be treated like everyone else under the law. Like the author Richard J. Rosendall noted that there's always more to be done and we all know that with what's already done, there's room for improvement.
As you guys read the article, Richard J. Rosendall said "In doing so he rebuked hostility toward science, defended the social safety net as a source of national strength, and rejected the false theme of "makers" versus "takers." , What do you think he meant?
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
The Man Behind The Address
In this article you'll meet Jon Favreau, If you don't know him he is the director of speechwriting for the White House. Jon Favreau has written many speeches for President Obama, dating back to 2005 when he was the senator of Illinois; but this one, he says was the hardest. The difficultly in Mr.Favreau writing has been arrayed before us, whether it be this inaugural address or the one before, it is no easy task to write for the President. In this article, Mr. Favreau discusses why, after so many speeches, this one was the hardest; he also talks about the process of writing this address and where the inspiration came from. This article to me, shows the structure of the great speeches President Obama has given. The talents of Jon Favreau, not only gave us an exceptional speech, but also gave us an outline of our work in AP Gov.
Will there Ever be an Immigration Reform ?!
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/president-barack-obamas-years-immigration/story?id=18265091
When it comes to major issues and concerns in the United States and President Obama's plan as he stated in his Inauguration speech. Immigration comes to my mind. Why? Because just as this ABC News Article stated. "When President Barack Obama took the oath of office four years ago, immigration reform seemed possible, if not a high priority on the president's agenda. But immigration took a backseat to healthcare and the economy. Reform went nowhere." So the questions for many are, What now? Will this happen again? Will President Obama actually do something about an Immigration Reform in his second term?
This article I read was very informative. Stating both positive and negative news on the issue of a a possible Immigration reform.
Facts also state that Barack Obama has been the president in office to deport the most amount of people. With 1.6 million deportations in his 4 yr. term in office. A reason why people probably don't know what to believe or think. I've also heard many people say this as well.
Sometimes I just think its not an easy task. Immigration Reform would be a HUGE IMPACT on the nation, but I do believe it is possible and for the nations best. It probably will take a while to put into effect. But this will benefit the nation in many ways, like economically which is also one of the top issues our nation faces. Like spending less money on immigration enforcement and prisons.
When it comes to major issues and concerns in the United States and President Obama's plan as he stated in his Inauguration speech. Immigration comes to my mind. Why? Because just as this ABC News Article stated. "When President Barack Obama took the oath of office four years ago, immigration reform seemed possible, if not a high priority on the president's agenda. But immigration took a backseat to healthcare and the economy. Reform went nowhere." So the questions for many are, What now? Will this happen again? Will President Obama actually do something about an Immigration Reform in his second term?
This article I read was very informative. Stating both positive and negative news on the issue of a a possible Immigration reform.
Facts also state that Barack Obama has been the president in office to deport the most amount of people. With 1.6 million deportations in his 4 yr. term in office. A reason why people probably don't know what to believe or think. I've also heard many people say this as well.
With President Obama approving the the Dream Act last year in August, also gives people hope and faith that there may be a possible Immigration Reform.
Sometimes I just think its not an easy task. Immigration Reform would be a HUGE IMPACT on the nation, but I do believe it is possible and for the nations best. It probably will take a while to put into effect. But this will benefit the nation in many ways, like economically which is also one of the top issues our nation faces. Like spending less money on immigration enforcement and prisons.
Is There A Middle Class?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/21/inauguration-speech-inequality-middle-class_n_2521489.html#slide=more275945
In this article, it summarizes Obama's Inauguration speech focusing on income inequality. He addresses how the president said in his speech that the richest 1 percent are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Emphasizing on the fact that the only way to reach prosperity is to expand the middle class or in his words, "rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class".
In my opinion, I see how building up the middle class can help the economy, but i don't like how many people make it sound like trying to build the middle class means no more poverty. There is even question as to if a middle class even exists. You are either trying to make ends meet or bathing in money. My question is, is there even a middle class?
In this article, it summarizes Obama's Inauguration speech focusing on income inequality. He addresses how the president said in his speech that the richest 1 percent are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Emphasizing on the fact that the only way to reach prosperity is to expand the middle class or in his words, "rest upon the broad shoulders of a rising middle class".
In my opinion, I see how building up the middle class can help the economy, but i don't like how many people make it sound like trying to build the middle class means no more poverty. There is even question as to if a middle class even exists. You are either trying to make ends meet or bathing in money. My question is, is there even a middle class?
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Taking Small Steps to Equality
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/beyond-mr-obamas-inaugural-message-on-gay-rights.html?_r=0
President Barack Obama gave a powerful and informative Inaugural speech on Monday, January 21st. He spoke as if he were a professional in literature. In his speech he talked about some our our core values like liberty and equality.
My biggest takeaway in this article is that it wasn't until 1967 that people of different races were allowed to marry each other, like President Obama's parents (his mom being American and his dad being African American). I can defiantly tell that the world has moved on but if it took people to allow interracial marriages how long will it take for marriages for the same sex will be legal?
President Obama does talks about how our work as citizens of this country is not complete until everyone is treated the same. I mean why shouldn't they be? Aren't they human beings after all?
