As is the case with any front runner in the presidential race, Newt Gingrich's revived campaign has caused critics to come to the forefront to discredit his policies and beliefs. One unique argument against having Gingrich as the GOP candidate came this past week from former New Mexico governor and failed presidential candidate, Gary Johnson. In an interview on MSNBC, Johnson claimed that in 1996, Gingrich admitted to smoking marijuana but then proposed legislation for possibly sentencing drug offenders to the Death Penalty. It is an obscure claim, one that has not been talked about much if at all throughout the GOP primaries but Johnson's campaign was centered around legalizing marijuana before he dropped out of the race. The legislation Gingrich proposed was not totally based on simply killing drug dealers, but Johnson of course neglected that fact for the sake of discrediting the former Speaker's stance on drugs.
The Death Penalty is, of course, a drastic reaction to a drug offense and would never pass in Congress but it brings up the consistently more intriguing question about legalizing drugs such as marijuana. I'm torn on the issue, just like the rest of the nation. About 50% of Americans are for legalizing marijuana, depending on what poll you are looking at. And the list of pros and cons go on forever.
There's no doubt that marijuana, when used in moderation, is probably less harmful to humans than alcohol or tobacco, and we've seen that it can be therapeutic with cancer patients and others that are terminally ill . But then there's the plausible claim that it is a gateway drug to harder and much more harmful drugs. Not so sure if this is testable, and if it is, if the results are credible, but alcohol or tobacco could arguably be seen as gateway substances as well. Furthermore, critics against legalization are worried that if it was made legal, children could get their hands on it easier.
Frankly, it seems as though the argument between legalizing marijuana and outlawing it really lies in the crime rate and tax collection - you know, the boring stuff that don't pay attention to as much. Marijuana, at a time like this in the United States, perhaps could be a relief to the money that is hemorrhaging out of Washington. Millions upon millions of citizens in prison are convicted of drug crimes and costing the nation obscene amounts of money to remain incarcerated. Legalization of marijuana could slash prison costs by the millions by freeing those who are convicted of drug crimes. And if legalized, it could be sold at a taxable price like alcohol and tobacco, which are big moneymakers for the Federal government. Our financial situation goes much deeper than throwing a tax on a dime bag or letting the neighborhood pot dealer out of county jail but, hey, any little bit can help. And I don't even want to get into the tension that it would relieve on our border to the south. Drug money fuels nations in South America and Mexico and it also keeps their citizens flocking across the border in order to make a sale. There would probably be a lot less immigration issues if the frat bros next door to me could run to a convenience store down the street instead of depending on Mexicans strapped to the bottom of a freight train.
But who knows if marijuana will ever be legalized? I sure as hell don't, and I think it's because of the bad stigma the drug has received. There's a big difference in the eyes of Americans between the big-wig business executive fixing himself a whiskey sour at 10am in his office compared to the stoned grocery clerk who attends Phish concerts on the weekends and wants to "fight the machine". But are these two scenarios really all that different? Is marijuana that much worse than alcohol? No, it's not. I have always stood against it but policy issues and health risks don't lie - maybe it's time to think about legalizing pot.
Besides, it's about time we find something to help make Ashton Kutcher on Two and a Half Men actually funny.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Barack's Chicken Salad
In a recent conversation with a friend of mine, Chris Celi, we were talking about the travelling clown car that is the GOP presidential primary race and then about the eventual candidate's competition, Barack Obama. In a PG-13 reference, I claimed that Obama was expected to come into office and, "make chicken salad out of chicken (excrement)." Chris' response was simple, yet very intuitive: "that's some chicken salad."
And he's right. I have been critical of the president for some time now, and as I watch the primaries roll along, and look at Obama's presidency in retrospect, perhaps I've been too hard on the guy. He truly was given a terrible economic situation, two wars that we arguably should not be involved in, and an angry populace. Now, almost three years into his presidency, we are seeing slight economic growth despite an ailing situation across the Atlantic Ocean, a shrinking unemployment gap, and a concrete exit strategy for our brave troops in the Middle East. Sounds pretty damn good to me.
It makes me think that maybe our government's problems are not coming from the Oval Office, although the buck does stop there. Our Congress is inactive - so much so that Barney Frank delivered a nice punch to the gut to his colleagues upon announcing his retirement. The Supercommittee assigned to balancing the budget embarrassed themselves so badly that Congress has worked towards a whopping 9% approval rating from the American public. The nation's debt is increasing, and there is no end in sight because nothing is agreed upon between Republicans and Democrats.
