The article I chose to comment on “Bush Can’t Just Leave!” can be found on Andrew’s Blog. Personal preferences aside, I found that Andrew chose a very interesting topic and included a credible source for his facts and information. He was successful in making his argument that last-minute changes by the Bush Administration will have a direct, negative impact on our environment. It is interesting to learn that the Bush Administration plans on making many changes which will have immediate effects on the environment. Some great examples of these changes such as changing power plant regulations; allowing agencies in charge of their own projects to determine whether or not they are endangering a species; and re-classifying water regulations are all clearly described in Andrew’s article.
While I do not agree that the main purpose of the administration changes is strictly to cause harm to the environment, I do think that the lack of logical explanation behind them coupled with the suggestion that the administration is cutting corners is completely unacceptable. Now, it seems, may be too late to prevent any of these changes from occurring. We can only hope things will improve in the future, and yes, I also think that Obama has his work cut out for him.
I personally found this article refreshing as it addressed a topic, the environment, which frequently seems to be overshadowed by other Bush Administration news (crime). I believe that Andrew’s article is intended for anyone who is concerned with the Bush Administration, the environment, and even the transition of power from President Bush to Obama.
11 December 2008
26 November 2008
National ID
With much happening in the world with regards to the issue of personal security and personal freedom, I chose to discuss a topic that I am very intrigued by—the idea of a mandatory National ID System. The National ID System is a way to link a multitude of records into one single source, such as a driver’s license, in order to better verify one’s identity. It is interesting to know that Congress has instructed the Department of Transportation to develop a mandated but funded National ID System, known as the REAL ID Act of 2005, with the hopes of adding extra security to its system. The plan it seems is to create a type of National ID System and require the entire nation to enforce it. The use of the word system, instead of card, seems to be implemented in order to avoid heat from pro-liberty groups who may be opposed to such ideas. The reality behind the façade, however, is that if enacted, all 50 states will be required to link their databases or cards together. Isn’t this the same theory as having a National ID Card?
There seems to be two sides to the theory of requiring U.S. citizens to carry a National ID Card. Proponents seem to think that this type of system basically already exists, so why not just enhance it. They believe that the government can and does gain access to personal information through a realm of sources anyway. The creation of a more stringent policy, they believe, will help increase security and deter terrorism. The basic argument for the National ID System is that proponents believe that it will create a more watchful government and in turn better protect its citizens. Opponents against the National ID System believe that where there is a will, there is a way and there may be loopholes to this type of system. They also feel that our government has already met the demands of the nation with regards to increased security and by enforcing this plan it will diminish citizens’ privacy. I think that there are many pros and cons to requiring citizens to adopt this type of system. I tend to ‘sit on the fence’ with this particular argument. While I agree that increasing security and deterring terrorism and crime are bonuses of this proposed system, I also understand how some may perceive this as a stepping stone to the invasion of personal privacy. If our government is successful in implementing the National ID System, what will be next? Could this fuel the fire for some larger course of action?
There seems to be two sides to the theory of requiring U.S. citizens to carry a National ID Card. Proponents seem to think that this type of system basically already exists, so why not just enhance it. They believe that the government can and does gain access to personal information through a realm of sources anyway. The creation of a more stringent policy, they believe, will help increase security and deter terrorism. The basic argument for the National ID System is that proponents believe that it will create a more watchful government and in turn better protect its citizens. Opponents against the National ID System believe that where there is a will, there is a way and there may be loopholes to this type of system. They also feel that our government has already met the demands of the nation with regards to increased security and by enforcing this plan it will diminish citizens’ privacy. I think that there are many pros and cons to requiring citizens to adopt this type of system. I tend to ‘sit on the fence’ with this particular argument. While I agree that increasing security and deterring terrorism and crime are bonuses of this proposed system, I also understand how some may perceive this as a stepping stone to the invasion of personal privacy. If our government is successful in implementing the National ID System, what will be next? Could this fuel the fire for some larger course of action?
