Final Reflection

Final Reflection Writing

            The 2nd Blog I wrote was titled “Is the Republican Party anti-intellectual on social issues? “. With this title I was trying to make the point that to, many progressive thinkers, the mainstream republican presidential candidates at the time generally appear backwards on many important social and intellectual issues. My audience was the class and whoever else happened to read my blog, I didn’t respond to them on this particular blog considering, sadly, that I received zero comment responses.  My thesis statement was  “Pleasing the people and helping yourself become re-elected may at first sound similar, What at this point, it really comes down to is, will my policy in favor of the people get them to the polls, or am I better off with campaign funding to sway already active participants in the political process?”.  Looking back now it could’ve been much much better. My thesis should have been closer to the title, rather than that, considering that thesis is vague, and really unrelated to the paper somewhat, I guess I was hoping the blog title would ring more as the thesis than that statement. Although my thesis was not up to it’s potential, my ability to analyze seemed great. I provided many examples on a variety of republican presidential candidates who were backwards on particular, yet important, social issues.  I feel I worked well with other’s work, but I had a hard time getting their exact message across accurately, and not just completely stealing what they said. I think I found a better balance as the semester continued.

 

            My research paper was entitled “Media Bias”, which I think was an appropriate title, sure it wasn’t amazing, but intentionally so. I would rather have my readers focus on the bulk of my paper than have a flashy, but possibly misleading title, I meant to keep it simple and to the point. The thesis statement for my research paper was “The notion that media bias is prominently liberal is a myth, media bias goes both ways and is not always a bad thing, without bias, the news would not be nearly extensive as it is now, and would be unable to present stories from unique and personal angles.”  My audience was, again, my class. They brought up points like why does this matter? I responded with an example that Tucker Carlson used during at television debate where countries with traditionally intensely biased media has become almost ignored entirely by that countries populace.  I demonstrated my ability to analyze with my research that wasn’t particularly meant to support a thesis like mine, but it did.  I think at this point my ability to work with other’s work has come a long way, I was able to find a good balance between getting their points across, but not just writing what they said.

 

            My writing for the most part has stayed the same, but the major thing I did take away from this class was how to use sources more effectively. Near the beginning of the year I had a hard time creating my own arguments that were clearly defined differently from those my research had already attempted to argue for. For example during the first conference about the research presentation, I was having a really hard time coming up with my own argument, and not just rehashing the arguments of my possible sources. Yet the finished product in both my presentation and paper used a diverse array of sources to make a unique point. I think my writing is very articulate, but can be sometimes unorganized, as may be noticeable in this reflection.

Media Bias Research Paper

Media Bias

Cyborski R. Jacob

Northern Illinois University

On nearly a daily basis on news networks, media bias is a prominent topic. There is a long running rumor that media bias is strictly or primarily liberal. News casters on conservative networks often mention "the liberal media", which has created the misconception that liberal media bias far overshadows conservative bias. Also whenever a news media network mentions media bias, it is usually to call that bias unfair, which has created another misconception, The misconception that bias in media is always a bad thing. The notion that media bias is prominently liberal is a myth, media bias goes both ways and is not always a bad thing, without bias, the news would not be nearly extensive as it is now, and would be unable to present stories from unique and personal angles.

            Bias is everywhere, but why is it important? Tucker Carlson, on a television debate, noted the importance of avoiding certain types of media bias. During his debate, Carlson noted (2006) countries where the media has had a history of intense bias, and how the populations of those countries have become totally turned off to the media. Now, those people have a hard time obtaining reliable information concerning their government and a variety of other subjects that regularly appear on the news on a regular basis.  Do I think the American news media is so biased that people are ready to write off nearly all information they present? No, but Americans are surely aware of the bias, or the perception of bias concerning many news networks. According to a study by the Pew Research Center (2009), 37% of Americans see a great deal of bias, 67% see at least some bias, and the category “great deal of bias” received more percentage points than any other.  According to another study by the Pew Research Center (2009), 47% of polled Americans perceive Fox news as conservatively biased, whereas MSNBC is seen by 36% of Americans polled as having a strong liberal bias. Every station examined except Fox News (MSNBC, CNN, NBC, ABC, and CBS) all received scores on the liberally biased category of 30%+, and no station besides Fox News received any more than 14% as conservatively biased. So the notion of a liberally biased media is real, but does is it backed up scientifically?