One thing that confuses me is if President Obama is talking about taking action together to bring equality then why does, according to his spokesperson Jay Carney, say that next day, after his inaugural speech President Obama speaks about how the decision of allowing same-sex marriage should be left up to states?
Overall I believe that President did a wonderful thing to start his work by starting with the minorities. How do you think this will affect the lives of majorities? Will their support for President Obama decrease after knowing that he is helping minorities first? Will they support President Obama in his decisions or give up on him right at the beginning?
President Barack Obama gave a powerful and informative Inaugural speech on Monday, January 21st. He spoke as if he were a professional in literature. In his speech he talked about some our our core values like liberty and equality.
My biggest takeaway in this article is that it wasn't until 1967 that people of different races were allowed to marry each other, like President Obama's parents (his mom being American and his dad being African American). I can defiantly tell that the world has moved on but if it took people to allow interracial marriages how long will it take for marriages for the same sex will be legal?
President Obama does talks about how our work as citizens of this country is not complete until everyone is treated the same. I mean why shouldn't they be? Aren't they human beings after all?
One thing that confuses me is if President Obama is talking about taking action together to bring equality then why does, according to his spokesperson Jay Carney, say that next day, after his inaugural speech President Obama speaks about how the decision of allowing same-sex marriage should be left up to states?
Overall I believe that President did a wonderful thing to start his work by starting with the minorities. How do you think this will affect the lives of majorities? Will their support for President Obama decrease after knowing that he is helping minorities first? Will they support President Obama in his decisions or give up on him right at the beginning?
Obama's Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/politics/obamas-speech-is-urgent-call-for-progressive-values.html?_r=0
As I read this article I began to get these flashbacks Obama's first inauguration speech. I remember how he explained his solutions for the problems that he inherited I remember how he the nation was on edge and clung to every word he said. I feel that in his first inauguration Obama had the weight of the issues he inherited from bush on his shoulders, but now he's telling us what he really wants to focus on. I think that because this was Obama's final inauguration speech he really wanted to make sure that he left a big impression in Washington and prove o the American people that he was the right choice. Obama's speech really showed us that Obama is no longer tied down to the ideals of his party and because there is no immediate problem that we must deal with, Obama was really able to get the fact that he has a lot of things (more gay rights, gun control, etc.) that he wants to work on, across through his speech.
What do you guys think about his speech? Do you think that Obama will be able to pull through with his promises?
As I read this article I began to get these flashbacks Obama's first inauguration speech. I remember how he explained his solutions for the problems that he inherited I remember how he the nation was on edge and clung to every word he said. I feel that in his first inauguration Obama had the weight of the issues he inherited from bush on his shoulders, but now he's telling us what he really wants to focus on. I think that because this was Obama's final inauguration speech he really wanted to make sure that he left a big impression in Washington and prove o the American people that he was the right choice. Obama's speech really showed us that Obama is no longer tied down to the ideals of his party and because there is no immediate problem that we must deal with, Obama was really able to get the fact that he has a lot of things (more gay rights, gun control, etc.) that he wants to work on, across through his speech.
What do you guys think about his speech? Do you think that Obama will be able to pull through with his promises?
Our Democratic Friends from NewsHour
(Story behind the title - according to statistics, PBS NewsHour is 34% Democrats and 16% Republicans (Chart 6.5, page 208)
Clicked open YouTube and proceeded to typed "obamas inauguration speech analysis". I found this interesting analysis video done by PBS's very own NewsHour. While the congressional lunch seemed quite tasty, I thought the Declaration along with American exceptionalism were two very interesting topics because Annette Gordon Reed of Harvard University said that, "he invoked the Declaration of Independence and to weave this thread and all the things you are talking about through the Declaration of Independence... a lot of people think that he doesn't believe that America is an exceptional nation, it's very clear that he does", when I heard that, I instantly connected to last class where we were also analyzing Obama’s Inauguration Speech. He definitely flowed connecting our time period back to the time of the Declaration. Lastly, when she brought up American exceptionalism, I thought equality and how Americans accept other Americans (or should); connecting back to how Obama mentioned womens rights and “our gay brothers and sisters”. I too, thought his speech was very exceptional and a blast from the past! If you developed your own takeaway(s), please leave it in the comments section below vvvvvvvvvv
Fighting From the Outside In
As Timothy Shriver points out, Obama’s speech would best be
remembered for the words he said than the ideals he promotes. While some
presidents give a quick statement or two about what they wish to accomplish,
Obama made a statement by crafting elegant words around ideals that were too
controversial or had the potential to be. I’m not sure where everyone stands as
oppose to democrats and republicans but I’m pretty sure almost everyone in
class had something positive to say about some part of the speech.
The article was used
to point out the shift in where the power is coming/should be coming from. Mr.
Shriver wanted people to notice that the issues in Obama’s speech were issues
that were not being traditionally fought for (this meaning by politicians and
political parties. So the government didn't attack the issue). This may sound a
little confusing; the point is that these issues where brought up by and fought
for from people who had no part in government or any political organization.
The author would say they are fighting for their cause from the outside in. To
tell you the truth, it sounds like lobbyists or interest groups but I think
they would count as part of the government because of their connection to
politics/politicians. It is believed that issues like: gay rights, disability rights, and
environmental protection were included in the speech for more than just their need
to be improved. The author believes these issues were specifically picked
because they were examples of issues that were fought for by regular people.
