How good is the media at informing the people?

Embed an example of political commentary on television and describe how it works to support or detract from keeping the public informed.


People have been bringing up the issue of Obama's birth certificate recently, most notably Donald Trump. I beleive news stations have detracted from what is really important, such as Japan's crisis, the Middle East, and our budget. However, news stations have focused in on whether a president, who has been in office for two years already, was born in Hawaii. Donald Trump gained news recognition after Obama came out with the certificate with a press conference. Here is a video retaining to the issue this last week.

E-Commerce Taxation

New York Times Co. v. United States

The New York Times Co. received the "Pentagon Papers" from Daniel Ellsberg. Ellsberg stole the classified documents from the pentagon related to the Vietnam war and U.S. policy. The NY Times published and distributed the papers. The government ordered them to stop temporarily, moving the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that The NY Times should be allowed to publish the papers because of the First Amendment of free speech. Even the period where the publication was delayed was a violation of the constitution. Unless the issue being debated could potentially bring people harm, the speech should not be held back. Furthermore, it was the government's responsibility to keep the information confidential.
I believe it was the right of the NY Times to publish the work, especially since there was no direct harm done to anyone. The Vietnam war still followed through. The censorship issue comes into part today with the website Wiki-leaks, which leaks confidential information from the government. It should be a right to let the information go to the public, as long as it does not deemed harmful to individuals.

Gitlow v. New York

In 1925 Benjamin Gitlow taught people to overthrow the government with two published works. His work violated New York law which prohibited organized government overthrow with force or violence. The case was moved to the Supreme Court after issues were found relating to the First Amendment of free speech and press.
The Court emphasized that states were bound by the First Amendment because federal rules over state law. Furthermore, it was decided that speech could only be bound if it formulated "clear and present danger", said Justice Edward Sanford. States could not punish speech unlawfully because doing so would actually cause more problems for the government's own constitutional state. there could be even more reasons for overthrow, because of the lack of legitimacy within the government.
I agree with the outcome of the trial, except cases censoring speech vary from case to case. Some cases are on border with causing actual harm or not. It is hard to decide weather or not speech is lawful or not.

Brown V. board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

In 1954, multiple cases were brought up to the Supreme Court in relation to segregation of public schools based on race. The courts ruled that separate but equal facilities had no place. The separate educational facilities fostered sub pa education for African Americans and deprived individuals of equal rights to attend white only public schools. The Court's decision took out public schools' inferiority complex for minorities.
The segregation of African Americans from functional public schools is obviously bad and did not agree with the constitution's intent of equality.

A video from the Discovery Channel about the case:

Gideon v. Wainwright

In 1963, Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested for breaking and entering with the intention of burglary. He was denied an attorney at the court and was found guilty after trying to defend himself. He was found guilty and sentenced to prison. Gideon petitioned to the Supreme Court via in forma pauperis.

The court overturned the decision in the Betts v. Brady case. This case made it possible for the Sixth Amendment of counsel in criminal cases to not be required in special cases.
The supreme Court took the Betts case decision away, making a fair trial with counsel required. A counsel is needed to assist lawyers present cases well before a Judge. Gideon was acquitted of his charges.
 I agree with the decision that counsel is required. It was not in the constitution's (founding fathers) interests for people to be unjustly violated by the law. Before this case, convicted criminals could be unfailrly treated and sentences without adequate help.
Here is an educated summary of the case by PBS.

Miranda V. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona for kidnap and rape. He gave a written confession after two hours of interrogation. Miranda appealed to the Supreme Court because he was not advised of his right to an attorney nor his right to remain silent. The court ruled that Miranda's conviction was to be overturned on the basis of the Fifth Amendment which guarantees no one to be "compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." Without being read his rights, Miranda was not protected under the law and was unlawfully stripped of his rights.

The result of the Miranda v. Arizona case of 1966 was that convicted individuals must be told their rights of silence and an attorney. If they are not told these rights, everything said afterwards is void and can not be used in the court.

