Fox News political Commentary

This is an actual Fox News report that wasn't so biased.  Most of the time I would say that Fox News does not support hte public's education. However, this particular interview was a very simple report on Palin's effect on McCain's campaign, after he lost.  It had little bias in it and it only gave the strict facts.  This one report helped the public's intelligence.  It supports the public because it gives true facts without a strong right wing opinion, or any opinion for that matter.  As a result the public was informed on possible effects Palin had on the campaign.

New York Times Co. v. United States

Ellsberg, a Pentagon worker, stole governemnt documents concerning the war in Vietnam.  He wanted to reveal the intentions of the government to the angry public.  He gave the documents to the New York Times.  They published it until they were forbade.  The case went to the Supreme court right away where they issued per curiam, where all judges wrote seperate opinions.  The Supreme Court had opposite views, but they ended up allowing the publishing of these papers.

    I agree with all of the individual judges and their opinions.  However, I would have to agree with the overall ruling.  I do think that the public needs to know the government's doings.  I also think they have a right to keep certain things secret.  This was not a case to decide the future of either of these ideas.  They only decided to allow this particular document to be released, which was appropriate.  A more secretive document that doesn't harm people but needs to be kept secret should be protected, though.

    Many people agreed with this ruling at the time, and it's generally accepted that the government should not keep anything like this secret.  Although this has no lasting effects, there are still controversies over what the government can and cannot hold onto.  Documents like these should be released, but anything harmful to the nation is widely considered something that should be kept a secret.

Gitlow v. New York

Benjamin Gitlow advocated the overthrowing of the current government, to be replaced by a communist government.  He was convicted of criminal anarchy, which is a doctrine forbidding the overthrowing of the government by violence in any way, and it can be prosecuted by any form of speech.  The Supreme Court found the issue to be under the ruling of the First Amendment.  Gitlow thought he was protected under the freedom of speech.  The Supreme Court upheld the State decision, that it is illegal to plot an overthrowing.  They claimed the state had the legal right to prohibit this part of the Bill of Rights.

     The Bill of Rights cannot be strictly interpretted, because it would give too much power.  The Supreme Court did the right thing by allowing the state to forbid such actions.  It wouldn't be right to allow treason to occur.  They had to make the statement that not everything is acceptable, which is reasonable.

      There is still controversy over how much freedom someone actually has.  Some may argue that everyone should be able to say what they want.  However, it's obvious that some words have implied motivations.  It could be more than freedom of speech id someone is collecting a group of people through speech who will overthrow the government.  That cannot be accepted.  People have the right to protest and speak their mind, but not to have the intention of bringing people together for violence.  How far people's freedom to say what they want really goes is always debated.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

In a series of cases, there had been the arguement that Black children should be allowed at the White schools.  All of these cases were denied, taking into consideration Plessy v. Ferguson.  Sweatt v. Painter was one of these cases, but it said that there was now equal school for a particular college in Texas.  The Brown case got to the Supreme Court and had proved that segregation was being equalized.  The Court came to the decision ot determine if everything was truly equal in these segregated schools.  Justice Warren came to the conclusion that in no way could there ever be seperate but equal facilities.  By doing so, previous cases were overturned and that in the matter of schools, there could not be seperatee facilities, and that it went against the 14th Amendment
      I agree with the whole Supreme Court, in that seperate is not equal.  It is also an absurd notion that has no true place.  This had to be changed sooner or later to bring true equality.

Everyone firmly agrees with the ruling here.  At the time, however, there was much controversy.  Many people still wanted seperate facilities.  That all changed, and overtime it was accepted.  Today it is considered a very important outcome from the Supreme Court to ensure equality.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Gideon was convicted of burglary, and was sentenced to jail.  From jail, he sent a petition to the Supreme Court for an appeal.  The appeal was that he was not given a counsel and it went against the Sixth Amendment.  He could not have a fair trial without a lawyer to support him in the court.  Justice Black knew that in court, it can only be fair if the convicted has a lawyer.  Gideon was then given another lawyer in a retrial.
      Gideon won appropriately, considering it is against the law to not have a lawyer present.  I agree with the Court, since they assured that everyone deserves a fair trial, and the only way to have that is to have a lawyer, at least provided by the state. 


