ACTIVITY #1

I feel that political advertising has a positive effect on the democratic process. Advertising allows propagandists to share information that might not be available through an individual’s personal research. Usually, it is in the best interest of the propagandists to put the most valuable information out to the public. With this information, an individual can make their own judgments and opinions to help them vote on election day. Basically, political advertising does the research for the public, and depending on which party the individual is from, they may hear what they do or do not want to hear.

In political advertising, a propagandist can use a number of various advertising techniques to get their point across. These techniques can be used as a positive or negative attack on the political candidate, but either way, it is a positive movement because the public is allowed to learn about the individual who is being advertised. The same concept goes for commercials. Companies broadcast their products on TV or other media sources to inform the public of what they are selling. Propagandists will market what the candidate is “selling” to boost their votes.

For me, the most effective way for an advertisement to affect me is using the technique of “plain folks.” This is where the purpose of the advertisement is to convince the viewers that the candidate's ideas are “of the people.” Basically, they are trying to show that they are just like the “average-Joe.” Another effective technique is “testimonial.” Athletes on cereal boxes or Gatorade commercials are examples of this technique. Last Presidential election, Oprah Winfrey endorsed Barack Obama. I believe this endorsement was a boost to his candidacy because Oprah has many followers and she will advertise and speak to the public's liking. She will advertise products on her show and people will buy it because of their trust in her. Some may know this as “The Oprah Effect.”

All techniques in political advertising help the democratic process move forward. They help candidates gain strength or they can reveal unwanted facts. Let’s not forget that when choosing a candidate to run for any office, the public opinion is what matters, and the government and candidates will certainly react to the public opinion.

The media is a prime place for political advertising. With little to no regulations, propagandists have the power to advertise to their content. The TV and radio are some places to advertise special commercials about candidates. Each commercial has a specific time limit as well as the agreement of the fairness doctrine. While driving to work or other places or sitting at home watching the television, the public has an easy source of getting information from political advertisements. Other forms of media include the Internet and newspapers. Here, viewers can read recent polls or debates. All media in political advertising is a stepping stone in helping the democratic process.

This country was formed together under a democracy, “of the people, for the people.” In one of the slide presentations, I noted, “In a democracy, government should do what the citizens want it to do - it should follow citizens’ policy preferences.” The same applies to political advertising. Depending upon the beliefs of the person, and their political party, the candidate must show they are “for the people.” One controversial issue that always has voters stirring is the social issue of abortion. Every Presidential election it seems that each candidate must make it clear on how they stand on this issue. With that, they must then decide how to advertise their belief and how they will satisfy the public opinion. Another issue to name is health care; voters want to know what kind of benefits will stay or what will go. If a candidate has a new plan, voters are extremely interested in every detail. Another topic voters what to hear about are tax laws. Voters usually want to hear the candidate's views and tactics to help Americans with tax laws. A candidate must strategize how to win the public opinion because it certainly is a factor in policy-making. Political advertising is a great way to get the candidate’s voice out to the public, as they hope to win the public’s opinion and vote.

For those who say that political advertising has a negative effect on the democratic process because it is only for those with financial advantages or it ruins candidates' reputations, you must look beyond that. Funding has always been an essential to any monetary disadvantage. No candidate has a perfect record. Your judgments come from your own opinions and beliefs, and since we live in the US, no one can force you to think differently. I believe political advertisements are positive to the democratic process because this type of advertising can bring new ideas to the arena of the democratic process.

ACTIVITY #1

There was a time in American history when political advertising had a positive effect on the democratic process. Today, however, in recent elections it has had a negative effect on our democratic process. When elections were first held, the candidates would appeal to the public according to what they believed was good for our country.

In the beginning public opinion was mainly influenced by political socialization. Now, opinion is influenced by political socialization and political advertising. Political advertising was initially introduced to reach more people and ask for their support. It was a way for candidates to introduce themselves into our homes and tell us about their campaign. Now we have polls and the media. Between both, a candidate seems to know what the public wants to hear.

Political advertising has lost its original honesty. Campaigns now have more to work with like special interest groups. These groups help push a candidate and/or their agenda. With the help of the media, messages are easier to convey. The question is how much of that message is twisted in order to satisfy a public poll. It seems that the dire the case for presidency (in all parties), the more distorted the information becomes. Perhaps the negative effect on our democratic process came about when negative ads became popular.

