Gerrymandering video!

Here is a very good gerrymandering video that explains it all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_752156&index=8&list=PLC1C0D3F2BA472F62&src_vid=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=iv&v=Mky11UJb9AY

Gerrymandering

Gerrymandering has been here in the country towards the very beginning, and is a good example of something that is unavoidable in government. Somethings cannot be helped but be used in this game we call politics. From the beginning, in order to create change, one must choose a side. Neutral gets people no where. This problem of having to choose sides is where gerrymandering comes from, because its all about manipulating the people around you so that your "side" has better players. After reading the article and watching the documentary, I have come to the conclusion that gerrymandering is the winner's reward, since both sides have the chance to get that benefit. Gerrymandering isn't agreeable and is very low, but hey, that's politics. Everything is about underhand deals and working the people you know to get where you want to be. Stuff like manipulating the public to your advantage is almost expected. So gerrymandering doesn't seem like a problem. Only the ones who don't get to choose whine about it. I don't think it should be changed, since it has served us pretty well. Its an unwritten benefit of being the majority. Nothing else to it.

Gerrymandering Documentary

One of the things we mentioned in class was how overwhelmingly "popular" the incumbent always seems to be in Congressional races, the video it specifically uses the example of a 70%-30% race, which makes it basically impossible for anyone but the incumbent to win. I was very surprised by the amount of people that had no idea what gerrymandering even is, considering most people have to take a class on government at some point in high school. I was also surprised to hear Gerrymandering dates back to the days of the country's founding fathers. Before the video I was naive to the amount of time gerrymandering had been around, but it certainly does make sense that the founding fathers did it, considering they trusted very few of the voters. The Gerrymandering concept is a tough one to tackle, and something should be changed, but the question is, "what?" One thing that I think could change is for a potential incumbent to not have authority over drawing the district lines, maybe for an independent third party to step in and have to approve it or do the redistricting itself. Another possible option is for a handful of other congressmen or to have the people themselves approve or disapprove the redistricting. Politics appears to be much more of a "contact sport" than what I anticipated with the "not letting another f***ing Asian in the district" and whatnot.

Gerrymandering

The "Gerrymander" law was established in order to ensure that the state in its entirety is represented in the House of Reps, but instead it turned into a political battle for who can tweak the system to make it easiest for himself. I agree that this is one of the unintended consequences of the law in that the law must have been passed assuming that the politicians would hold themselves to a higher standard. The fact that the congressman have been able to play with the system once a decade to ensure reelection makes sense of the fact that Congress has become more polarized and less moderate. If the district lines were drawn at random, as normal shapes (as the state borders are drawn) I believe that the candidates for congress would be more inclined to stay moderate to have to appeal to a more broad demographic, and it would also give any possible challengers a decent chance to win.

There is nothing in the Constitution that bans the act of Gerrymandering, so I do believe that it is constitutional, but that certainly does not make it an OK thing to do. Like I said before, I think the founders, among others, held the politicians to a higher standard and therefore did not expect something like this to happen.

1st post of 2nd semester--Gerrymandering!

Welcome to our very first Silvy's AP Government Blog post of 2nd semester! As we've been talking about in class for the past couple of days, the topic of this discussion will be Congressional Redistricting and, in particular, Gerrymandering. (Sorry again that the online Redistricting Game didn't work out for us, but what I'm giving you to read and watch should still give you a great sense of how IMPORTANT, how CONTROVERSIAL, and yet how UNDERAPPRECIATED this issue is!

First of all, click here to go that New Yorker article by Jeffrey Toobin about "The Great Election Grab" that followed the 2000 census. Many of you were able to read this article in class this week, but if you need to, look over it again and then consider these questions:

• Why does Toobin describe the Supreme Court decision of Baker v. Carr as well as the Voting Rights Act as "classic demonstration[s] of the law of unintended consequences?" Do you agree with this analysis? Why/why not?
• According to Toobin, why has gerrymandering led to House members of both parties becoming more extreme and less moderate, less willing to work with members of the other party? Do you agree with this analysis? Why/why not?
• I realize you may not have all the context and background when it comes to the legal rationale and opinions on this issue, but based at least on this article and what we've talked about in class, do you think that this type of gerrymandering is indeed unconstitutional and should the Supreme Court do something about it? Why/why not?

Next, I have a documentary film for you to watch, called simply "Gerrymandering," which does a great job of explaining the history of gerrymandering, how it's been used to the advantage and disadvantage of both parties, some of the reasons why it's done and some of the unintended consequences. The film is a little over an hour long, so if you're not able to watch the entire thing in one sitting that's fine; you can watch one segment, then come back at another time to watch the next segments, etc.  Click here to watch the film, then consider these questions:

• What are some things mentioned in the film that connect with concepts or issues we've discussed in class?
• What were 1-2 things mentioned in the film that struck you as the most surprising, most troubling, or simply stood out to you the most?
• After watching the film, do you think the situation of gerrymandering in Congressional redistricting can and/or should be changed? If so, do you have any ideas about HOW it could be changed?
• Please share any other thoughts, comments, or reactions to the film!

