Final Exam Part 2

My definition of a well informed citizen of the 21st Century is someone who is readily willing and able to stay up to date with current events and ideas, and additionally be able to developed informed opinions on the aforementioned subjects.These subjects would include various social issues, political climate, as well as economic awareness.


This is the same concept of a well informed citizen that I had at the start of the class, it hasn't changed. Even though I have gained some new knowledge through taking this class, I believe that my initial ideas still maintain their validity. Regardless of any new info that arises, the basic idea of staying up to date and informed on the world around you is still a grand idea, and i continue to stand by it.

Final Exam

The question that I would like to pose is: "Should the government be responsible for the regulation of videogame distribution. The reason that I chose this question is that I am very interested not only in videogames, but also the videogame industry as a whole. And, this issue is becoming of rising prevalence in recent months, with a reinvigorated series of bills attempting to regulate the sale of games, after previous failed attempts. If one is not up to date on the videogame world, you would not know how far games have come since the days of Super Mario Bros. Games have advanced very quickly in a very short span of time. Videogames have become more and more realistic, and a significantly larger amount of games feature violence than ever before. It is the topic of these more violent games, such as Call of Duty, or Mortal Kombat that have warranted regulation of the industry. To combat this issue, videogame companies actually took responsibility for their own actions, establishing the self-regulating ESRB. The ESRB, or the Entertainment Software Rating Board, was created in 1994 to review and label games that have potentially damaging content, such as crude language, sexually explicit images, or blood and gore. It seems, from politicians views, that this regulation is not enough. The bills that have been proposed, such as the  "The Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003.", suggest that that the ESRB ratings are nice guidelines, but that it does very little to actually regulate the sales of more inappropriate games to improper audiences. The bills attempting to be passed hope to impose strict punishments on those who facilitate the sale of violent videogames to minors. All legislation of this variety however has been promptly shot down by the videogame industry's crack legal team.


In the government's point of view, violence in media should be treated the same as pornography. They are having trouble making this view popular however. To help back up their claim, there have been findings that show increased aggression in children that play violent videogames. This logic is straightforward, but fairly loose. The relationship between videogames and aggression and physical violence is insignificantly correlational;  during the first gaming boom ('94-'00) violent crime related arrests in youths and young adults went down by over 25%. I believe that this is because violent videogames provide another vent for anger and aggression other than physical violence. And one of the key reasons legislation continues to be stopped is because such regulation is seen as unconstitutional, encroaching on our first amendment rights to freedom of speech. My personal belief, shared by the common person, is that it should be up to the parents to decide what games their children should be playing. The ESRB gives parents the necessary information to make a judgement, and I don't think any further regulation is really necessary.

Sources:
http://www.theeca.com/video_games_government

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/regulating-video-games-parents-or-uncle-sam

http://www.theparentszone.com/parenting-tips/violent-video-games-parental-or-government-regulation-required/

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/arts/television/21vide.html?pagewanted=all

Do We Have Too Many Rights?

I believe that while we do have considerably more rights than many other developed countries, we could still better ourselves by adding a few more rights, especially in the social and religious realms, because we need to be open to all forms of expression as long as we don't harm or encroach on the freedoms of others. Free speech is a right that we are allowed to exercise to an extent much greater than other states. Take this for example: Gregory Lee Johnson burned the flag of the United States in protest. Should this have been protected? I think it should as long as the burning is done safely. If the government illegalizes specific acts of protest, the action could very well intimidate its citizens, scaring them away from opposing the government. This could be a slippery slope, ending the government taking complete control, simply because the general population was too scared to do anything. That would be contrary to our constitutional ideologies which state that it is the right of the people to control what their government does. This freedom of speech is very important and perhaps there could be more done to ensure this right is protected, but I am content with the extent to which this right protects us. Another right that is important to U.S. citizens is our right against self-incrimination. Before one's Miranda rights were needed to be explicitly stated, the police could interrogate people whom did not know they had the right to be silent. In the case of Miranda v. Arizona, it was established that the criminal should be informed of his rights. This, I believe, is very important. It prevents people from being falsely pressured into admitting to crimes which they did not convict. It is mostly to ensure that innocent people are not locked up, but it has also allowed guilty people to walk on technicalities. Regrettable as that is, it is necessary. It results in a justice system that encourages more concrete evidence to be needed for convictions, which, presumably results in more accuracy and a reduction in wrongful imprisonments, which I believe to be a positive thing. There are other freedoms such as abortion and gay marriage which are very controversial, but I believe they should protected as rights because they do not harm others. By illegalizing these practices on, for example, religious grounds, we open the door to remove any right that anyone opposes, simply because said individual would not condone the action personally, which could result in fewer and fewer rights as we try to insulate the easily offended from actions that neither harm nor even personally involve them. As a whole, all our rights are definitely needed, as I believe a reduction in rights would be detrimental. Furthermore, more rights need to be explicitly given to us. While I touched on the continued legalization of abortion and the universal legalization of gay marriage, there are plenty of other things such as legalization of marijuana complete with taxation similar to tobacco, and clear national legalization of stem-cell research, that should be legalized. These issues are primarily social, and it is not the government's place to govern us morally. While I understand these views are highly controversial and are seen as extreme to many, I believe that the people should be able to govern themselves morally as long as they don't harm others. At the least, we should protect the rights we do have. In a worst case scenario involving the removal of freedoms, it could be a slippery slope into the reduction of all our rights, and that would be far less preferable to having to accept other people exercising rights we may not agree with completely.

Political Party Analysis

Our country runs on a bipartisan system. This being said, our choices as voters between the two parties should be drastically different, correct? For the most part, this statement is true. The parties are basically exact opposites, or at least that's what the graphic would have you believe. However, the two separate parties do have their similarities, but the graphic attempts to hide them from your average viewer. For example, both Democrats and Republicans are shown to be very religious, for the most part. This showcases that this obviously must be something that our society as a whole cares about, regardless of political affiliation. Additionally, the graphic also draws much attention to the importance of family on both sides of the political spectrum. This is not an inherently political concept, but it is given more emphasis than a more politically heated issue like religion, which I find interesting. And lastly, the key concept that is shared between both parties is the end goal. Both parties have set out to create a government that provides for it's citizens in the best way it possibly can. Sure, as the graphic shows, the Right and the Left have drastically different ways of going about it, but both sides share the same subheadings. Two different sides working to accomplish a similar goal.

How to Improve Elections

The system that the United States uses to elect its leaders has proven itself in its ability to elect capable leaders. Be that as it may, this system is far from perfect. I have a few suggestions for how this system could be improved. Our founding fathers outlined a government “by the people, for the people”. I feel as if this is not fully represented in modern elections. The question isn’t as much “Vote for the person you want to lead the country.” as much as it’s “pick whichever one of these predetermined figureheads you like better.” This is because not everyone has an equal shot to run. Any citizen should be able to run for president, but the race is monopolized by career politicians. Local leaders who gain popularity should have access to some sort of government fund to avoid the trouble of these career politicians remaining in charge just because they’re the only ones who can afford it. Being CAREER politicians, they know nothing else but politics, and can’t really relate to the general populace. Additionally, the election process itself is inadequate. With the electoral college, not all citizens are given as equal of a voice as they should in elections. Voters in larger states have power taken away from them and transferred to voters in smaller states to make it “more equal.” But this process is obviously flawed. If we are to keep some form of elector system, there must be an equal ration across the nation of citizens to electors, regardless of land area. A final suggestion I would have to improve this system would have to be to decrease the role of advertisements and mudslinging in campaigns. The focus needs to be on the candidates and what they stand for, not the candidates wording things to get the most votes. It should be clean cut which candidate stands for what, no funny business, so that voters can make correctly informed decisions and we will end up with a president who represents what the people truly want to see in their governing body.

The Founding Documents

Something that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution have in common is the focus on a just government, ruled by the people, not by a singular royal. The Declaration outlines the need for this government, while the Constitution actually goes on to set up such a government. This desire for what will become modern democracy is stated in the Declaration with the line: “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.” To avoid the tyranny of the previous regime, the Constitution enhanced this democracy by breaking up the government into separate bodies, such as “a Senate and House of Representatives.” In addition, the Constitution establishes the process by which a leader is selected by the people in Article II of the document. The founding documents can be seen as very similar, as the central goal of each is the establishment of a new government system- democracy. One of the fist lines of the Declaration, shown above, states in the founding father’s desire for a government run by those it governs. This idea is only reinforced by the Constitution, which, in its various beginning articles, outlines how the different members of the political system are to be elected by the people. In addition, the Constitution also calls for the new government to be broken up into several branches. Although this breakup is not specified in the Declaration, the reasoning behind the split is, however, found in the Declaration. The Declaration’s argument is against tyranny, and breaking up the power between separate government bodies is an effective way of doing so. So it can clearly be seen that the founding documents are fundamentally similar.

Checks and Balances- The Key Constitutional Principle

The most important of the four principles of the Constitution, in my opinion, is the system of Checks and Balances. It is a popularly held belief that power corrupts. I also hold this to be true. The goal of the Constitution was to take power away from one singular ruling body by splitting the government up into several branches. This split would be pointless without Checks and Balances. Without this system, each branch would try to gain as much power as possible. But, the other branches will keep each other at bay in their own desire for the most power, keeping the power evenly distributed for the most part. Secondly, we all know that people in power tend to get carried away. It is very likely that a politician may overstep his or her bounds. As the common man cannot be expected to know the exact parameters of each politician’s position. Thus, the system of Checks and Balances is set up for the government to regulate itself, in a way. Whenever a person holding a certain office bleeds his authority into an area other than his own, the “system” will automatically correct itself. Finally, the reason that this principle far surpasses the others in importance, is that this is the principle that keeps all the others running smoothly. This is the most basal form of regulation set up in our Constitution. The system of Checks and Balances ensures that our government is strong, but only when all of its branches are working together. If any one branch were to gain more power over another, the other constitutional principles would be negligible. Therefore, I believe the most important principle of the Constitution is the system of checks and balances because it is the glue that keeps our unique government from falling apart.