The importance of this would be that Obama wants to take over non-government “concerned”
issues and help in their cause or even pay more attention to issues raised by
the people instead just raised by someone in politics.
I would agree with Mr. Shriver that there were hidden
messages or meanings besides the ones intended in Obama’s speech. We tried to
decode some of it ourselves even. In this particular case I’m not quite sure I agree
with this thought. It doesn't seem to add up at times. I mention my thoughts up
above about interest groups. Isn't any group of people that form together to
create change of some kind in society an interest group? They have a lot of
power so his idea of fighting from the outside in would be wrong because they
are just as important as political parties. The other thing that does not make
sense is I don’t remember Obama talking about all of those three issues (these
issues where the ex. in this article). Maybe I didn't focus enough on those
sections to get what he was talking about or I didn't understand his wording. Mr. Shriver would understand his words more
than I would but we all know the media can make mistakes so you can’t take
everything you read to heart.
President Obama's Inaugural Address Analysis
So I found this video on YouTube that connects perfectly to what we were speaking about Monday in class, President Obama's inaugural address. The speakers connect directly with what Kayla stated in class, about the President's value to equality in our country. It is pretty short but it is very interesting because it is like literally what we talked about (gun violence, equality, etc.)
link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vEhC9dU00U
What do you guys think President Obama did in his address? What do you all think of this video?
My opinion on video = I actually agree almost completely with the people speaking, I do think that after all of the horrible events like the shooting in Newtown, Obama has planed to make a change in our country to not just unite us all but protect our schools and public places from shootings.
My opinion on gun control = I do not think taking away guns from the public will make anything better. Do people really believe that prohibiting guns will stop killings? I believe that the police should do a better job in securing our streets, its the people that kill. And if we actually take the time to think, we can see that the killers in that majority of the massacres that have occurred had mental problems, so why doesn't the government keep an eye out for people that have psychological problems? (this is my opinion) I think we should be able to have a few guns at home, I think we should at least have that right. If we do take away guns, what happens when someone intrudes into our houses? Do we just scream and let them kill us because we have no weapons? Or do we defend ourselves with a fire arm? I am not stating that it is fine to kill someone, but if someone gets into your house you have the right to shoot them, if you feel like you are in danger. But if a person shoots an intruder in the back it is automatically murder because the person was leaving and there is no proof that you were in danger. Anyways, I think we should not prohibit fire arms from our country, if a city wants to, it's fine; but the entire country?! I don't think so.
~Shirley-Ann Feliciano :)
Monday, January 28, 2013
Those Crazy Conservatives
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/conservatives-react-obama-inaugural-speech-161537952--election.html
On Monday, January 21st, President Obama gave a speech at his inauguration. It was a powerful - stern yet hopeful - speech. It was very liberal, however, which set off a fire in the conservative world. As Niorgie mentioned, Republican (Conservative) governor Chris Christie didn't care for his speech. Neither did many other Republicans. Remember John McCain? He had something to say about it: "“I would have liked to see a little more on outreach and working together. There was not, as I've seen in other inaugural speeches, ‘I want to work with my colleagues.’”
What? Is it just me or does that not make any sense at all?
Obama mentioned working together in several different ways in his speech. In fact, he seemed to talk more about what we American citizens have to do than what he has to do. He mentioned "We, the people", "Our generation's task", "Our", "We","You and I" was said a few times. Obama constantly talked about working together.
I think John McCain needs to brush up on his listening skills.
Conservative commentator called the speech an "ode to big government" on none other than Fox News. Andy Card, President George W. Bush's former chief of staff, called a the speech a "parallel universe speech", criticizing it for not addressing economic and security problems with our nation.
Those are typical reactions, all to be expected. What really surprised me is the fact that former Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich actually LIKED the speech. "I thought it was very, very good", he said. What a surprise! I can't believe it, a Republican approving of something from the Democrats??!! He didn't even think it was very liberal! He said it "was classically American, emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together. I thought it was a good speech." Take that John McCain!
But really, a Republican approving of something a Democrat did? What kind of Republican is he?
On Monday, January 21st, President Obama gave a speech at his inauguration. It was a powerful - stern yet hopeful - speech. It was very liberal, however, which set off a fire in the conservative world. As Niorgie mentioned, Republican (Conservative) governor Chris Christie didn't care for his speech. Neither did many other Republicans. Remember John McCain? He had something to say about it: "“I would have liked to see a little more on outreach and working together. There was not, as I've seen in other inaugural speeches, ‘I want to work with my colleagues.’”
What? Is it just me or does that not make any sense at all?
Obama mentioned working together in several different ways in his speech. In fact, he seemed to talk more about what we American citizens have to do than what he has to do. He mentioned "We, the people", "Our generation's task", "Our", "We","You and I" was said a few times. Obama constantly talked about working together.
I think John McCain needs to brush up on his listening skills.
Conservative commentator called the speech an "ode to big government" on none other than Fox News. Andy Card, President George W. Bush's former chief of staff, called a the speech a "parallel universe speech", criticizing it for not addressing economic and security problems with our nation.