So although Obama's reelection hopes ride almost entirely on the economy, as POLITICO claims in the linked article above, and Americans are not entirely happy with his time in office, maybe he still is the best candidate in 2012. I'm not sure yet, a lot depends on who falls out of the GOP clown car last and winds up with the nomination. But seriously, the guy finally found Bin Laden, he has curbed torturous practices in military prisons such as Guanatanamo Bay, and he's BRINGING TROOPS HOME. All this, along with some social reforms that benefit the nation as well. So despite being a little too 'anti-business' as my friend Chris has claimed, and his questionable Obamacare plan still may be worked into our nation's economy pending Supreme Court decisions, the president has kept us afloat and maybe four more years of Obama is the best option for Americans.
Not bad for a guy who wasn't even born here...
And he's right. I have been critical of the president for some time now, and as I watch the primaries roll along, and look at Obama's presidency in retrospect, perhaps I've been too hard on the guy. He truly was given a terrible economic situation, two wars that we arguably should not be involved in, and an angry populace. Now, almost three years into his presidency, we are seeing slight economic growth despite an ailing situation across the Atlantic Ocean, a shrinking unemployment gap, and a concrete exit strategy for our brave troops in the Middle East. Sounds pretty damn good to me.
It makes me think that maybe our government's problems are not coming from the Oval Office, although the buck does stop there. Our Congress is inactive - so much so that Barney Frank delivered a nice punch to the gut to his colleagues upon announcing his retirement. The Supercommittee assigned to balancing the budget embarrassed themselves so badly that Congress has worked towards a whopping 9% approval rating from the American public. The nation's debt is increasing, and there is no end in sight because nothing is agreed upon between Republicans and Democrats.
So although Obama's reelection hopes ride almost entirely on the economy, as POLITICO claims in the linked article above, and Americans are not entirely happy with his time in office, maybe he still is the best candidate in 2012. I'm not sure yet, a lot depends on who falls out of the GOP clown car last and winds up with the nomination. But seriously, the guy finally found Bin Laden, he has curbed torturous practices in military prisons such as Guanatanamo Bay, and he's BRINGING TROOPS HOME. All this, along with some social reforms that benefit the nation as well. So despite being a little too 'anti-business' as my friend Chris has claimed, and his questionable Obamacare plan still may be worked into our nation's economy pending Supreme Court decisions, the president has kept us afloat and maybe four more years of Obama is the best option for Americans.
Not bad for a guy who wasn't even born here...
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Joe Amendola's Actions - Stupid at Best
The much talked about interview between NBC's Bob Costas and alleged child abuser and former Penn State football coach, Jerry Sandusky, has brought much attention to the already popular news story across news sources and social networks. Bob Costas, apparently not knowing he would be speaking to Sandusky himself until fifteen minutes before the interview, was sharp and succinct in his questioning and in no way made the interview about him. He left the viewers to have their own opinions on Sandusky's response. It was a shining moment for journalists everywhere, but not so much for defense attornies.
What the hell is Joe Amendola doing allowing his client to speak out on national television? Now all accused citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty, and the same holds true for Sandusky, despite the grueling 23-page grand jury indictment, but in high profile cases such as this, the court of public opinion more often than not creates the demise of the defendant. So how does this brilliant defense attorney hide his client from the court of public opinion? Well by having him conduct a phone interview on primetime television, of course!
Do I feel as though Jerry Sandusky is innocent? Not exactly. I've been all too close to sexual abuse scandals like this and the allegations in the indictment are eerily similar to what I've seen in the past. But what Amendola did by letting his client speak out is not only poor counsel, it's a ludicrous move in Sandusky's defense case that holds no merit whatsoever and just further allowed for negative opinions on the man to be reinforced. When a man immediately repeats the question, word for word, after he is asked it, he doesn't look like a man too confident in his response. Sandusky did this more than once. Joe Amendola, just hide your client, please. You've already disgraced your character enough by representing him, now just be a good defense lawyer and stop trying to celebratize yourself and your client by appearing on NBC.
What the hell is Joe Amendola doing allowing his client to speak out on national television? Now all accused citizens in this country are innocent until proven guilty, and the same holds true for Sandusky, despite the grueling 23-page grand jury indictment, but in high profile cases such as this, the court of public opinion more often than not creates the demise of the defendant. So how does this brilliant defense attorney hide his client from the court of public opinion? Well by having him conduct a phone interview on primetime television, of course!