Remember, by the end of the day next Friday, March 9th, each of you must post TWO (2) comments to this blog. Your first comment should address the questions I've posed above as well as any other thoughts you may wish to express about the New Yorker article, the documentary film, or gerrymandering in general; the second comment should be your agreement or disagreement with a comment made by one of your classmates.  I encourage you to be as articulate and passionate as you can in expressing your opinions, but I also ask you to be respectful, especially when responding to your classmates--as I said at the start of the semester, I hope we can "disagree without being disagreeable." Have fun, good luck, and I look forward to reading your comments!

-Silvy :)

One Final Post--First Amendment!!

Well, we're getting closer and closer to the end of the semester (sniff...!), but first (no pun intended!) we're gonna tackle one more tricky topic, the First Amendment--specifically the Establishment Clause and the issue of "church & state" and how--as Mr. Mueller told you all last week--that issue gets even trickier when dealing with the setting of a public school.

You read an excerpt from "The Nine" that described some cases from the 1990s and early 2000s dealing with 'religion in the public square' and we discussed those in class earlier this week, but for these blog comments we're going to look at some much more recent instances of controversy arising around religion in schools--is it about Government Establishment of Religion or is it about Free Speech?

Click Here for a New York Times article that describes many recent cases in which students, teachers, or administrators have been criticized for to some degree bringing religious activities into the public school setting. In some cases they wound up being punished for it; in others they simply stopped doing whatever they were doing and as a result faced no tangible consequence.  After reading the article, consider the following questions:

• Of all the situations described in the article, which one did you find the MOST troubling? Or put another way, which one struck you as the most obviously unconstitutional? Why?
• Of all the situations described in the article, which one did you find the LEAST troubling (which would you consider the 'safest' in terms of its constitutionality)? Why?
• What were some similarities or connections you noticed between any of the situations described in the article and any of the discussions we've had in class, either with me or from the day Mr. Mueller was there?

In addition to reading that article, I'd also like you to watch a few short video clips before posting your comments.  First, Click Here to watch a segment from Fox News about a Texas elementary school in which students were prohibited from passing out candy canes at a holiday party because there were notes attached to the candy canes that had religious messages on them.

• I realize you don't have all the background or context and you're basing it just on having watched this short video, but what was your take on this situation? Do you think the school did the right thing?
• Which of the two guests on the show did you think made the stronger argument? Why?

The last story deals with something that happened--also in Texas--just last year. The valedictorian at a high school near San Antonio wanted to include a short prayer in her graduation speech and say "Amen" at the end. The family of an agnostic student objected and filed suit to prevent her from including this religious content in her speech. At first a judge ruled in favor of the agnostic student, but on the day of the graduation the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision and ruled in favor of the valedictorian, so she was able to give the speech she wanted to. Click Here to watch a short CNN interview with the agnostic student who objected as well as his mother, and Click Here to watch a short interview with the valedictorian and her lawyer.

• What was your take on this situation?  Did you find yourself agreeing more with Ms. Hildenbrand (the valedictorian) or with the Schultz family (who filed the original suit)? Why?
• If the Class of 2012 valedictorian at CHS wanted to include a prayer in his/her speech this June at your graduation, would you have a problem with it? Why/why not?

Remember, TWO comments per student. The first one is for you to answer all the bullet point questions above about the NY Times article and the videos, and the second comment is for you to agree/disagree with something one of your classmates has posted.  As long as your comments are posted by the end of the day on which you take your final (Tuesday for 1st period, Wednesday for 4th), you're good.  Thanks for a FANTASTIC semester, I can't wait to read your comments, and I hope you stay interested in these issues and all things relating to government and politics long after you finish our class!

Silvy :)

Super-Committee!!

Even though we've finished up with Congress and moved on to the Executive Branch, there have been some very important current events lately involving our Legislative Branch about which I felt it was important that you all have the opportunity to become educated and then comment on.

Remember during the chapter on Congress when you read about the different types of committees that exist (standing, select, joint, etc.)? Well, a couple of these categories were recently combined when, as part of a debt-reduction agreement that was reached earlier this year, Congress established the 12-member Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, also known as the "Super-Committee," made up of 6 members of the House (3 Democrats & 3 Republicans) as well as 6 Senators (also 3 from each party).

The Committee was charged with figuring out how to reduce the federal deficit by $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years, with the understanding that if they did not, a so-called "trigger mechanism" would be enacted that would impose automatic across-the-board spending cuts of over $1 trillion, on everything from domestic social welfare programs, to foreign aid, even to the military. Quite an incentive to figure out how to work together and come to an agreement, no?!

Click here for a Google Doc that explains in relatively concise terms exactly what this 'Super-Committee' is, how it came about, what it was designed to do, and why. This "fact sheet" is not entirely objective; it comes from the National League of Cities, and so the "we" it refers to underscores the importance of the Super-Committee's actions to state and local government funding. Even though it comes from that perspective, however, I would say the explanation is still basically politically neutral and doesn't really favor the views of one party or the other.