Everyone agrees with the ruling from the court, because it's impossible to have a fair trial without a lawyer.  The Supreme Court made sure that even the poorest had the right to a counsel.  This outcome has next to no controversy.

Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda was not informed of his rights when the police took custody of him.  He was interrogated for two hours, until he finally signed a confession.  He took it to the Supreme Court claiming what happened forced him to be a witness against himself.  He was self-incriminated.  The Court found him innocent, and forced the police to enact new rules so that no person can be a victim of the police.  They made all cops remind people who are taken into custody to be informed of their rights.  This was based off the Fifth Amendment that no person shall be a witness to themselves.
The Supreme Court understood the situation properly.  They acted correctly, because no person should be put into a position where they have to confess against things they know aren't true.  Warren took this to the extent it needed to go.  He made sure that inside police custody there would be complete justice.

The results of this aren't only widely agreed upon, but it is well known by the public that the police cannot do certain things.  It became well known that people have their rights even when arrested, and thats important in order to keep the system fair.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The Univeristy of California, Davis, declined a white applicant, (Bakke), a spot at their medical school.  However, minorities with a worse GPA were accepted.  Bakke sued the school under the idea that the 14th Amendment was being broken.  People of a different race were given a greater chance at being accepted.  The Court found the state guilty in a 5 to 4 split.  They decided that the 14th Amendment was universal and didn't aim to only help minorities, but to ensure justice for all.

      Assuming that the minorities were accepted with every aspect of admissions taken into consideration, (meaning that Bakke really did deserve the admission because of more than his GPA), then I agree with the court's decision.  The 14th Amendment is universal, and since this is a state school, there should be no excuse.  If the state wants a better chance for minorities they shouldn't deny whites admission, but equal the minorities chance at their previous schools of getting a fair education.  This was a form of discrimination.


There is still great debate of this ruling.  Even at the time people were opposed to it.  Many viewed it as a wrong doing against the 14th Amendment.  However, that isn't true, the ruling only supported the Amendment to extents that hadn't been fully appreciated.  There are bigger arguements against the ruling today that have more sustenance to them.  This is extremely controversial in the UC system right now as the regents are secretly still giving an advantage to underprivledged school systems and to minorities.  It's vague to what they are doing but they're being attacked by both sides of the bench.

Miller v. California

Miller sent advertisements through the mail to unrequested recipients to promote "adult" books and films.  These adds had offensive sexual material in them that the recipients didn't ask for.  The state found her guilty.  Miller appealed to the Supreme Court saying that she was protected by the first Amendment.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of California since these people did not ask for the material the recieved.

      The result was arguably sound.  I agree with the Supreme Court, although something did need to be done to assure this sort of thing didn't happen again.  I agree with what Warren Burger did after the ruling, which was state the statutes for regulating this type of material, in order to address what is offensive in the future.  He said material that follows these rules are allowed.  The average person must agree with the content on a community standard; if the work depicts any sexual or offensive material in any way it isn't valid' and it can't lack a serious value.

      The guidelines have been set well for future cases.  There is not a lot of obscene content anywhere from the mail to billboards.  We aren't violated of our rights, and people know that they can't do that.

Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1890, Plessy got on a train in  Lousiana, in the white section.  He was ordered to leave the section, however, he refused to leave.  He was found guilty in state court for his actions.  He appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that what happened went against the 14th Amendment.  The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state, saying that Plessy's one fallacy is that segregation doesn't make things unequal.  The 14th Amendment was not quite on his favor.
Although the Supreme Court somewhat acknowledged the unreasonable laws in the constitution, and they upheld it, I think they had this one wrong.  They may have made the constitutionally correct action, however, they should have been the first progressives to say that seperate but equal isn't always equal.  They should have challenged the constitution, rather than simply use it.

Today, many people disagree with this ruling from the Supreme Court.  Later, the
Supreme Court itself would challenge seperate but equal.  This ruling does not have a significant effect on today's society, since it has no power.  It is a reminder of how backwards we were back then, however.

United States v. Nixon

Nixon was connected to a complex burglarly of the Democratic National Committee's headquarters, in watergate. He was discovered, and along with it, many other suspicious activites, such as taping conversations. The Supreme Court heard the case, even without the tapes immediately. Nixon was forced to turn over the tapes.  The Court found that he was not giving sufficient explanation for his actiopns, and that he didn't have power to take secret documents.
The Supreme Court made teh right decision, I believe.  Nixon would only be able to do this if it were a matter of national security, however, it was only a matter of getting the dirt on other people.  The President isn't exempt from the law in this circumstance, so he deserved to be punished.

Most people would agree that the president was in the wrong. They also appreciated the power of the court, putting the executive branch in check. It was the first case that really exemplified the checks and balances, and proved to the nation that it is relly in place.

Roe V. Wade

Jane Roe, a pregnant woman wanted an abortion, but the state wouldn't allow her.  She brought it to the Supreme Court on the account that denying an abortion is against the 14th amendment.  The Supreme Court decided to side with Roe.  They legalized abortions in the first two trimesters. 
I agree with the decision made.  It's a sticky issue, but if someone decided that they can't care for a child, they should be able to decide if they have to care for the child.  It's up to the childbearer in the end, and in many cases the child may be born into an unwanted situation, or the women didn't mean to have the child anyway.  Since the fetus can't feel or think, it should be up to the woman.



Today, there is great controversy over the decision made. Many people are still upset that women have this oppurtunity. It is an outcome that has not been forgotten and been fully accepted. It will take time for this issue to settle, but as long as there are strict conservatives, it will be a topic of controversy that could be addressed again.

The Condition of Animal Cruelty and Animal Rights in America

Aaron Shaw

Period. 6

The Condition of Animal Cruelty and Animal Rights in America

Part I: 

            All types of animals across the nation are abused or not taken care of properly.  Animal cruelty is a much more rampant problem than one might think, and it has recently been raising the question of animal rights.  Animal Cruelty can be defined in many ways, but it is generally considered the abuse and neglect of an animal, and it applies to more than just pets, (Pet-Abuse).  Animals have been used by society for centuries, however, only recently has the concern for their rights been addressed. People are just barely starting to understand the fact that animals are quite intelligent and should not be tortured in ways they are today.  Industrialized farming, hunting and the common home owner of pets, are all contributors to animal cruelty in modern society.  Currently, as industrialized farming is becoming increasingly popular, the livelihood of farm animals is being questioned due to the lack of hygiene and appreciation for basic animal needs.  Many home pets are suffering greatly due to a lack of care.  Millions of pets are on the streets or in filled shelters without homes, and although the problem has been improving as more pets are taken off the streets, it still exists, (Common Questions). On the other hand, on farms, the problem is growing. Farms shouldn’t be forgotten, as Gary L. Francione said, farm animals, “clearly have interests, preferences and desires and are able to act to satisfy their interests and preferences,” "a fact that should give them at least some “right” to moral consideration by humans, with whom they share those traits”, (Clemmitt).  Economics plays into the lives of farm animals too; by giving less care and space to an animal, a farmer will make more money.  Farmers are also being forced to put animals in horrific environments, since it is the best way to deal with increased demand.  Animal cruelty is clearly wide spread, and although it’s mostly a moral issue, it is also an issue of economics and maintaining a healthy community.  For me, the fact that our economy may suffer or our communities aren’t as tidy as they could be isn’t the problem.  I find it disturbing that humans are causing unnecessary harm to animals that we bring into the world.  The major issue is that pets are neglected and animals are mistreated, only for our benefit.  A community also needs to be protected, and assured that animals aren’t astray or suffering.  The result could cause civil unrest.  On local levels, too many pets that are abused or left homeless, forces the government to spend money to shelter animals.  The community’s money goes towards sheltering animals, while the solution lies in their hands.