First I want to start off with the notion that news media is prominent liberal. The problem with those who claim liberal bias in the media is that, there is no scientific evidence to support this claim. Sure they could find plenty of examples of media bias that may be liberal leaning, but those examples could easily be counteracted by an equal amount of examples of conservative bias. Measuring bias quantitatively is no easy task. There have been studies that attempt to quantitatively measure media bias, but these studies run into quite a few problems. Eric Alterman (2006), a columnist for The Nation Magazine and author of "What Liberal Media", said in a debate on media bias "On this issue of media bias, It's an incredibly rich topic for debate, because there's really no normative way to measure it in an academic environment.....You can't control the variable in media bias because time moves on and issues change.....I can say that President Clinton lied about getting a blowjob from an intern and President Bush lied about whether or not Iraq presented a threat to the US....those two lies are not equivalent. The point is you can't say the president was called a liar 18 times in one instance and 17 times in another instance and that proves bias, two issues are not comparable. Issues change, and it's therefore entirely an art rather than a science." What he is trying to say here, is that, media bias is extremely hard to quantitatively measure. The variability of news stories and their bias is too much to compare in a scientific setting.

Although this difficulty has been noted, it has not stopped studies from attempted to quantify media bias. A study was released in 2005 called "A Measure Of Media Bias" by Tim Groseclose. This study attempted to measure bias by assigning media outlets a score between zero and one hundred, zero being the most conservative, and 100 being the most liberal. Their scores changed based on how many times they cited anything that was also cited by a member of congress, then that news outlets score would change toward the side of the scale that is equal to that member of congress' political affiliation. This study produced expected results for the news stations that were polled, Fox News and The Washington Times scored conservatively biased whereas the New York Times scored liberally. Although most networks scored as expected, when this method was extended to think tanks outside the examined group, the flawed methods of this study became more and more obvious with the flawed results it began to produce. For example, Media Matters for America (2005) applied the same procedure as Groseclose’s study to other media outlets, The American Civil Liberties Union, a group that supports the legalization of abortion and gay rights, were scored as slightly conservative leaning. This study also fails to account for any measurement of the degree of bias. In measuring bias, surely the magnitude of the bias is nearly as important as the frequency at which it occurs. This is just one example of a study which tried to measure media bias, and failed, most likely due to what was mentioned earlier in this paper by Eric Altermann (2006), that there were too many variables.

After seeing this study, you might think that no studies can confirm liberally biased media, but surely they must all point toward it. This, again, is untrue. According to a recent study by the Pew Research Center (2012), President Obama did not receive one week of more positive than negative coverage. Of course they had to use a less than perfect method again for measuring positive and negative coverage (how the story was framed and what it was about) but this study does not point towards liberally biased media.  There are studies pointing towards bias in each direction, but each study released has a less than perfect method of measuring bias, because again, there are too many variables to stack up against each other in a scientific setting. There is no authoritative paper confirming bias to be prominently in one direction, the cry of bias being primarily or only from one side has become a cry of political ideologues defending their favorite party and refusing to admit they can do any wrong.

So without any scientific, quantitative studies confirming a prominent liberal bias in the American news media, why is the notion so popular? At times, conservatives can be guilty of widening the goalposts on what is considered liberally biased, and just moments later have a case of tunnel vision when it comes to bias on their own side. Jon Stewart (2012), host of a comedic but serious news program talked about how conservatives crying out about a war on religion were confusing not getting their way with an attack on their religion. I think the same thing happens to news casters, that they confuse non-conservative bias with liberal bias.

