Education

Adam Cohen writes on the subject of today’s school system or lack of it in his editorial “Are We Sliding Backward on Teaching Evolution?” His intended audience range from parents who worry about their children’s education, politicians who regulate laws on our education system and professors or teachers who decide what is taught in our schools. Cohen is a former TIME senior writer, former member of the New York Times editorial board, and teaches at Yale Law School.

He speaks on Tennessee’s recent “monkey bill” which is now law, and how it strays away from teaching evolution and the origins of man. He explains how the new law is intervening with how schools teach science and what is taught. He argues how invalid it is for “part-time legislators to know best when it comes to teaching the science of evolution.” He mentions Tennessee’s determined campaign to impose an ideological agenda on the state’s schools. He brings up recent bills such as the “Don’t say gay” bill which makes it illegal to teach about homosexuality and another to update the abstinence-based sex-education curriculum to define holding hands as a “gateway sexual activity.” He criticizes these methods to change the education system as a “solution in search of a nonexistent problem.” Stating that the schools are not teaching enough education to begin with, further pointing out how irrational these political decisions are. He defends his statement with how the president of the Tennessee Association of Science Teachers even said herself that Tennessee teachers were avoiding teaching the origins of life. Dishing out even more evidence of these irritable decisions, he points out how Tennessee ranked dead last in state and local spending on its schools and how it’s students have lagged in science achievements. In the end he suggests that if state legislators want to give their young people a fighting chance, they should embark on a campaign that encourages science education such as one provoked in the 1950’s in the event of the space race. He ends his argument on these changes to the education system as a costly distraction and illogical way to improve our education system.

I agree with him on his overall point. I believe that politics should intervene with the education system if there is improvement or revision is needed, but to force it by the hands of “part-time” politicians who have no credibility on these issues while ignoring the views of school boards and education administrators is a wrong way to do it.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/04/23/are-we-sliding-backwards-on-teaching-evolution/

Watching the primaries are like watching a reality show

After watching the republican primaries this election, I can’t help but think the same way. They make the primaries seem as though it is some reality TV show but in reality, it is just a bunch of people getting in front of the camera and saying what the people want to hear to win votes while ignoring the real issues at hand. It’s ridiculous to think back in 2008 when Obama ran for president, he fed the public nothing but false promises. It was like watching a parent feed a child candy to keep them happy. He promised to bring our troops home and nothing but change, but how many of those promises has he followed through on. Yes, it’s understandable that when you actually become president, the situation changes; you see the whole picture and all you can do is come up with a solution with the most compromises, but then it brings you back to the question, why have this whole exhibition of two sides if in the end it really doesn’t make a difference. The nominees do what they can to get in and when they are in, they have no responsibility but to keep the important people happy, which sadly isn’t us, the people.

I like your quote because it makes me think about Ron Paul’s message; he talks of nothing but falling back on the constitution, because really, that is what this country was formed upon; that is our foundation. Our forefathers did not write the constitution just so it could be adjusted at will; they were the creators, as a creator you don’t come up with rules if they were meant to be broken and ignored, especially if it has to do with the way of life for a whole nation.

http://jayherrin92.blogspot.com/2012/03/away-with-two-party-system.html?showComment=1334373042750#c1554412042660149644

Unethical Indecency Made Legal

              

      Nowadays I have been noticing a lot of laws being passed that literally makes me tilt my head in confusion. The latest one on Monday was decided by The Supreme Court with a 5 to 4 ruling that those arrested for even minor violations may be strip-searched before being admitted to jail, saying safety concerns outweigh personal privacy rights. Meaning if you were pulled over for not signaling a turn or not having a bell on your bicycle and you were taken to jail, you could be subject to a strip search for contraband or weapons. As ridiculous as it sounds, it has been passed and the way I see it, cops already arrest people just for giving them a hard time but now they have the right to strip search you if they want, further humiliating and degrading you. I don’t think this law should have been passed because it threatens my own and many others privacies and dignities.  

                Justice Anthony M. Kennedy; one of those who supports the law; makes no sense to me at all when he states “The record provides evidence that the seriousness of an offense is a poor predictor of who has contraband and that it would be difficult in practice to determine whether individual detainees fall within the proposed exemption.” He went on further to describe how one of the hijackers on 9/11 was stopped and ticketed for speeding two days before the hijacking; so does that mean that we should be suspicious of anybody that speeds for the next major terrorist attack? His example does not justify his decision to pass this law. I believe correctional facilities should have the power to strip search but only under reasonable suspicions; I shouldn’t have to take my clothes off in front of anybody because one of my headlights went out.

                I have a hard time believing we have people in such high positions in our government with such irrational mindsets to be making powerful decisions that have to do with our way of life. I feel as though my securities are threatened and it makes me wonder for the future.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches----even-for-minor-offenses/2012/04/02/gIQAsZB4qS_story.html

The Fight Is Not Over.

Dominque Browning writes on the subject of the U.S.’s perspective of women in her article “Sexist Bullying: What’s Behind the ‘War on Women’”. Her intended audience is pointed towards women in America, particularly the current young generation coming up who will have to deal with these problems in years to come.