ACTIVITY #2

ACTIVITY #3

ACTIVITY #4

This is probably one of the hardest questions for me to answer because I have been in countries where they do not have laws that protect their citizens from their government. I wouldn’t want to ever give up these rights so it was really hard to decide what I am willing to give up and what I feel is necessary to keep. When coming up with my answer, I thought of what it would be like if it was a dictator that took over and was going to be an extremist when it came to our rights.

1. The five Amendments I would choose to keep are;

-Freedom of Speech and Press

-Right to bear arms

-Right to be confronted by witnesses, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify

-Right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

-Right to due process

a. Freedom of speech – I choose this because if we were to be taken over by an extremist this would be the way that we could potentially revolt against and find a way to govern ourselves the way we were before we were taken over. This civil liberty is important because we are able to say what we want without getting in trouble for it. Giving this up, means when we have a problem with something we couldn’t publically say anything or publish anything in the press or media with what we liked and what we didn’t like. I feel if we gave this up, our future generations would not be able to speak openly if they wanted to fix something. This is why it was part of the first amendment, they wanted to change what they were not allowed to do or be a part of while under British control.

b. Right to bear arms – This is important because if we were taken over by an extremist, we wouldn’t be able to protect our neighbors or ourselves from looting or other personal crimes. My earliest memories were of hunting with my dad and being able to use a gun. I feel that if I did own a weapon now, I could properly protect my family and myself. But I do see that this can be a negative if guns were not registered and used to commit crimes. The only thing that this is missing from the amendment is “keeping”; my concern would be to make sure that is added, where we would be storing our arms.

c. Right to be confronted by witnesses, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify – I felt this was important to keep because I would want to know what I have been accused of and what I was going to be going up against. The basic right to have people testify on your behalf would be helpful if your accusations were wrong against you. If you didn’t know what was being brought up against you, and you had no one to testify on your behalf you could and wouldn’t be able to properly defend yourself. Our future generations could potentially be accused and have no clue what they’re accusations were and would just setting themselves up for jail time or punishment. Which leads me to the next Right I would keep.

d. Right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment – What would be the point of not having people to testify for you if you cannot have a lawyer appointed for you? And if you didn’t have a lawyer to represent you, you would be facing some form of punishment if found guilty. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment protects us from various forms of torture and humiliating punishment. Torture is currently used in countries in the Middle East and though out Asia. I would not want to put this on our future generations. I could not think of having someone humiliate my family or torture them if they were found guilty, let alone have someone represent them. This also leads me to my last one, Right to due process.

e. Right to due process – I originally wasn’t going to have this one but I talked with my brother and when we discussed this, it made me think twice. The right to due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are allowed to a person according to law.

2. The Rights I have chosen to give up are;

-Freedom of Religion

-Right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for redress of grievances

-Freedom of unreasonable search and seizures

-Right to a speedy trial by jury

-Freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself.                                                                             

a. Freedom of Religion – I know that religion is a human right and a preference, but I at the same time, I really thought about what I was willing to give up to keep this. And I felt keeping our protection from the government was more important. I also feel that we currently have little protection while in public with our religion here in the U.S. There are people who will still discriminate towards physical actions or religious symbols.

b. Right to assemble peacefully and petition the government for redress of grievances – Again, I felt this was hard to give up but at the same time, two or three generations later they will find an innate way of assembling against what they felt is wrong. It is our natural to socially gather and openly discuss what we felt is happening that is wrong. So, I felt this one would ultimately find a way back into our structure.

c. Freedom of unreasonable search and seizures – The right of confidentiality and privacy in a democracy. Even though I have never personally felt that this has affected me, I’m not sure as to why I need it other than if I was accused of anything that the police or government would not need to obtain a search warrant to search or seize my belongings that could ultimately place me at a place or time of a crime.

d. Right to a speedy trail – Even though I know giving this one up the prosecution could excessively delay a trial for their own advantage, and that there is not a time limit from the arrest or the indictment, I know people would want to know and have their punishments in a years’ time versus 5-10 years from those dates.

e. Right to compulsion to testify against oneself – Another hard one to give up because this is in our Miranda Rights; and self-incrimination could line for punishment. And now that we do not have the right to a speedy trial, you could ultimately be waiting for a long time to find out if what you said years before could do to you.

3. I believe that the new Small Country’s society will go back to what we have since our founding fathers’ wrote the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s really hard to change a society in 2-3 generations; possibly after 5-6 we would conform to what we were told to but I believe there would be a vast majority of rebellion and revolt. It took a few generations for us to break away from British rule but we did. I wouldn’t doubt that we would in due course go back to our founding roots.

4. This course’s content in conjunction with the Small Country society made me really think about what is wrong and what is right with our Bill of Rights and what can be changed and what should not be changed. The basic rights that we have, as Americans, are definitely a privilege. I believe a lot of people don’t understand how others live in other countries that are not of democratic rule. Our Civil Rights alone make us stand out to others who wish to have the choice say they have been wronged or a voice to speak freely with. Our civil liberties have also been added and changed to conform to what society needs. Without our civil rights, we would not have an opportunity to do anything; rights to vote, equal opportunity; slavery. Without my civil rights, since I am Mexican and a woman, I would not be able to do very much or be heard. I could not go to school, because of segregation, I could not have a good job with equal pay as a man nor could I have the right to decide whether or not to keep a child, or vote. I would hope that we would never be in a position to give up our American rights, but I fully believe if we did, we would find a way to get them back.

ACTIVITY #4

As designator of my Small Country, I have decided the five civil liberties that I would like to retain for my country and the five I will have to give up. My decision is based upon my knowledge of each liberty listed, its importance in our government and how it affects our everyday lives. First, I will share the five civil liberties my country will keep: freedom of speech and press, freedom of religion, right due process of law, right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

With my first selection of freedom of speech and press, my country will gain two rights in one civil liberty -- freedom of speech and freedom of press. By keeping this civil liberty, I feel my country will be at ease with the comfort of knowing that their spoken and written words will not be threatened by the alien conquerors. I also feel that if this liberty were to ever be taken away from my country, the people would be at a constant struggle for what is “acceptable” to be spoken and written. In turn, this would have an effect on future generations as their learning in speaking and writing would have extreme limitations. As noted in one of the presentation slide, “American college campuses have become an important battleground in the continuing struggle over the meaning of free speech.” Not to say that having this civil liberty stay in my country will allow its people to have free range of words, but even today Americans are at a struggle with the definition of what is really “free.” Under the government, freedoms like speech and press are guaranteed until another individual's rights are violated. Although my country will be under a new alienated government, the civil liberty of freedom of speech and press must be guaranteed as that of the US government’s.

My next selection is the freedom of religion. No village or country ever wants to be conquered by a foreigner, especially from another planet and having the freedom of religion will allow my country to continue its moral and ethnic traditions. I think retaining historical traditions with religion will allow future generations to see what was brought from the past as well as what has changed into their present time. Also, I’m sure that without having the other five civil liberties, my country will soon see its affects and having a place and freedom to worship will be necessary to help them cope with this unfortunate event. The freedom of religion establishment clause “prohibits the national government from establishing a national religion.” The free exercise clause “prohibits the U.S. government from interfering with a citizen’s right to practice his or her religion.” Therefore, with this type of agreement the aliens would not be allowed to interfere with how each individual chooses to participate in religious events.

The third civil liberty I have decided to keep is the right from unreasonable search and seizure. I strongly feel everyone has a right to their own privacy and when unwanted search and seizure is forced upon a person for no lawful reason, then privacy is violated. Can you imagine a police officer of FBI agent coming to your house or pulling you over on the side of the road just to search you and your belongings without any type of warrant? With this liberty being like that of the U.S. Constitution, we are guaranteed “that police must knock and announce their presence before entering a home or apartment to execute a search.” There’s no for sure way of knowing how the aliens would act if this civil liberty was not a right to my fellow citizens. If any search and seizure were ever to be conducted under this new government, the aliens must respect the entire civil liberty.

The next civil liberty I would like to keep is the right to reasonable bail, the assistance of an attorney and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. With this liberty guaranteed, the citizens would gain three rights - reasonable bail, an attorney and no cruel or unusual punishment. To protect my country and its citizens from any harm -- monetary or physical -- I believe this civil liberty will be beneficial for everyone. Obviously, there is no way of knowing their laws and ways of action when someone commits a crime, so for protection purposes, this civil liberty must stay. If the constitution of this country were like that of the constitution of Texas, then the death penalty would be included in the punishment. Since the aliens would be the higher power, it would be up to their government to decide when this punishment is appropriate.

As the fifth and final selection, I have chosen the right to due process of law. This basically means that everyone is entitled to the proper processes of the law and everyone who is a citizen is also entitled to fair treatment under the law. I feel with the four civil liberties previously selected, this liberty will complete the package. Yes, by selecting this civil liberty, I may be losing an opportunity to select another liberty that the citizens would gain. However, I cannot argue with fairness and justice. Each of my fellow citizens deserves what is fair and what is just. The alien government could not deny a citizen “life, liberty or property without the due process of law.” Also noted in the slideshow presentation, “it also prevents the national government from taking property without fair compensation.” In the U.S., I believe the constitution promotes individuality and protects its citizens from unlawful situations. The right to due process of law is like a safety ground that protects the citizens of that state.

The five civil liberties I decided not to keep are the right to assemble peaceably and petition the government for redress of grievances, the right to bear arms, the right to a speedy and public trial by jury, the right to be confronted by witnesses, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify, and the freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself. I think some of the civil liberties I have decided to discard will act as exceptions to previously picked civil liberties. For example, the right to assemble peaceably and petition for the government for redress of grievances, I feel, is covered in the civil liberty of the freedom of speech and press.

The same can go for the freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself, and the right to be confronted by witness, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witnesses to testify. They all deal with the form of speech, and press can even be included. Who is to determine that the right to assemble and petition isn't a form of free speech? After all, the first amendment includes free speech, free press, free religion, freedom of assembly and the right to petition. I believe all are combined together for the same general idea - the freedom of expression.

I feel the freedom of speech also links to the freedom from compulsion to testify against oneself. Usually when a person is arrested, an officer will verbally say their Miranda rights, which includes the right to remain silent. If you chose to remain silent during an investigation, you are practicing your right of freedom of speech, which in this case would be no speech. If you are afraid of what the alien government might do to punish you, remember you are protected under the freedom from cruel and unusual punishment.

Another civil liberty that I feel is covered under freedom of speech is the right to be confronted by witness, be informed of the nature of accusations and compel witness to testify. What you would lose from this civil liberty being discarded is the possible vital information from the witness. However, let’s remember that one civil liberty I decided to keep was the right to due process of law. Therefore, you are guaranteed fair treatment under the law. The situation is bittersweet, but it’s better than losing all of the civil liberties.

The next civil liberty I would like to address is the right to a speedy and public trial by jury. I have decided not to keep this civil liberty because the word “speedy” is an ambiguous word in its context. By speedy, how long does that mean? Without this civil liberty, now and future generations may not have the opportunity to even have a trial. You could be locked up for a long time because a trial is not guaranteed. Lastly, I have decided to give up the right to bear arms. Without this civil liberty the citizens, individually and collectively, will not have the right to conceal weapons. I feel that if Small Country citizens were allowed to conceal weapons, then it would potentially be a threat to the aliens. However, by letting go of this civil liberty, there could be a possibility of less violence in the country. I think for the citizens of my country, we should do our best to try to stay at peace with the aliens, as they have allowed us five of the ten civil liberties.

My decision of the civil liberties to keep and to let go will greatly affect future generations. Of course, they will not know the difference between their present life and the life we had before the aliens. Their society will be restricted as there will be limitations to their current civil liberties. I have a feeling that in the future, the alien government will set specific rules such as new clauses to each civil liberty.

There also was no mention of voting in these civil liberties. Does that mean that the aliens will chose who their leader(s) are, and not the citizens? I also feel that the values that the government fought so hard to establish will be completely lost and forgotten as time moves forward and rights and liberties become less. When the government was being created and established by man (social contract theory), rights and responsibilities were given to the citizens and the government, but I feel that in the future, matter of rights and responsibilities will be given solely to the government. For the future generations of Small Country, I hope they keep in mind a quote that reminds me of the government that was originally sent out for my Country and that of the United States. From Abraham Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, “...and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

CRITICAL THINKING ESSAY

PROJECT

A public opinion poll is a mechanism to accumulate individuals’ stands or opinions on a particular subject. The result of the poll can categorize whether the individual is very much for or against the information on the given issue. It was our group’s assignment to select a topic, develop questions around this topic, distribute them and analyze the data for a public opinion poll. At the end of this process our poll results uncovered a lot of shocking and wonderful outcomes about the average American’s daily life.

One of the top ten most important issues to Texas voters is the environment, which I selected as my topic. The environment is a subject that nearly everyone has an opinion or question about that causes it to seem very large. However, I prevented the survey from being too broad by narrowing the topic to popular and simple questions pertaining to the “going green” movement. The types of questions found in the public opinion poll were close-ended (yes or no responses) because separating the participants into different categories needed to be swiftly uncomplicated. These categories are low, moderate and extreme environmentalist. Since the survey consisted of 26 questions, using close-ended questions would help prevent it from seeming overwhelming to the participant. To be more specific, these questions are about the average American’s daily actions, regarding whether they may help our environment grow or lead it towards destruction. I started off by asking the participants basic questions such as what is their gender, sex or political identification. Then I went into more detailed questions such as:  “Do you recycle?” The wording for the questions did not need to be changed because they were easy to understand, leaving no space for interpretation.

The specific questions and responses to each survey question can be found in these two tables.

Demographic Table

Question Table

In order to distribute the survey, I went to various malls in the San Antonio area during a 3-day period of Friday, Saturday and Sunday. People that were willing to participate were given the written survey and had the opportunity to circle their own answers. Thus I used the method of written in person. The format of my written survey was simple to follow. There were 26 questions, which required the participant to circle an answer. Most of the questions were yes and no, and the remaining questions had three answer selections. I also asked and recorded demographic data such as age, sex, ethnicity, employment status, household income, highest level of education completed, and political identification. I went to different malls in the San Antonio area such as Rolling Oaks, La Cantera, North Star and South Park. The specific time the survey was distributed was from 11:00 AM until 2:00 PM or “lunch time.” I continuously approached individuals until 20 people agreed to take the survey. In fact, some individuals approached me, wanting to take the survey out of curiosity. The data was then analyzed and tallied by using a point system. For each positive environmental response a point was given. The total amount of points a person gained separated the participants into three categories: low, moderate and extreme environmental involvement and awareness. 0-6 points indicated low involvement, 7-12 points indicated moderate involvement and 13-19 points indicated extreme involvement.

Some issues were encountered with the distribution of the survey including a large amount of shoppers who refused to take the survey. However, since I set a specific time period to administer the survey I remained patient and calm. Out of those that were willing to take the survey, some refused to answer the question:  “What ethnicity do you define yourself as?” Some of the responses I received were: “Do I have to answer this question or may I select no preference?” The lack of data I collected on this question later caused me to drop that category from the final report. Another problem encountered was the busy flow of mall traffic, which made it difficult to maintain a standard random approach to individuals.

After analyzing and tallying the data, I found several interesting responses. Out of the 100 people surveyed, a surprising 77 people recycle. And during shopping trips, 30% of people bring their own bag. While shopping at a grocery store, 74% buy bottled water. Fewer than 20% of the participants carpool or ride the bus at least three times a week. Even fewer use a hybrid vehicle for their transportation. The majority of the people surveyed do think the government should be more involved in protecting the environment. The majority also agree they have an effect on the environment and feel global warming is a real issue. The most shocking response was half of the survey participants would support a tax to help protect the environment.

Upon analyzing the data more deeply and applying our point system, patterns and interesting results were found. Out of the 100 people surveyed 56 people were considered moderately active and aware environmentalists. The number of people classified as low and extreme environmentalists was roughly the same. I also observed a very strong trend involving party identification. In general, those who labeled themselves as Democrats were more involved and active in the “going green” movement, Independents showed a low concern about the environment, and those who identified as Republicans ranked in the middle of the other two parties in terms of environmental efforts. Not surprising, the data concludes higher educated people are more knowledgeable and active in environmental issues. The most shocking discovery was the extreme trend we found when comparing the environmental involvement of males and females. Unfortunately, 38% of males are classified as low involvement compared to only 11% of females. There are 10% of males classified under extreme involvement compared to 30% of females. Based on the data it’s apparent that females are more concerned about the environment than males are. Slightly surprising is the lack of pattern in environment awareness and activity based upon age. It is interesting to note, I did not find any relationship between a person’s income and their environmental practices and beliefs. In every analysis of the data, 50% or more of the participants ranked in the middle as moderate environmentalists; meaning the majority of participants maintained a middle ground on this environmental issue.