14 November 2008
Commentary on Voter Suppression
Jillian makes a great argument in her discussion of ACORN and voter fraud. This is a very important topic as the act of registering fictitious and even deceased persons has been an ongoing issue. I was very interested in the fact that the Nevada branch of ACORN was raided with accusations that ACORN hired 59 felons to help submit over 300 possible fraudulent voter registration cards. I agree with the idea that states should require some sort of identification in order to show proof of citizenship. This seems like the most logical solution to the problem of voter fraud.
The idea that “people want more, but want to do less” seems to be a recurring philosophy in politics. I completely agree with Jillian’s statement that “voting is an honor and a privilege; with that comes responsibility”. She also makes a very good argument for citizens to remember that voting is an honor and that Americans should grow up and respect that we have the opportunity to do so. As she mentions, there are many countries where only the wealthy are allowed to vote, and as we are all aware, even countries where women aren’t considered citizens. We all need to accept our responsibilities as American citizens and follow through with protecting our rights. We do this by voting, and if that means jumping through some hoops to get the correct documentation that allows us to vote as legal citizens, then so be it. Jillian’s statements make sense and I agree with her.
The idea that “people want more, but want to do less” seems to be a recurring philosophy in politics. I completely agree with Jillian’s statement that “voting is an honor and a privilege; with that comes responsibility”. She also makes a very good argument for citizens to remember that voting is an honor and that Americans should grow up and respect that we have the opportunity to do so. As she mentions, there are many countries where only the wealthy are allowed to vote, and as we are all aware, even countries where women aren’t considered citizens. We all need to accept our responsibilities as American citizens and follow through with protecting our rights. We do this by voting, and if that means jumping through some hoops to get the correct documentation that allows us to vote as legal citizens, then so be it. Jillian’s statements make sense and I agree with her.
31 October 2008
Discrimination or "Diss"crimination
Affirmative action, a highly controversial topic in the United States, is defined as “a policy or a program that seeks to redress past discrimination through active measures to ensure equal opportunity, as in education and employment.”
I chose to discuss affirmative action as it relates to higher education and admissions standards. While some may think of affirmative action as a positive, necessary measure in order to secure equitable educational opportunities for all, there are also negative aspects to affirmative action policies and programs. The drawbacks have recently drawn the attention of the United States Supreme Court in ruling whether universities can use race as part of their admission standards (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003), or whether it unfairly discriminates against majority groups who are more highly qualified.
Supporters of affirmative action policies and programs believe that it eliminates discrimination and presents opportunities for achievement that might not otherwise be possible without it. While some proponents of affirmative action believe that it is intended to eliminate discrimination, it ultimately creates another area of discrimination—against majority groups (e.g. Caucasian males). Through affirmative action, those who may have higher test scores may not be accepted if the school quota requires the acceptance of a minority with a lower test score.
The most obvious drawback to affirmative action is reverse discrimination, or “discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group.”
Even with the Supreme Court’s ruling, affirmative action is still a touchy subject between those for and against it. These policies were set in place over 30 years ago as an answer to the discrimination faced by minorities in this country at that time. Things have changed since then, and I believe that there are definite changes that should be made with regards to education and the standards used to admit qualified students. Replacing one form of discrimination with another is illogical and, ultimately, unfair.
I chose to discuss affirmative action as it relates to higher education and admissions standards. While some may think of affirmative action as a positive, necessary measure in order to secure equitable educational opportunities for all, there are also negative aspects to affirmative action policies and programs. The drawbacks have recently drawn the attention of the United States Supreme Court in ruling whether universities can use race as part of their admission standards (Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003), or whether it unfairly discriminates against majority groups who are more highly qualified.
Supporters of affirmative action policies and programs believe that it eliminates discrimination and presents opportunities for achievement that might not otherwise be possible without it. While some proponents of affirmative action believe that it is intended to eliminate discrimination, it ultimately creates another area of discrimination—against majority groups (e.g. Caucasian males). Through affirmative action, those who may have higher test scores may not be accepted if the school quota requires the acceptance of a minority with a lower test score.
