Comment on No Child Should be Forced to Stay Behind

I agree with Amelia's post No Child Should Be Forced to Stay Behind. I have also noticed a stronger concentration on TAKs testing now then when I was in school. I found this blog interesting because she started out with a personal story, which really got my attention. She then went on to make some very clear cut, strong statements like:

"With the way our educational system works today, high school graduates come out
learning nothing more that how to do well on a multiple choice test."

I also thought the fact that she mentioned the other side's argument, and then refuted it, showed maturity and thoughtfulness on her part. When she concluded, she summed up what her main points were in a very logical, fluid statement.
Now for the content. I agree completely with Amelia's thoughts on the NCLB act. We cater to the slower students, which is good, but we ignore the faster students, which is bad. Students that understand things a bit faster then average are forced to sit and listen to the teacher explain the same point over and over again. I liked the way my high school use to do things. We would have the "advanced" classes along with the regular classes. We all learned the same stuff, but the advanced classes were taught at a faster speed and the students in them were allowed to do extra projects. Now, with the NCLB act, my sister is forced to sit and learn what the TAKs test has on it and nothing else with students who don't understand things as quickly as she does. When she asks questions about something that interests her, the teacher says "That's not covered on the test, we don't have time to talk about it." So, yes Amelia we should "come up with a better way to cater to the children being forced to stay behind."

Rape not as serious as murder? That's crazy talk.

The Supreme Court rules that it's unconstitutional to execute a child rapist. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in writing for the majority wrote that:

"There is a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and
non-homicide crimes against individual persons, even including child rape, on the other."

He also went on to say that while the latter may be "devastating in their harm they cannot be compared to murder in their severity and irrevocability."

Raping a child is not as serious as killing someone? I beg to differ. Yes, by murdering someone, the victim's family is deeply affected; they may harbor anger or hatred for the murderer and believe that the murderer deserves to die. I can understand that completely, I think he/she should die too. The hardest thing for them will be to move on, but it can be done. People die all the time, and it's hard, it's very, very hard, but it is possible for us to move on.

But by raping a child, the victim's family is just as deeply affected, they may harbor anger or hatred for the rapist as well, but at least the victim is still alive, right? Wrong. That child has to deal with what happened to them for the rest of their life. Even if he/she goes to counseling, gets all the help that is available for him/her, there is a very, very slim chance that that child's going to grow up normal. Chances are that child will never have a healthy sexual life, will never feel "normal", and in the worst cases, become a child molester or rapist themselves. The victim's family could be able to move on, just as well as the murder victim's family could, but the child has little or no chance of moving on. By being raped, that child's emotional strength has been destroyed. That child, even with great counseling, can't recover from that. They can seem well and healthy, but I don't believe they ever can be.

I believe the Supreme Court needs to take another look at this issue, and seriously consider what they're allowing to happen by outlawing the death penalty for raping a child. If you want to read more about this decision check these links out: The New York Times and The Washington Post

Comment on a Colleague's Work

I found Katelyn's argument for more gun control laws very reasoned and well thought out. It shows a good amount of researched information, good examples to prove that gun control laws are a problem, and a possible solution to this problem.

The only downside I saw to this blog was her possible solution. She said "I believe that even more laws should be put in to place to protect imitation gun users from themselves." I feel that, if by putting more laws on gun control has caused an increase in illegal gun use, real and fake, shouldn't we try a different route? Maybe we could look into why illegal gun use has increased and see if we could stop the "why" from happening. For example, maybe illegal gun use has risen because the gun safety classes aren't really getting the message across. Perhaps we could focus on making the classes mandatory for all ages, and requiring any gun owners or users to take a safety class every two years or something.

I, as a soon to be daughter-in-law to an avid NRA member, have heard the opposing argument many times. I found this blog interesting and it hit very close to home. Overall, I feel that Katelyn did a good job in presenting her side.

