Comments on "Death Penalty?"

I see no fault with the death penalty. I think that it is appropriate and superior then paying tax dollars for a murdering convict to live out their life with three squares and a cot while programs like education go under funded. In my opinion, if the death penalty is on the table for a possible punishment, then it should be used. And for that reason I find myself in full agreement with your article “Death Penalty?”. Child molestation has is a devastating for the child. Their lives are changed by the psychological damage done and their trust of adults can be shattered. The changes that the child goes through effectively kill the person they were before the event, making molestation like murder. But unlike murder, the victim needs to live with the knowledge of their being violated and have an increased chance to commit suicide. You’re right that these criminals should receive the same punishment as murderers and it’s a pity that the Supreme Court doesn’t see it that way.

Why can't they marry?

I’ve never seen the justice in the case against gay marriage. It seems un-American to withhold a right of free expression that does no harm to other groups, and gay marriage is not a threat to any group in America, and certainly is not a threat to the institution of marriage. Marriage once represented a bond between a man and a woman as a way to tie together the two individuals as they use their relationship to continue the species. However, in our current times so graced by technological innovation, families can be created by adoption and artificial insemination. Marriage has changed from an institution for the preservation of the species to one that can be based solely on an expression of love for another. Also, the Declaration of Independence stated the inalienable rights as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In this way, gay marriage is a way of living the American dream because it is a way for two individuals to create happiness and success by their own actions. Plus, any law by Congress or by a state against gay marriage would have to be unconstitutional due to the right to privacy that recent Supreme Court rulings have seemed to add to the 14^th Amendment because the government has no place to dictate the private lives of citizens who are doing no harm to others. In the end, marriage is a right that has been withheld from the gay community for reasons that I can not make sense of. Religious complaints hardly seem like a valid argument for alienating a group of people and it is politically incorrect for our government to place religious views in front of all of the different ideas of their citizens. Equality is what the nation was founded on and equality is what its population deserves.

Comment on Colleague's Blog

The blog “Congress is Unfit to Solve the Nation’s Problems” by my colleague is something that I can almost fully agree with. The obvious ineffectiveness of Congress to manage national issues with our country’s population diversifying could be countered by increasing local powers. If we would allow local lawmakers to run the areas that elect them so that their focus of keeping their voters happy can be put to good use.

I think that it is important to realize that the blame for mismanaging the country doesn’t fall solely on the president as is the common practice these days. The Legislative branch actually should shoulder most of the blame for the poor state of internal affairs. It seems that there are far too many people with different agendas that need to agree but can’t because of what ever loyalties they have. It seems that we have returned to the same loose connection of representatives that the Articles of Confederation set up. Just like the Confederation, we should rely on local governments to run the country. I agree that it’s unreasonable for the representatives of Maine to care about the people in Wyoming and so really the only way to be sure that the best thing happens for everyone is for strong state officials under a federal over seer.

I do think that there will be a problem with local governments as opposed to staying with our current one, there will be rifts forming between states. Different business codes and taxing policies will give incentives to increase the wealth of certain states while hurting the others. Though the shift will greatly benefit many Americans, the damage done to those left in the areas unable to offer the developments as other states will outweigh the good. I think in the end that risk makes the idea not worth making the change even though it will make life easier for a lot of Americans.

The Root of All Evil

Politicians are constantly looking for ways to fix the ever mounting problems that the country faces and it is wasting time and money because they are going at it wrong. America’s problems are like a weed and you don’t kill a weed by attacking leaves, you need to attack the roots. Education is the root of America’s problems. Education has become a tool for limiting students as opposed to being a launch pad for their success. Classrooms that have twenty to thirty students and only one teacher mean that it is nearly impossible for each child to have their needs met. Pivotal points in education such as reading and writing are not fulfilled because the teacher is simply ill equipped to give 20 different students the tools they need to learn. In the end, teachers are forced to teach what they can and ship the kids off to the next grade for the next teacher to catch them up with where they need to be before their class can even start, putting all of the children behind and ill equipped for the classes they take.
The No Child Left Behind Act is the pinnacle of the failure of our government. The Act deals a blow to the country far worse than any terrorist action. The idea of all students simply learning a test is a betrayal of what education is about. Teachers are forced to cover only a set curriculum for their students which rarely promotes critical thinking or any questioning of the material so that the students will pass a teat and the state will get rewarded. It’s a disgrace that education has simply become a tool for the state officials to add a gold star to their political career.
Another problem is the treatment of gifted students. Schools have become so focused on raising test scores that all of their time and funding go into the support of the remedial students while the needs of advanced programs go unanswered.
The NCLB Act has created an ever-lowering bar for the students to reach and it is making them unable to cope in the world. Our economy is becoming more and more dependant on highly skilled, highly educated workers but the supply of these employees can no longer be met by our schools. If anything is ever going to change for the better in America, then politicians are going to need to find a way to reform education for the better. We need a strong foundation to build the future of this country on, and the schools we have now aren’t capable of producing the thinkers and doers who will make a difference.

Accountability in Government

The New York Times editorial "Raising the Bar at the Pentagon" applauds Defense Secretary Robert Gates's removal of two high ranking officials in the US Air Force. Even though he has only held his position for eighteen months, Gates has already done more to hold powerful members of policy responsible than just about anyone else in Washington. When the war began, a primary concern of the president was to secure nuclear weapons stockpiles in foreign nations to keep them out of our enemy's hands. However, under service secretary Michael W. Wynne and service chief Gen. T. Michael Moseley four nuclear warheads were sent to Taiwan as opposed to the helicopter batteries that were intended for the country. Upon further investigation by the Pentagon into the Air Force's securing of sensitive military components it was revealed that the Air Force's standards had been consistently dropping over the last ten years with no one being held responsible. But after the dismissals of Wynne and Moseley by Gates it seems that we may finally have someone who is going to hold the powerful to the same standards as everyone else. The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal and that if a government fails to uphold the safety of its people then it is the people duty and right to change it. In our representative democracy, our president and senators serve as the people’s voice and positions such as Secretary of Defense serve as tools for implementing the policies of the president and the people. To finally see a member of the government taking decisive and effective steps in upholding the people’s safety and treating men who see themselves as elitists as equals to everyone else under the law is refreshing and brings hope for future justice in Washington. I hope that Mr. Gates continues to uphold the basic American code set up in the Declaration and that others follow his example. Mr. Gates may have just taken the first step to a better America for all people.

It's a Different Country?

Paul Krugman discusses in his New York Times editorial “It’s a Different Country” how racial division has faded from a tool used by the Right to gain power in Washington and that its fall has opened the doors for Sen. Obama to gain his position as the Democratic nominee.

Krugman argues that Obama’s election would be a sign that national change has already begun as opposed to the belief among most of Obama’s followers that his election would initiate change. This idea is based on Krugman’s point that the racial division of the country has finally faded enough to allow for a candidate that breaks the traditional mold. He goes on to suggest that Obama’s nomination due to racial division’s fall corresponds with the weakening of the Right. Using Rick Pearlstein’s new book “Nixonland” as a reference, Krugman points out that the Right used the fear brought about by urban violence and racial division to propel them into the White House. However, after Bill Clinton’s presidency, urban violence dropped substantially. This combined with the baby boomers distaste for crude racism, Krugman says, are what has lead to racial division’s drop. He ends with a note that even if Obama loses, the country has still turned out for the better because racism is no longer a huge factor in our politics. But I am still inclined to think that racism is and always will be a major decider in Washington. The idea that electing a black president or a woman president and this whole belief that another white male in office would be bad for the country is hypocritical. To suggest that a black man could do a better job than a white man as president is a racist idea and goes against what the president is. The president is supposed to be a person who has the best intentions of the country in mind and they should be voted upon for their ideals. Krugman’s argument that racial division is retreating is, in my opinion, countered when he says that Obama running changes the country away from racism. As long as Obama is tagged as a black candidate, race will always be a factor. And since I can’t see that going away any time soon, I have a feeling that race and politics will continue to go hand in hand.

McCain declares himself candidate of "right change"

link to this article - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/mccain.speech/index.html

NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (CNN) -- Sen. John McCain portrayed himself as the candidate of "right change" Tuesday night, as Sen. Barack Obama moved closer to becoming the Democratic candidate to challenge the presumptive GOP nominee in November.

Sen. John McCain compared his policies with those of Sen. Barack Obama in a speech Tuesday night.

"No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But the choice is between the right change and the wrong change, between going forward and going backward," he said.
In the speech, McCain drew upon themes from his campaign and contrasted them with those of the junior senator, citing his inexperience.
"The American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Sen. Obama," he said. "They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem-solving. They've seen me put our country before any president, before any party, before any special interest -- before my own interest."
McCain called for "widespread and innovative reforms" in health care, energy, the environment, taxes, public education, transportation, disaster relief, regulation, diplomacy and military and intelligence services. He called for government to "rethink, reform and reinvent" many of its policies and improve its ability to respond to "natural calamity," eliciting loud applause from the Louisiana audience.
McCain also he accused Obama of favoring policies that relied on government interference and failed policies from the past.

"The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid- to late 20th century, before the end of the Cold War, before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy," he said.
McCain rejected the Democratic strategy to tie him to President Bush's policies, noting his opposition to Bush's initial policies in Iraq, his energy policy and his climate change policy.
He also referred to reports of success in Iraqi-led efforts to combat insurgency and cited statistics showing that the death toll for American troops in Iraq was at its lowest in four years.
"All of this progress would have been lost if Sen. Obama had his way and began to withdraw," McCain said.
McCain also accused Obama of not taking failing to stand up against "the partisan rancor" on both sides of the Senate floor.
"He is an impressive man who makes a great first impression," he said. "But he hasn't been willing to make the tough calls, to challenge his party, to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. I have."
Finally, McCain will call for Republicans and Democrats to work together.
"Pundits and party elders have declared that Sen. Obama will be my opponent," McCain said. "He will be a formidable one. But I'm ready for the challenge and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people I ask to lead."


This article marks an important landmark in this presidential race. With Sen. Obama’s victory a certainty Sen. McCain now has a decided opponent for the election. Sen. McCain reveals himself to be the candidate of what he calls “right change”. With both Democrats running strong campaigns whose focus is change, whether in the war, education, health care, gas prices, or any other of the many problems the next leader faces, it is important for Sen. McCain to show America that he, too, can be that force to lead the nation back to the top. I think, however, that the change called for by Senators Obama and Clinton is one based too much on partisan differences rather than what is best for the American people. Sen. McCain’s desire for “right change” is supported by his history of bipartisanship and his willingness in the Senate to ignore party lines in making his decisions. Sen. McCain points out that Sen. Obama has an inability to stand up to the “partisan rancor” of Washington and I believe that is Sen. Obama was elected that very little would be done other than dismantling of Republican power and policies. This election is a historic one, but not because of the race or gender of candidates, but because there is a candidate who has a chance to build a bridge between the parties and work for the common good. With his speech and challenge to Sen. Obama, Sen. McCain has put into motion a process for finding the best American president rather than one motivated by petty party ideals.