Those are typical reactions, all to be expected. What really surprised me is the fact that former Republican Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich actually LIKED the speech. "I thought it was very, very good", he said. What a surprise! I can't believe it, a Republican approving of something from the Democrats??!! He didn't even think it was very liberal! He said it "was classically American, emphasizing hard work, emphasizing self-reliance, emphasizing doing things together. I thought it was a good speech." Take that John McCain!
But really, a Republican approving of something a Democrat did? What kind of Republican is he?
What Did You Expect?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/25/how-republicans-have-attacked-obamas-inaugural-address-and-what-it-means/
I took Ms. Blatteau's challenge and searched for reactions by conservatives from President Obama's speech and luckily I found an article on Washington Post on different GOP reps, such as John Boehner, Chris Christie, and even Paul Ryan. For many of you that watched and witnessed the inauguration speech, it made us feel great that there's still more to overcome our obstacles, but it will take time to proceed on. Remember, how Obama described our "political trek", "Our Journey has not been complete." The person that had me off my seat was Chris Christie. I was very, somewhat, surprised. I thought of this as, Christie going for what he believes in but yet supporting Obama. Don't you see that as well? I was shocked to read a response with regards to equality, that I can't believe someone is opposing equality? Well, if I had a moment to ask a question to Chris, I would ask him, "If you were a minority from another country and just recently moved to America, but you're being treated differently than others, how would you feel?" People, whether you support or not support LGBT or minorities, you still have to treat them with respect. It's like you may be a Christian, but dislike Hinduism, but that does not mean you throw someone to the ground. Our equality tower has been broken, but what does it take now to rebuild it? Will we ever rebuild it? It's not up to Obama, it's up to our awareness. You may disagree to what I am saying, but the right thing must be accomplished.
I took Ms. Blatteau's challenge and searched for reactions by conservatives from President Obama's speech and luckily I found an article on Washington Post on different GOP reps, such as John Boehner, Chris Christie, and even Paul Ryan. For many of you that watched and witnessed the inauguration speech, it made us feel great that there's still more to overcome our obstacles, but it will take time to proceed on. Remember, how Obama described our "political trek", "Our Journey has not been complete." The person that had me off my seat was Chris Christie. I was very, somewhat, surprised. I thought of this as, Christie going for what he believes in but yet supporting Obama. Don't you see that as well? I was shocked to read a response with regards to equality, that I can't believe someone is opposing equality? Well, if I had a moment to ask a question to Chris, I would ask him, "If you were a minority from another country and just recently moved to America, but you're being treated differently than others, how would you feel?" People, whether you support or not support LGBT or minorities, you still have to treat them with respect. It's like you may be a Christian, but dislike Hinduism, but that does not mean you throw someone to the ground. Our equality tower has been broken, but what does it take now to rebuild it? Will we ever rebuild it? It's not up to Obama, it's up to our awareness. You may disagree to what I am saying, but the right thing must be accomplished.
My Way or the Highway...
Republican Chris Christie says that Obama's inauguration speech was not uniting, and was somewhat aggressive Christie said this on his monthly call-in show. He wasn't really bashing the speech, it was more of an opinion just thrown in the air. He wants to see how Obama will follow through with his speech. I just don't see how Obama's speech could not be unifying and Christi doesn't really explain which part of the speech he felt that way about. Maybe its just Christi being stubborn and not accepting his speech, he doesn't even seem to think the poetry within the speech, was significant. What doe you guys think?
My Way or the Highway
My Way or the Highway
Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall
I subscribe to the New York Times through email; which means that every morning I get an email with all of the day's headlines. Even if I don't have time to read the articles in detail, I still get a sense of the day's news by browsing the stories and seeing what they are all about. And then, if something really captures my eye I can click on the link and read the entire story. After class this morning, I checked my email and scrolled down the the editorials in today's issue of the Times. This headline caught my eye:
Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall: President Obama's elevating inaugural message on gay rights needs legal follow-through.
This is exactly what we were discussing in class today! I can make the quick connection between Selma and Stonewall: These are two important events in American history, both in the 1960s, where attacks on the civil rights of minority groups made headlines.
And then it got me thinking, what kind of legal follow-through do the editors of the New York Times recommend? What will Obama's role be in ensuring equality for LGBTQ Americans? Was it just part of his Inauguration Day speech or is he going to make this issue central to this second term?
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/beyond-mr-obamas-inaugural-message-on-gay-rights.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0
From what I read, I now know that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on marriage equality. From what I can decipher, the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage is being tested.
To put it simply, in 2008 Californians voted to support an amendment to their state constitution that defined marriage between a man and a woman. This means that same-sex marriage became illegal in their state. Now, the issue is being heard by the United States Supreme Court and it could have implications for marriage equality issues nationwide.
I love this article because it makes me think of federalism. The states have the right to regulate marriage; but only to a certain extent. The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967 ruled that states cannot outlaw interracial marriage. So yes, states can regulate marriage. But no, states cannot go too far.
So I guess the question now is: How far is too far? Is Proposition 8 too far? What can President Obama do to voice his support of marriage equality? This editorial states that "he should have his solicitor general file a brief...saying that California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in unconstitutional." It seems like the editors at the Times want to build on Obama's message and hold him accountable. They highlight his stand on same-sex marriage and make it clear what they think the next step should be:
"Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address appeared to reflect a deepened understanding that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right “under the law.” He needs to make sure his solicitor general conveys that sound legal view loud and clear in the Proposition 8 case."