If you look back to February 29^th, 2012, when Rush Limbaugh (2012), conservative radio host, said on his show that a Georgetown University Law student was a slut for endorsing government funded contraception. He used a metaphor saying that if the taxpayers are paying for this law student to have sex, that she is in effect a slut. Very few people on the conservative side had called him out on this, including quite a few who had cried liberal bias on much softer topics. One of those conservatives is Lou Dobbs, who hosts a show on the Fox Business Network called Lou Dobbs Tonight. On his show, Dobbs (2012) had called the recently released movie, Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, liberally biased against big industry. Another example is John Bolton, who appeared on another Fox News Network show, The Stossel Show. On his show, John Stossel (2012) was having a town hall meeting, which is where the public comes and asks questions. During this show, a veteran asked a strongly critical question to Bolton where after Bolton had answered, applause was edited in for the television broadcast. This is what I mean when I say conservatives at times are quick to call the left on any sort of possible bias, while slow to recognize their own. That is not to say that all conservatives are ignoring bias from their own side and only accusing liberals of bias, but rather to show an example of how low the standards may be for liberal bias, and how high they must be for conservative bias. This is in part what contributes to a public perception of a prominently liberally biased media.

            Although as you can see, bias in the media is rampant, it is not always a terrible thing. Whenever bias is talked about on the news, it is usually to call out one person or story for being unfair. This has given bias in the media a negative connotation and a very bad reputation within media. Regardless of these perceptions, bias is not always a bad thing. Bias can help reporters go more in depth about the stories they wish to present.  Tucker Carlson (2006) said in a television debate regarding himself as a reporter “The criterion is very simple, tell the truth, so I tell the truth as I see it, but very much from my own perspective so yes I am biased, my job however is very different than that from a straight reporter, whose job merely is to tell you what happened, their job, when a plane crashes is to tell you who was on the plane, when did it crash, etc etc… their job is to bring you the facts unpolluted by their preconceptions, their job is to tell you the news without trying to make a case for a particular position.”  What he means here is that straight reporters are the type that only gives confirmed facts, but he himself is the kind of reporter that includes his personal experience, and what he thinks about the topic from his point of view. This is the kind of bias that is good for the news media, as long as it is clear that whoever presents their viewpoint does not blur the line between fact and opinion.  In this debate, Carlson (2006) also talks about stealthy bias, which is where biased, opinionated reporting is presented as straight reporting. This is also a way to blur the line between opinion and fact, and this is where bias becomes harmful in the news media.  An example of beneficial bias is much more difficult to give, although I believe beneficial news bias is much more common.  David Poulson (2010) wrote on his website Great Lakes Echo “Well, would you say the crime reporter is biased if you overheard her remarking that murder is a poor way to settle a dispute? How will murderers ever get a fair shake in the media if we allow such people to report?” What he’s trying to say here is that, if a crime reporter had said murder is a poor way to settle a dispute, would you call that bias? It is indeed bias, because saying that murder is a poor way to settle a dispute is only the opinion of the reporter. Considering that most people would not disagree that murder is a poor way to settle a dispute, most would not see this type of reporting as bias. He goes on to write “Clean air and water and sustainable communities are worthy goals. I fail to see how acknowledging that is a compromise of journalistic ethics” What he means here is that, if a reporter had said that clean air and water are worthy goals for communities and that is why they support new energy sources, would you call them biased as well? They are using the exact same sort of bias as in the murder example. This is what I mean when bias can be a good thing, a reporter can give a more personal angle on a topic, as long as they make it clear that it is their opinion, preferably by stating that it is so, but it is also acceptable if obviously implied. This is where bias can help improve media. How would you expect a news story, for example, how wrong was George Bush for invading Iraq before confirming there were nuclear weapons? Without media bias and opinions from reporters, these types of stories would not exist. There is no way to quantify how right or wrong an action is, and therefore there is no quantitative way to report on such stories. Bias becomes necessary for a story such as this, and for all stories with any amount of subjectivity being reported on. Why not just leave subjective stories alone you might ask. These types of stories are extremely valuable to helping everyday Americans who are not experts in such fields develop their opinions. Most Americans do not have time to read in depth into the war on Iraq, and even further in depth into every small or large political move regarding it. Reporters publishing biased opinion pieces help Americans learn the reasoning of sides for and against political moves, and if they read a balanced amount of arguments from each side, they should be able to stack them up against each other and form their own opinion all while becoming more knowledgeable on what is going on politically in general.