Suffice to say that over Thanksgiving Break, it became clear that these 12 members of Congress would be unable to accomplish their mission, and now--as often happens in politics--each side is blaming the other for that failure. Below are links to three different opinion pieces published online in the past week or so that I would like you to read; the first blames Democrats on the committee, the second lays blame on super-committee Republicans, and the third actually points the finger at President Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/73r6gdo
http://tinyurl.com/chey5o7
http://tinyurl.com/cwlmvrv

Now I realize that, even though we've referred to some of these issues and ideas in a peripheral way in class from time to time, you may not have sufficient background knowledge or context about all of this for everything to make perfect sense. Still, just do the best you can, and after reading the explanation of what the Super-Committee is as well as those 3 opinion pieces, please answer the following questions in your posted comments:

• Do you think it is important to reduce our federal deficit? Why?
• How important is this issue to you, i.e., are there other issues facing our country today that you feel are significantly more or less important than this one?
• Do you think something like the 'Super-Committee' is a good idea, in which Congress is more or less forced to act in addressing our federal deficit? Why (not)?
• Which of the 3 articles do you think made the strongest argument(s) in support of its point of view? Why?
• Which of the 3 articles do you think made the weakest argument(s) in support of its point of view? Why?
• Which deficit reduction approach do you find yourself agreeing with more--decreasing government spending or increasing tax revenues? Or perhaps some of both? Why?

Like I said, I totally understand that you may be confused by some of the terminology in the readings, and you may not feel that you have an adequate foundation in the subject matter to effectively comment about everything, but please just do the best you can. I will be checking the blog during the "posting window" more than I usually do, so if something comes up that you're unsure about or if you have any questions, post them as a comment and if possible I will post a reply shortly thereafter that will answer your questions as best I can.

Your two comments must be posted by the end of the day Friday, December 9 (BTW, posting something to ask me a question does NOT count as one of your two comments!). Your first comment should be answering the questions above, and the second should agree or disagree with something a classmate has posted, and explain why you agree/disagree. Thanks, good luck, and have fun!!

Silvy :)

New Hampshire Republican Primary Debate!

Welcome to our first class visit to the "blogosphere" of the semester! Since we're finishing up our unit on Elections & we're about to start looking at the process of campaigning, and since this will obviously be a story we follow throughout the semester, I thought a great topic for our 1st blog assignment would be the Republican debate that was held in New Hampshire (a key early primary state!) this past Tuesday evening, October 11, moderated by Charlie Rose. In case you didn't get to watch it live or recorded on TV (which I imagine applies to most of you!), click the topic title link above to watch online video of the entire debate--it runs about 90 minutes, and while I encourage you to watch the whole thing, if you can at least watch an hour or so of the debate, that should be enough for you to be able to thoughtfully participate in our discussion. After you watch the debate, please consider the following questions:

• What were your overall general thoughts/reactions to each of the candidates?



• Whom did you like and whom did you not like? Why?



• Who stood out to you the most? Who do you think did well in the debate and who didn't do as well? Why?



• Was there one line or one moment from the debate that really stood out to you? If so, what was it and why?

Remember, your assignment is to post TWO comments to the blog by the end of the day next Monday, October 17. Maybe you want to look at some previous topics and comments posted by last year's students to get a sense of about how long your posts should be; I don't have an exact minimum length in mind, but generally I would say a decent-sized paragraph would be required for you to adequately express your opinions and address all of my questions.

Your first post should be your answers to those questions I've posed above, and then your second post (this can be a couple days later if you want) needs to be a response/comment/agreement/disagreement on something that one of your classmates has posted. These second comments can be shorter than your initial answers to my questions in your first comment, but they do still need to be somewhat substantial with some thought put into them; simply saying "I agree with ________" or "________ is wrong in what she says" won't get the job done! Also, I hope at this point I don't need to tell you (though I will anyway!) that while I want you to passionately and enthusiastically express your opinions in this forum, please be sure to be respectful and appropriate in your comments, both about the Republican candidates as well as about the comments and opinions of your classmates.

Last thing: please make to sure to post your thoughts as "comments" on a continuing thread within and below this same topic--please DO NOT submit a "new post" which will appear at the top of the blog's home screen. The right way to do it is to click on the link down below where it says "0 comments" or "12 comments" or " 67 comments" in pink font--this will take you to a text box where you can post your own comments.

I look forward to seeing what you all have to say--good luck and have fun!

--Silvy :)

Supreme Court justices on Constitutional Interpretation

For this post, since we're smack-dab in the middle of our Judicial Branch chapter, I thought it would be great to hear from a couple of our current Supreme Court Justices--one liberal and one conservative. If you click above on the title link of this post, it will take you to a 13-minute video clip of an interview that Chris Wallace of Fox News conducted with Justice Stephen Breyer. The two links below will take you to Part I and Part II--each about 12 minutes long--of an interview that the CBS program "60 Minutes" conducted with Justice Antonin Scalia. (If you want, you can skip the first 4 minutes or so of Part II, as this deals more with Scalia's personal life and his childhood).

• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448191n&tag=related;photovideo


• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4448193n

Since we have referenced this in class, you should be well aware by now that Justice Breyer is one of the reliable liberals on the court, advocating a philosophy of Judicial Activism, while Scalia is very much a conservative justice, the epitome of Originalism or Strict Constructionism. As you watch these interviews and have these two very contrasting interpretations of the Constitution and the role of judges explained for you, please consider the following questions:

• In general, do you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's (and Ginsburg's) assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or with Wallace's (and Scalia's) notion that we should go by the exact wording of our Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class about the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?


• Do you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?


• Do you agree with Scalia's explanation of the flag-burning issue? Do you believe that the 1st Amendment protects the right to burn an American flag and that, as Scalia says, "it was not up to [him]?" Or do you feel that the Court should have stepped in and prohibited flag-burning?


