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.