            Media bias is everywhere, and it does matter. We do not want America to become a country where the media becomes so biased, it is ignored all together and the population subsequently has no source of reliable information on a plethora of topics, but we may very well be heading in that direction if it is not recognized that not all bias is bad, and that bias goes both directions. Studies on media bias generally fail or are insufficient, due to people and issues varying far too much over time to examine fairly in a scientific setting. No one side of the political spectrum is innocent of never using hidden bias or construing the line between fact and opinion. It happens in media, and as long as there is human error, it may very well be inevitable. Media bias can be a great tool in helping reporters give more extensive and sufficient reports on subjects that may be more subjective in nature.  The key is to recognize when reporters are using dishonest tactics to hide facts and present their own opinions, and to be honestly pursuing the truth instead of looking for stories or facts that may support your political ideology to get the most out of the news media.

References

 (2012, April 9). Lou Dobbs Tonight [Television broadcast]. New York City: Fox News.

             Date unknown, although fairly recent due to him talking about The Lorax the movie which came out fairly recently, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYLmgQy6zq8

 (2012). - [Television series episode]. In Stossel Show. New York City: Fox News.

Edited, aired version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4JDX0-Uo1E&context=C4fe2c35ADvjVQa1PpcFM3Lz0PRT9dMCfnwrlWWUBumHHNTrbSxtE=

                        Unedited Version Available Online:

             http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2012/02/27/unedited-students-liberty-video-0

Groseclose, T., & Milyo, J. (2005). A Measure of Media Bias. The Quaterly Journal of Economics, CXX(4), 1191-1237.

 Matters; Philidelphia Weekly. (2005, December 21). Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias" | Media Matters for America. Media Matters for America. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://mediamatters.org/research/200512220003

Poulson, D. (2010, March 6). Reporting with bias | Great Lakes Echo. Great Lakes Echo - Environmental news across the basin. Retrieved April 1, 2012, from http://greatlakesecho.org/2010/03/06/reporting-with-a-bias-for-a-clean-environment/

 (2012). The Vagina Idealogues [Television series episode]. In The Daily Show With Jon Stewart. New York City: Comedy Central.

                       

New Blog Assignment #5

Increasing Voter Turnout

       Low voter turnout is a problem in modern day America. Everyone has heard on the news or some other source at some point that voter turnout rates are low. Whenever I heard this from the news or my teachers in grade school, I wasn't sure what to think. I was uninformed about the problems this caused, exactly how low voter turnout is, and what anyone could do to sway apathetic voters to feel like they make a difference or to get involved in politics. Yet, voter turnout is low, low voter turnout causes misrepresentation, and voter turnout can decide elections and can be increased. 

       Low voter turnout causes public officials only to be held accountable to their voters, and not to whom they represent. Public officials who make bad or unpopular policy decisions may continue to hold office when those who dislike their policy do not make their way to the polls.  According to the Pew Research Center, only 63.6% of eligible voters participated in the 2008 federal elections and only 49.9% of Hispanic eligible voters participated. Along with 47% of Asian Americans, these minority groups are being under-represented in federal elections compared to Caucasians, whom have a low, but comparatively high turnout rate of 66.1%. Youth voter turnout is even worse, According to civicyouth.org, in the 2008 presidential elections only 48.5% of eligible voters aged 18-24 voted.  According to the Pew Research Center, voters aged 18-29 only accounted for 18% of the total voters. this means voters aged 30+ accounted for 82% of the vote. What does all this mean together? Well it is likely that one or more of the aforementioned groups are being grossly misrepresented by current representatives. Issues that are important to young voters are probably different and or opposite those of older voters. Important issues for minority groups may be different and opposite of Caucasians. Low voter turnout among certain groups causes under-representation of those groups and issues important to them.