Do I feel as though Jerry Sandusky is innocent? Not exactly. I've been all too close to sexual abuse scandals like this and the allegations in the indictment are eerily similar to what I've seen in the past. But what Amendola did by letting his client speak out is not only poor counsel, it's a ludicrous move in Sandusky's defense case that holds no merit whatsoever and just further allowed for negative opinions on the man to be reinforced. When a man immediately repeats the question, word for word, after he is asked it, he doesn't look like a man too confident in his response. Sandusky did this more than once. Joe Amendola, just hide your client, please. You've already disgraced your character enough by representing him, now just be a good defense lawyer and stop trying to celebratize yourself and your client by appearing on NBC.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The U.S. Education System - Where to go from Here
In the most recent issue of TIME Magazine, contributing writer, Fareed Zakaria, wrote an article on the unfortunate circumstances our country's education system faces. He follows the generic line of thinking that many critics have in recent years - commenting on how our teacher's aren't proficient enough, children are not in school long enough during the day, etc. I had done some pretty extensive research on this topic in the Spring of 2010 for a class and it reminded me of the paper I had written regarding American schools.
My view on the American school system and who should govern it is quite different than my opinion on other services the U.S. has to offer. I tend to view health care and large social services of the like with a hands-off approach from the Federal government. This, however, should not be the case with education. With a system that ranks an embarrassing 26th in the world, having 50 educational systems will not benefit any socioeconomic or racial gap on the home front, nor will it help the U.S. gain on the Asian and Western European countries that we lag behind.
I looked back on the paper that I had written now over a year ago and my views have not changed much as to how America should reform it's education system. President Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind bill was admirable in it's goals but has been flawed in practice. In a push to have 100% proficiency among students across the country in reading and mathematics, there needs to be more reform than what NCLB laid out (and Zakaria even goes further to say we are too focused on liberal arts and not enough on technical sciences, but we'll save that topic for a different day).
First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve equal, 100% proficiency among 50 states when each state has its own level of 'proficient' test scores. The MCAS is different from the Regents exam, which is different from the Stanford 9 exam. And in some states, mostly Southern, the level of 'proficiency' does not even match that of President Bush's goals! If all students need to reach the same level, they must be given the same exam. There's no way to tell how students truly are performing without giving them the same information. In Thomas B. Fordham Foundation study administered a few years back, Wisconsin's 8th grade reading level was at the 14th percentile. South Carolina's was at the 71st. No disrespect to South Carolina, but there's no way that those levels of proficiency could be that far off from one another.
Once the students are all on the same page, it is imperative to improve our teachers. Zakaria's article pointed out that half of America's teachers graduated in the bottom third of their college classes. Ugh. We aren't catching up to South Korea or Finland anytime soon with minds like that molding our youngest generation. Teacher's should be held more accountable for their work. Perhaps requiring a Master's degree in order to teach could be one solution, as is seen in Finland. Or a merit-based rewards system for teachers working to improve their skills. Whatever the reform may be, it needs to be strong so that teacher's know their practice and improvement is just as crucial as their student's.
And lastly, if every school is on one, national curriculum and teachers are evaluated by one, national standard, then schools that are still failing will be made an example of much easier. Schools below the national standard of proficiency could see a pay freeze in wages for instance. Or schools that are above but wither stagnating or slipping with their scores could see a cut to their Federal funding. It's also not known by many that NCLB requires failing schools to notify parents that transferring is an option. If schools fail to notify parents, some punishment could also be made.
The fact of the matter is that education is serious, and we seem to be forgetting that value. Reforms such as these proposed are drastic, and seem utopic, considering the extremely powerful teacher's unions would never want anything to affect their 80% pension rates and tenure-based pay. Tenure-based pay allows educators to get complacent, knowing that they have job security. But if the United States would like to keep slipping in global rankings and NOT attempt to reform the system, well then the reeling economy won't be the only reason that we will no longer be a global force.
My view on the American school system and who should govern it is quite different than my opinion on other services the U.S. has to offer. I tend to view health care and large social services of the like with a hands-off approach from the Federal government. This, however, should not be the case with education. With a system that ranks an embarrassing 26th in the world, having 50 educational systems will not benefit any socioeconomic or racial gap on the home front, nor will it help the U.S. gain on the Asian and Western European countries that we lag behind.
I looked back on the paper that I had written now over a year ago and my views have not changed much as to how America should reform it's education system. President Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind bill was admirable in it's goals but has been flawed in practice. In a push to have 100% proficiency among students across the country in reading and mathematics, there needs to be more reform than what NCLB laid out (and Zakaria even goes further to say we are too focused on liberal arts and not enough on technical sciences, but we'll save that topic for a different day).