I am looking forward to following this Supreme Court case more closely, not to mention whether or not the President uses the power of his own opinion to try to influence the court.
Beyond Selma-to-Stonewall: President Obama's elevating inaugural message on gay rights needs legal follow-through.
This is exactly what we were discussing in class today! I can make the quick connection between Selma and Stonewall: These are two important events in American history, both in the 1960s, where attacks on the civil rights of minority groups made headlines.
And then it got me thinking, what kind of legal follow-through do the editors of the New York Times recommend? What will Obama's role be in ensuring equality for LGBTQ Americans? Was it just part of his Inauguration Day speech or is he going to make this issue central to this second term?
Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/28/opinion/beyond-mr-obamas-inaugural-message-on-gay-rights.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130128&_r=0
From what I read, I now know that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on marriage equality. From what I can decipher, the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage is being tested.
To put it simply, in 2008 Californians voted to support an amendment to their state constitution that defined marriage between a man and a woman. This means that same-sex marriage became illegal in their state. Now, the issue is being heard by the United States Supreme Court and it could have implications for marriage equality issues nationwide.
I love this article because it makes me think of federalism. The states have the right to regulate marriage; but only to a certain extent. The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967 ruled that states cannot outlaw interracial marriage. So yes, states can regulate marriage. But no, states cannot go too far.
So I guess the question now is: How far is too far? Is Proposition 8 too far? What can President Obama do to voice his support of marriage equality? This editorial states that "he should have his solicitor general file a brief...saying that California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage in unconstitutional." It seems like the editors at the Times want to build on Obama's message and hold him accountable. They highlight his stand on same-sex marriage and make it clear what they think the next step should be:
"Mr. Obama’s Inaugural Address appeared to reflect a deepened understanding that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right “under the law.” He needs to make sure his solicitor general conveys that sound legal view loud and clear in the Proposition 8 case."
I am looking forward to following this Supreme Court case more closely, not to mention whether or not the President uses the power of his own opinion to try to influence the court.
Monday, January 21, 2013
A Good Question
One of your classmates wanted to know which textbook chapters to focus on for midterm preparation.
Use this guide-
Use this guide-
Section
One: Constitutional Underpinnings of
United States Government
- Use Chapters 1, 2, 3
Section Two: Political Beliefs and Behaviors
- Use Chapter 5
Section Three: Political Parties, Elections and Mass Media
- Use Chapters 7, 8, 6
Of course, you also have numerous other resources to use while you prepare for the midterm:
- Our textbook-online study space
- The Chapter Review Reading packets (please use the titles not the chapter numbers; these are from a different source.)
- Your learning logs and reader response journals
- This blog!
- Credible and intellectual online news resources
- To use these sources to study, you have to actively make connections between the topics in the textbook with the real-life political examples in the news media
- Your classroom community
Friday, January 18, 2013
MidTerms!! Hooray!!
Ms Blatteau floated around the idea of us using the blog here as a study group type thing. So if any of y'all are around here looking for some help. I'm always available here on the blog for some help where we can all help out each other, or if some of y'all wanna ask me something directly, there's always twitter (@RaymondSizemore if you don't already follow me) or facebook, or there's email (ris0217@sbcglobal.net) Just like Ms Blatteau, I want us all to do as well as possible on this MidTerm, and I just want y'all to know you have tons of support here for you if y'all need it. So let's get studying and making sure the whole class passes this MidTerm!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The President for The Next 4 Years Will Be....
I learned many new things about the nail bitting 2000 election between Al Gore and George W Bush. The Florida Supreme Court was the group chosen to decide the case of who will receive their electoral votes for the election. The media jumped on this asking to broadcast and televise the argument. However, the court denied the media access to the session because studies have proven that the cameras would affect the content and emphasis on questions of the lawyers.
I believe that this decision by the Florida Supreme Court made it look as if they were trying to hide something. When the media gave this news out to the public, it affected views of the public on this issue. Most likely, the media wasn't happy about the Court's decision to deny media access, so their broadcast of the info was most likely bias making the Florida Supreme Court the bad guys.
In this election, Gore was first to be announced winner of Florida. However, his triumph was for a minuscule time period. Later that day Florida went back to being undecided.
I know the media was all over the news of Gore winning Florida for that short-lived moment. Media probably made this a huge deal and were shouting it from the roof tops. When they had to announce the false alarm, it was probably heart-breaking to some and others might have not checked the news after hearing that Gore won because of there time. This little mishap probably wouldnt have been as big of a deal if the media werent to announce it so urgently.
Also, I thought it was interesting to find out that in the 2000 election, Florida had only 25 electoral votes, instead of today's 29 electoral votes. Florida had 27 electoral votes in the 2008 election. It gained 2 in the 2010 census giving them 29 in the 2012 election.
Questions:
How long did it actually take to have a clear winner in this election?
Where candidates still campaigning during this period?
How come there had to be a recount if there was a winner in the original vote?
Impact of Social Media on Voters: Extra Credit Opportunity
How much do you think Facebook and Twitter impacted the elections of 2012? How much do you think they will affect elections to come?
Here is a radio report and transcript about this topic.
LINK: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/26/163712869/in-twitter-we-trust-can-social-media-sway-voters
For extra credit, listen to the story or read a selection from the transcript. What are some of the most significant takeaways? What are these professors' main points regarding social media, campaigns and elections?
Do you think this topic of social media impact is relevant to politics today? Or do you think it is a distraction from other issues? Do you think social media should play a role informing people about politics? Or helping undecided voters make up their minds? Explain your thinking.
If you have any additional thoughts or questions after reading or listening to this story, feel free to add them to your post.
Here is a radio report and transcript about this topic.
LINK: http://www.npr.org/2012/10/26/163712869/in-twitter-we-trust-can-social-media-sway-voters
For extra credit, listen to the story or read a selection from the transcript. What are some of the most significant takeaways? What are these professors' main points regarding social media, campaigns and elections?
Do you think this topic of social media impact is relevant to politics today? Or do you think it is a distraction from other issues? Do you think social media should play a role informing people about politics? Or helping undecided voters make up their minds? Explain your thinking.
If you have any additional thoughts or questions after reading or listening to this story, feel free to add them to your post.
Gun Control Plan
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nbc-news/50483879/#50483879
Hi guys here is a link to Obama and Biden's Speech about their gun control plan in case you missed it and wanted to see it. Hope everyone enjoyed their day off.
Hi guys here is a link to Obama and Biden's Speech about their gun control plan in case you missed it and wanted to see it. Hope everyone enjoyed their day off.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
The Media Apologizes.
Because we are discussing about Media in our A.P. class, I thought this would be a good article to talk about. For the people who do not know about the 2000 Presidential elections between George W. Bush(Republican) and Albert Gore (Democrat) it would be a great idea to check out the link that Ms. Blatteau has posted but to summarize the "tragedy", it was a close win between the two candidates and everyone had their eyes glued to their television to see Florida's decision that would set the fate for the president of the year 2000. It was just the matter of 25 votes to determine who was going to with the presidential race. But as soon as the media got the "results" it was declared all over the world that Albert Gore was going to win after getting all the votes form Florida but things took an uncertain turn and in the matter of minutes people were confused on who was the president because George W. Bush, at 9:45 PM, told the media that they had united all the votes in a cursory and were going too fast from the people actually counting the votes. CNN along with ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and MSNBC were punished for making fast decision only from looking at exit polls and experts. Since this mistake CNN has promised that they will not take early decisions after looking at exit polls information and not declare anyone a winner until polls are completely closed.
Everyone says that newspapers are too old now a days but they are accurate in their news. Everything on the Internet goes up quick whether it is Facebook, Twitter or Google it is not true until it is in the papers. Not that newspaper don;t make any mistakes but as you can see that during the 2000 elections how hard the media made it for the president to be declared. So here are a few questions to ponder about. Did the way that the 2000 presidential race affect how media reports news about politics now? Are they really being careful or is our mind playing games with us? Does this tell us something about how much the Central government play a part in the elections?
In the second link that I posted above you guys will be able to see the electoral map of the 2000 elections. The third link shows the final electoral map of the 2012 elections. In the forth website you will be able to find some really cool information on the two parties and the elections because it was made for students. I found this website right from the site that Ms. Blatteau had posted for this homework.
BREAKING NEWS: Al Gore Elected President... Oh Wait... Never Mind
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/badcall_11-8.html#
One would think that before the news reports something, they make sure they have their facts straight. However in the Presidential Election of 2000 between then Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee and then Governor George W Bush of Texas, that was not exactly the case. As early as 8:00 pm, the news networks of CNN and CBS, both advised by Warren Mitofsky, called the State of Florida for Vice President Gore (which would've given the Vice President the White House) based on exit polling in the state's counties. By 11 they retracted that as Governor Bush went into the lead in raw vote tallies. Towards 2 in the morning Bush was still in the lead in the vote tallies.
Warren Mitofsky asserted that he and his methods of projecting are pretty much perfect even though it just got everything completely incorrect and was providing wildly false information for hours which lead the nation into limbo for about a month, leaving us President-elect-less. But the system is still completely credible, no one should loose confidence, nothing needs to change and everything is still pretty much perfect. (Except for this time and 5 other times but other than that completely perfect)
However people on the other side like Marvin Kalb are much more skeptical. How can we trust this system when it was so incredibly wrong? Was this did to competition between news agencies everyone wanting I get this major projection out first? Or just because of sheer incompetence? There doesn't seem to be any other option, and both of them are extremely good reasons to loose credibility in the system. So what happened? Were changes made? Did we get better? Nothing like this seems to have happened since, so things must've improved, but what happens when a 2000-esque election comes along again? Will we again be President-elect-less for over a month? I hope not and that the news agencies are more careful about their projections. Or else I'll just have to go and count every vote myself.
One would think that before the news reports something, they make sure they have their facts straight. However in the Presidential Election of 2000 between then Vice President Al Gore of Tennessee and then Governor George W Bush of Texas, that was not exactly the case. As early as 8:00 pm, the news networks of CNN and CBS, both advised by Warren Mitofsky, called the State of Florida for Vice President Gore (which would've given the Vice President the White House) based on exit polling in the state's counties. By 11 they retracted that as Governor Bush went into the lead in raw vote tallies. Towards 2 in the morning Bush was still in the lead in the vote tallies.