       According to a case study in the Journal of Elections,  parties that represent the working class would most benefit from high or full voter turnout. Inversely this would mean that low voter turnout experienced in the US would cripple parties for the working class. In the case study cited, they observed and Irish election because Ireland has a low voter turnout rate of ~70%. In Europe 70% is a low voter turnout rate, compared to America's ~61%.  With America's even lower turnout rate than Ireland, we could also expect the influence of parties popular among the common people or working class to benefit even more with a +39% turnout rate. Although the study results showed with a simulated full voter turnout that the biggest change was a loss of 2% of the total vote by a major party, that is not to say increasing voter turnout wouldn't make a difference. According to the Federal Election Committee's website, Al Gore lost the decisive state Florida to George Bush in the year 2,000 by a mere 537 votes. According to Florida's Division of Election's website , only 70% of eligible voters turned out for the general election that year. Would Gore have won if voter turnout was higher? Maybe, arguably, but what is no longer arguable is that low voter turnout rates do not matter, they could definitely changed the course of history by electing a different president, or electing different presidents or lower level representatives throughout the course of history. Therefore, low voter turnout rates do affect policymakers and their subsequent policies. Had a full turnout rate in but one of the lower turnout categories occurred in a close election, that groups interests would most likely be more represented had their desired representative won the election. Therefore low voter turnout rate also causes under-representation for groups with lower turnout rates.

       What can be done about low voter turnout? Some solutions are simple, some are more complex. According to a study by Stanford Social Psychologist Christopher Bryan At Stanford University showed that just by framing people as a voter, rather than a vote, would possibly increase turnout rates. He gave out two surveys each to a randomly selected set of people. The first asked if it were important to vote, while the second survey asked whether it was important to be a voter. 87.5% of responded yes to the second survey whilst only 55.6% did so to the first survey.  Prior to the 2008 election, Bryan's team sent survey's to 133 registered voters in California. After the election, using voting records, Bryan concluded 96% of those who received the "voter" survey actually voted, whereas only 82% of those who received the "vote" survey voted.  Another study by The American Political Science Review Journal showed that peer pressure can increase voter turnout. Techniques used in this study were sending letters to potential voters with messages telling voters to do their civic duty or that they are being used in a study and whether or not they voted would become a statistic. The study also showed increases in voter turnout per household when participants were showed their neighbors and their own voting records. Although I don't see telling people that they will be used as statistics or showing people others voting records as long term solutions, making people aware of their poor voting habits and framing voting in a positive light such as a civic duty could increase voter turnout. 

       As you can see, low voter turnout rates are a problem, but a problem that is not unchangeable. Apathetic voters or those who do not care about politics can be swayed. Studies show that there are methods to increase voter turnout, and many organizations are happy to take volunteers to help increase voter turnout. Many of these organizations use similar proven methods derived from studies to increase voter turnout, such as the non-profit vote organization. Low voter turnout causes under representation among certain groups, and policies that may not be desired by the majority of those represented, rather just those of the electorate. I encourage you to vote, and encourage those you know to vote too.

Works Cited

Bernhagen, Patrick, and Michael Marsh. "Missing Voters, Missing Data: Using Multiple Imputation to Estimate the Effects of Low Turnout." Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 20.4 (2010): 447-72. Print.

Bryan, Christopher, Gregory M. Walton, Todd Rogers, and Carol S. Dweck. "Motivating Voter Turnout by Invoking the Self by Christopher Bryan | Papers by Christopher." Motivating Voter Turnout by Invoking the Self (Christopher Bryan). 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 3 Mar. 2012. <http://stanford.academia.edu/ChristopherBryan/Papers/997611/Motivating_voter_turnout_by_invoking_the_self>.

Federal Election Commission. "2000 Presidential General Election Results." Federal Election Commission Home Page. Federal Election Commission. Web. 03 Mar. 2012. <http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm>.

Florida Division Of Elections. "Division of Elections." Voter Turnout Statistics. Florida Department of State. Web. 03 Mar. 2012. <http://election.dos.state.fl.us/voting/voter-turnout.shtml>.

Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Christopher W. Larimer. "Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment." American Political Science Review 102.01 (2008). Print.

Keeter, Scott, Juliana Horowitz, and Alec Tyson. "Young Voters in the 2008 Election." PewResearch. Pew Research Center, 12 Nov. 2008. Web. 3 Mar. 2012. <http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1031/young-voters-in-the-2008-election>.

Lopez, Mark H., and Paul Taylor. "Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History." PewResearch. Pew Research Center, 30 Apr. 2009. Web. 03 Mar. 2012. <http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1209/racial-ethnic-voters-presidential-election>.