Here is a tid-bit of info relating to the Miranda Rights;

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

Before 1973, UC Davis' medical school admitted students differently based on race. Minorities and disadvantaged students were admitted separately and subsequently, were accepted with lower GPA's or Medical College Aptitude Test scores than regular students. Alan Bakke was denied from the university even though he had substantially higher aptitude scores than average. He sued the school and California's court found the admissions unlawful, violating both federal and state constitutions.The Supreme Court agreed with his appeal and forced UCD to accept Bakke.

The Supreme Court decided that the admissions program did not follow the fourteenth amendment for equal individuals. The amendment was originally made to bridge the differences of the white and black communities and to block out any form of preference based on ethnicity or condition of prior servitude. Justice Powell explained that

it was no longer possible to peg he guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the struggle for equality of one racial minority.

The university was justly found to have unfair advantages for minorities.
I agree with the case's outcome because the admissions were not carried out equally. I am personally going through college admissions and feel as though this is a very important issue today. I hear people talking about not putting down a race when applying especially if they are Asian. UC's admit more individuals who are less fortunate financially or are part of minority groups. I know people who are 1/16th or 1/8th native American who use their race for better admission rates.

Here is an exceptional article about the case from Cornell University's Law School website.

Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1890, Plessy refused to give up his seat on a section of a train in New Orleans Louisiana. Even though he was only 1/8th black, he was arrested and ordered to be imprisoned by Ferguson, a local judge. Plessy appealed to the US Supreme Court on the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments, which forbade slavery and gave everyone equal protection of the laws respectively.
The court ruled that the 13'th amendment issue about a legal distinction between white and colored people "had no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races." For the fourteenth amendment issue, Justice Henry Brown argued in favor of absolute racial equality before the law. The court decided that segregation laws were a matter of public policy, not a violation of the fourteenth amendment. I do not agree with the court's decision, where segregation was still excepted. The whole issue seems backwards

Miller V. California

Miller sent out a large amount of explicit pornographic brochures in 1973 and was found guilty of breaking obscenity laws in California. Miller appealed, challenging the state's power to prosecute him despite guarantees of free speech and press under the first amendment. The Supreme Courts voted 5 to 4 on the side of California, stating that Miller's material could harm people. Chief Justice Burger therefore suggested that each state should have diverse regulations on the law, because every state has different tastes. Burger defended himself saying, "this diversity is not to be strangled by the absolutism of imposed uniformity..."
I completely agree with the decision to limit pornography. Seeing porn everywhere would not be in most people's tastes including my self. There has to be a line drawn, specifically where there is obscene material. Although the porn did not directly hurt anyone, it was still serious. The matter crossed the first amendments jurisdiction and California came up top.

Roe V. Wade

Back in 1973, 21 year old Jane Roe filed a suit against District Attourney Wade of Dallas County Texas. She wanted to have an abortion, but the fetus did not endanger her life in any way so the doctor did not give her an abortion. Even if a woman was a victim of incest or rape, they could not abort a baby in Texas.
Roe argued that it was a right to obtain abortion with the help of the fourteenth amendment and the right of privacy in the bill of Rights. She won in a 7 to 2 vote on both points. This case sent shock waves through America, affirming the right of privacy, fetal rights, and womens' rights.



Even though Roe was adamant in her argument a few decades ago, she is not a Cristian who believes in the illegality of abortion. She cites that there have been 50 million abortions since her Supreme Court case in 1973, and that these children deserve to live. No doubt, this statistic is sad, but I do believe women should have the right to abortions. If these children were born, they would live in potentially dangerous environments without care.

U.S. vs Nixon

During the Nixon reelection campaign in 1974, burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee's headquarters. These burglars were found to be tied with President Nixon. Nixon recorded many conversations in the Oval Office, which he refused to hand over to the court. He claimed that he had executive privilege, which protected him from being forced to turn in confidential Executive Branch material. The court decided that Nixon had to turn in the tapes, which in turn led to limitations for presidential powers. I agree with the court's verdict that Nixon had no right to hold the tapes. He was guilty for recording tapes of the opposing party (democrats) and was forced to resign after the scandal. He deserved the repercussions of his actions. Here is a video of his resignation speech.