Browning is an editor, writer, and management consultant with a career in executive positions at magazines such as Esquire, Texas Monthly, Newsweek, and House & Garden. She is a co-founder with the Environmental Defense Fund of a new organization called “Moms Clean Air Force” and regularly writes at a blog based on her memoir called Slow Love Life, the New York Times, and other publications.

Browning argues how women’s right that were fought for decades ago have once again been threaten by today’s demographic of women’s capabilities or worth. She uses republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and Rush Limbaugh as opposing figures who threaten today’s image of women and possibly threatening the opportunities of future female generations. She states how Limbaugh “seems obsessed with women who don’t know their places” in this case, referring to Tracie McMillan. Browning quotes him on how he criticizes women, “What is with all of these young single white women? Overeducated doesn’t mean intelligent.” She argues explaining how “McMillan has a BA but that makes her overeducated compared to Limbaugh, who dropped out of college after two semesters.” Then she mentions “Santorum’s view that a college education is elitist and unnecessary; women certainly don’t need it.” By stating their absurd and ignorant comments on women and what these two think of them, she lashes back on their remarks in her article.

She goes on to mention how women of the seventies are getting a sickened sense of déjà vu. Those who fought the same gender equality battles back then are now having it shoved back in their face once again today. She breaks this down by explaining how today in the workplace “women still earn less than men—80.2 cents for every male dollar. She states how “women represent just 3% of Fortune 500 CEOs, and less than 15% of corporate executives at top companies worldwide.” She summarizes the inequality that still goes on today in businesses when it comes to the subject of gender in the workplace.

She finishes her article positively saying that even with these opposing forces, there has been much progress but there is much more work to do. Giving hope to the younger generation of women, she looks to them on how they decide to handle these reoccurring problems in our society. I agree with what she says here. I do believe even though we women have gone through a lot to get to where we are; getting so close to things that seemed impossible such as having a female president; we still have a lot to do in standing up for our rights and pushing forward.

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/08/whats-behind-the-war-on-women/?iid=op-article-mostpop1

The U.S. a Manufacturing Giant Again?

After reading Tonelson’s letter, it seems that his intended audiences are business owners; the general US public, specifically those who are having trouble finding work; and economic analysts.

Alan Tonelson is a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industrial Council Educational Foundation, a Washington research organization studying U.S. economic, technology, and national security policy. Tonelson received a B.A. in history with highest honors from Princeton University in 1975. He has had many articles in major publications such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and The Los Angeles Times. He’s appeared on CNN, TalkAmerica, and Global Economic Media. He has testified before the government committees and commissions such as the Senate Commerce Committee. Not to mention the numerous books he has written on foreign trade; he also lectured at many universities all over the U.S., including Columbia University and Harvard University.

Tonelson’s argument on Michelle Dammon Loyalka’s editorial (“Chinese Labor, Cheap No More,” The New York Times on the Web, Op-Ed, Feb. 18) is that just because China is going through some labor changes, it does not ensure that a “meaningful American industrial comeback” is on the way. He argues on Loyalka’s point how “industrial subsidies, trade policies, undervalued currency and lack of enforcement for intellectual property rights” may have increased Chinese labor costs which in turn would increase price and decrease American imports from China, but “American imports of Chinese products have become less than 5 percent more expensive since 2010”. He mentions how predatory trade policies have transitioned China to high value capital manufactures, which pay better than labor-intensive manufacturing thus raising overall Chinese wages, but “their higher productivity typically offsets these pay levels with improved efficiency.” These non-labor considerations helped push the United States merchandise trade deficit with China up by another 8.2 percent; broadening how close the U.S. is to getting back on its own feet.

I think Tonelson has a good point due to the hard facts that he presents. It would be hard to say that the U.S. is soon to be a manufacturing giant again like it was back in the industrial revolution just because China is having some social problems meeting its younger generation wants and needs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/opinion/chinese-labor-costs-and-american-manufacturing.html?ref=opinion

The War to Come?

            Time Magazine published an article on February 9^th, 2012 titled Four Ways the U.S. Could End Up at War with Iran Before the Election*. It talks about worries on how Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons through their nuclear programs and how the U.S. could end up in a war with Iran before the 2012 elections.

            Jay Newton from Time Magazine states how Iran may be looking for a war to cover “the country’s deep internal political fractures and distract from widespread popular disaffection”. Not to mention Israel is ready to wage war because they are convinced that Iran is intent on acquiring a nuclear bomb as soon as possible. The only thing stopping the U.S. from taking further action is the fact that Iran is still allowing inspectors into their nuclear sites. If Iran decided to deny inspectors right of way or close the Strait of Hormuz in turn shutting down oil flow and provoking international condemnation, it would then pull the U.S. in taking action.

             This article shows how tensions have been rising in the Middle East and what to look for in the near future. This situation would not only affect oil prices around the world but we would also be looking at another world war if Iran or Israel were to take action. As it states in the title of the article, we may see this unfold be the end of the year.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/09/four-ways-the-u-s-could-end-up-at-war-with-iran-before-the-election/