First of all, it is IMPOSSIBLE to achieve equal, 100% proficiency among 50 states when each state has its own level of 'proficient' test scores. The MCAS is different from the Regents exam, which is different from the Stanford 9 exam. And in some states, mostly Southern, the level of 'proficiency' does not even match that of President Bush's goals! If all students need to reach the same level, they must be given the same exam. There's no way to tell how students truly are performing without giving them the same information. In Thomas B. Fordham Foundation study administered a few years back, Wisconsin's 8th grade reading level was at the 14th percentile. South Carolina's was at the 71st. No disrespect to South Carolina, but there's no way that those levels of proficiency could be that far off from one another.
Once the students are all on the same page, it is imperative to improve our teachers. Zakaria's article pointed out that half of America's teachers graduated in the bottom third of their college classes. Ugh. We aren't catching up to South Korea or Finland anytime soon with minds like that molding our youngest generation. Teacher's should be held more accountable for their work. Perhaps requiring a Master's degree in order to teach could be one solution, as is seen in Finland. Or a merit-based rewards system for teachers working to improve their skills. Whatever the reform may be, it needs to be strong so that teacher's know their practice and improvement is just as crucial as their student's.
And lastly, if every school is on one, national curriculum and teachers are evaluated by one, national standard, then schools that are still failing will be made an example of much easier. Schools below the national standard of proficiency could see a pay freeze in wages for instance. Or schools that are above but wither stagnating or slipping with their scores could see a cut to their Federal funding. It's also not known by many that NCLB requires failing schools to notify parents that transferring is an option. If schools fail to notify parents, some punishment could also be made.
The fact of the matter is that education is serious, and we seem to be forgetting that value. Reforms such as these proposed are drastic, and seem utopic, considering the extremely powerful teacher's unions would never want anything to affect their 80% pension rates and tenure-based pay. Tenure-based pay allows educators to get complacent, knowing that they have job security. But if the United States would like to keep slipping in global rankings and NOT attempt to reform the system, well then the reeling economy won't be the only reason that we will no longer be a global force.
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Is the Middle East Backwards? Or Are We Backwards for Thinking So?
This question has been posed on a variety of subjects in my Politics of the Middle East class and it's challenging to answer. America is involved with many countries in the Middle East, as both protagonist and antagonist, and it seems as though our mission is to 'change' this region of the world and democratize it. The Western world's view of a progressive society is one that eventually ends in democracy. The only issue with this mission, however, is that the Middle East has never been primed for democratic lifestyle.
The history of this region has seen rule from some of the most powerful empires in world history such as the Ottomans, Safavids, etc. Under these empires, citizens of the region were just subjects. The Ottomans were admittedly progressive with the liberties that its governors allowed for their subjects but nonetheless, democracy can't thrive in an empire. As World War I ended and the Ottoman Empire was disassembled, the Middle East became the new hotbed for Western colonial rule. Great Britain and France carved up the region to their liking (and with a complete disregard for the people living there) and developed an influence that would hold tightly until the likes of Nasser and Gaddafi pushed them out. Once again, no democracy under colonial rule.
And now in the present day, with the Middle East being the largest exporter of oil in the entire world, we see one dimensional economies with either kings or regimes ruling over the state. Oil acts as the main hindrance to democratic government, as the state receives revenue from oil sales and therefore does not require for citizen taxes. No Taxation... No Representation (so don't complain about being taxed America).
With all of these opponents to democracy, though, several countries have seen pleasant ruling at times under regimes. When citizens do not like the regime they are under, well then you see what we are witnessing now: the Arab Spring. No one knows what will come of the numerous social uprisings and upheavals of dictators but there is a slim chance that democracy will form because of it. Arabs are not accustomed to democracy, the Koran and Sharia does not call for it, and they've never been exposed to it, so it may not be our responsibility to try and 'change' these seemingly 'backward' countries.
The history of this region has seen rule from some of the most powerful empires in world history such as the Ottomans, Safavids, etc. Under these empires, citizens of the region were just subjects. The Ottomans were admittedly progressive with the liberties that its governors allowed for their subjects but nonetheless, democracy can't thrive in an empire. As World War I ended and the Ottoman Empire was disassembled, the Middle East became the new hotbed for Western colonial rule. Great Britain and France carved up the region to their liking (and with a complete disregard for the people living there) and developed an influence that would hold tightly until the likes of Nasser and Gaddafi pushed them out. Once again, no democracy under colonial rule.
