Political views: none
Political experience: none
Political knowledge: none
I am the average American. Follow me and see how far a little education can take a person.
While keeping records would certainly assist in determining the magnitude of the educational crisis, and perhaps even point out particularly troubled areas in our nation, the numbers do nothing to ascertain what is causing students to not complete high school.Discovering that requires a less mathematical and more human approach to the problem.
Barbara Pytel, in her article “Dropouts Give Reasons” quotes The News Journal who interviewed 500 dropouts and asked what made them decide to quite school.Eight different reasons were sited, and a quick look at the percentages shows that the students often listed more than one reason for leaving.I purpose that the eight reasons can be reduced to three main causes: a lack of interest and motivation, difficulty with learning the material, and life obligations interfering with school.
Recently I had the privilege of spending some time with students from Denmark who where participating in a study abroad program with ACC.These students were the same age as juniors and seniors in high school here, but educationally they were at our college level.I was able to question some of them and learned about their amazing school system.In summary, they have an incredibly flexible system that focuses on finding the right path for each individual student.What tests they do have are more for determining the student’s strengths and tailoring their education accordingly.The first 9 years are mandatory, with the first several years focused on basic education and a set curriculum.The later years are more diverse, combining a set curriculum with electives in various career paths.If after 9 years the student has yet to figure out what direction to go in, there is an optional 10th year, with nothing but electives.From there the students can go to a trade school, which is basically paid training, or secondary school, which is similar to community college.The students that came to ACC were in a secondary school for Humanities.Once finished they will go on to universities that focus on their particular field of studies, such as journalism, politics, music, etc.
Now, it seems to me that this type of approach would solve all three problems mentioned for dropping out.The cost would be somewhat prohibitive; Denmark citizens pay extremely high taxes to cover it; but the benefit of ensuring the US stay competitive in an increasingly well educated world market makes this venture worthwhile.Also, a complete restructuring of our system may not be necessary.Perhaps we can pick and choose which aspects would be most beneficial, and implement those.In any case, something must change, before we find ourselves a third world country.
It was once said that if a family could see the bottom of the pork barrel, then they were in deep trouble financially. Once a common sight in household pantries, they contained salted pork that was used for flavoring dishes and as travel rations. To run out of this inexpensive item meant that a person or family was on the verge of starving.
Later this term was coined for government, namely pork barrel politics. The idea behind pork barrel politics is to take money from the government’s “barrel”, filled with “pork” garnered from taxpayers, and give it to benefit various constituents. Smacking almost of bribery, these moneys go to pet projects that are generally only useful to the constituents’ local districts. In return, the elected official who earmarked the funds gets “credit” in the form of votes or support.
Once vetoed by President James Madison as unconstitutional, pork barrel projects have become commonplace, even expected. While these pet projects are often low budget, especially when compared to overall government spending, taken in total the amount becomes a bit ridiculous. Last year there was 17.2 billion spent, and the year before that 29 billion.
Now, 17.2 billion is nothing compared to the 2.8 trillion that the government spent that same year, but it’s no chump change either. I’m sure there’s a few projects out there that could greatly benefit from that pork, and at the same time help all taxpayers. Projects like cancer research, and in particular, the dichloroacetate treatment, which shows promising results but because it can’t be patented, holds no monetary interest for pharmaceutical companies.
Either way you spin it, pork barrel spending is a ridiculous practice. The idea that our representatives use our own money to garner our votes--while a humorous joke on us--seems unethical, and gives a bad name to our representatives. Besides, with the current financial trouble our country is in, we’ve past the point of seeing the bottom of the barrel, and are now licking salt off the sides. It’s time we close the lid on pork barrel spending, and find a new way to feed ourselves.