• Please feel free to elaborate on any other thoughts, opinions, comments or reactions you had to these two interviews, these two Justices, or these two contrasting judicial philosophies.

Remember, you need to post TWO (2) comments to the blog. The first post should be your responses to these questions after you watch the videos, and the second post should be a response to something posted by one of your classmates. Both comments need to be posted by the end of the day on Monday, April 4th. Good luck--I look forward to reading your comments!

Federalism & Health Care

Welcome to our 1st blog assignment of this new semester! Since we're just finishing up our work on Federalism, what the Federal Government has the power to do vs. State Governments, etc., I thought a perfect (although perhaps not terribly easy to understand) topic for this first assignment would be the controversial new Health Care Reform law that President Obama and the Congress enacted last year. As with many of the issues we mentioned in the past week (gun control, civil rights, gay marriage, even illegal immigration), for our purposes the debate isn't simply "do we think what the law does is GOOD or BAD?" (there are strong opinions on both sides of that when when it comes to Health Care), but rather "do we think it should be the FEDERAL Government who takes care of this or should it be up to the STATES?"

For this assignment you will be looking at some information on a website as well as watching two different short video clips. Click on the title of the post above ('Federalism & Health Care') to go to a website which presents some basic information about the issues involved in the Health Care debate, as well as some arguments for and against the law. Read through those 'pros and cons,' and I encourage you to watch some of the video clips or click on some of the PDF links, as well, for statistical data and other additional information. After looking at the pros and cons, consider the following questions:

• Of all the arguments given on either side, with which one do you AGREE the most strongly? Why?
• Of all the arguments given on either side, with which one do you DISAGREE the most strongly? Why?
• I realize the Health Care bill is a very complex and confusing thing and you may not feel like you know a lot about it (I freely admit to not completely understanding it myself), but based on what you've read and what you've heard, what are your general thoughts about this law, or in a larger sense, about the role of the federal government in providing access to health care for its citizens?

You're also going to watch a couple of video clips by clicking on the links below. The first is a Fox News interview with Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia who, on behalf of his state, is suing the federal government over the health care law, claiming it is unconstitutional. The second clip is an MSNBC interview with Thurbert Baker, the Attorney General of Georgia, who completely disagrees with Mr. Cuccinelli and therefore is not taking part in the lawsuit being brought by several states against the federal government.

http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4300526/virginia-ag-on-health-care-lawsuit-ruling

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inJq8kSumsA

The main issue is the so-called "individual mandate," which requires that all Americans buy health insurance, just like how you're supposed to have auto insurance if you drive a car. There are other controversial parts of the law, but this is the provision that's getting the most attention; the question is: does Congress' power to "regulate commerce" include a power to regulate a "lack of commerce?" In other words, can the government force a person to engage in commerce (buying insurance) if the person hasn't already done so?

I realize that these and other legal points made in the interviews may be confusing, but I think several of the issues or concepts that were brought up should have sounded familiar, so let's keep the questions relatively simple and straightforward:

• What terms or concepts did you hear in either video clip that sounded familiar based on what we've been discussing in class for the past week or so?
• Who do you think made the better argument, Mr. Cuccinelli ("the law is unconstitutional") or Mr. Baker ("the law is constitutional")? Why do you say this?

Your TWO (2) comments on this topic must be posted by 11:59 PM Pacific Time on Tuesday, February 22. Your 1st post should simply be your responses to the questions I've posed after looking at the 'pros and cons' website and watching the videos. The 2nd post should be a response/agreement/disagreement to one of your classmates' comments. Please be sure that all your comments are appropriate and respectful; you can criticize someone else's ideas or arguments, but any sort of personal attacks will not be tolerated. Good luck and have fun--I look forward to reading your comments! --Silvy :)

Supreme Court

Winter break is coming up, but we have a little blog business to do before we go on vacation! Since we're currently working on the judicial branch, for this posting we have a couple of Supreme Court-related things to look at and comment on.

First of all, click on the title link above and it should take you to a Yahoo! News story about the Supreme Court and detainees at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Read this article, and think about the following questions:

• What connections do you notice between this story and the readings we did from "The Nine," especially when it comes to the issue of the Judicial Branch attempting to limit the exercising of power by the Executive Branch?
• I realize you may not know the details or circumstances of the specific cases of particular detainees, but do you agree with President Obama's plan to close the military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay? Or do you more fall in line with President Bush's policy that the prison should remain open and these 170+ detainees should stay locked up in Cuba?
• On a related note (and again obviously understanding that you may not be familiar with the specifics of certain cases), do you agree with the law passed by the House that would prevent detainees currently being held at Guantanamo from being transferred to the United States? (The idea is that if Guantanamo is closed, it's not that the detainees would go free; they would just have to be moved to other maximum-security prisons in the U.S. Many have said they wouldn't want these detainees transferred to their state, so by passing this law, Congress has potentially made it harder for the prison to be closed.) What do you think the Supreme Court should do?