Should abortion be legal?

A popular topic in politics, is and has been for the last so many years, is abortion. I hope to cover why abortion should be legal in the United States. I'll be going over a few, hopefully the most prominent, anti-abortion, and how abortion is good for the country as a whole. Hopefully I'll be able to convince some people to, at the very least, re-think their stance on a very controversial issue that is at the forefront of maybe debates, and a subject which may be the very most divisive subjects in modern america. I would first like to state I am not a big fan of the terms pro-choice and pro-life. These terms seem very much like campaign slogan, false dichotomy jargon. Hardly anyone is anti-choice or anti-life, they both seem designed to make the opposing side look bad.

First I would like to address some of the most prominent anti-abortion arguments, starting with that a fetus or a fertilized egg is a person and subsequently has rights. To counter this argument, I would like to introduce a thought experiment which I heard some time ago, but I am not sure of its origin. I am stating this to ensure that no one is mistaken that this is my thought experiment, but I cannot credit the correct author because it has traveled primarily by word of mouth. Without further ado the thought experiment. Imagine you are a firefighter in a burning building, and there are two people in the building. You only have time to save one of them before the building collapses and you cannot carry them both, which would you choose? Any person should hesitate in choosing between two equivalents, two people. Now say you are in a burning building and there is a canister containing one fertilized egg, or a fetus, and a boy. Who would you save this time? I'm assuming you'd save the boy. This is to illustrate that a fetus is not, in fact, the equivalent of a person. Now say there is a 10 canisters, each containing a fetus/fertilized egg, and again, a boy or girl of whatever age. This time you can choose to save the 10 canisters or the boy/girl. Again I would argue you choose to save the boy/girl. What I hope to illustrate here is that a fertilized egg is not even the equivalent of 1/10th a person. Therefore, a fetus/fertilized egg is not a person, and does not have the same rights.

Say you aren't convinced, and for whatever reason you would choose to save the canisters with fertilized eggs, or you say "sure the fetuses aren't people, but that doesn't mean we have the right to kill them". This next thought experiment by Judith Jarvis Thompson is meant to counter those views. This thought experiment is a little weird, but I find it completely analogous to the situation at hand, and it makes a valid point, so bear with me. Say you want to go to an orchestra, but you read in the newspaper there is a group of violin enthusiasts, who are planning to kidnap someone going to the orchestra and attaching them to their leader, a great violinist who's kidneys are failing. You decide to go to the orchestra anyway, because you really want to see it. You are kidnapped, and you wake up, attached to the dying violinist, who is using your kidneys survive. Now, do you legally have the right to detach the violinist, thus killing him? I would argue yes, he is using your body without your permission. I know this thought experiment is quite odd, but I will go over how it is analogous and makes a valid point. Reading in the newspaper about the violinists plan is analogous of your knowledge that having sex may cause pregnancy.  Going to the orchestra is equivalent to having sex anyway. Being kidnapped and attached is the equivalent of becoming pregnant. Finally having the violinist removed is the equivalent of having an abortion. What this thought experiment illustrates is that, Even if you consider a fetus a person, It does not have the right to use your body without your permission. 

Now I want to cover some statistics regarding abortion, more specifically fetal consciousness. According to a study by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

"

The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed

Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious

The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit

"

From this study, It is safe to assume that a fetus cannot feel pain, nor is conscious before 24 weeks of development, or prior to about 6 months of pregnancy. In a study by Operation Rescue, a pro-life organization, They found 1% of abortions are performed at 21 weeks of development or more. In conjunction with the Royal College study, 99% or more of all abortions in the U.S. are performed while the fetus is unconscious and cannot feel pain. If you've ever watched Fox news, you probably know they are notorious for pushing republican ideals like de-legalizing abortion. Accord to Fox News' website,

"100 are performed in the third trimester (more than 24 weeks' gestation), approximately .01 percent of all abortions performed. "

So according to Fox News, .01% of abortions are performed after the baby becomes conscious and can feel pain.