In Counterpunch, a left leaning blog edited by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffery St.Clair, Mr. Cockburn wrote a blog entitled Blow Ups and Bombers.In it, he criticizes the third candidates’debate, in summation stating that both candidates failed to address the worldwide economic crisis, instead retreating “to mechanical reiteration of their tax plans, their health plans, their plans for Energy Independence…”.Mr. Cockburn then changes from a very balanced criticism to a direct attack on Sen. McCain; first smearing his education, then quoting an e-mail sent to his blog by a “medical researcher” that assesses his current health in terms that paint a very negative picture.Following a few plugs for his newsletter, Mr. Cockburn concludes that the current financial disaster gives the left the best opportunity since the depression to gain control of the government.
Mr. Cockburn’s first point, that of debate criticism, while image laden, does a good job at illustrating the importance of the current financial catastrophe, and how disappointing it is that the candidates failed to adequately address the issue.Mr. Cockburn uses several verifiable facts to back up his argument, and combined with the emotional appeal he calls for with his imagery, creates a compelling argument for a high level of attention that should be applied to the financial crisis.From there he looses balance, and his left leanings show through.Because this is a blog for the more liberal minded, the criticisms against McCain are suited to the audience, but the tactics that he uses are somewhat underhanded.
First, he mentions McCain’s education, implying that because he graduated low in his class, he must somehow be deficient mentally, without taking into consideration how difficult or prestigious the school was that McCain graduated from.Second, he attacks McCain’s appearance, and uses a quote from a source that sounds authoritative to substantiate that McCain is ill, and therefore not fit for the White House.
Both of these arguments contain two obvious logical fallacies.The first is an abusive ad hominem, which is when the arguer uses attacks on the person’s character or physical appearance to discredit his/her position, which Mr. Cockburn utilizes in both the school statement and the health statement.He also uses an appeal to authority, or argumentum ad verecundiam.These types of appeals are not always fallacious, as when a doctor whose focus is respiratory states, “Smoking is bad for the lungs.”This authority figure has the proper experience to argue against smoking.The “medical researcher” that Mr. Cockburn uses as his authority is somewhat suspect, and leads one to question the researcher’s credibility.
Mr. Cockburn’s conclusion that the left has an opportunity to gain control of the White House has some merit, although his argument for this case is weak.Historically speaking, during times of great upheaval in economic or societal issues, the US goes through a realignment of power, where one party gives way to the other.Certain key issues, such as the financial crisis, the several wars the US are engaged in, and the continual development of civil rights point towards such a time of change.Mr. Cockburn could have presented a more solid argument, without the use of fallacious methods, and still have made the same points.
Peter Berkowitz and Emily Messner published a commentary in Politico, a media organization based out of Washington, DC that purports to be neutral in matters of politics.Their commentary “Debates should be more than sound bites”, criticizes the current debate format and offers an alternate method of holding debates.While their conclusion that the present debate format is lacking in giving the public solid information about the candidates is valid, their argument against the format is not solid, and the alternate method offered has many flaws.
They open the commentary by stating that the Presidential debates are the “most watched broadcasts on TV”, indicating that because of this they are important to the American people.While it is true that the debates have high Nielsen ratings, further research shows that these ratings are only high for cable viewers, not broadcast, indicating that a large section of the American populous is not watching these debates.
The authors continue on, briefly describing the current debate format, interspersing their description with language that clearly indicates their displeasure with the format.While their description may adequately express their opinion about the current system of debating, as well as give an accurate portrayal of the debating platform, it provides no empirical evidence that the system is in fact dysfunctional and no longer serving its purpose.Perhaps they should have included that according to the Museum TV web site the ratings have been steadily falling, a clear indication that Presidential debates are not holding the attention of the American people.
The writers then bridge from criticism to their alternate debating method.They start with a section showing how the American people would like the debates to allow each side more time to express their ideas, deriving this information from a quote from “The Debate Book” by Ron Faucheux, the current media favorite for quotes. This argument is one of the few solid points in the piece.Unfortunately, they follow with an attempt to prove that moderators are not necessary, using the statement that “Many experts believe that media panels are ineffective” without indicating who these experts are.