Warren Mitofsky asserted that he and his methods of projecting are pretty much perfect even though it just got everything completely incorrect and was providing wildly false information for hours which lead the nation into limbo for about a month, leaving us President-elect-less. But the system is still completely credible, no one should loose confidence, nothing needs to change and everything is still pretty much perfect. (Except for this time and 5 other times but other than that completely perfect)
However people on the other side like Marvin Kalb are much more skeptical. How can we trust this system when it was so incredibly wrong? Was this did to competition between news agencies everyone wanting I get this major projection out first? Or just because of sheer incompetence? There doesn't seem to be any other option, and both of them are extremely good reasons to loose credibility in the system. So what happened? Were changes made? Did we get better? Nothing like this seems to have happened since, so things must've improved, but what happens when a 2000-esque election comes along again? Will we again be President-elect-less for over a month? I hope not and that the news agencies are more careful about their projections. Or else I'll just have to go and count every vote myself.
2000 election
Using the general link I learned
that in the 2000 election the candidates were a president up for reelection and
the current vice president. George W.
Bush had a 537 vote lead until the Florida Supreme Court called for a recount.
His lead would have been at 1665 votes if the Supreme Court had not stopped the
recount. If a recount continued any
votes that were not counted the first time because they were not all the way
punched out, would be counted. It seems
like the media is the cause of the confusion and problems regarding this
election. The night of the election Bush had an early lead. Then by 8pm Voter
News gave Florida to Al Gore and the other media stations reported the same. By
10pm they put Florida back in the undecided column. Newspapers published early
that Bush won when Florida was the real deciding vote and they kept pushing
back announcing their votes. Kind of
like it was this year. The media kept giving electoral votes to certain
candidates before the votes were even counted and announced If you watched
certain sites when they updated they switched who got the votes. In this
election they also announced who the winner was even before Florida was counted
for, the difference was that even if Obama lost Florida he had enough votes to
win the election.
The real problem is that Florida wasn't the only state with
invalid votes. If those votes that were just not punched all the way through
were counted like they would have in a recount then it is possible and there
are reporters that believe Al Gore would have won that election. There are people who will not vote because
they believe their vote won’t make a difference. There are those who stand
strong and believe that there vote will make a difference and the system lets
them down; because of technicalities and small errors a person’s vote can literally
be thrown out.
GET TO DA CHOPPA! WE NEED A RECOUNT!
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/election_night.html
After reading the article on the 2000 election night I am in awe at how just reading about what happened that night made me feel like I was witnessing the climactic end to an action movie. There were frantic last minute phone calls, lightning fast split decisions , and Arnold Schwarzenegger jumping out of an exploding helicopter! Well maybe not that last part. In all seriousness I found it very interesting that at around 10:00 CBS stopped trying to get information from other states on who had won and instead decided to just focus on what was called "electoral math" during which they began to see that there was a possibility of a 269-269 tie in the electoral college between Gore and Bush. Around 12:00 the big confusion point began: Florida. Even now reading it more than a decade after it happened I still feel confused about exactly what happened. I feel that this ties back beautifully with our current study of media. Many new channels were completely wrong and as such were spreading false information as quickly as they could in order to be able to say that they have the first worldwide exclusive on who actually won. Because of this, incorrect word of mouth began to spread like wildfire.
Do you think the media may have affected the outcome of the election? How do we keep the media in the future from confusing the public and each other?
After reading the article on the 2000 election night I am in awe at how just reading about what happened that night made me feel like I was witnessing the climactic end to an action movie. There were frantic last minute phone calls, lightning fast split decisions , and Arnold Schwarzenegger jumping out of an exploding helicopter! Well maybe not that last part. In all seriousness I found it very interesting that at around 10:00 CBS stopped trying to get information from other states on who had won and instead decided to just focus on what was called "electoral math" during which they began to see that there was a possibility of a 269-269 tie in the electoral college between Gore and Bush. Around 12:00 the big confusion point began: Florida. Even now reading it more than a decade after it happened I still feel confused about exactly what happened. I feel that this ties back beautifully with our current study of media. Many new channels were completely wrong and as such were spreading false information as quickly as they could in order to be able to say that they have the first worldwide exclusive on who actually won. Because of this, incorrect word of mouth began to spread like wildfire.
Do you think the media may have affected the outcome of the election? How do we keep the media in the future from confusing the public and each other?
Monday, January 14, 2013
Blue or Red?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/election_night.html
Why was the 2000 presidential elections so significant? It was significant because of Florida. I read this timeline on PBS and it was a great source to use to see what specifically happened hour by hour how this election turned upside down. Take a look at it and I think you'll really enjoy it. Surprisngly Florida's 25 electoral votes were executed toward Gore at around 8-8:30pm that evening, but one county cancelled their vote at around 9:30. Therefore, Florida remained undecided once again. But why? If the votes are casted then why does it have to be taken away? People were very worried and confused when Florida's votes were taken away until the middle of the night showing America that it was a red state. I'm truly disappointed about what happened that evening, but "it is what it is." Honestly, once the votes are casted and executed to the public, people assume that the votes have been counted, but in this case it wasn't. Why? For those of you that have the CNN app on your iphone, ipod, ipad, etc... go to the elctoral map and click on the 2000 presidential elections results. If you click on Florida as a blue state, Gore would had won.
Looking back to the 2000 elections, what went wrong and how was it "solved"? Was there a miss count? What does America need to do to prevent this conflict from occuring in future elctions? Do you think the 2000 presidential elections was fair?
Why was the 2000 presidential elections so significant? It was significant because of Florida. I read this timeline on PBS and it was a great source to use to see what specifically happened hour by hour how this election turned upside down. Take a look at it and I think you'll really enjoy it. Surprisngly Florida's 25 electoral votes were executed toward Gore at around 8-8:30pm that evening, but one county cancelled their vote at around 9:30. Therefore, Florida remained undecided once again. But why? If the votes are casted then why does it have to be taken away? People were very worried and confused when Florida's votes were taken away until the middle of the night showing America that it was a red state. I'm truly disappointed about what happened that evening, but "it is what it is." Honestly, once the votes are casted and executed to the public, people assume that the votes have been counted, but in this case it wasn't. Why? For those of you that have the CNN app on your iphone, ipod, ipad, etc... go to the elctoral map and click on the 2000 presidential elections results. If you click on Florida as a blue state, Gore would had won.
Looking back to the 2000 elections, what went wrong and how was it "solved"? Was there a miss count? What does America need to do to prevent this conflict from occuring in future elctions? Do you think the 2000 presidential elections was fair?
A Cutthroat Battle
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/regional_11-28.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/badcall_11-8.html
In other elections, the results have been close, but not as close as in this election. There was a lot of question over how votes are counted, and how accurately they are counted. It's a mess, to say the least. But it does show that we are humans, and humans make mistakes. The editorials I read (I love reading editorials) provided me with some insight and opinions about the race. You see, there were various political analysts/writers such as Bruce Dold and Cynthia Tucker. Several weeks passed, and the results still weren't final. Dold believed that Gore should've gave up a long time ago. Politicians have the right to demand a recount in any election, usually being the losing candidate. Dold believed that "the best he [Gore] could hope for is that kind of an extraordinary count", in order to win. So he was basically saying, "okay, election's over, you lost, Bush won, end of story." While, Cynthia Tucker believed that Gore should "stay the course" and continue pressing on until everything is recounted. She believed it wasn't time to give up, no not at all. Long story short, people had a wide variety of views regarding Gore's actions on recounting votes in this election.
As I read in the article "Bad Calls", some analysts believed this election was a mistake, that's all. They believed we could, as humans, only do so much to make sure everything is done as carefully and as perfectly as it could be. It's something to learn from, a major point being that we've got to do something about the accuracy of our voting process, because all of this recounting business can be avoided.
So I have a few questions. What do you think about this election? Was Gore right to have the votes recounted? Or was he just wasting his and everybody else's time? Could Florida have done something to avoid discrepancies in this neck-and-neck race? Lastly, why was this race in particular so close, but not others?
Saturday, January 12, 2013
Homework Due Wednesday 1.16.13
Due to the delay in me posting this blog, I have extended the due date.
As you have seen, many of the AP Gov Exam questions have to do with recent elections; most notably the controversial election in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
In order to both build your background knowledge about this election and continue your investigation of the Media and its impact on politics, you will investigate the following the website: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/index.html
Your job is to write a brief and informal blog post about what you learned relating to the Presidential Election of 2000. I know this is an open-ended assignment. But the goal is to develop background knowledge and share what you learn with your classmates. In addition, your goal is to add your own commentary about the role the media played in the election. And of course, share additional questions you have about this topic.
For example, when I read the following report:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/election_night_11-8.html,
I read a variety of statements from news reporters about how confusing election night was in 2000. In addition, I learned that Florida's electoral votes first went to Al Gore, only to be challenged later and awarded to George W. Bush. I can also see how late into the night the confusion continued. Finally, at four in the morning after election night, the Gore-Lieberman campaign refused to concede and said the race was still too close to call. I think the media ultimately made the outcome of this race more confusing. I wonder what protocols are in place that guide the media in their reporting of election results. How do they know when the race is safe to call? Is there a chance that this level of confusion could happen again?
As you have seen, many of the AP Gov Exam questions have to do with recent elections; most notably the controversial election in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
In order to both build your background knowledge about this election and continue your investigation of the Media and its impact on politics, you will investigate the following the website: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/election2000/index.html
Your job is to write a brief and informal blog post about what you learned relating to the Presidential Election of 2000. I know this is an open-ended assignment. But the goal is to develop background knowledge and share what you learn with your classmates. In addition, your goal is to add your own commentary about the role the media played in the election. And of course, share additional questions you have about this topic.
For example, when I read the following report:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec00/election_night_11-8.html,
I read a variety of statements from news reporters about how confusing election night was in 2000. In addition, I learned that Florida's electoral votes first went to Al Gore, only to be challenged later and awarded to George W. Bush. I can also see how late into the night the confusion continued. Finally, at four in the morning after election night, the Gore-Lieberman campaign refused to concede and said the race was still too close to call. I think the media ultimately made the outcome of this race more confusing. I wonder what protocols are in place that guide the media in their reporting of election results. How do they know when the race is safe to call? Is there a chance that this level of confusion could happen again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)