            Everyone agrees that animals should not be abused.  Humans have emotions, and we treat dying or helpless animals with care and love.  The public may not be so aware to the fact that many animals are neglected and that there is an overpopulation of them, but, anyone would want the best for an animal.  ARF (Animal Rescue Foundation) not only helps to fix the issue of animal cruelty, but, it is a perfect example of a public reaction to it.  As a stray cat ran across a baseball field, Tony La Russa captured it to make sure it was alright.  He and his wife later discovered that there were no shelters that could take care of the cat.  Their response was to create their own shelter that would not be as negative as the other ones.  The result was ARF, which helps to save more animals from being euthanized, and it heightens the education of the public.  There are many other public organizations that fight cases of animal cruelty.  The government at the federal level has organizations like The Humane Society to crack down on animal cruelty.  However, the main responses to animal cruelty are on the state level.  Each state has its own laws.  Some are more progressive than others.

Part II: 

            Since the government response to animal cruelty and animal rights is at the state level, the laws and attitude varies greatly.  Every state has laws forbidding animal cruelty, and 41 states make it a felony, (Cruelty Laws).  It has taken America a long time for every state to pass some law against animal cruelty.  Our nation has responded to the issue in the past by creating basic laws that are required to maintain decency.  However, recently, in the late 20^th century, we have started to move to a more advanced position regarding animal rights.  Today states are acknowledging animal cruelty more than the past, and states are passing harsher laws.  The government response is strong currently, because new questions are being asked.  Newer laws are based mostly on moral decisions, and it exemplifies the countries stance on the issue as a whole - It’s not tolerable to harass an animal.  States are creating new laws constantly that are progressive and specific, as there are new arguments to do so.  An example of one of these recent laws would be the law in California that bans the tail docking of cows.  California is the first state to ban this, and it has just been done in 2009.  California is among the most aggressive states to address animal rights, (Clemmitt). 

            A new idea that has been accepted by scientists’ has been the foundation for many of the modern arguments.  It has inspired policy makers to take into account the seriousness of animal cruelty whenever there is a new reason to make a law.  Recently we have understood that animals are much more intelligent than we have previously thought.  Everyone knows that their pets are smart for an animal, but they don’t think of them as having analytical brains, similar to humans; “They have preferences, make judgments, distinguish, decide, refrain: they think”, as Alexandra Horowitz put it, in an interpretation of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s philosophy, (Horowitz 253).  The same applies to animals on farms.  This idea suggests the uprising of specific laws since the late 1900’s.  These recent discoveries encourage law makers to be more concerning with how they take on new bills.  It’s the foundation with which new government laws are being passed, and it’s the current status of government action against animal cruelty.

The government can’t do everything though.  There will always be a few cases where a cold hearted person beats their pets.  There will always be homeless cats and dogs.  However, the government can be doing a better job still.  One may expect a more industrialized state like New York to be a progressive region.  However, just recently the government has exposed their ignorance in a report claiming that New York City is going to kill Geese, simply because they are overpopulated, (Brunswick).  There are many other solutions to this problem, and killing doesn’t seem to be the most humane answer.  A more rural setting may be a hotspot for animal cruelty, because farms have a host of problems.    In Florida and Iowa, there are new bills whose goals are to stop any pictures from being taken of farms, (More on Farm Animal).  The idea is for farmers to be more at peace and without intruders.  However, the intruders have a good incentive to take photographs; they want to expose the harmful methods of which animals are raised on farms.  The bills sound like a cover up for the farmers so they can maintain their practices.  The government may side with these farmers because of the economic value gained from raising animals this way.  Local events like these occur frequently.

            Working at ARF is about helping the lives of animals.  It’s amazing to go and see the community helping and adopting animals who were on the euthanize list at another shelter.  ARF is about much more than being a moral helper in the fight against animal cruelty.  During our economic unit in particular we discussed current events such as the financial crisis.  My community service is indirectly involved with the results of the crisis.  When people lose money, they realize they can’t afford their pets and they reluctantly turn them in.  Animals are unfortunately abused more often due to stressed out owners over their financial situation (Munro).  It’s a sad truth that not many people may realize.  The result is that more animals end up in shelters, and more animals need to be saved from being killed or abused.  ARF tries its best to save all the animals it can, but there have been more cases of animal cruelty at households lately because so many pets can’t be cared for by their owners.  At ARF it’s abundantly clear that they are trying to get more pets adopted so they can accept more animals from shelters now more than ever.