As a result of his scandal, the courts argued against executive privilege. Nixon claimed he was out of the jurisdiction of law, as he was the president. As history shows, he was not, and had to give over his stolen tapes and resign.

The Past and Future of Healthcare

Part I:

            Health care has been a human issue since the beginning and an economical issue since medicine was developed and sold. Health care consists of helping people cope with diseases, injuries, and the economical costs of treatment. In the past, few centuries we have developed exceedingly advanced medicines and diverse lifestyles that provide long healthy lives for the people who can afford it. This is where the problem arises, where people cannot afford the expensive medicines, treatments, and doctor visits. People who cannot take the tremendous costs of insurance and medicine have to live with the risk of being sick or bankrupt. There are roughly fifty million Americans who lack insurance and many more who simply skip doctor appointments to save money. One variation of this is medical tourism, where people go as far as to travel to other countries for cheaper medicine or care. American citizen Julia Shay crossed over the Mexican border to receive cheap dental care for years for her dental problems. As the prices of medical care and insurance rise, lower income brackets resort to radical behaviors to eliminate excessive costs. (“The Health Care System Favors the Wealthy and Harms the Poor”) 

             I believe that health in America is an important issue because it affects tens of millions in the nation. An effective health care system adds to the overall healthiness, which also helps the economic wellbeing of a nation. We currently have highly developed and widespread health care as it is, which is ranked among the best of the world. However, millions pay outrageous prices for treatment because we do not have a universal health care system. The high prices stimulate more bankruptcies and significant financial losses for people in the lower economic levels. (“The Health Care System Favors the Wealthy and Harms the Poor”) Not only are the current system’s costs towering, but also revolve around the wrong motives, methods, and preferences of health care consumers. Insurance companies, hospitals, and medical research entities typically run health care as a profitable business rather than a service or a right. (“The U.S. Health care System”) Insurance coverage is almost a requirement when receiving treatment because prices are so oversized, so giving low-income citizens insurance has to be made easier. Health care reformation, as proposed by President Obama, has potential to improve the nations healthy living standards and overall economic burden for every citizen.

            In general, Americans look at health care’s negative sides are being expensive and unequally distributed. The positive side is that our health care system is one of the most advanced and well regulated in the world. Currently, people are focused on the controversial healthcare bill proposed by President Obama. Health care reform opinions are polarized around the two political parties. Republicans are typically against Obama’s plan for universal health care. Aside from individuals that singularly argue that the bill is socialist, there are other well-educated arguments against it. Republicans more concretely argue that a socialized health care system provides lower quality care because there is less competition, longer waiting periods, and other inefficiencies. Democrats, on the other hand, often argue that America is the last industrialized country that does not have universal health care. Other countries with similar health care plans pay for it with a fraction of their yearly cost. (“Does Universal Healthcare Work in Other Countries?”) Fundamentally, Democrats argue that everyone deserves the same quality of medical services. The public’s attitude is still polarized even after the bill’s passage in 2010.

            In the past, when democratic presidents were in power, bills intended to improve health care have been proposed. These attempts have been trampled by republicans and other opposition forces until the recent Obama administration. In his election campaign, Obama started to promote his own bill for universal health care for support, and continued to push the idea for the two years after he won office. Obama based his drafts of healthcare on Massachusetts, which is a state health care system. Democrats claim that the bill will make health care more affordable, hold insurers more accountable, and cover all Americans no matter their financial shortcomings, as reported by the White House’s website. (“Health Reform in Action”) No American President has been able to pass an entire universal health care law. Even though the bill was successfully passed, it still has a long path to go on before it is fully in place. The bill is in the process of being challenged by the courts for its constitutionality. As a result of the “individual mandate” that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.” (“Judge Rules Health Care is Unconstitutional”) The case is most likely going to go to the Supreme Courts in the future, where it’s fate will be decided. This will be a long process and much of the bill may already be passed at that time. (“Repealing Obamacare”)

Part II:

            Multiple democratic presidents have pushed for health care reform in the past. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Truman, Nixon, and Clinton were a few that sponsored health care. Even though there have been many presidents who wanted America to develop a universal system, Obama was the first to be successful. (“U.S. Presidents and Health Care Reform”) The President formulated the bill with Massachusetts’ statewide health care bill in mind. Governor Mitt Romney signed this revolutionary law in 2006. It required people to buy health insurance if they were out of a job. The law also granted health care to around 50,000 people who did not have enough money to buy insurance. In the past year, the law has faced significant rises in costs and is generally seen as unsuccessful. (“Massachusetts health care program, model for Obama’s reform, strains state budget”) Even though the bill is facing problems today, it paved the way for Obama. He based his original campaign on health care for all Americans and succeeded in March of 2010. (U.S. Presidents and Health Care Reform) http://www.suite101.com/content/us-presidents-and-healthcare-reform-a147138 The lengthy bill had trouble getting past the republican house, which vehemently attacked the bill and refused to pass it. The measure passed through the Senate by a vote of 220 to 215 and through the House by a vote of 219 to 212. (“Health Care Reform News”) Ever since its passage last year, health care has come under harsh criticism from republicans. In addition, the supreme court which deemed it unconstitutional because it violates individual mandate. In other words, the government is forcing people to buy a commercial product, insurance. Judge Hudson asserted at a hearing that the government was passing its federal power limits. Forcing someone to buy insurance was congruent with forcing people “to eat asparagus.” (“Health Care Reform News”) Whether or not the bill is deemed unconstitutional, there is bound to be continuing attacks on health care until it is at least revised.

            I have volunteered at Kaiser Permanente in Walnut Creek for the past three years for around four hours a week. Working at Kaiser gives me the opportunity to volunteer consistently every week where I can see the hospital environment first hand. This job includes helping people get around the hospital, discharging patients, managing the hospital gift shop, and assisting in other ways for customer service. My work at Kaiser is not just limited to knowing the hospital’s directions; I also get the chance to develop people skills and business skills, such as in the gift shop. I deal with many different types of people that come through the doors, which reflects the diversity of people who require medical care. Customer service plays a large part when dealing with stressed out patients or visitors. I have had experiences dealing with irritated patients that do not want to comply with the emergency fee. Patients are required to set up an appointment for minor injury, which is simply, an impromptu doctor visit for injuries that do not have immediate danger. Some people usually go to emergency to be safe and quick, but most people tend to rather wait because the emergency bill is not worth it for them. Even if people have insurance, which people are almost guaranteed to have if they live in this area (middle to upper class), people are still reluctant to have to pay exorbitant fees. When people do not have insurance, the idea of traveling to the emergency room is out of the picture. Hospitals receive most of their revenue from insurance companies. Hospitals act like businesses when looked at economically. Even though Kaiser Hospitals are all non-profit, this does not mean their treatments or medications are cheaper than any other hospital. Even as customer service and wealth increase such as around Kaiser Hospital in Walnut Creek, people still are reluctant to pay the high prices for medicine, doctor visits, and emergency care. The high prices of medical supplies affects all types of people, as I have seen in the past few years volunteering at Kaiser.

Part III:

            America’s complicated issue of health care has been changed significantly as Obama’s came into office. He took initiative to change health care for the better. The health care measure will take a decade until all of its components are fully adopted, even though it was successfully made into law. This process of adaptation is bound to stop because of the large population of the opposition. The republicans are determined to repeal the law before it is put into place. With the law being over one thousand pages and filled with confusing jargon, the majority of Americans do not understand the bill, which includes many politicians. There is much confusion and uncertainty about the bill, as shown by Fox News and AP polls. (“Poll: Americans Do Not Understand Health Law”) Even though the bill has good intentions, it needs serious revisions. I want there to be universal health care in this country without causing more problems than it solves. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world so we have to try to pass the next best thing. Having some, socialized aspects, could help balance out the costs and restore the budget with incoming revenue. Social programs such as the police force and public schools are success stories, so health care should be able to follow in the same footsteps. As long as the following administrations follow in Obama’s intentions of universal health, a bill should be passed in the future to grant everyone with insurance without seriously crippling the government’s budget.

            My service at Kaiser the past few years have taught me people skills, communication skills, leadership, professionalism in the workplace, and empathy for others in stressful situations. Having these qualities helped me understand that people treasure quality customer service, treatment, and affordability. I also realize why people are angry at large institutions and medical expenses. Becoming a shift leader almost a year ago also added to my growth. I teach new volunteers how to do the job and lead others throughout the day. The responsibility often puts me in situations I would rather not be in; such as being called to tell people where to go more often than regular volunteers. Even though I do not enjoy answering questions all the time, I can use these instances to understand people and to help them out the best I can. Through process of researching the topic of health care, I have learned how revolutionary universal health care is for America. I also understand the extraordinary amount of work Obama and his administration put in. Even though I do not agree with the bill, I respect the amount of hard work went into it. Health care is a convoluted and costly problem in America. I believe that the recent measures will not solve every problem, but are steps in the right direction. Though the bill has yet to be put into place, health care has increasing potential to improve America’s wellbeing next few decades.

Women's Health

For the past century women have been taking hormone treatments for menopause and other hormonal symptoms, starting out in 1898 when women were fed cow ovaries (for their similar hormones). The industry of hormonal medicines has come a far way, except there have been a few contradictions in the past decade. The NY Times reports on a 600 million dollar research study by The Woman's Health Initiative;

But the findings have consistently surprised, debunking conventional wisdom time and again — about hormones and health, calcium to protect bones and the importance of a low-fat diet. The results, while invaluable, have also had a negative effect, leaving some women feeling frustrated, betrayed and whipsawed by what often seem to be contradictory headlines. And they have fueled cynicism about the medical establishment’s treatment of women. 

Many women jumped off their hormone treatments after this result in 1991. Treatments were shown to have some benefits, but there were also some contradictory affects. These included increased rate of heart problems and breast cancer. Furthermore, there have been fairly recent studies that show estrogen's beneficial affects. The result is a net loss of interest and trust in these medicines.

Backroom Deals

I recently watched a documentary on Obama's health care bill in government class. I can not remember the name for the life of me, but I do remember a section about a backroom deal between Obama and insurance lobbyists. When Obama was starting out his campaign he claimed he would strongly promote universal health care, which he did as the president. However, he was forced to take out the public option (option of citizens to buy government insurance) as a result of a deal with the hospital industry. Here is a Huffington Post blog excerpt from a year ago which reported on the deal.

This should be big news. Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill.

Obama went back on his initial word that there would be a public option. I am not attacking Obama, but I am frowning upon the actions of the insurance industry. Because of their backroom deal, the public option was taken out. I may have been a supporter of the bill if there was a public option. On the other hand, insurance agencies would be hurt by the bill because the government would take away their business. If everyone was morally straight, the insurance agencies would allow the government to cover everyone, depending if people want it or not. Sadly, this is not the way our economy acts.

Budget Deal Cuts Affect Health Care Bill

The budget deal made last Friday before the potential Government shutdown will affect two sections of the health care bill. One of which will be completely taken out while the other will suffer funding cuts. Fox News reports from the Wall Street Journal,

The agreement would eliminate a provision of the health-care law enabling low-income workers to opt out of employer-offered health insurance and shop for more affordable coverage on insurance exchanges to be created in 2014, according to congressional aides and business groups. 

The second initiative will be cut a significant amount;

The budget bill will also cut $2.2 billion in funding from a program that would encourage the development of health-care cooperatives-not-for-profit entities that would compete with private, for-profit health-insurance companies.

The second initiative promoting funding for non-profit entities sounds extremely negative, because non-profits relate to a health care system where money is not the most important thing, such as with insurance agencies.  However, the massive budget cuts slashing the Obamacare bill are required and unavoidable. We are way over our deficit and need to take hits in some facets of the government.