US National Government and Facebook

Well, as many of us tech savvy students know, Facebook is a convenient, addictive, time consuming way of keeping in touch with (stalk) our friends. What many of us may not realize is that the US Government has gotten in on Facebook as well. Don't believe me? Click this link and see for yourself.

What I would like to say on this matter is this: What on earth is going through the government's mind? Facebook is for social networking, not for raising awareness about politics. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for raising awareness about politics, but incorporating it into Facebook, or MySpace for that matter, is ridiculous. It seems to me that when you're surfing the web, looking at your friend's new pictures from their party last weekend, making comments, you're not interested in watching a video of the latest debate or reading up on what a close race it is between Obama and McCain; you're interested in checking out what that cute boy's major is.

I understand that the government is trying to spread awareness about what's going on in politics, but I just don't believe that creating a Facebook or MySpace profile is the way to do it. I believe that putting politics on a mainstream source of entertainment degrades it in a way. Politics should be on news channels, written in newspapers, talked about during political classes; not on a website made to entertainment.

I believe the best way for the government to peak interest in politics is to keep it short and simple. People, as a whole, aren't geniuses. We like it short and simple. Nowadays, everyone's in a hurry. Gotta be somewhere, gotta make that money, no time for issues that don't concern me. I say the government should make politics short, simple and show people how much each decision will effect them. Then people will be interested.

For example, instead of throwing words around like "caucus", "superdelegates", or "electoral college" on news channels, define them for the listeners; put a little scrolling bar at the bottom of the screen or something. Don't spend 30 minutes talking about what Clinton meant in that last statement. Talk about what she stands for, what the issues are that she cares about and what she can do for the common American in simple sentences.

We're now America the Terrified

In the commentary, "We're now America the Terrified" by Leonard Pitts, Jr, found in the Austin American Statesmen, the post 9/11 America is discussed.

He states that since 9/11, Americans have been in a constant state of panic. I couldn't agree more. I remember, back in 8th grade Science class, when I first heard the news. It didn't seem to affect Americans then, but by the time I was a sophomore and junior in high school I could tell that that one action had changed the mindset of America drastically.

People were seeing terrorists everywhere; anyone that was even close to Middle Eastern descent was looked at funny. It seems to me that even the government was highly suspicions of anyone that was living in American who were originally from the Middle East.

The example Pitts uses in his article is the "scarf that made people scream". Rachel Ray wore a scarf while doing a commercial for Dunkin' Doughnuts that some people claimed looked like a head scarf worn by the late PLO leader Yasser Arafat. Of course, Dunkin' Doughnuts pulled the commercial. After I heard about this I went and did some research of my own. I saw some shots of the commercial and, in my opinion, that scarf looks like a scarf. Yes, if you are constantly worried about another 9/11 attack, I could see where you might, with a big stretch of the imagination; decide that the scarf is, in some way, connected to Arafat, but any rational human being could see that her scarf is just a scarf, nothing more.

So, in conclusion, the article “We’re Now America the Terrified” discusses how paranoid Americans have become due to the terrorists attacks. I agree with Leonard Pitts and believe his article is worth checking out.

Is Barack Obama too naive to be president?

In the Slate news article, "Is Barack Obama too naive to be president?", Fred Kaplan talks about accusations from Hilary Clinton and John McCain that Obama is too naive to handle the commander in chief position.

During CNN's YouTube debate the question was asked if either one of the candidates would be willing to speak with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea "without preconditions" during their first year in office. Obama said that he would, while Clinton said that she wouldn't make that "promise". The article then goes on to clarify that Obama meant that he would need to have an agenda and that preconditions shouldn't be required when talking to other countries. It mentions the fact that the US is no longer the superpower we used to be, so a presidential visit isn't as special as it once was and compliments Obama on his grip of the situation.

I highly recommend that you read this article because I really enjoyed it. It brought up new ideas for me to think on and helped me realize the troubles that the new president will have to face.