Critique 2

In Kristen Orr's article titled, Wake up and pick up your clickers...nap time is over kids, she explains a new concept of learning being implemented by schools as early as middle school and even into college; both community college and universities such as Harvard, University of Alabama and Vanderbilt. Ms. Orr is a fellow government student who has been assigned to investigate a national issue and provide her opinion of the subject. The concept presented by Ms. Orr is said to involve more student participation in class due to a small device, referenced to as a “clicker”. In the article she explains that the clicker can be used for a number of things such as, attendance, quizes, and 15 minute interactive learning sessions to keep the students stimulated. These devices are paid for by either the student or the school will provide them to the professors and teachers. Ms. Orr lists some feedback regarding student and teacher opinion, but the article lacks her opinion of the clicker. While the article is very informative, the author lacks to explain the pros and cons of the device and state whether she if for or against the distribution of the clicker in classes and why. She also lacks a tie between the information presented and the issue that it is presenting to our nation's government.

Based on the information in the article, I would say that the clickers sound like a great idea to get every student involved in class. My concern would be how schools are paying for the tools, especially in public schools. With budget cuts is it really wise to spend $30-$70 per clicker and cut some other program. It seems to me that if the teacher implements the right skills in the class room, the same type of work could be done. With that said, if the school can afford them it sounds as though they are great tools and a peek into the future of the classroom.

The Freedom to Worship

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is also the first section of the Bill of Rights.

It is arguably the most important part of the U.S. Constitution, as it guarantees freedoms

of religion, speech, writing and publishing, peaceful assembly, and the freedom to raise

grievances with the Government. In addition, it requires that a wall of separation be

maintained between church and state. It reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free

exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people

peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Let's focus on the first 16 word insuring that the people of the United States have a fundamental freedom of religion. A right that can not be compromised by Congress. What does this mean to us? What it means is that as an individual living with the United States we have a right to practice whatever religion we wish or even no religion at all. Whatever our choice, government can not intervene. So why when a private owner of land near Ground Zero wanted to build a mosque did political leaders within our boarders fight against it? Surely someone of power within our government would understand, even if they didn't like it, that the individual or company that wanted to build a mosque could do so without public ridicule. Former Governor of Alaska and vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin called the idea “a stab in the heart of the families of the innocent victims of those horrific attacks.” New York Representative, Republican Peter King, who says, "While the Muslim community has the right to build the mosque, they are abusing that right by needlessly offending so many people who have suffered so much." In other words because it makes someone feel bad, it shouldn't be allowed.

There's no doubt about it, the First Amendment practically guarantees that, at some point,

everybody is going to be offended. But we don't use that as our

standard for determining who gets to exercise their rights. The Constitution does not care if I'm offended or you're offended. There are some things that are more important than that. Or would you rather live without the protections afforded by the First Amendment?

The idea of a mosque built on, around, or even near Ground Zero sparked a nationwide debate on the subject. The opposing side took and emotional stand against the project because of the pain it may cause the family members of victims of the attacks. There were others that began to speak out saying that it was wrong because the Muslims caused the attacks. The supporting side stood by the words of the Constitution for this country. This argument is one that is more concrete and follows the laws of this country.

There is no argument that the attacks of September 11, 2009 were both senseless and

devastating both to our country and to the families who lost loved ones. It is a moment

in our nation’s history that will never be forgotten or disrespected by the people of our

country. However, the losses of life, pain, or anger are no excuse to blatantly defy the

Constitution of our nation. It was not the Muslim community that caused those attacks it

was radicals of the Muslim community.  The oppositions argument of pain is very weak though a online poll still shows that over 70% of Americans oppose the building of the mosque.

In a quote from New York congressman Jerrold Nadler (D), he  explains thoroughly and simply the reasons for the opposition of the argument are wrong and why.  

  “What they are saying essentially is how can you put a mosque there when, after all, Muslims attacked us on 9/11, and this is ripping open a wound? Well, the fallacy is that Al Qaida attacked us. Islam did not attack us. Islam, like Christianity, like Judaism, like other religions, has many different people, some of whom regard other adherents of the religion as heretics of one sort or another.   It is only insensitive if you regard Islam as the culprit, as opposed to Al Qaida as the culprit. We were not attacked by all Muslims. And there were Muslims who were killed there, there were Muslims who were killed there. There were Muslims who ran in

as first responders to help. And we cannot take any position like that. …there is a mosque in the Pentagon, which is also hallowed ground. No one objects to that. The people who want to build this facility, which is partially a mosque and partially a community center, have a mosque a few blocks away from there, which no one has objected to.”

Critique

In Briana Zak's article, Food Stamps Getting the Boot, she explains the possibility of future cuts to our nations Food Stamp program. Furthermore, Briana goes on to explain the negative effects this would have on the country and why. Briana is a fellow Government student who created the editorial for a class assignment; her intended audience included her fellow classmates as well as professors. With that said, Briana researched the topic at hand thoroughly and presents the reasons for the possible cuts. She represents both sides of the argument of supporting or not supporting the cuts, while integrating her opinion on the subject throughout the article. Ms. Zak supports her opinion by touching base on the current state of the economy as well as the now average for food assistance pay out vs. the cost of food.

Ms. Zak's article explains that cutting the Food Stamp program would only create bigger problems in the long run because it would take away from much needed supplies for some families. I agree with the author's argument. Taking away from funding that is already scarce will only traumatize the families in need of food. While we may be saving some state jobs now there is still the existing threat that those jobs may still be lost due to the recession in the job market.

Uncle Sam Wants YOU... Unless You're Homosexual

Don't ask, don't tell (DADT) is the common term for the policy restricting the United States military from efforts to discover or reveal closeted gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members or applicants, while barring those who are openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual from military service. On Oct. 12, 2010, California District Court Judge Virginia Phillips issued a worldwide ban on the policy, and shortly thereafter the Department of Defense said it would abide by the judge's order. That meant the policy was no longer in effect beginning Oct. 12, 2010. Technically, this also meant that gay and lesbian troops and recruits did not have to hide their sexual orientation, but gay rights advocates urged caution to those servicing, warning that the policy could be reinstated at any time. In other words, if the soldier “came out” and the policy was reinstated, it could then be used against him or her. On October 20, 2010, a three-judge panel granted the Justice Department's emergency request to allow the policy to remain on the books, so that the appeals court could have more time to fully consider the issues presented. The Obama administration has already notified the appeals court that it is planning to appeal Judge Phillips' finding that DADT violates the due process and free speech rights of service members.

The gay community has a long fight ahead of them, but it's a fight that is just and supported by many, including myself. In my opinion, sexual orientation is no different than religion, everyone has a right to their own belief and to express that belief. So you serve with someone you know is gay, what does that change? There are gays in the military now, but they have to hide a part of themselves in fear. That is not only unconstitutional, but it's also inhumane. Soldiers will serve with people from all walks of life that is inevitable; the only thing that matters is that everyone does their job. It is time for our military leaders to get over the old school mentality and realize that everyone is different and it is each persons ability to do their job that makes them an asset or liability - not their sexual orientation. There are many that say it's not worth the fight. Gays should just realize that they are different and live their life. In my response I say, I'm sure there were African American slaves and women that were told the same thing. Our Constitution reads that all men are created equal. It's about time our country recognizes that.

Weed, What is it Good For?

We've all heard of it: weed, pot, reefer, ganja, hash. It's had our nation in a uproar since as far back as the 1930's. The 1970's brought it back to life and even led to the legalization of small amounts by states such as California. Only later to be abolished by the Reagan administration as the country shifted to a more conservative view. Still today, for a big green bush, marijuana remains mighty controversial.

Much of the recent controversy has surrounded laws passed in 1996 by voters in California and Arizona legalizing marijuana for certain medical conditions. The opposition will argue that there are no proven medical advantages to taking the drug, instead it is looked at as a drug that will only lead to faster, better, stronger drugs. In fact, the opposition believes that marijuana will harm the root of our very being, family. On November 2, 2010 the residents of the state of California will vote on Proposition 19 which will allow certain legalization of the drug, which brings this subject to the forefront of national scrutiny once again. With so many opinions and a clear line of division will California's Proposition 19 survive? What does the future hold for our friend or enemy, (depending on your views) the marijuana plant? Only time will tell... as the controversy marches on the two sides are presenting the opinions of medical doctors, people of political power, and even the general public.