In this essay I am not trying to claim that abortion is some great thing. I am just stating that sometimes it is a viable option, and whether it is a viable option should be decided by the woman who is pregnant, not the government. Issues such as these should not be decided on emotion alone, but with facts and extended thought on the subject. 

Works Cited

Abortion, Pro's/Con's. "Abortion ProCon.org." Abortion ProCon.org. 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012. <http://abortion.procon.org/>.

Fast Facts: U.S. Abortion Statistics | Fox News." Fox News. FOX News Network, 17 June 2003. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,880,00.html>.

Operation, Recuse. "Operation Rescue." Abortions In America :. Operation Rescue, 12 Mar. 2009. Web. 23 Feb. 2012. <http://www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/abortions-in-america/>.

Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "RCOG Release: RCOG Updates Its Guidance." Welcome to the RCOG. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 25 June 2010. Web. 22 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-rcog-updates-its-guidance>.

Is the Republican Party anti-intellectual on social issues?

With the 2012 presidential election quickly approaching, it is, more and more, beginning to feel like choosing between the lesser of two evils. Both parties are funded and equally so influenced by interest groups. With presidential and other political candidates relying more and more on funding from interest groups, they are becoming more and more desperate to please them, and when a politician has to choose between creating a policy that will help their re-election, or choosing a policy that will please the people. Pleasing the people and helping yourself become re-elected may at first sound similar, What at this point, it really comes down to is, will my policy in favor of the people get them to the polls, or am I better off with campaign funding to sway already active participants in the political process? This is one of many problems with our current political system, but it may not be the most prominent. Considering the upcoming election, we all know both parties have their problems. Sure the democrats have their problematic politicians but, to me at least, the republican party is currently much more problematic.

The republican party has become filled with ideological (more often than not religious also) lunatics. Sure each party has had it's questionable candidates and officers in the past, but recently it seems the republicans have opened the floodgates on idiocy. Just recently, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann, and Christine O'Donnell have emerged into the republican spotlight. Each with gaping flaws in their campaign (which I will go through) which has made me question their status as individuals ready to represent a diverse population.

In the 2008 Presidential elections, Sarah Palin was named the vice presidential running mate to John McCain. We've all seen politicians have simple verbal slip-ups, which I will avoid and focus on her real policy making opinion problems. Firstly, Sarah Palin, apparently sees genetic research as a waste of money. Of course she didn't just say that, but she did it in a more round-about, self-contradictory way. In 2008, in one of her first policy speeches, she pushed individuals and lawmakers to support the IDEA, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In endorsing the IDEA, she specifically mentioned how she hoped to help children with autism.

"For many parents of children with disabilities, the most valuable thing of all is information. Early identification of a cognitive or other disorder, especially autism, can make a life-changing difference."

Now she gave a good reason to endorse IDEA, but the problem became obvious when she mentioned how she'd hoped to fund it. She hoped to transfer funds away from what seemed like, ridiculous earmarks such as fruit fly research.

"Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? [...] You’ve heard about some of these pet projects they really don’t make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not."

Of course Palin was oblivious to the fact that fruit fly research has led to great progress in the field of genetics, such as increasing our understanding of cancer, depression, and apparently not known to Sarah Palin, Autism.

"Now scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have shown that a protein called neurexin is required for these nerve cell connections to form and function correctly. The discovery, made in Drosophila fruit flies may lead to advances in understanding autism spectrum disorders, as recently, human neurexins have been identified as a genetic risk factor for autism."

So here's Sarah Palin endorsing the IDEA, to help children with autism, stating that early identification of such a disease can make a life changing difference, while simultaneously hoping to cut funds on said autism research.

Moving onto Rick Perry, a more recent republican face. He recently released a campaign ad which caused him to receive a lot of flack, and deservedly so.

