My response to "Am I missing something" by I Count Too!

I remember feeling the pressure on the schools during these testing periods for TAAS and then TEKS and TAKS while in school, and I can't imagine what it is like now that No Child Left Behind is being enforced. I found this blog very interesting as I have only heard negative response from everyone involved in the system on the topic of this kind of testing. Teachers, parents and students all seem to have the same conclusion; the tests are a waste of time and resources that could go to teaching someting that can actually be useful to the students. I am curious to see an argument that is pro-NCLB. There are problems within school sytems due to a serious lack of funding and also a lack of hope in fixing the system. NCLB only serves to further disenchant those involved because it does not address the real issues.

Growing Earmark Problems

Earmarks are a growing problem in congress, with their number and dollar amount increasing even after a threat from President Bush to veto spending bills if the use of earmarks does not decrease.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide where and to what programs taxes and other funds are allocated in the spending budget. Legislators take this opportunity to attach earmarks that support their constituents as well as home town programs. The men and women of Congress do not have to give their name or the reasons behind the amount given to certain programs. While some argue that this allows a more knowledgeable division of funds, others suggest that earmarks encourage the arbitrary allocation of funds. The problem arising from this practice is that it is growing at an alarming rate and their is a lack of oversight and knowledge of the programs that the funds are being sent to.

This practice also encourages competition inside the Congress, with legislators looking to make a good impression on their constituents by "bringing home the bacon". It is doubtful that any of the legislators will give up the potential power associated with the earmark as long as others within congress continue the practice. Arguments against earmarks suggest that this money is being focused mostly on the groups who actively support their representatives while others go lacking proper funding.

Efforts have been made to pressure those within Congress to change this pattern through mandates for public disclosure of financing requests as well as the threat of vetoes from the president. It is doubtful that this practice will dramatically decrease unless their is a more solid and collaborative effort within Congress to discourage the use of earmarks as well as expose the earmarks that are more blatantly for "pork barrel" politics.

Response 1

My comment on United we stand, divided we fall on the issue of the lack of involvement in government by young adults.

I feel that the problem is more complicated than just a lack of interest. I agree that the school system for teaching government doesn't really encourage students to get involved because usually it ends up being like any other class in high school.We don't exactlly expect students in a physics class to go out and get involved in physics the same way we expect them to be immediately involved in their government. Teens and young adults need time in the real world to mature and see how these things actually affect them in their daily life in order to feel motivated enough to pay attention.Also I think a lack of free time and seeing political involvement as more of a chore than something that is stimulationg and productive is a contributiong factor to the lack of attention. I personally work full time while taking two summer courses, and I'll admit there is no way I would be as involved in thinking about government if i was not taking this class. Someday I hope to have enough time to be truely involved and commited to staying up to date in the world of government.

Reaction to Boumediene v. Bush

Most people agree that Guantanamo Bay needs to be shut down. The facility has long been a sore subject to the U.S., resulting in widespread criticism and anger. The ruling in Boumediene v. Bush this past week gives detainees the right to challenge the legality of their imprisonment according to the Constitution. The controversy stemming from this is complex and goes to the core of the American value system. Should the executive branch have the right to such wide interpretation of its powers during wartime as a means of protecting its citizens? Is the judicial branch exceeding its role by stepping into the process of war? What is addressed by Boumediene v. Bush is the use of the term "enemy combatant" and to who this term applies. The term has so far been applied to those captured in the battlefield as well as widely applied to people who pose a threat to national security through means of terrorist plotting. The result is a frightening mess; those who actually pose a threat to national safety are being given the ability to challenge the wobbly legality of their detention. In the article "Boumediene v Bush and the Role of the Courts in the War on Terror", Geoffrey Corn writes, "After a six year saga of legal opinions, policy decisions, and ongoing detentions, the government might finally be forced by this opinion and continuing judicial oversight to clearly articulate and defend the rationale for the expansive application of the term "enemy combatant" that is at the heart of the concept of a Global War on Terror.". The most frightening thing is that it took six years to get to a point where the legality of Guantanamo Bay detention has been set in stone. This is happening much too late in the game. If policy had been set down more clearly rather than using broad terms to fear-monger as a basis for decision making, we might have a suitable resolution to the matter of dealing with people who are national threat. Instead we have had six years of secrecy and been told by the executive powers, "just trust us". Whether this recent court ruling really turns out to be "disastrous" as some have put it remains to be seen. The lesson should be learned that there are great consequences to extreme use of power, especially when thesed consequences are enacted too late.