I happen to stumble upon the following interview conducted and blogged by Laura Flanders. Ms. Flanders is a supporter of Proposition 19 and the host of GRIT TV on Free speech TV, as well as other radio programs such as RadioNation. She is also the author of two political novels. Posted on her blog is an interview she recently conducted that gives an interesting point of view on the subject of the legalization of marijuana. A view that belongs to our nations 15^th surgeon general, Joycleyn Elders. Ms. Elders was the surgeon general during the Clinton administration, but was fired after a comment she made regarding masturbation. After her short lived position as surgeon general Ms. Elders is now a professor at the University of Arkansas School of Medicine and also works at Arkansas Children's Hospital. The article shows Ms. Elders' support for the legalization and taxation of marijuana in order to reach audiences that may be on the fence about the subject and lean California voters to the polls to vote “yes”. With Ms. Elders extensive medical background it is a good source of opinion on a subject that divides so many of us. With that said Ms. Elders' tarnished reputation, as a result of her firing from the Clinton administration, as well as her somewhat controversial views on many popular debatable subjects, could lead readers away from her opinion. Despite how some people may view Ms. Elders it does not stop her from blatantly telling her opinion on the subject, which is a notable act of courage and evidence of true beliefs. In the interview when asked, (Laura:) “But what about the fear of the impact on young people? You're an associate there at a children's hospital. A lot of parents, not even very political folks, but parents are worried, 'if they smoke marijuana, who knows what happens next?'”. Ms. Elders responds, “ Well, they don't mind that they drink alcohol, that they smoke cigarettes, both of which are much more harmful. Marijuana has been used for 5000 years. It's never been associated with a toxic death or death from marijuana so I feel that it's more of a medicine and we should use it, regulate it, and tax it. And stop all of our fears and our myths that are going on.” I believe that, that particular statement sums it up. The myths need stop. We need to base the future of not only Proposition 19 in California, but also the legalization of marijuana in our country as a whole, on fact, not opinion or fear.

Critiquing the Editor's Point of View

The battle for the acceptance of gay marriage, same-sex marriage, in America treads on every day resulting in surge of mixed emotions and reactions. The legal issues surrounding same-sex marriage in the United States are complicated by the federal system of government. Gay marriage is currently granted on a state-by-state basis, which includes only 5 of our 50 states. Previously, the federal government never defined marriage. Any marriage that was recognized by the state was also recognized by the federal government, until the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) passed 1996. This act states a marriage is explicitly defined as a union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law. There is currently a pending challenge in the federal courts against the DOMA act. The argument is that the DOMA act violates the tenth amendment of the Constitution which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserves to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The fight against the acceptance of gay marriage digs far deeper than acts and appeals. There have also been social and religious controversy regarding the subject. The following article is an editorial piece on gay marriage. The author of the article states her opinion of the acceptance of gay marriage in America, primarily focusing the Christian church because of the consistent opposition of the topic by the majority of Christians. Many Christian groups have been vocal and politically active in opposing same-sex marriage laws in the United States. Christians opposed to same-sex marriage have claimed that extending marriage rights to same-sex couples could undercut the conventional purpose of marriage, or would be contrary to God's will. The author Rev. Rebecca Voklkel expresses that she believes that same sex marriage should be welcomed into the church because the opposition of the subject only causes hate and, in turn, can threaten human life—the opposite of what God's word expresses to it's believers. Her creditability regarding the acceptance of gay marriage integrated into Christian beliefs and the church is pretty substantial since she herself is a teacher of God's word. Rev. Voklkel is reaching out to an audience of Christian Americans in hopes that explaining the true meaning of God's word will cause an acceptance of gay marriage therefore, resulting in less hate crimes and even deaths. The author exhibits substantial evidence for the argument that the opposition to gay marriages only creates hate and violence by linking the reader to other stories posted on CNN regarding hate crimes in New York city and the hateful words of republican gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.  This provides the reader the opportunity to read beyond her opinion, referring to facts and actual events. Furthermore, the author thoroughly expresses and explains the ways that she feels the situation can be improved. In my opinion, she presents a valid opinion on the subject at hand for an overall good cause: the end to hate and violence.

Birthright Citizenship

Since the new law implemented in Arizona, it seems that illegal immigration has transformed into a popular national issue. Recently, there have been plenty of arguments both for and against ending birthright citizenship in the U.S. Experts have argued that birthright citizenship costs the United States large amounts of money due to the eligibility of welfare benefits. Along with that, the parents of the United States born citizen are not easily deported because of the child that would stay in the U.S., and would require care. Counter arguments feel abolishment of birthright citizenship is racist and unconstitutional. Furthermore, studies have found that doing away with the amendment would actually increase the amount of undocumented immigrants rather than reducing it. This is mostly due to undocumented immigrants have more children that are undocumented as well. This article featured in The New York Times provides a unique way of solving the argument of birthright citizenship in a way that would make both sides happy.