And now in the present day, with the Middle East being the largest exporter of oil in the entire world, we see one dimensional economies with either kings or regimes ruling over the state. Oil acts as the main hindrance to democratic government, as the state receives revenue from oil sales and therefore does not require for citizen taxes. No Taxation... No Representation (so don't complain about being taxed America).
With all of these opponents to democracy, though, several countries have seen pleasant ruling at times under regimes. When citizens do not like the regime they are under, well then you see what we are witnessing now: the Arab Spring. No one knows what will come of the numerous social uprisings and upheavals of dictators but there is a slim chance that democracy will form because of it. Arabs are not accustomed to democracy, the Koran and Sharia does not call for it, and they've never been exposed to it, so it may not be our responsibility to try and 'change' these seemingly 'backward' countries.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Religion and the Presidency
In the 2012 presidential race, we as a citizenry could most certainly see an African-American square off against a Mormon. No, you're not dreaming. If Mitt Romney wins the election, he would be just the third American president out of 45 that does not fit the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant mold of presidents that we are so used to seeing hung up on the walls in elementary school classrooms. Just four of the previous presidents have had no official religious affiliation and even they were at least raised Protestant or converted after their time in office. As the United States moves towards a more socially progressive view when deciding who to vote for, the question I would like to know the answer to is when will religion not matter anymore?
That answer is most likely 'never', much to my disappointment.
Although their beliefs are different from one another, Mormons and Catholics both have come under much scrutiny in presidential elections of the 20th century (because let's be honest, no one would even allow them to show their face in earlier years) and time and again each man proves his worthiness to the role of public office over religious beliefs. Kennedy spearheaded his 1960 campaign with the mission of proving that he would not be swayed by the papal authority while in office and if he did, he would resign. People saw that awfully quick and pushed him right into office. Catholicism now seems a non-factor after Kennedy, with John Kerry catching very little heat for also being Catholic.
Mormonism, on the other hand, is seen in the 21st century as a 'cult'. It is mocked from coast to coast and even feared by some conservative Christians. Romney has been criticized for believing in a "false god" and is consistently compared to his Christian counterpart, Rick Perry, by fundamentalists. But because Romney practices Mormonism does not mean that he will impose their beliefs on the United States if given the opportunity. I will admit that some Mormon convictions are ludicrous, polygamy and possible prejudice to the African race being a couple examples, but if we as a nation pride ourselves on the separation of church and state, Mitt Romney will do the same. What the Church of Latter Day Saints preaches is not what we would see him practice in office. And for liberals who immediately associate conservative religions with the Republican party, you may want to take a look at what church Harry Reid attends on the weekends.
To simply write off a worthy candidate because of religious background is bigotry. It is close-minded, and there is no place for it in American politics. Religion is of course an important aspect of most American families but it should not play a role in how one views a leader's worthiness. We have broken the color barrier, we have cracked and are peeping through the hole of the gender wall, and we should do the same on the religious front as well. And besides, if you take a look at the other Republican candidates... you may have no choice.
That answer is most likely 'never', much to my disappointment.
Although their beliefs are different from one another, Mormons and Catholics both have come under much scrutiny in presidential elections of the 20th century (because let's be honest, no one would even allow them to show their face in earlier years) and time and again each man proves his worthiness to the role of public office over religious beliefs. Kennedy spearheaded his 1960 campaign with the mission of proving that he would not be swayed by the papal authority while in office and if he did, he would resign. People saw that awfully quick and pushed him right into office. Catholicism now seems a non-factor after Kennedy, with John Kerry catching very little heat for also being Catholic.
Mormonism, on the other hand, is seen in the 21st century as a 'cult'. It is mocked from coast to coast and even feared by some conservative Christians. Romney has been criticized for believing in a "false god" and is consistently compared to his Christian counterpart, Rick Perry, by fundamentalists. But because Romney practices Mormonism does not mean that he will impose their beliefs on the United States if given the opportunity. I will admit that some Mormon convictions are ludicrous, polygamy and possible prejudice to the African race being a couple examples, but if we as a nation pride ourselves on the separation of church and state, Mitt Romney will do the same. What the Church of Latter Day Saints preaches is not what we would see him practice in office. And for liberals who immediately associate conservative religions with the Republican party, you may want to take a look at what church Harry Reid attends on the weekends.
To simply write off a worthy candidate because of religious background is bigotry. It is close-minded, and there is no place for it in American politics. Religion is of course an important aspect of most American families but it should not play a role in how one views a leader's worthiness. We have broken the color barrier, we have cracked and are peeping through the hole of the gender wall, and we should do the same on the religious front as well. And besides, if you take a look at the other Republican candidates... you may have no choice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)