Part III: 

            Preventing animal cruelty and assuring animals have rights is a job that will probably never be finished.  Some day in the near future it’s possible we will have as many rights as our society can possibly give to animals.  That isn’t enough since there will always be farm animals who will be slaughtered for food.  Even if we give them a comfortable living condition, which is in progress now, they will always have to make a sacrifice.  Pets at homes may get more rights but they will often be locked up in cages, necessary for an owner, but debilitating for the animal.  There are of course many things the government is fixing now and many things they can fix.  State governments are always passing bills to allow better conditions for animals.  The most substantial thing the state governments can do is not treat animal cruelty as only a felony.  They need to treat animal cruelty as a crime equal to any human abuse.  If the government can make the public accountable for hurting an animal as much as they are for hurting a human, then animal cruelty will happen much less frequently.  The government should also completely abolish farms that force animals to live in a confined space since that is considered to be suppressing their free will.  As research shows, animals do think similarly to humans, and if the government can make animals have the same representation as humans do under the law, then that would be a triumph for morality.  It would psychologically make abusers think twice as well.

            I was taught at ARF that animals need enriching items and activities in their life to have their interests pursued.  I have also learned of how intellectually advanced animals are.  Animals may not be able to experience their natural rights in the world, if they aren’t being given the opportunity to fulfill their interests.  Owners of pets need to know that cats, dogs and even smaller mammals that are often considered pets have many interests.  To help pets, owners should investigate how they can stimulate their animals.  It’s not even a question of finance.  At ARF we used the most useless junk that one would never think could entertain an animal, and we made toys that would occupy a cat or dog for hours without human interaction.  This would be a solution for animals neglected at home.

 Neglecting an animal is the most common form of animal cruelty and it’s the overall idea at ARF.  They take neglected animals and care for them.  No government can support a person in their quest to help maintain a pet.  The community must participate in order to help neglected pets.  They can reduce the amount of animal cruelty in the community by not buying a pet they can’t afford to have.  That means a pet that would cost more time and money than the buyer has.  If someone does buy a pet that they can’t afford to own, the animal could end up in a shelter or on the streets.  Even worse, they have stimulated a demand for new pets to be made.  Animal breeders will create more animals than they can sell which creates overpopulation even more.  If someone does want to buy a pet, then ARF is the place to do it.  It doesn’t stimulate demand, and it literally would take another animal out of a shelter, which would allow another animal to fill the spot.  If everyone only bought the amount of pets they can afford, and if they bought adopted pets at ARF, they would not be encouraging more pets to be made and they would reduce how many helpless neglected animals there are.  This simple rule for buying pets would almost eliminate animal cruelty to pets.  ARF not only is a place to help animals who are victims of cruelty, but it is a place for the community to learn.  A simple workshop could educate the public on how they can fulfill their pets rights, and on how they can help the community reduce animal cruelty.

Is Hunting for Sport Moral?

Hunters have been attacked by animal rights activists recently.  Their argument was clear - no one should kill an animal for the fun of it.  It's a simple concept.  The hunters argued that they are maintaining the population.  Even if hunters win they could lose something, as population are declining siginifcantly.

Hunters are a less noticeable part of animal cruelty because hunting is more accepted, along with animal farms.  However, hunting for sport is a different thing.  It causes unnecessary harm to an animal, only to benefit a human.  That has been the argument for animal rights and animal cruelty all along. Humans should not harm animals for their benefit.  These animals aren't owned, however, so there is a problem in assessing the situation.  Hunting for sport is hard to peg for much other than disrupting the environment.  No one owns the animals and it's legal.  It's still clear that many animals are harmed and have to suffer which is inhumane.  There is controversy over this debate and for a change it seems like the hunters have valid points.  Still, it's important for everyone to know that animals get killed for no purpose.

Do Animals Think Like Humans?