While pretty on paper, common sense says that this method would fall apart after the first opening argument.In an effort to out sell his or her opponent, each side would be liable to speak longer than allowed, drift off topic, or throw accusations at the other side.This idea fails to take into account human nature, and human’s desire to win, sometimes at costs that go against conventional norms of behavior.
Overall, this commentary, while correct in its summation that Presidential debates have lost effectiveness, fails to provide solid evidence. The alternate plan offered is based off a slippery slope of logic, thus ensuring an inaccurate conclusion. Because of this lack of facts the strength of the argument is lost, an unfortunate end, for something that is truly an important issue.
So it seems to me, that as the world careens towards a global economy, it is becoming increasingly important to have a president with a firm plan of action with regards to foreign policy.I also have a penchant for reading newspapers from other countries.This is not to criticize American newspapers, I have just found that it is helpful to get an outside view of events; a birds eye view of our country.With those two things in mind, I highly recommend reading the following article, an overview of each presidential candidate’s stance on foreign affairs, from the BBC News.The article is divided into world regions; first listing McCain’s plans for a given area, then Obama’s.Included is each candidate’s experience or past reactions to the different regions.
This was my response to a question posed by my government teacher. I welcome any discussion on this topic. The question was :
Some parts of the Constitution seem unclear, unnecessary, or outdated. Should the Constitution be rewritten to reflect modern concerns?
The real question here is whether the form of government that the Constitution outlines functions in the modern world and whether our concerns are the same from the 1700’s to the present day.
To both questions, I say yes.For the first, our founders had a great deal of foresight when structuring our government.They anticipated the growth of the country, as evidenced by Article IV, section 3.They anticipated disagreements, as seen in Article III.They even anticipated the necessity to add to the constitution, as shown in Article V.The very structure of the government, with its checks and balances, ensuring that no one gain too much power, shows an intimate knowledge of human kind’s tendency towards self-serving purposes.Overall, the framework for our government allows for flexibility, while providing a strong enough foundation to build a nation on.
This leads to the second question about past verses present concerns.As humans, what we desire and what we need has changed very little throughout history.We like to think that in our enlightened times we are somehow different from our cave dwelling ancestors.We are not.Consider this; is graffiti on the side of a building that different from paintings on cave walls?Both show a desire for self-expression and decoration of our homes.Is the alleged clubbing of hapless cave women that different from going to the - perhaps too aptly named - club to find a date?Both represent the desire to reproduce.We may have more toys nowadays than those of our forebears, but even that represents a continuing human desire to ease the sufferings of life.
In summation, we as a people still desire the right to be treated fairly.We still desire peace in our homes, the ability to defend that peace, and the right to promote our own well being.Above all, we desire freedom.These ideals are perfectly expressed in the opening of the constitution:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
After turning 18, I dutifully registered to vote. At the first opportunity I went to my neighborhood-voting center, armed with a book in hand to keep me occupied in the anticipated line.
On arrival, I discovered no line. The rows of voting booths were empty. The workers, excited to have a person come, any person, explained to me how the process worked. I stepped into the booth feeling confident; proud to exercise the right that my fore sisters had fought for. I closed the curtain, turned to the table, and proceeded to read the first line.
That’s when I found that I had no clue what I was doing. On the ballot were district things, law things, and things that I had no name for. What did this law mean; it sounds good, has a lot of big words, but what is its practical application? Who is this person I can vote for and how come they have no competition? What if I don’t want to vote for them; do I leave it blank; will blank become district judge; what is a district judge anyway? Just WHAT is going on?
After an hour of picking tigers by their toes, I left. The "I voted" sticker seemed to mock me. It said things like "you really didn't do anything" and "you should've just stayed at home" and "you proved the opponents of women's suffrage right".
I realized then that if I were to become a responsible, informed participant in democracy, I would have to learn how the government works. Only after can I decide if I am a democrat, or republican; if I am for, or against; if my voice is really heard, or if - like Mao’s paper tiger – I am all show, and no substance.
