One of the main views - at least from an educational standpoint - that is prominent among most of the GOP field and even amongst a lot of Democrats is that Common Core is bad.
One of the lead arguments is that its making the government too big by creating standards for every single school. Instead, people argue, these decisions should be made at the local level.
Another prominent argument is that Common Core is being treated as a one size fits all solution - students have different needs in education and are at different levels.
I agree with the second argument. Children are very different and there is not any one size fits all remedy for education.
However, Common Core is not that. Common Core is just the minimum standards that each kid has to learn. In order to achieve that goal, students can request help from teachers if they need it. If students feel they already know the core standards, then their can be a higher level class that expands more on the things they learned.
Common Core is just a goal that each student should meet. If they need help, they should receive it from the teacher, and then they can meet the goal. If they feel they already know the content, they can go into higher classes and go more into depth about each topic.
This isn't about making the government too big or not focusing on the students. This is about raising the bar and helping students accomplish their goals to become more educated and therefore have a better chance at succeeding in life.
Sunday, September 27, 2015
Monday, September 14, 2015
No Taxation Without Representation: A Tale of Puerto Rico
Over 200 years ago, the United States of America was just a bunch of colonies controlled by Great Britain. We've all learned this story in school. At first, we were basically self-governing, but then Great Britain started getting too involved for our liking and started passing laws and taxes that we didn't like. We started proclaiming, "Taxation without representation is tyranny!" or "No taxation without representation!"
We were understandably mad, as we weren't getting any representation in the British Parliament, yet had to pay taxes. Which is why it is very confusing to see what the US is doing to Puerto Rico.
During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s and a bit of the early 1900s, America was fighting against Spain in Cuba and in other places. In 1898, we took Puerto Rico and eventually got a lot of other territories from Spain, like the Philippines.
Puerto Rico became almost self-governing in 1952, when it officially became the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
So, what does this have to do with taxation and representation? A lot?
You see, Puerto Rico does get its representation in Congress. However, their representative can't vote on the issues meaning they just have a representative who can only talk, but can't take any action (which basically describes over half of Congress, even though they are allowed to vote on the issues).
Puerto Rico also does get to pass its own taxes, but must pay income taxes to the US Government.
What this means is that the people in the US Congress can vote on creating taxes for the Puerto Ricans to pay and they don't have any say of it. Sounds familiar? It should as this is exactly what the British Parliament did to the US colonies.
What's worse is that Puerto Rico is now in the midst of a financial crisis. According to the law, though, we can't help them out unless we admit them as a state. So, basically, we have a territory that is basically self-governing that we take taxes from and don't give them representation and we can't even help them out in their own financial crisis! This is a disaster!
We must ask the US Congress to formally admit Puerto Rico to the Union and give them proper representation in Congress. This isn't just a matter of helping Puerto Rico, it is also a matter of our own morality.
The United States of America can not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We have an inherent duty as one of the most, if not the most, powerful nations in the world to help our own citizens. I leave you with this quote to ponder from Thomas Paine in his famous pamphlet Common Sense that helped the US decide to break away from Great Britain.
"From the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom."
We were understandably mad, as we weren't getting any representation in the British Parliament, yet had to pay taxes. Which is why it is very confusing to see what the US is doing to Puerto Rico.
During the Spanish-American War in the late 1890s and a bit of the early 1900s, America was fighting against Spain in Cuba and in other places. In 1898, we took Puerto Rico and eventually got a lot of other territories from Spain, like the Philippines.
Puerto Rico became almost self-governing in 1952, when it officially became the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
So, what does this have to do with taxation and representation? A lot?
You see, Puerto Rico does get its representation in Congress. However, their representative can't vote on the issues meaning they just have a representative who can only talk, but can't take any action (which basically describes over half of Congress, even though they are allowed to vote on the issues).
Puerto Rico also does get to pass its own taxes, but must pay income taxes to the US Government.
What this means is that the people in the US Congress can vote on creating taxes for the Puerto Ricans to pay and they don't have any say of it. Sounds familiar? It should as this is exactly what the British Parliament did to the US colonies.
What's worse is that Puerto Rico is now in the midst of a financial crisis. According to the law, though, we can't help them out unless we admit them as a state. So, basically, we have a territory that is basically self-governing that we take taxes from and don't give them representation and we can't even help them out in their own financial crisis! This is a disaster!
We must ask the US Congress to formally admit Puerto Rico to the Union and give them proper representation in Congress. This isn't just a matter of helping Puerto Rico, it is also a matter of our own morality.