In addition to reading this article, I'd like you to watch a very interesting 13-minute video clip. It's a one-on-one interview on Fox News Sunday between host Chris Wallace and Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. There's a chance that a link to this video clip will appear on the side of the screen when you're reading the Yahoo! News article ("Justice Stephen Breyer on FNS"), but if not, you can get to it by clicking on the link below:

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday/index.html#/v/4456313/justice-stephen-breyer-on-fns/?playlist_id=86913

As you watch this video, please consider the following questions:

• Do you agree with with Breyer's assertion that we should be guided by the values outlined in our Constitution, or more with Wallace's notion that we should go by the exact wording of the Constitution? Why? How does this connect with our discussion in class of the different types of judicial interpretation and ideology?
• Do you agree with Breyer's explanation of the 2nd Amendment? Or do you more agree with the interpretations of the Supreme Court (against which Breyer dissented) that led to handgun bans being overturned in the past year or two? Why?
• When Wallace asks Breyer about President Obama's comments at last year's State of the Union regarding the Citizens United decision, do you agree with Chief Justice Roberts' statement that it was "troubling," or did you find yourself agreeing more with Breyer's explanation of the situation? Why?

Remember, you should post two separate comments to the blog. The first should be your answers to as many of the above questions as you can, and the second posting should be a response to the comments of one or more of your classmates. You have until the end of the day Friday, December 17th to post your comments. Good luck, have fun, and Happy Holidays!

Media Bias, 2010 Elections

Since we're having to skip over some of the material in Chapter 15 ("The Media"), and since we're coming up on Election Day 2010, I thought the topic of Media Bias would be a good one for our next blog discussion.

With 24-hour TV cable news, talk radio, newspapers, magazines, and of course the Internet, there is a tremendous amount more that fits under the category of "The Media" than there was even 10-15 years ago, and it's certainly unrealistic to think all (or even most) of it is always going to be completely objective in how it presents the news, but what people see, read, and hear (and FROM WHOM they see, read, and hear it) is going to have a HUGE impact on their ideas and their opinions.

But WHERE exactly is the bias? And how exactly does it manifest itself? The reality is that anyone may see bias if a story is presented with a viewpoint different from their own, but since the media is becoming an ever-increasing part of our daily lives, it's still very important to examine it in more detail AND TO TRY TO BE AS OBJECTIVE AS POSSIBLE WHILE DOING SO!

First, you're going to do a little reading. The title link above (where it says "Media Bias, 2010 Elections") will take you to a 'Google Docs' screen with an article that will present both sides of the debate: one claiming that there is a bias in the media toward the liberal point of view, and the other claiming that there is a bias in the media that leans toward the conservative point of view.

After you read those few pages, please click on the links below to watch some video. The first one is about a 15-minute clip from the "Rachel Maddow Show" on MSNBC. Ms. Maddow does not make any effort to hide her liberal views and she is not shy about criticizing Republicans, but I found this clip particularly interesting because, as a liberal, she is criticizing the media for being biased toward Republicans in their coverage of the upcoming midterm elections.

The second link below is an 8-minute segment from the "Sean Hannity Show" on Fox News, with Mr. Hannity interviewing Karl Rove, who was the chief political strategist for President Bush. This is a good clip because it addresses (from a very conservative viewpoint, of course) many of the issues that have arisen with negative advertising in this election season. It will also tie in nicely with our discussion in class about the financing of political campaigns and who it is that pays for commercials and contributes to candidates.

The final clip is also from Fox News, this one a 6-minute clip from "The O'Reilly Factor." The host, Bill O'Reilly is interviewing conservative commentator Bernard Goldberg, and this clip will provide an interesting counterpoint to the Maddow clip, because while they also discuss the media being critical of President Obama and the Democrats, they begin with the premise that this is unusual, and that normally the media has a decidedly liberal bias.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/39731775#39731775

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/index.html#/v/4369711/rove-responds-to-dnc-attack-ad/?playlist_id=158694

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/index.html#/v/4369671/is-left-wing-media-turning-against-liberals/?playlist_id=87253

After reading the article and watching the video clips, answer these questions:

• In the reading, which of the two sides did you find more convincing? Why? Were there ideas/arguments in either article (or both!) that you agreed/disagreed with? Which ones?
• What were your thoughts on the Rachel Maddow video? Obviously you're just seeing her side of it, but do you agree with her overall point that the media has helped or been more favorable to Republicans in this election season?
• What were your thoughts on the two Fox News videos? Even though you may not have all the context if you haven't been paying as much attention to the media covering politics as O'Reilly's or Hannity's primary audience, what did you think of Mr. Rove's response to the charges made against him in that DNC ad? Did you agree with Mr. Goldberg's comments on the media's treatment of President Obama and the Democrats? Why/why not?

Remember, your first post should be answers to the above questions, and then sometime later, after having read what your classmates have said, please post another comment in response to one of your classmates. Both of your comments need to be posted by the end of the day on Wednesday, October 27. Have fun--I look forward to reading your comments!

Jobs & The Economy: A Town Hall with President Obama

Here is our first topic for this semester! Sometimes we will be linking to articles, essays, statistics, or some combination thereof, and sometimes--like for this discussion--you'll be watching some video. On September 20, President Obama participated in what's called a 'town hall' event with voters in Washington, D.C. At these events, the President will take questions not only from the host/moderator, but also from audience members; 'average voters' who have questions about how government policies might affect their daily lives. In this case, the focus of the town hall was on the economy and unemployment.