Animals are being given more and more credit as scientists find how intelligent they really are.  Obviously they are no where near as complex in thought processes as humans are, however, they continue to surprise us as they demonstrate basic abilities that were once considered only existent in humans.

“in all mammals, there's a limbic system and the amygdala” — central brain areas associated with feelings like pain and hunger, memory and the emotions. Thus, “every animal is hard-wired to have an emotional life,”

As technology becomes greater, new scientific facts are revealed about the intelligence of animals.  Their brains work the same way humans do, after all we are all animals.  Human's have many differences that allow greater mental capacity, however.  This should be enough to argue on the side of animals, that we shouldn't be harming them because they can analyze what is happening.  They have greater mental power than we once thought.  This effects how we think of animals, not in the typical house, but on farms or in labs.  We needs to acknowledge this as we use them, or even try to help them.  At a place like ARF these emotions are addressed, but, everyone needs to know that their animals need attention in order to help them fulfill their rights.

Do Aniamls Have Rights?

Humans have treated animals as if they had no feelings for centuries.  We have expected them to work and die for our many needs.  However, only recently in history have we questioned our overall use for them.  Do they have the intelligence to be treated right, and to what degree?

Chickens, for example, “clearly have interests, preferences and desires and are able to act to satisfy their interests and preferences,” "a fact that should give them at least some “right” to moral consideration by humans, with whom they share those traits, said Gary L. Francione, a professor of law at the Rutgers University School of Law in Newark, N.J."

  These interests are the basis for many "natural rights" that we have in many parts of the world.  It's generally accepted that humans have these rights, and over other animals, but, if they can think in complex ways, then shouldn't they have certain rights?  Whose to say these animals should suffer, but whose to say they shouldn't.  The answers to these debates are going to be revealed to society soon.  The results may just win in favor of the animals.  This would be a victory, and everybody should be aware to the result because it's not just a moral one.  Food, medicine and products could be more expensive as a result.  People in the world have to ask themselves if they are ready to start sacrificing for the animals for a change.  It's obviously an important topic; as seen on the chart, animals are used for more things than most people realize.

Recent Government Action for Animal Welfare

Government action to help animals in homes or on farms has progressed as one might expect.  They slowly added more laws to help protect animals.  In recent history, one can look at a chart to show this steady improvement.  Today states are still adding laws to help animals, but there is a more modern effort to helps animals on farms as only recently has it become a noticeable problem.

It's relieving to look at this chart and see that recently, these laws aren't very basic, but they are very specific.  That's because states are increasing the effort to protect animals.  Still this proves to be a slow process as many states have yet to follow along.  As basic laws have been set for animal welfare, the fight today is at the farms.  The questions asked today also involve whether or not scientist are treating animals properly while the experiment on them.  Farming and medicine may seem like two distant activites that take place in a region no where near us.  However, there are so many industrialized farms and major scientific studies involving animals that it's impossible to overlook their use of animals.  These things are in everyone's backyard and we have a moral obligation to make sure that at least at the local level we aren't promoting the abuse of animals - by buying products made with them.

America's Farms

As farming becomes more industrialized, there becomes more controversy over how animals are treated on the farms.  Farmers are also increasing their effort to confine their work, such as not allowing photographs.  There's a reality that isn't recognized by most people, simply because farming is not as close to a majority of Americans.

“While most people are less familiar with pigs, chickens, fish and cows than they are with dogs and cats, animals used for food are every bit as intelligent and able to suffer as the animals who share our homes,” "says the group on its GoVeg.com blog."

  This blog sums up why animal cruelty should be more important to people and society.  Everyone hears of animal cruelty, but until it's directly effecting us, we won't give it our full attention.  It's important, morally, for us to stop animal abuse in our neighborhoods.  However, it's effecting our everday lives.  A lot of the food we eat is from animals who have been mistreated in a lot of cases.  These animals feel the same way as dogs or cats.  Think of thousands of dogs confined to a large room where they can't move - isn't that different than thinking of them as chickens.  There's practically no difference.  These are the animals that we eat, and we need to stay alert to the reality of our farms, no matter how distant and safe they seem.