The United States of America can not repeat the mistakes of our predecessors. We have an inherent duty as one of the most, if not the most, powerful nations in the world to help our own citizens. I leave you with this quote to ponder from Thomas Paine in his famous pamphlet Common Sense that helped the US decide to break away from Great Britain.
"From the errors of other nations, let us learn wisdom."
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Climate Change is Real
There is an idea floating in the midst of all the Republicans. Something they want to believe so badly, so they reject any other evidence. That idea is that climate change is not real, and if it is, it is not caused by humans.
Most recently, Ben Carson stated there was no evidence that climate change was real or caused by humans. The governor of California, Democrat Jerry Brown, sent him a letter along with a flash drive of information to educate Dr. Carson.
How do we know climate change is real? Well, it is obvious, as the high temperatures seem to be rising at a rate faster than ever before. The polar ice caps are melting, which could have huge catastrophes in store for the future.
Well, even if climate change is real, how can we know that humans caused it? Again, it is very obvious, as the time when the rate of temperature change drastically accelerated, was the time when we started using fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases emit particles into the air that weaken our ozone layer. Therefore, less radiation from the sun is blocked and more of the sun's rays reach us.
So, even if humans are causing climate change, what is the problem? Aren't higher temperatures good? This question like all the others have a very obvious answer. The extra added heat will melt the polar ice caps, causing a loss of life in the very north and very south for animals and plants. Also, more radiation will reach us from the sun. Flooding will be more frequent, and the temperatures could get to deadly values.
It is understandable why the Republicans would like to avoid confronting the truth about climate change. For one, it is easier to have less things to blame on humanity and worry about things. However, the biggest reason is probably that big companies, mostly fossil fuel companies that are usually huge Republican backers, rely on these fossil fuels that cause the global warming and the Republicans wouldn't want to lose potential support from these vital companies.
I think it is time we educate the Republicans - although not all deny climate change and some Democrats do, it is mostly on the right - and tell them that climate change is real and we must stop it. We must not approve of Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport even more oil across the US and we should focus on developing renewable resources. What we should not do is advocate and help release more harmful particles into our atmosphere.
This planet doesn't only belong to the American politicians, it belongs to the whole world. As the main reason for the rapidly deteriorating planet, it is our responsibility as humans to face the problems we cause and fix it instead of denying it.
Most recently, Ben Carson stated there was no evidence that climate change was real or caused by humans. The governor of California, Democrat Jerry Brown, sent him a letter along with a flash drive of information to educate Dr. Carson.
How do we know climate change is real? Well, it is obvious, as the high temperatures seem to be rising at a rate faster than ever before. The polar ice caps are melting, which could have huge catastrophes in store for the future.
Well, even if climate change is real, how can we know that humans caused it? Again, it is very obvious, as the time when the rate of temperature change drastically accelerated, was the time when we started using fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases.
Greenhouse gases emit particles into the air that weaken our ozone layer. Therefore, less radiation from the sun is blocked and more of the sun's rays reach us.
So, even if humans are causing climate change, what is the problem? Aren't higher temperatures good? This question like all the others have a very obvious answer. The extra added heat will melt the polar ice caps, causing a loss of life in the very north and very south for animals and plants. Also, more radiation will reach us from the sun. Flooding will be more frequent, and the temperatures could get to deadly values.
It is understandable why the Republicans would like to avoid confronting the truth about climate change. For one, it is easier to have less things to blame on humanity and worry about things. However, the biggest reason is probably that big companies, mostly fossil fuel companies that are usually huge Republican backers, rely on these fossil fuels that cause the global warming and the Republicans wouldn't want to lose potential support from these vital companies.
I think it is time we educate the Republicans - although not all deny climate change and some Democrats do, it is mostly on the right - and tell them that climate change is real and we must stop it. We must not approve of Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport even more oil across the US and we should focus on developing renewable resources. What we should not do is advocate and help release more harmful particles into our atmosphere.
This planet doesn't only belong to the American politicians, it belongs to the whole world. As the main reason for the rapidly deteriorating planet, it is our responsibility as humans to face the problems we cause and fix it instead of denying it.
Sunday, September 6, 2015
Who Will Leave the GOP Field First?
As Labor Day approaches, the frenzied summer of the off-year is over. Now, voters are starting to pay attention and now is when the race gets more competitive.
This was where Herman Cain, in 2012, fell. Herman seemed to resemble Trump as both of them were businessmen without political experiences, both of them led the GOP field in the summer, and both weren't afraid of speaking their mind.
Will Donald Trump follow Cain in falling in the after-Summer period?
Probably not now, as Trump has too wide of a lead to fail. Maybe, his support will weaken slowly, but won't fall now.
So then, who will leave the race?
Rick Perry seems to be a good contender for this. He has lost a major aide in Iowa to Trump and is not properly paying his staffers. Although, he has a major PAC, he is not spending the money properly.
Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham also seem great contenders. All were favorites of the party in the past and jumped in during the wrong election. All three of them are in the bottom part of the GOP field and have low name recognition.
George Pataki and Jim Gilmore should be the greatest contenders for this. Pataki registers at 1% and Gilmore doesn't even reach that. They should leave the field as they don't have any chance even in the greatest stretch of imagination.
Soon, we will see who leaves the field first. One things is for sure, though. We will not be able to see the eventual nominee until multiple rounds of elimination and millions of dollars will be spent in advertising blitzes. At the end, the winner of the GOP nomination will be the millionaires and billionaires who add money into the Super PACs and expect favors in return.
UPDATE: This article was right as Rick Perry left the race first! Now, let's see who leaves next.
This was where Herman Cain, in 2012, fell. Herman seemed to resemble Trump as both of them were businessmen without political experiences, both of them led the GOP field in the summer, and both weren't afraid of speaking their mind.
Will Donald Trump follow Cain in falling in the after-Summer period?
Probably not now, as Trump has too wide of a lead to fail. Maybe, his support will weaken slowly, but won't fall now.
So then, who will leave the race?
Rick Perry seems to be a good contender for this. He has lost a major aide in Iowa to Trump and is not properly paying his staffers. Although, he has a major PAC, he is not spending the money properly.
Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and Lindsey Graham also seem great contenders. All were favorites of the party in the past and jumped in during the wrong election. All three of them are in the bottom part of the GOP field and have low name recognition.
George Pataki and Jim Gilmore should be the greatest contenders for this. Pataki registers at 1% and Gilmore doesn't even reach that. They should leave the field as they don't have any chance even in the greatest stretch of imagination.
Soon, we will see who leaves the field first. One things is for sure, though. We will not be able to see the eventual nominee until multiple rounds of elimination and millions of dollars will be spent in advertising blitzes. At the end, the winner of the GOP nomination will be the millionaires and billionaires who add money into the Super PACs and expect favors in return.
UPDATE: This article was right as Rick Perry left the race first! Now, let's see who leaves next.
Why We Need More Democratic Debates
Recently, about a week ago, Martin O'Malley slammed the DNC at the annual DNC meet which was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He stated that 6 Democratic Debates were too few and wondered who was making this decision and for what purpose.
I agree with O'Malley. The Democratic field is pretty small, the 6th candidate in Lawrence Lessig jumped in today and Joe Biden may be the final addition, so we won't have to worry about crowded debates. If we hold more debates, we will be able to hear each candidate fully and be able to differentiate each of their positions.
Hillary Clinton right now is the frontrunner. However, Bernie Sanders has been gaining in on her. Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee are trailing by a lot. Lessig will probably join those four and Biden would be in the middle.
The debates would provide a chance for the voters to hear the thoughts of Chafee (who doesn't even register 1% in the polls) and compare it to Clinton's. Maybe, the voters would like what they heard and boost Chafee with more support.
The DNC Debates would provide a chance for the lower ranked candidates to express their views and higher ranked candidates to strengthen their positions. Six of these debates ARE too few, and we need more.
It is understandable where the DNC is coming from, as in previous elections they had too many debates to keep track. However, this is also too extreme. I think the DNC should hold 10 debates, with at least one in each of the early voting states.
This would make the Democrat field stronger and let voters be more informed. This would choose the Democrat nominee. This would help our election be a more open one.
I agree with O'Malley. The Democratic field is pretty small, the 6th candidate in Lawrence Lessig jumped in today and Joe Biden may be the final addition, so we won't have to worry about crowded debates. If we hold more debates, we will be able to hear each candidate fully and be able to differentiate each of their positions.
Hillary Clinton right now is the frontrunner. However, Bernie Sanders has been gaining in on her. Martin O'Malley, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee are trailing by a lot. Lessig will probably join those four and Biden would be in the middle.
The debates would provide a chance for the voters to hear the thoughts of Chafee (who doesn't even register 1% in the polls) and compare it to Clinton's. Maybe, the voters would like what they heard and boost Chafee with more support.
The DNC Debates would provide a chance for the lower ranked candidates to express their views and higher ranked candidates to strengthen their positions. Six of these debates ARE too few, and we need more.
It is understandable where the DNC is coming from, as in previous elections they had too many debates to keep track. However, this is also too extreme. I think the DNC should hold 10 debates, with at least one in each of the early voting states.
This would make the Democrat field stronger and let voters be more informed. This would choose the Democrat nominee. This would help our election be a more open one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)