4. Planned Parenthood in Election

Click here to read the blog.

In Jayne Lyn Stahl's 2012 elections blog "Women are the New Illegals", she addresses the concern of Republicans cutting down funds for Planned Parenthood, therefore limiting women from competing for the same jobs and more importantly their rise to equality. Stahl refers to women as "illegal immigrants" into the workforce because men of the past generation are unaccustomed to women not housekeeping and out competing for blue and white collar jobs. As a result, these men would be more likely to vote for the Republican candidates (Romney, Santorum, Gingrich), especially rich white males. Arguing that the pro-choice/pro-life debate has caused a sharper contrast between the two parties, Stahl sees through Republican candidate Romney's campaign that if he wins the presidency the Supreme Court will also be swayed and push back progress on establishing equal rights. 

This article interested be because the topic captured what we learned from Unit 1 about how the systems of government link together to work with Unit 2's explanations for citizen participation (through voting, writing to officials, etc.).  After learning about the recent increase in the number of women voters, I wonder how this blog implying sexism of the Republican party influence the votes of women and men. I agree with Stahl to a certain extent. Throughout my generation, I have noticed more women holding all types of jobs including those with high pay correlated with the increase of women attending colleges. I don't agree that we need a Democratic party in order to improve equality, which Stuhl believes the Republican candidates just turns their head in the presence of the nation's inequality issues and focus on border control instead. Perhaps if the people demand a change, a Republican in office would address the issue just as a Democratic president would. 

However while reading, it was important for me to keep in mind that The Smirking Chimp contains more liberal blogs. This became apparent in Stahl's opinionated commentary about  the U.S. needing "half a century, and a Democratic administration, to achieve" safeguards for equality. Stahl targets readers who share her left-leaning views, mostly Democrats, and those who are interested or concerned about the Republican candidate's plans. Consequently, this author is not 100% credible due to her bias views and possibly slanted information to persuade the reader into reconsidering the Republican party's commitment to equality. 

3. Editorial: A Weakened Miranda Rule

Click here to read editorial.

In The New York Times editorial "A Weakened Miranda Rule", the author bring to our attention the ruling of Howes v. Fields on February 21, 2012. This case involved a sheriff interrogation that did not notify Fields of his rights to decline the interrogation. Although Fields was told before hand his right to go back to his cell at any time, the author suggests this would have been uncomfortable to do in a police stressed situation. The result? Something that Fields said led to his sentence of 10 to 15 years of prison.

Miranda rights were established after the Miranda v. Arizona trial in 1966 to protect a person's Fifth Amendment right to refuse answering self-incriminating questions. A crucial part of Miranda rights to understand is that before an arrest the protections terms do not apply, and the voluntary answers to questions can be admissible in court. However, in Fields' case, he was already under arrest and not read his Miranda rights. Therefore, all statements can be used against him in court.

The author seems well informed about the rules established by Miranda rights and the Howes v. Fields case. He or she intends to spread awareness of this injustice to anyone who is concerned about their rights being curtailed. The arguments made sway towards the author trying to convince the readers that the police dominated atmosphere did lead to Fields' unprotected statements. The author believes that the Supreme Court's decision not only effected the fate of Fields, but also the police's definition of custody that may avoid the true principle implemented by Miranda rights.

I agree with the author's straightforward opinion that the Howes v. Fields case deeply damaged our Miranda rights to a certain extent. Although this trial may not have hit home for many American citizens not involved with court, the right to remain silent is a privilege we should be informed and aware of. The author's opinions about the results sounded a bit extreme perhaps for persuasive purposes. On the other hand, would this slip of not being told the Miranda rights have expedited the case to the truth by putting some pressure on Fields in the interrogation room? Maybe a continuous "pleading the fifth" has hindered the results of court cases. All in all, I do believe that not telling a suspect his or her rights is an injustice and Miranda rules should not be slurred to accommodate a Supreme Court decision.