The most obvious drawback to affirmative action is reverse discrimination, or “discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, especially when resulting from policies established to correct discrimination against members of a minority or disadvantaged group.”
Even with the Supreme Court’s ruling, affirmative action is still a touchy subject between those for and against it. These policies were set in place over 30 years ago as an answer to the discrimination faced by minorities in this country at that time. Things have changed since then, and I believe that there are definite changes that should be made with regards to education and the standards used to admit qualified students. Replacing one form of discrimination with another is illogical and, ultimately, unfair.
17 October 2008
Never Lie to a Pollster
The article I chose to critique, “Eighty-Four Percent Say they’d Never Lie to a Pollster,” October 15, 2008, can be found on Ann Coulter’s blog website. Ms. Coulter is the author of six New York Times bestsellers, is a legal correspondent for Human Events, and writes a well-known syndicated column for Universal Press. She has gained popularity with many due to her controversial and confrontational style, and was on the cover of TIME Magazine, April 25, 2005. On the other hand, she has been fired as a correspondent (more than once) for inflammatory remarks made during interviews and is considered by many to be an extreme right-winger. Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to "stir up the pot" and, unlike broadcasters, does not "pretend to be impartial or balanced."
Coulter’s intended audience is directed toward readers who are interested in the correlation between election results and voter polling. Ms. Coulter presents an argument against the current buzz making its way through the media--the so-called “Bradley Effect.” This is “the notion that some material number of voters will lie about their intentions to pollsters, claiming that they will vote for a black candidate when in fact they will vote for the white guy.”
It is interesting to consider whether this phenomenon does exist and if it really does influence the outcome of an election. Does the American idea of political correctness make us lie to pollsters to avoid the impression of racism? She says the idea of institutional racism is just a way for democrats to “whine” about American voters. Coulter claims that not only is there social pressure to continuously convince others that you are not a racist but now it seems people are also feeling pressured into defending why they are republicans.
Ms. Coulter argues that polling results over the past 32 years (since 1976) have typically been skewed toward democratic wins. In fact, the election results indicate that not only have the polling numbers and projections been wrong, but they have been very wrong. It is not until the recent election of 2004 that the polling results actually provided a correct prediction of an election outcome.
Based on Ms. Coulter’s analysis of the previous 32 years of polling and election results, I believe that there is not a correlation that can be used to accurately predict outcomes. The theory that we can randomly sample a few voters in a few selected locations and determine an outcome is questionable. Human nature is to not share personal information with strangers, and let’s face it, voting is very personal. I believe that not only what kind of question is asked, but who is asking the question, and under what circumstances will influence how a voter might answer a pollster—truthfully or not. Perhaps if polling could be done anonymously, for example, a polling station at a precinct where a voter is chosen at random to stop and answer polling questions without anyone around. The voter could be selected at random through the computerized voting machine and given a ticket with a unique password so that polling fraud could be reduced. They would then take the ticket and login to a polling station. This would also reduce polling bias by the pollster, and results would be immediate. In other words, the system we are currently using is antiquated and not scientifically robust. With our new technological world, it is time to investigate methods that are more substantial.
Coulter’s intended audience is directed toward readers who are interested in the correlation between election results and voter polling. Ms. Coulter presents an argument against the current buzz making its way through the media--the so-called “Bradley Effect.” This is “the notion that some material number of voters will lie about their intentions to pollsters, claiming that they will vote for a black candidate when in fact they will vote for the white guy.”
It is interesting to consider whether this phenomenon does exist and if it really does influence the outcome of an election. Does the American idea of political correctness make us lie to pollsters to avoid the impression of racism? She says the idea of institutional racism is just a way for democrats to “whine” about American voters. Coulter claims that not only is there social pressure to continuously convince others that you are not a racist but now it seems people are also feeling pressured into defending why they are republicans.