The sad part about this ad is that I can't tell if Rick Perry is just shamelessly trying to appeal to conservative Christians or is seriously uninformed. In the campaign ad, Rick Perry says

".....there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As President, I'll end Obama's war on religion. And I'll fight against liberal attacks on our religious heritage. "

Firstly, he doesn't provide any reason homosexuals should not be able to serve openly in the military, whereas any straight male or female has the liberty to be fully open about their sexual orientation. Then he claims children cannot pray in school, which is simply false, only that an authority figure in the school may not endorse a certain religion by leading prayer. Then he stirs up the classic imagined war on religion in America. Christians are being so discriminated against in America, their churches are tax-exempt. According to Jon Stewart

"Government hates religious organizations so much that it lets them keep $100 billion a year in offerings tax-free" 

Later in the same episode, he perfectly sums up the misconception of a government war on religion.

“You’ve confused a ‘war on your religion’ with not always getting everything you want."

Moving onto Rick Santorum. Just this previous weekend, the 18th-19th, Rick Santorum said at a speaking event that liberals were anti-science for refusing to use the earth's resources to the full extent of our technology, or essentially not drilling for oil in the United States. It's disturbingly ironic that Rick Santorum can call anyone "anti-science". Rick Santorum, the same Rick Santorum who pushed for Intelligent Design (which has been ruled in Hattiesburg, PA as “ a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory”) to be taught alongside evolution.

In an interview with the associated press, Rick Santorum said this when asked by the associated press "OK, without being too gory or graphic, so if somebody is homosexual, you would argue that they should not have sex?"

".......if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution........ That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. "

Rick Santorum, arguably the current front-runner for the republican nomination has been found guilty of using fallacious slippery slope arguments in the past on gay marriage (At A New Hampshire Speaking Event Santorum said “So anyone can marry can marry anybody else? So if that’s the case, then everyone can marry several people … so you can be married to five people. Is that OK?”) but here he goes so far as to use the slippery slope on the right to privacy saying it grants you the right to whatever you want. This is obviously false, the right to privacy would never allow things such as multiple homicides. It is obvious to anyone this is Rick Santorum's attempt to place his religion into public law.

So is the republican party becoming increasingly anti-intellectual? It would appear so with the recent amount of candidates emerging with enormous popularity such as Santorum, Perry, and Palin, as well as others that I did not cover like Michelle Bachmann and Christine O'Donnell. Although I do not know enough about economic or foreign policy to commentate on their stances in such areas, it seems obvious that republicans on social issues are unable to clear their emotions from the subjects and think logically, or just wish for their religion to become immersed in public policy.

Works Cited

Associated, Press. "Santorum Interview with AP." USA Today. Gannett, 7 Apr. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-23-santorum-excerpt_x.htm>.


Boyle, Alan. "Judge Rules against ‘intelligent Design’." MSNBC.com. MSNBC/Associated Press, 20 Dec. 2005. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/judge-rules-against-intelligent-design/#.T0MWZfEgf_M>.


Brance, Glenn. "Farewell to the Santorum Amendment? | NCSE." NCSE. National Center for Science Education, 5 Jan. 2002. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://ncse.com/rncse/22/1-2/farewell-to-santorum-amendment>.


Cass, Connie, and Jennifer Agiesta. "Rick Santorum Contraception Stance Remains Out Of Step With Nation." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 17 Feb. 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/rick-santorum-contraception-birth-control-social-issues_n_1284176.html>.


Edwards, David. "Santorum: Liberals ‘are the Anti-science Ones’ | The Raw Story." The Raw Story. 20 Feb. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/20/santorum-liberals-are-the-anti-science-ones/>.


Mitchum, Robert. "Fruit Flies' Genetic Wealth Has Scientists Abuzz." PhysOrg.com. 08 Mar. 2009. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.physorg.com/news155751263.html>.


Science, Daily. "Specific Brain Protein Required For Nerve Cell Connections To Form And Function." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 05 Sept. 2007. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070905123832.htm>.


Walshe, Shushannah. "Rick Santorum Gets Booed After Back-and-Forth on Same-Sex Marriage at New Hampshire College Event." ABC News. ABC News Network, 5 Jan. 2012. Web. 21 Feb. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/rick-santorum-gets-booed-after-heated-back-and-forth-on-same-sex-marriage-at-new-hampshire-college-event/>.


Wing, Nick. "Rick Santorum Urges Teaching Of Creationism In Public Schools (VIDEO)." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Nov. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/30/rick-santorum-creationism_n_1120766.html>.