First of all, let me say that I do NOT expect you to be able to fully comprehend all of the fancy economic terminology and references the President uses, nor do I expect you to be able to keep straight all of the numbers, percentages, dollar amounts, or statistics that he mentions (I'm not sure I'd be able to do it myself!). Even if some of the specific facts may go a bit over our heads, however, many of the larger ideas addressed in these questions and answers relate directly to some of what we have been discussing this week, namely the ideological debate about the proper role of government and in particular the question of how active our government should be when it comes to the economy.

The entire video is about an hour long. If you are able to watch the whole thing I would love it, but I'm asking only that you watch at least 30 minutes of the coverage. It can be the first 30 minutes, the last 30 minutes, 30 minutes starting somewhere in the middle, 15 minutes from the beginning and then another 15 minutes from the end; it's totally up to you! A few highlights I might suggest, however:

• Between about 15:00-20:00, there is some great discussion about government involvement/intervention in the economy, how 'free' should the 'free market' truly be, etc.
• Around the 24:00 mark, the President brings up the issue of the 'Bush Tax Cuts' that we discussed in class earlier this week
• Between about 40:00-45:00, the host brings up what by now should be a familiar topic--the Commerce Clause--and asks about how it's been used to justify expansion of the powers of the federal government
• During this same segment, the President also addresses the issue of the Tea Party Movement and some of the intense opposition to him and to his policies (if you're not sure what this is, don't worry--we will certainly be discussing it as the November elections get closer!)

Again, you can watch whichever 30 minutes of the program you want, but as you're watching, I'd like you to consider the following questions:

• Which of the questions (either from the host or an audience member) do you think was the best (the most powerful, the most insightful)?
• Which of the President's arguments did you find the strongest, the most logical, or that with which you would be most likely to agree? Why?
• Which of the President's arguments did you find the weakest, the most illogical, or with which you disagreed the most? Why?
• In general, do you agree with President Obama's positions or explanations with regard to government involvement in the economy? Does it seem to you that he has the correct ideas for how to improve our economy? Why or why not?

As I said, I realize some of what is discussed will be confusing or use terms with which you're not totally familiar. Don't worry about getting bogged down in specifics or statistics, however, and just watch or listen for those larger ideas about what the role of government should be when it comes to the economy, especially when (like now) our economy is going through some tough times.

Based on the questions I've posed above, you all need to post comments to this blog at least TWICE by next FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1st. The first time you post a comment, it should be to respond to my questions after watching the video. If possible your second post should be a response to something another student has said in his/her post. You can agree, disagree, critique, further explain your positions, or take the opportunity to comment on a piece of the video other than what you discussed in your first posting. Regardless, PLEASE make sure that all of these comments are fair and respectful--we can vigorously debate and disagree, but personal attacks and insults are not acceptable!

Let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I look forward to reading your comments! GOOD LUCK,

Silvy

Supreme Court Vacancy?

Maybe we're jumping the gun here, but since we're working on the Judicial Branch, I thought this would make for a good next topic for our blog post. The link above is to an audio file, an interview on National Public Radio with Jeffrey Toobin, a Supreme Court expert and the author of The Nine, excerpts of which you read in class recently. Toobin recently did a profile of Justice Stevens, the most senior member of the Court and the justice whom many believe will be the next to retire, perhaps as soon as this spring. The interview is about half-an-hour long, so I don't necessarily expect to you to sit and listen to the whole thing, but much of what is discussed connects very well to what we've talked about in class, and at least you should pick out several minutes worth of the interview (beginning, middle, or end) to listen to.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/02/on-october-4-2010-elena-kagan-will-ask-her-first-question-as-a-supreme-court-justice/

The above link takes you to an article from February of this year, predicting whom President Obama might nominate to replace Justice Stevens if he does in fact retire. In the very first paragraph, where it talks about "media reports" and "blog posts," these are actually links to other articles. First and foremost please read the article, but I'd also encourage you to click on the "media reports" link, as there is a good 3-minute video which also looks at possible picks for an as-yet-nonexistent Supreme Court vacancy.

Based on your reading of the above article, your listening to the Toobin NPR interview, and/or your watching of that short video, please address the following questions:

• What stood out to you from these resources? What struck you the most when it came to Justice Stevens himself or what his possible retirement might mean for the Supreme Court?
• Do you think Justice Stevens will retire this year? What about Justice Ginsburg? Why/why not? Any thoughts on whom President Obama might select to replace them?
• Any other thoughts about the radio interview, the article, or the video?

Remember, each of you should make TWO (2) separate comments, preferably one about the interview or article itself, and another which responds to something posted by a classmate. Please try to have this second comment be something more than simply, "I agree/disagree with ___________." If possible, talk a little more about your own opinions/reactions and WHY you agree or disagree.

Remember also, please post your comments as part of the comment thread with this particular post; just "add a comment" and don't "publish a new post."

These two comments are due the same day as our Judicial Branch quiz, the last day before we go on Spring Break: Thursday, April 1st.

1st topic of 2nd semester--the Filibuster!

Welcome to the AP Government blogosphere! Since we're covering many of the chapters in a different order than your 1st semester colleagues did, the subject matter of our blog postings will most likely go in a different order, as well. Since we're starting this week on the legislative branch, I thought an appropriate and timely topic would be the U.S. Senate's unique tradition of the filibuster. Please click on the title link above, and read a little Wikipedia background on where the term 'filibuster' comes from and how exactly it works in today's Senate (you can skip over most of the stuff about Ancient Rome, the U.K., Australia, Canada, etc.).

Once you've read that explanation, please click on the following 2 links and read both of these articles, as well. The first talks about why the filibuster is an outdated tradition that should be abolished, and the second gives a vehement defense of the filibuster, stressing its importance and that it should be maintained.

http://www.good.is/post/lets-end-the-filibuster (this was written before the Massachusetts special election, when Democrats still held 60 seats in the Senate)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/27/in_defense_of_the_filibuster_100054.html

After reading these different articles and explanations, here are some questions for you to consider:

• What do you think of the filibuster? Do you like the idea of potentially needing 60 votes out of 100 to be able to pass legislation? Is it protecting the minority so that one side doesn't force too much of their agenda down the throats of the American people, or does it make it too difficult for a side that has won an elected majority to enact ANY of its agenda?
• What are some of the most effective arguments given both in favor of and against the filibuster?
• Look at the graph on the Wikipedia page, showing the number of cloture votes in the past 60 years or so (cloture is when Senators vote to cut off debate on a topic; they're basically voting on whether or not to vote, and 60 'yea' votes are needed to move on to a final 'up-or-down' vote on a bill, a nomination, etc.). What trends do you notice on this graph? What do you think might account for those trends?

Remember, each of you need to make at least TWO (2) separate posts to the blog about this topic. There is no length or 'minimum # of words' requirement, but use your best judgement about how long your comments should be in order to effectively make your point and contribute to the discussion. One of your comments should be a response to any or all of the questions posed above, and your other comment should be a response to something one of your classmates has said. Both of your comments need to be posted by the end of the day next Friday, March 5. Have fun, and good luck!

Last posting (sniff, sniff...)--Affirmative Action!

All right, everyone, the end of our semester is fast approaching and we have time for ONE more blog assignment. Since we're in the midst of a unit on Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, and since most of you are (or will be) going through the college admissions process, I thought a perfect topic for our last online discussion would be AFFIRMATIVE ACTION. For those of you not familiar with the concept, this is basically when, often in the interest of diversity, members of some minority group (women, African-Americans, Hispanics, religious minorities, gays & lesbians, etc.) are given preference when it comes to university admissions, hiring, or promotions.

For example, two different high school seniors are applying to UC Berkeley. One is a white male from La Jolla who has a 3.9 GPA and 740-690-720 on his SATs, the other is an African-American female from South Central Los Angeles who has a 3.6 GPA and 710-670-700 on her SATs. Sometimes, though not always, the 2nd student will be accepted while the 1st student will be rejected, even though 'by the numbers' he would seem to be more qualified. This is a very controversial phenomenon which may affect some of you in your college search process; it may be a benefit or it may be an obstacle.

There are very passionate opinions on both sides of this issue. Are these types of preferences necessary to 'level the playing field,' promote diversity, and make up for decades--even centuries--of oppression and discrimination? Or is this simply 'reverse racism,' when we should live in a color-blind society where people are judged solely by merit? You are going to read some articles that lay out various aspects of these opposing viewpoints. The title link above is one that all of you should read; it's actually 2 different articles, one arguing each side of the issue. In addition to that, please read at least TWO (2) of the three articles linked below:

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm
http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/5916/Affirmative-Action.html
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/pros_cons/affaction/affaction.html

Also, you should look at the 4 links below, as they talk about some of the most important Supreme Court decisions relating to the issue of affirmative action. The 1st one is from the late 1970s and deals with the University of California; the next 2 are from 2003 and deal with my beloved University of Michigan. BTW, these cases have been known to show up on the AP exam from time to time, as well! The last case is just from the most recent Court session, and may give an indication as to where affirmative action policy is headed in the future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_University_of_California_v._Bakke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grutter_v._Bollinger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano

So after all that, what is it exactly I'd like you all to blog about? Here are the main questions for you to address:

• Based on what you have read, what do you think are the most effective arguments IN FAVOR OF affirmative action?
• Based on what you have read, what do you think are the most effective arguments AGAINST affirmative action?
• What are your own thoughts about affirmative action? Is it necessary to 'level the playing' field? Is it 'reverse discrimination' that should be abolished? Or do you take a middle-of-the-road, 'mend-it-but-don't-end-it' approach?
• What stands out to you from any/all of the Supreme Court decisions over the years dealing with affirmative action? Do you strongly agree or disagree with any of their reasoning? Why?

Remember, please make TWO (2) separate comments: one on the readings themselves and the questions posed above, and then another in response to a classmate's comment. Obviously you should feel free to post more than that if you so desire! The due date for these comments is the day of your final exam: January 19th (1st period) or January 20th (4th period). I look forward to your comments, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all of you for making this first experiment with AP Government blogging such a success! Thanks, Silvy :)

Health Care: Round Tables, Dem. v. Rep., Pro v. Con

Since we're studying the Legislative Branch now, what else would be talking about if not Health Care? Obviously it's a very complex issue and a very complex bill (which isn't even close to being in its final form yet), but we have some expert commentary on video to help us out!