Ms. Coulter argues that polling results over the past 32 years (since 1976) have typically been skewed toward democratic wins. In fact, the election results indicate that not only have the polling numbers and projections been wrong, but they have been very wrong. It is not until the recent election of 2004 that the polling results actually provided a correct prediction of an election outcome.
Based on Ms. Coulter’s analysis of the previous 32 years of polling and election results, I believe that there is not a correlation that can be used to accurately predict outcomes. The theory that we can randomly sample a few voters in a few selected locations and determine an outcome is questionable. Human nature is to not share personal information with strangers, and let’s face it, voting is very personal. I believe that not only what kind of question is asked, but who is asking the question, and under what circumstances will influence how a voter might answer a pollster—truthfully or not. Perhaps if polling could be done anonymously, for example, a polling station at a precinct where a voter is chosen at random to stop and answer polling questions without anyone around. The voter could be selected at random through the computerized voting machine and given a ticket with a unique password so that polling fraud could be reduced. They would then take the ticket and login to a polling station. This would also reduce polling bias by the pollster, and results would be immediate. In other words, the system we are currently using is antiquated and not scientifically robust. With our new technological world, it is time to investigate methods that are more substantial.
03 October 2008
Over the Cliff?
The article I chose to critique was written by Dr. Paul Krugman, an Op-Ed columnist for the New York Times since 1999 and a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University since 2000. He has written and edited over 18 books, and published hundreds of articles on economics and international affairs. His most recent article, “Edge of the Abyss,” can be found in the opinion section of the New York Times.com website, October 2, 2008.
Dr. Krugman’s intended audience seems to be directed toward readers who are concerned about the ongoing economic plight of the US and the impact of the current administration’s policies on this mess.
The basic argument of this article is that the financial state of the U.S. economy has gone from “not good” three weeks ago to one that is “really, really bad.” Krugman argues that we are entering a time of “severe crisis with weak, confused leadership.” The argument relies on the assumption that officials in the Treasury, specifically Henry Paulson, were aware of the impending financial crisis a year ago, and yet did nothing to address the problem. In fact, they continue to add to it—for example, the hastily and ill-prepared $700B Bailout Plan. The author suggests that the resulting financial chaos is causing panic for both Wall Street and Main Street. His advice is that unless the administration develops a long-term solution to the economic crisis, the US will be in for a depression-like environment. Unfortunately, he does not believe the current administration has enough time nor wits to develop a plan, and he fears that there will not be enough time available for the incoming administration to do so before financial disaster strikes. “The next administration’s economic team had better be ready because it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression.”
The article presents a very strong warning of impending financial disaster and based on the recent events of the past 3 days, I think he made a very convincing argument. Dr. Krugman’s credentials are exemplary and I believe he has a strong grasp of what has happened and what is needed to fix it. I am convinced that the US government needs stronger leadership and a team of economic experts who understand how we can survive this hardship with the least amount of destruction to our society. Something has to be done quickly, but it is just as important that something be done correctly or we will only continue down the road to financial disaster!
Dr. Krugman’s intended audience seems to be directed toward readers who are concerned about the ongoing economic plight of the US and the impact of the current administration’s policies on this mess.
The basic argument of this article is that the financial state of the U.S. economy has gone from “not good” three weeks ago to one that is “really, really bad.” Krugman argues that we are entering a time of “severe crisis with weak, confused leadership.” The argument relies on the assumption that officials in the Treasury, specifically Henry Paulson, were aware of the impending financial crisis a year ago, and yet did nothing to address the problem. In fact, they continue to add to it—for example, the hastily and ill-prepared $700B Bailout Plan. The author suggests that the resulting financial chaos is causing panic for both Wall Street and Main Street. His advice is that unless the administration develops a long-term solution to the economic crisis, the US will be in for a depression-like environment. Unfortunately, he does not believe the current administration has enough time nor wits to develop a plan, and he fears that there will not be enough time available for the incoming administration to do so before financial disaster strikes. “The next administration’s economic team had better be ready because it will find itself dealing with the worst financial and economic crisis since the great depression.”
