Response to Valerie's Stage 7 Post

Valerie,

I completely empathize with your opinion (stage 7), and appreciate the level of thought that you are putting towards these complex issues. Being aware of the still-present disease that is racism, we are at least able to talk about it, not letting ourselves become too comfortable with its small, yet lingering residual presence. There are those who believe it to be completely dead because they have never seen a segregated restaurant, or a race-restricted school. The truth is much uglier of course. Like you said, it is still around, never left, and if you pay attention you can still see it out there in the real world.

I also question the benefit that Clinton’s volunteering might bring to the country. I question the fact that things would be much different if Clinton had won. There would be the same level of hate and regret, only it would have been expected. To try to ease your fears of the Clintons, I would recommend searching YouTube for a clip of Clinton enthusiastically celebrating the death of Gaddafi by paraphrasing Julius Caesar. The truth is easy to see; politicians or not, people will always look after themselves first, even if that means going against any oaths you’ve made to your country.

In the end, I think that you did a good job expressing your feelings about what was an ugly and faulty exercise of our democracy. Unfortunately we have to wait a bit longer for our first matriarchal leader, but at least that gives you time to prepare!

-Jose

Capital Punishment and its Consequences on American Government

The eighth amendment of the US constitution prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments for crimes. Even though this vague prohibition is written in the constitution itself, every justice has decided that this does not include the death penalty. For moral, practical, and monetary reasons, the death penalty should be completely abolished in America.

For the record, there have been moments in US history where the death penalty has been temporarily put out of use. In the Furman v. Georgia case, the supreme court decided that states were being too flexible with their capital punishment decisions. The court didn’t ban the penalty itself, since the case dealt with the fact that only the inconsistent application of execution as punishment was cruel and unusual. This stopped all executions for a while since most of the states did not have clearly defined guidelines for applying the death sentence. States quickly caught up and updated their laws to accommodate the supreme court’s decision. The number of prisoners in death row rose back to those before Furman.

Another instance where the death penalty was paid some attention was in the 1988 presidential election where democratic contender Michael Dukakis was asked about his position on it. The moderator asked whether he would favor the execution of his hypothetical wife’s rapist and murderer. Dukakis, being an opponent of the penalty, denied that he would, insisting that there are more effective alternatives to dealing with criminals. This is believed by many, including Dukakis himself, to be the point where he started to lose against Bush.

These interesting bits of history serve to educate us about the sad reality of what people really feel in America. Americans know that there is not a decrease in crime because of death as a consequence. We are also starting to be aware of the many lives that have been saved from the injection by emerging technology like DNA matching and its implications on previous cases where innocent people have been executed. What it really tells us is that we either do not know what progress is, or that we do not want it. We are driven by emotions rather than our logic. We prefer to spend $90,000 more per death row prisoner per year than we would for a regular prisoner. We prefer to end the life of murderers instead of studying them and trying to find a more effective cure. We prefer our president to seek revenge, to be unforgiving, and to not settle for anything else than getting even.

Response to Barsha's Blog

 Hi Barsha!

I think you are spot on with the problem of tuition in the United States in your commentary “The Student’s Voice for their Tuition Fees.” In my stage 5 blog, I was able to research about the education system as a whole. While I focused primarily on the weaknesses of the system regarding primary through high school, I had to stop myself from doubling the size of my post by including the cost of higher education.

Your post resonates with international and out of state students, like you mentioned in your post. I like your idea of the government subsidizing the cost of public universities to make tuition more affordable. It is true that even though there is a lot of external help from the government such as financial aid, and grants and scholarships by private individuals. Though I agree with you that it is usually not enough since those who need that help are usually in need even before they enroll in college.

The example you provide of your friend is relatable to me, as my brother has not been able to attend school due to the impossible cost of school and life combined. I do not think it is fair to discriminate students on the basis of their economic status. Just like it is not fair to discriminate based on nationality, ethnicity, or gender, making money a requirement for education that ultimately helps the country as a whole is counter-productive.

I admire the solutions you provide for this national problem, and I hope that we are able to adopt some system to help our future professionals, visionaries, scientists, and entrepreneurs achieve their educational goals and ultimately help our country.

-Jose

Our Education System Could Learn A Thing Or Two

The United States is in a very confused era where it cannot decide on how to teach our children. The country is obviously the home to prestigious, and competitive universities well known for their research and alumni, but the compulsory primary and secondary education is much less talked about. The United States consistently ranks too low on tables of international education rankings, such as those done by the National Center for Education Statistics. Tests done by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development show American children coming out of high school with a mathematical literacy that ranks 19th with the rest of the developed world. These average numbers continue on to other subjects like reading and science. This is unbelievable from a country which perceives itself as the greatest in the world. The United States should completely overhaul its educational system.

Consistently well-performing contenders in the international education rankings, such as Finland and South Korea, have well defined methodologies when it comes to school. South Korea, for example, favors rigorous learning, with high pressures on the students to pass tests and earn a college degree. While in Finland, they choose a more relaxed approach, choosing to learn by engagement and exploration. The United States on the other hand doesn’t really know what to do. The first few years in elementary school could be described as a daycare with learning activities, with more emphasis on the daycare element. Middle school begins to feel more like an independent “real world”, but full of curriculum which only works to confuse students on how any of it is important. High school then is the last chance for students to realize that actions they take will determine their future. It separates the students into those who didn’t make the realization, and those who did and are now racing against time to be prepared for higher education. Pepper in a few elective classes and extracurriculars and you have a very inefficient system.

There are disadvantages. For the US, many of its students drop out, providing cheap labor to the workforce while wasting potential. For South Korea, high suicide rates in ages 10 to 19. And it’s difficult to acquire the economy, government, and chill level of the Nordic countries.

So how can we, and why should we, find a balance between the two best examples? The federal government needs to care, and participate more. A centralized educational system with a flexible curriculum will standardize the level of achievement with a solid structure rather than a loose web of standardized test. Encouraging self-learning and self-efficacy will lead to the prosperous future of the nation where our investment will pay off.

Are presidential debate moderators an issue?

In Michelle Malkin's article titled "Debate Depressive Disorder", she talks about the supposed unfair placing of biased journalists as moderators in the presidential debates. She seems to write this blog post with a mostly conservative, republican audience in mind. In the article, she criticizes the choices that the Commission on Presidential Debates makes in choosing mostly left leaning journalists, according to her. She calls to attention the vice president debate in 2008 where PBS anchor Gwen Ifill served as moderator, and who Malkin confirms is a liberal because of Ifill's praising of President Obama's campaign. Malkin then goes on to parallel that race to the most recent where she criticizes the moderator once more for being liberal biased. After a whole page of singling out a few other liberal moderators she concludes that journalists and other members of the media have contributed a large sum of money to Hillary Clinton's campaign. In the end, her only message is directed to the members of the press, and calls for more honesty in the debates.

Though Malkin's intentions seem to be in the right place, it does not sound too convincing. Most of the time, I expect heavily-leaning members of the media and political commentary to make me walk away thinking that they are very blind. This was not completely the case with Malkin's article. Though I was able to detect interest in the matter, and clear initiative, it seems that she was not being completely efficient in her logic. According to this article published on the day of the last presidential debate where a right network host was the moderator. This is the one thing that makes her argument less credible. My idea is that this election in particular is hard to understand so plainly. For once in a long time it seems, there has not been a candidate hated by many prominent members of either party, and he strikes me as someone who will not appeal to other republicans to win favors when he doesn't need them. Therefore, in this wild card election, it was hard for even a right leaning show host to be nice to Trump. This is a better hypothesis rather than the assumption that every moderator in every debate has it out for republicans.

The US and the Phillipines

The NY Times published an editorial titled ”President Duterte, the Wild Card in U.S.-Filipino Relations” about the "volatile" leader. The Editorial Board is aiming for a wide audience with little to moderate knowledge about the current Philippines-U.S. relations. Their knowledge on the subject seems to be inclusive of the latest information, and they provide thoughtful insight into the outcome of the current situations. The article argues that President Duterte is "determined to shake up Filipino foreign policy as well as domestic policy." It provides a comparison to candidate Donald Trump, using adjectives such as "vulgar" and "bullying". It goes on to describe the relations we have with the Asian countries, determining a clear degradation due to Duterte’s threats and human rights violations, as well as his presumed alliances with China and Russia. The editorial board concludes with the hope that the Filipino leader will calm down with his threats, acknowledging that lots of people can get hurt until he does.

The commentary is interestingly including references to the controversial presidential candidate without acknowledging the influence of the elected president if the issue makes any more progress. While I agree with the article’s concentration on the severity of the ultimatum posed by Duterte, I am surprised by the lack of focus on the bigger picture. It seems that the situation is presented by the article as less important than it really is. While the Philippines is busy committing human right abuses, and circumventing the justice system altogether, they are more concerned with comparing the presidential candidate to the Filipino leader with no clear goal other than shining a bad light on Trump. This issue should be instead taken more seriously, and references to US policy should be used to explain future consequences, and how they will interfere with the current world events.

Article Introduction

Hello Classmates!

I found this article on NPR called: The Big Reason Voters Like Trump, Clinton? They're Not The Other. The article talks about a compilation of data on surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center where they asked Trump and Clinton supporters a series of questions about their choice of presidential candidate. The results were really interesting.

Apparently, most people made their choice primarily based on the fact that their chosen candidate is not the other one. Not only that, but while they supported a certain candidate, about half of those surveyed still had concerns about their pick.

This is important because it relates to the fact that most uneducated voters do not have clear or consistent political ideas. They seem to go more with any emotion that brings conflict or a clear goal to fight for. I encourage everyone to take a look at it since I don't think we should ever settle for the "lesser of two evils".