LJefferson American Political Science

Author Archive

Take Aways: I never had any common knowledge of the U.S’s government structure and how things work. I now have some understanding on how the government works, I now know how many people are in the senate and the house. I know why our government is broken down into three branches. I have learned a lot and I know that I will continue to learn about this subject.

Portable Skills: Technology based I have learned a lot in this class, especially a lot about macs. But I learned more than just technology and what the government is about and baised upon. But I’ll take study habitts and tools that I learned in this class in college and in my future.

Advertisements

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122528515

Code Switching:

  • light skin coloring and running for president
  • talking different among friends and employers
  • Harry Reid
  • President Obama and Jesse Jackson
  • speaking with a “negro” dialect
  • distinction between north and south
  • African American Code Switch
  • President voice clip, about talking the same way while talking to a black audience and a white audience. Says that he does, that it is hard not to talk a different way to a black audience.
  • a social distance or proximity
  • part of code switching is an involuntary response
  • “a black thing, or a politics thing”
  • anyone can talk in a dialect that portrays a certain “english” from the proper english and the slangs.
  • “negro dialect”
  • 50 cent represent african americans, his form of speaking
  • speaking english appropriately in situations where they need to
  • confusion to why african American’s are upset
  • endorsing a candidate that ran on segregation?
  • partisan aspect of the candidacy and candidate
  • no spanglish because it wouldn’t be correct, but why are people so opposed to african americans doing the same
  • liberian english
  • standard english
  • –> while in different events
  • implications or consequence based on this, a “double standard”
  • –> people don’t believe in further consequences
  • Harry Reid was supportive of Obama’s campaign and presidency but now against his speaking
  • “We don’t speak that way when were trying to be President of the United States”

Brought up in the article was how other leaders who speak spanish don’t in formal conversations speak spanglish, but while talking to people that they are friendly with they will use improper english. They compared this to Obama and other African American’s speaking slang to their “friends” while when needing to sound sophisticated speaking a proper english. I know personally when I hear someone speaking slang for instance during a presentation, I think why is this person saying this? Don’t they know their being graded on their speaking? And Obama’s case is the same way, the voters graded him on how much they liked him, he had to be the most appealing and seem the most suited for the job. If he sounded uneducated and like he never knew proper english people, especially whites wouldn’t vote for him. He had to trade off his tone from one population to another to appeal to each group the best that he could.

“We don’t speak that way when were trying to be President of the United States” This quotation is taken from one of the speakers doing the talk show, they brought up the point several times about the way that 50 cent talks and how because he talks in a “negro dialect” that he doesn’t represent the entire African American community. The people on this show all support Obama and the way he speaks, they believe that Harry Reid was incorrect in deciding to back Obama throughout his campaign and than throwing accusations at him now. Several of the speakers were African American and agreed with the fact that they too speak differently with their friends of the same decent than from a superior, and if they too were running for presidency they would speak in “standard english.”

“A black thing, or a politics thing” This is another quotation taken from the voice thread. Its not just a black thing, I know personally I talk differently to my friends than to my teachers or strangers. If I want to impress someone, I dress up and speak the most formally and correct that I can. I don’t need to prove myself to my friends, Obama was similar. I’m not saying that Obama is friends with all African Americans and that he doesn’t need to impress them, but that he needed to over ride stereotypes between whites and blacks. So when he spoke to whites he tried to sound and speak the way that most educated one’s do, and when he spoke to African Americans who don’t have a high education he tried to make it seem like he was like them, a form of propaganda for his campaign, “plain folk.” This propaganda worked Obama’s president now.

Url of Blog Site: http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opencongress.org?gname=political-blogs

Title: Open Congress Blog

The Open Congress Blog seems very reliable and credible, beginning with the name, it is written factually by the writers of open congress. “Open Congress is a free and open-source joint project of two non-profit organizations, the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation” this quotation is taken from the bottom of the blog, where it shows that is a reliable source, because it is of several different non-profit foundations and is existing only to assist and inform the general public. This quotation also provides a background of understanding about the blog, how it is created and why it exists. To aid in backing the credibility of the blog here is another quotation taken from it, “OpenCongress brings together official government data with news coverage, blog posts, public comments, and more to give you the real story behind what’s happening in Congress. Small groups of political insiders and lobbyists already know what’s really going on in Congress. Now, everyone can be an insider.” This shows that the information is taken from groups of people who are involved in congress, that are making the decisions and than on this blog they can report about them. This is primary information, not a media getting the second hand information off of someone else, this is definitely a credible source. The bias in this blog is very little, it is mainly on just stating the facts and information of what is going on in congress and what has been passed. The only bias is the writers are for what congress has passed and what has been agreed upon in congress, mainly because it is primary information and writing.

Url of Blog Article: http://www.diigo.com/bookmark/http%3A%2F%2Fwww.opencongress.org?gname=political-blogs

Title: House Passes a Permanent Lower Estate Tax Rate

Written By: Donny Shaw  on December 4, 2009

The article is about a proposal in congress about establishing a lower estate tax rate. The blog post states the facts, of a non biased descent. It is written strictly non-fictionally about the exact numbers and the outcome of the voting for the lower estates tax. The blog states that all Republicans were against the bill and the majority of the Democrats agreed the same way, the bill was almost completely voted against. Some of the facts of the post are that the tax rate would be lowered to 35% when now it is at 45%, which would make 5 million people exempt from the tax when now only 3.5 million are exempt. It also states that the bill is being passed onto the senate where people will vote for or against it, when in April a similar bill was voted favorably for. There are several quotations from members of Congress and representatives one that the bill is “founded on the ideas of equality and opportunity – on values that form the foundation of our economic growth and our pursuit of the common good.” This is the only type of wording that could be bias in the blog post, where it states how good the bill could be if passed, but it isn’t exactly bias because it is a direct quote of what someone said and it isn’t backed up with other ideas leading in the same direction. The post was overall pretty good, the coverage of the blog gives the specific detail of a bill that was going through congress. There could be a little more elaboration on the topic, showing how it could effect the people more, or any more detail about the actual bill itself. For anyone who knows todays politics this blog post would make almost complete sense to them, and would have significant coverage.

I want to start off by saying I like how you put some background information into your post, where, when, how, and what the causes were of Terri’s death and her illness. I also want to say your paragraphs are well written and make a clear point. But I don’t understand why you would agree that the Federal Government should get involved in these types of topics but that you don’t agree with George Bush to discuss these topics, George Bush was the president, the leader of the US’s government at the time, the federal government. I agree with you in that the federal government should get involved if necessary and should make the decisions, because if they didn’t than who would have enough knowledge and understanding to have an unbiased opinion on what to decide. But I believe that George Bush had a right to step in and make a speech about the case, people voted him to be the leader for a reason, they like and appreciate his views. He is someone that people can admire and respect, not everyone has to believe every word that he says, but sometimes its nice to hear what someone has to say and than determine wether you agree or disagree with their opinion. In this case I believe this is what President Bush was doing, he was trying to give his insight to the people, it his job as a politician to reach the people, to give them a pathway of understanding.

Based on Yun Jun Jung’s Blog Post #3

http://yunjunjung.blogspot.com/

From a legal standpoint, do you agree or disagree with the decision to remove the feeding tube?

Yes, from a strictly legal stand point, I believe that Michael Schiavo had the right to remove the feeding tube for his wife. It doesn’t matter wether Terri would or wouldn’t of wanted her husband to make that decision, she made the choice to marry him, knowing that if something ever happened the other would be responsible to make the decisions. Both of them knew going into the marriage, that the marriage would be law binding, “in sickness and in health” is part of the wedding vowels, that they both said when they got married, and Michael had a legal obligation to his wife. “The law is where we define the beginning of life and the ending of life” Hyperlink to video. The beginning of Terri’s life can foreshadow the beginning of her life and the ending was chosen by her husband, the man she had given the power to.

On insistence from President Bush, Congress met in special session to pass legislation moving the Florida case from the state judicial level to the federal level.  In your opinion, was this an appropriate move?

Yes, because Terri Schiavo was not the first woman to ever be in this situation, where her husband and her family were battling for the power of attorney for her treatment control. If this case continued only on the Florida state level the publicity and the knowledge of this situation would not of been so massive. Because of the case being spread into the federal level, more people became aware of the situation, they were able to consider the pros and cons to each side. The national government should of played a large part of this because, with all of the people being involved were US citizens, they all had the equal rights, and were all aiming to do what they thought was best for her; where the birth certificated given to the parents and the marriage certificate given to Michael were both issued by the national government, thus showing the importance of this case needing to go to the national level, not just the state level. The decision was extremely important, it was life or death, a decision with this much intensity and arguments on either side was necessary to go to the national or federal level.
Do you believe the federal government has the authority to decide whether family members have the right to remove a family member from life support?

Yes, if the federal government doesn’t have the authority than who would? The federal government is elected by popular sovernity, the leaders are leaders because people believe in what they feel is right, they admire their beliefs and many strive to be just like their leaders. If the federal government didn’t have this authority than where would it go to? The State? The state government is below the national government, if each state had a different belief on if a family member could be removed from life support than how would it be determined. Each citizen has a next of kin, a person who will decide medical decisions for them when they are not capable to make them for themselves. This is necessary, and I believe that the federal government should make a regulation where any next of kin can make the decision to take a family member off of life support, especially if the family member is a spouse or life partner.

Terri_Schiavo_protestPicture about the protesting going on outside of hospitals and of court houses about the trials and Terri’s condition. (Link to a Creative Commons video).

James Truslow Adams, in his book The Epic of America, states, “The American Dream is “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement. It is a difficult dream for the European upper classes to interpret adequately, and too many of us ourselves have grown weary and mistrustful of it. It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and be recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.”

I agree and I disagree with Floyd Abrams; I agree with how the US has a large economic diversity, and I feel that many other countries have the same status. I disagree with how he says that our country is turning into two, that our economic status is concentrated into two groups and that these groups are turning into seperate nations, “And I think if we can move in those directions — towards a single public.” He believes that if the country worked together as a whole, it could become more united and become one nation. I feel that our country is pretty united with how it is now, yes there is economic diversity, but there is no way a nation could have no diversity unless it was statist, and a dictator established and controlled everything. Floyd Abrams would agree with the quote above, because it talks about how people want to become better than what they were born into, that it  may not have to do with economic status, but about having freedoms and being a united and forgiving country.  I agree with Joan Claybrook, that every american should know their rights, and not rely on anyone to present them to them. That each american should know right from wrong, and to take into consideration what leaders think, and say, after all their leaders because a majority wanted them to lead, that they sought information in them that they felt was right.  I believe in her quote that, “They just want to have a environment that is safe for them and their children, and for the future, to not have global warming destroy America, to not have war, to have peace, and to have equity and fairness.” I know that personally I want the comfort to know that our country is safe for me to live in and in twenty years from now, that it is still safe for my children to live in. I believe that every american wants protection and security, and to know that if they feel that their in danger that there are government funded police stations within every few miles; I believe in what Joan said, that every american ultimately wants to feel safe.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/pirates-attack-french-navy-ship-again. The blog is about different news article that have occurred in the past few years, the head line is that Pirates attacked a French Navy Ship again. The blog does a nice job of providing tabs to view other articles, and pictures along with the article to make it more appealing to the eye. Also the blog is a reliable source because the author takes quotes from the United Kingdom Times, and also sites the information from them. Allowing readers to use the blog as a form of an accurate secondary source of information, of news about current events going on in the world today.

http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/10/whats-up-with-calorie-labeling/. The blog is about food labels, and labeling calories on the labels. That all fast food restaurants should have calorie content on all of their products. In addition to agreeing with the topic, there are many appealing parts of the blog; beginning with a wordle that contains all of the words on the site, consisting of all the topics the site has to offer. The wordle is very effective, because all of the words that are large are the words that aid in the justification of their argument. The site is defently reputable, because there are links to other sites, like CNN of news article that back their argument, there are videos and books on the blog that all support calorie labeling on fast food products.



  • None
  • Shoemaker: Well done, but...that is one scary picture
  • Eric Harrell: Okay first I want to apologize for this reply being late. Apparently when I chose to follow your blog I also chose to follow WordPress and all their b

Categories