The article presents a very strong warning of impending financial disaster and based on the recent events of the past 3 days, I think he made a very convincing argument. Dr. Krugman’s credentials are exemplary and I believe he has a strong grasp of what has happened and what is needed to fix it. I am convinced that the US government needs stronger leadership and a team of economic experts who understand how we can survive this hardship with the least amount of destruction to our society. Something has to be done quickly, but it is just as important that something be done correctly or we will only continue down the road to financial disaster!
18 September 2008
How Worried Should You Be?
As a full-time student, full-time employee and homeowner, I took particular interest in this article found on Newsweek’s website, newsweek.com.
I heard the news as the stock market took a major dive early this week and felt particularly worried. The fact that Texas is now facing a major reconstruction effort after hurricane Ike coupled with the decline in the stock market made me apprehensive. So this leads me to the ultimate question I was/am facing. What does this mean for me? Should I be panicked? Should I rush home and pull all my money out of the bank? Should I try to fire sell everything that isn’t nailed down on Craig’s list? Should I stock up on canned goods and water? After I finished making the necessary adjustments to my Last Will and Testament (just kidding by the way), I decided to see what some of the major news sources were saying about the recent events. I came upon what I think was a good article, ironically titled, “How Worried Should You Be?” Finally some answers! What ultimately gave me a teeny sigh of relief was the statement the author of this article makes when he claims that, “regulators have spent a lot of time reassuring consumers that come hell and high water on Wall Street, the Feds still have our backs.” Great, but what does that mean? Well the SIPC, or Securities Investors Protection Corp., assures that our securities and cash will be in existence and accessible whenever needed. This article also brings up a great point in regards to investing. It asks the important question, should folks who hold accounts in Merrill Lynch or Bank of America for example, continue paying a large sum of money for investment advice when the companies they are investing in can’t even keep themselves from going under? I don’t know much about investing, portfolios, or financial diversification but this seems like a very important issue to me. This article also has some good advice about what to do to keep your own money safe, investing “smart”, and most importantly reminds us that we must be aware that “the economy will continue to shake and quiver.” Overall, I highly recommend that anyone who is concerned about the state of the economy or the nation read this article. Of course I am still very uneasy about the state of the economy, but reading this article put my worries ever-so-slightly at ease. As a bonus, I feel more educated.
I heard the news as the stock market took a major dive early this week and felt particularly worried. The fact that Texas is now facing a major reconstruction effort after hurricane Ike coupled with the decline in the stock market made me apprehensive. So this leads me to the ultimate question I was/am facing. What does this mean for me? Should I be panicked? Should I rush home and pull all my money out of the bank? Should I try to fire sell everything that isn’t nailed down on Craig’s list? Should I stock up on canned goods and water? After I finished making the necessary adjustments to my Last Will and Testament (just kidding by the way), I decided to see what some of the major news sources were saying about the recent events. I came upon what I think was a good article, ironically titled, “How Worried Should You Be?” Finally some answers! What ultimately gave me a teeny sigh of relief was the statement the author of this article makes when he claims that, “regulators have spent a lot of time reassuring consumers that come hell and high water on Wall Street, the Feds still have our backs.” Great, but what does that mean? Well the SIPC, or Securities Investors Protection Corp., assures that our securities and cash will be in existence and accessible whenever needed. This article also brings up a great point in regards to investing. It asks the important question, should folks who hold accounts in Merrill Lynch or Bank of America for example, continue paying a large sum of money for investment advice when the companies they are investing in can’t even keep themselves from going under? I don’t know much about investing, portfolios, or financial diversification but this seems like a very important issue to me. This article also has some good advice about what to do to keep your own money safe, investing “smart”, and most importantly reminds us that we must be aware that “the economy will continue to shake and quiver.” Overall, I highly recommend that anyone who is concerned about the state of the economy or the nation read this article. Of course I am still very uneasy about the state of the economy, but reading this article put my worries ever-so-slightly at ease. As a bonus, I feel more educated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