While I ABSOLUTELY encourage you to watch all 4 video clips (none is longer than 7-8 minutes), you only need to watch a total of 2. There are 2 pairs of videos, and you need only choose one video from each pair.

First of all, the 2 clips below both show a 'round table,' panel discussion of what the House vote on health care means and what might be coming next. Again, it would be great if you watched both, but you only have to pick 1 of these 2 to watch.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/08/fox_news_sunday_panel_on_health_care_vote_in_the_house.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032608/ns/meet_the_press#33769875

Now, the next 2 clips are also from the Sunday talk shows, but instead of analysts, journalists, and pundits, they involved some of the actual 'players' on both sides of the health care game. The first is a discussion with Maryland Congressman Chris Van Hollen (the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) and Indiana Congressman Mike Pence (the 3rd ranking Republican in the House). The second clip is a conversation with Tim Kaine and Michael Steele, the Chairmen of the National Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively. Again, it would be great if you watched both, but you only have to pick 1 of these 2 to watch.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/08/reps_van_hollen_pence_on_health_care_unemployment.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/11/08/steele_kaine_on_gov_elections_health_care.html

Obviously, there were lots of different opinions expressed in these videos, and some of them were certainly using carefully selected facts/statistics or at least being 'spun' so that they were poltically self-serving. Here are the questions on which I'll be interested to hear your thoughts:

• On the 'round table' discussion videos, which points (either for or against the chances of health care reform being passed) seemed most important? Which seemed the most logical and to have the best arguments to back them up?
• On the 'Republican v. Democrat' discussion videos, who seemed to win the argument in your mind? Was it the Democrat (Van Hollen, Kaine) or the Republican (Pence, Steele)? Why? Which arguments stood out to you as making the most sense?
• I realize you may not have all the relevant background information yet, but what do you think the chances are that a major comprehensive health care reform bill will be passed in the next few months? Are you in support of this bill passing? Why/why not?
• Any other thoughts/opinions/ideas that came to while watching these video clips and that you're dying to share?

Remember, these posts are due by Friday, November 20, the last day before Thanksgiving break. Really try to make 2 separate entries: one that is an initial reaction to the videos and the questions I've posed, and then a different posting which is more of a comment/reaction to something one of your classmates has said. Thanks--I look forward to your comments!

Projections & Predictions: Congressional Elections 2010!

Hello out there! It's me again! Wow--what a fantastic job you all did in your comments and responses about the Bill Clinton video, as well as to one another. I'm very excited to see where our 'blogosphere conversations' can go throughout the rest of the semester; I may jump in now and then myself to clear something up or pose another question based on someone's comment (don't worry: this won't add to the number of posts you each have to make!).

If I can make one request: I love the back-and-forth discussion that went on, and in 99.9% of the comments I didn't sense anything more than honest and respectful disagreement about the issues, but I thought it was important for me to be perfectly clear when I ask that we don't attack one another and don't get too personal in our comments. I love that you all are so willing and eager to express yourselves and that you do so in such a thoughtful and articulate way, but I will hold you responsible for anything you post that is inappropriate or purposely hurtful to one of your classmates.

OK, now that we've got that out of the way, this next post is all about the midterm Congressional elections that are coming up about 12 months and 3 weeks from now! I handed out 2 readings in class, and if you click the above link it will take you to another column, this one written by University of Virginia professor Larry J. Sabato (if that name sounds familiar, it's because he's one of the authors of our AP Government textbook!). Here are another couple of links that you might want to take a look at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/17/AR2009101700890.html

http://www.cookpolitical.com/ (this is the "Cook Political Report" that is mentioned in one of the readings I handed out in class--you'll need to surf around a little bit to get the actual information about specific races from state-to-state for next year)

Based on ALL of this information, here's what I'd like your thoughts on:

Why do you think it's so common--almost expected--that the party in power will lose Congressional seats in the first 'off-year' election of a President's term?

What is your reaction to the various authors' predictions about Republican prospects next November? What about the Democrats' response to these predictions? What seem to be the most credible reasons each side gives for their position?

Even though you may only now be getting familiar with these issues and with how Congressional elections work, if you had to make a prediction yourself right now, what do you think will happen in the 2010 elections? Right now the House is 255-178 for the Dems, and the Senate is 60-40 for the Dems; what do you think those numbers will look like on November 3rd, 2010?

I look forward to your comments (deadline is next Friday, 10/30)--if possible, try and remember to post as a comment to THIS post, rather than starting a new post of your own.

Thanks, Silvy :)

Bill Clinton on "Larry King Live"

Watch this interview by Larry King of former President Bill Clinton? What did you think of Clinton's thoughts on how Obama is doing? Given his experience trying to get major health care reform passed 15 years ago, what did you think of Clinton's take on the prospects of Pres. Obama succeeding in his fight to overhaul health care?

What about his comments on the political situation in New York? And on former Pres. Carter's assertion that much of the opposition to Obama is based, to some extent, on racism? What are your own thoughts on Pres. Carter's claim?

Anything else that stood out to you from this interview?

Make sure you post at least TWO (2) comments by Friday, October 9. These can be either comments directly on the video and/or responses to something a classmate has posted.

Oh, and just in case you were wondering: "yes," "no," "good," "bad," "I agree," "I disagree," etc., do not count as full posts! I don't want to put a minimum number of words or sentences on it, but please put some thought into your comments!