Anxiety and gas, not a good mixture

In the op-ed piece titled, "Silly season for oil policy", the author points out that lawmakers are struggling to make a good impression on the public by creating and even re-using policy ideas to improve oil prices. The criticism is that many of these policies have not worked in the past and are not likely to make significant improvement on the prices that people are paying in the near or far future. Instead many of these policies serve as distractions to lawmakers who are already overburdened by many different issues. This article serves as a warning to the public who are pushing for the government to get more involved in the issue of gas prices around the nation. Since this is an election year, legislators from both parties are listening closer than ever to the cries from the public for lower gas prices. The danger here is that instead of solving the high prices, many of these policies would make the gas crisis even worse. Yes, gas prices are higher than ever, but it is important for the public to remain patient for the development of alternatives and in the meantime engage in more economical transportation such as car pooling and mass transit. I feel that the media also plays a huge role in the public reaction to gas prices. Not only must we be constantly aware of it as we drive, as soon as we get home the media is catering to our anxiety over this issue by constantly covering gas prices and repeating widely used terms such as "pain at the pump". Thank you, I can read the price on the big sign, please set a different agenda for the day.

Yeah, I'm scared...

In an editorial article titled, "We're now America the terrified", Leonard Pitts criticizes irrational reactions to a culture that is many times interpreted as synonymous with terrorist ideals. These reactions harm our countries ability to function according to our basic freedoms of speech and privacy. It is difficult for people to not have these kinds of reactions on a smaller scale when the Government is sending signals out that we need to be fearful and aggressive in order to protect ourselves. It worries me even more that a Government can hold an innocent person for six days without reason. Pitt points out that we are hurting ourselves by allowing these things to happen to the people who could potentially be our friends and family. Pitt also compares these reactions to a cartoon. The situations are at times ridiculous; a commercial being pulled because of reaction to a scarf!? Thats funny, i can laugh at that, but i think i am laughing because I'm uncomfortable, because I'm deeply unsettled. Another topic of fear is immigration problems near the Mexican border. Putting up a giant wall along the entire border? Talk about the image of a cartoon. I definitely laughed when i heard that one. Not so funny when I found out it was a serious idea. You could convince me that there is a need for better control of our borders when it comes to immigration, but there has to be a better solution than a giant wall. Its so frustrating when our nation is telling us to be afraid, but simultaneously encouraging us to be ignorant about the things we fear. As if closing our eyes and ears to the atrocities near and far is what will protect us from them. At the same time i am torn, because obviously there are groups who want to kill us, and i cannot even begin to comprehend a way to protect myself and others from such programmed hate. In the end, the irrational is the most dangerous influence out there.

A Profile on Barack Obama

In the New York Times article "Barack Obama: Calm in the Swirl of History", Michael Powell digs into Barack Obama's captivating appeal to so many people. I found this article very interesting because I remember seeing Barack Obama in an interview a while before he announced he would be running for president and just thinking "wow". Usually i can not bear to listen to politicians, but there is something in Obama's candor that makes him extremely charismatic and easy to side with. It is interesting to see that he has continued to have this affect on a wide audience of people. I liked this article because it explores Obama's character and history in relation to this affect he has on people. The article mentions the amount of ambition it took for Obama to reach where he is now in such a relatively short period. I believe that this shows that charisma and ambition can be as important in campaigning as a candidate's amount of experience.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/us/politics/04obama.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin