Chapter 11. The Media and Structural Bias

Briefly summarize a story in a newspaper (either printed or on-line) that is current (within the past 24 hours), and describe how the story illustrates structural bias in the media. Make sure you give the title, author (if it has an author), date, and source of the story. You will not get full credit unless you do so!

Governor Sanford? Chaper 10 on Parties and Elections

Ok -- several of you asked for this, so I am inviting your comments and I think we can tie it into the chapter on parties and elections. What do you think about Governor Sanford's behavior. What does it suggest about parties and elections? A lot of what has happened perfectly illustrates things we have been talking about in the course, in this chapter and earlier chapters. As usual, I will wait to see what you guys say and then make a few comments of my own. Bob B

Discussion Question for Chapter 9. Interest Groups

Find an example of institutional advertising on television, in a newspaper, or on the web, that illustrates some company trying to create a positive public image of the company or product so that they will have an easier time in dealing with government regulations/policy. Remember, the point of the ad is not to sell the product, but to sell the company as doing good things for the public--of course this fits under grassroots lobbying. Please do not just do one that you see someone else did--try to find new and original ones! Describe the product/industry and how the company tries to present a positive image in the ad. Hint--the easiest ones to find are often companies that produce things that many people find of questionable moral value. Bob B

Discussion for Chapter 8. Civil Rights and Liberties: Right to DNA Evidence?

The US Supreme Court announced a very important case on Thursday that illustrates many things we have been talking about, DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE V. OSBORNE. You can read about the case in stories in any of the major newspapers, like the NY TIMES or the WASHINGTON POST (the story there is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/18/AR2009061801610.html). You can also find the case itself with its syllabus where you found the previous cases in our question about the Courts. Here is what I want from you.

1. A brief review of what the case was about.
2. What new right was being asked for in the Constitution?
3. How did the split on the Supreme Court fit with what we have been saying about how the Supreme Court makes its decisions?
4. What would you have done on this case and why?

Discussion for Chapter 7. Federalism

The text notes that most people say they trust state and local governments more than the national government even though they know less about state and local government than national government. So here are two related questions to discuss relevant to this observation. I will just focus on state government for the purpose of this question. Do YOU trust YOUR OWN state government more than the national government? How would you rate the performance of your own state government in some policy area of interest to you--please be specific here! (Of course if you do not know what your state government is doing in a policy area you care about, you may have to do a little research on the Web looking at some news sources!)

Discussion for Chapter 6. Recent Supreme Court Case

Find a Supreme Court decision for the 2008-9 year in which the court was split, that is 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4. Make sure it is a US Supreme Court case, not a district court decision or an appeals court decision. Summarize the decision and how the justices split. Discuss whether this split was along ideological lines or seemed more based on something else. You MUST do this in your own words!!! You can find all cases from this year at the websitte: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08slipopinion.html

The cases have a "syllabus" that summarizes the decision and gives the split, thought the reading is not easy. To get an easier to understand description, you can use the case name to search for newspaper stories on the case.

Discussion for Chapter 4. Obama and Health Care Reform

After several months of emphasis on the economy (including the stimulus package, a budget, and forced restructuring of Chrysler and GM), President Obama is moving to press Congress to come up with a health care proposal. Based on the history of what presidents are able to accomplish when, he feels that he must get this done in his first year, or else the effort will be doomed. The major issues facing Congress are whether a public plan should be included as an alternative to existing private plans and then how to pay for the plan. The insurance industry is very much against any public plan and fiscal conservatives, including many Democrats, are against raising taxes to pay for the overall cost. Obama himself opposed McCain's proposal to allow health care benefits for employees to be treated like taxable income to help pay for expanded coverage. In case you were wondering how we ever came to have health insurance tied to employment (few other nations do this), it goes back to WWII when wages were frozen, so companies used health care insurance as a way of attracting employees. But even though Obama has said he did not want to tax benefits, many economists say that may be the only way to pay for a plan. Public opinion has in fact supported covering everyone in some way since the 1940s. But it has not been done. The last effort was Clinton's failed effort in 1994. Interestingly, almost half of Obama's staff worked for Clinton, so they think they can avoid some of Clinton's mistakes, one of which was waiting too long and trying to do it in a congressional election year. So far they have let Congress devise and consider several plans, but sometime this summer the White House will almost certainly have to get behind some plan and press for its passage.

You can find a number of editorials on this in the Washington Post, in the NY Times and elsewhere. Paul Krugman, a Nobel Prize winning economist, for example, strongly feels that Obama will eventually have to take on the insurance companies, who he feels add a lot of overhead to medical costs and are determined to undermine any plan that forces them to compete with a pubic plan (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05krugman.html?emc=eta1).

Ok, all that was background. Because about half of the people in this class are nursing students, what happens over the next few months will not only affect us as consumers, but also as health care providers. And of course what Obama is attempting to do depends on presidential power--he is very aware that power tends to decline the longer one is in office. So here is the question. What do you think should be done? This can be broken down into several subquestions. Should Obama be pushing for a health care system that somehow covers all Americans? Should insurance companies, which claim that they are efficient providers, have to compete with a public plan? And finally, how would you pay for such a plan? Would you prefer to cut the insurance companies out altogether and go with a single provider government sponsored plan? (You should know that Obama has already rejected that idea, much to the dismay of many liberals who want a government run plan.)