Response to "Virtual Classes"

In my classmate Allie’s post, Virtual Classes, Allie comments on the increase of people taking online classes at all levels of education and states that though she thinks online classes are beneficial for students in high education, she believes it is bad for elementary school children to take online classes.  While I agree with Allie that it is bad for young children to get their education from online classes, I disagree with her reasons why. 

Allie’s believes that it isn’t good for an elementary school child’s development for them to learn online instead of in a classroom saying that the child will not be able to socialize with other children their age.  As someone who was homeschooled from kindergarten though high school, I know from personal experience this isn’t true.  Even though I didn’t take any online classes in elementary school, I also didn’t do any of my learning in a classroom with other children, besides my siblings.  I was far from lacking socialization, though, because there are many other ways for children who don’t go to a traditional school to socialize.  These things include being on a sports team, going on field trips with other homeschoolers, or simply having play dates with other homeschool families.  This means that even though a child may take all their classes online, they don’t have to miss out on socializing with other children.  

Another reason Allie says learning online is bad for a young child is because they  may not learn how to act in a classroom setting.  I didn’t take any classes in a classroom setting until I started high school, but I didn’t have a problem adjusting to that type of learning.  In fact, I was better prepared for learning in a classroom setting because I knew how to pace my homework, a skill that was very important since my classes were at a homeschool co-op that only met once a week.  

Being able to choose when I started taking classes in a classroom setting also gave my parents and I the opportunity to choose the best teachers for me, something we wouldn’t have been able to do in a traditional school.  Allie says that a child who has trouble keeping up with the pace of learning in a kindergarten class will be put into a class that better suits her needs, but unfortunately this is a very romanticized view of public schools.  A child has to have very serious problems to be put into one of these classes.  My cousin had trouble keeping up and paying attention in his kindergarten class and got notes sent home to his parents very often, but because his problems were due to the fact that he was a five year old boy instead of a serious condition, he wasn’t put in any special class.  He ended up having to repeat kindergarten, something that could have been avoided if he had been in an environment suited to his needs.  Putting a child in a class room with just one teacher who may or may not be suited to teach him does not mean he will have a good learning experience.

Even though I disagree with Allie about why it is bad for elementary school age children to take online classes, I do agree that it is not the best type of learning for them.  

For children in early childhood (ages zero to eight) the way they learn best is through hands-on experience.  When I was that age most of my learning came from home science experiments like growing sugar crystals or playing with “gloop” (a mixture of water and corn starch), field trips to museums or parks, and even just talking to the people we met while out shopping.  In fact I didn’t even start reading until I was seven, but by the age of ten I was a very avid reader.  In public schools children are required to know how to read by the end of kindergarten yet many of them end up being below the level their grade requires them to read at.  I don’t think their is any certain age that a child needs to know how to read, and some of my siblings knew how to read at a younger at then I did, but we all started learning when we were ready, which is the most important thing.  This just shows that during the early childhood years all children learn at different paces and so the best thing is for them to be in a situation that can easily adapt to fit their individual needs.  I don’t think that an online class fits these needs because, like a classroom setting, the learning won’t be hands-on or suited to fit the needs of the individual child.  

Though Allie’s topic is an important issue that needs to be discussed because it pertains to our whole education system, not just online learning.  Her post, however, lacks any mention of why this has to do with the government.  If Allie is viewing online classes as public school at home, then I assume that she wants the government to stop offering online classes as public education for elementary school children.  Most online providers, however, aren’t public schools that have gone online, they are private schools.  This would mean the child would either be considered to be going to a private school or being homeschooled, neither of which the government can deny them, so there really isn’t much the government can do.  This is an crucial issue to discuss with talking about education, I don’t think it’s an issue that the government needs to be involved with, it is an issue that parents and children need to decide for themselves.

Public Education

"A world-class education is the single most important factor in determining not just whether our kids can compete for the best jobs but whether America can out-compete countries around the world.  America's business leaders understand that when it comes to education, we need to up our game. That's why we’re working together to put an outstanding education within reach for every child" - President Obama

Just as Bush did, President Obama has created a program to help fix our public school system.  The theory is that by giving money to the schools that develop the most innovative techniques for fixing our education system schools will become better because they will be forced to compete against each other.  I do not, however, think that this program will work.  I think that for our public schools to truly be fixed our government needs to be less involved with them instead of more involved.

Everyone knows that, compared to other developed countries, American students test lower then many other countries’ students.  Because of this fact, the federal government has concluded that American students must not be as smart as students from other countries.  This assumption does not make sense.  A student’s test scores only show how well they know the material the test is on, not how intelligent they truly are, so assuming that by bringing American students’ test scores up we will have more intelligent Americans is a naive idea.

Our education system does have many problems.  Every year hundreds of thousands of students head off to college unprepared for the work they will be given.  I think that this problem stems from the government’s increased involvement in trying to fix the educational system.   Teachers are told their students must know certain things by certain times and are given a specific curriculum to follow.  This does not give teachers the freedom they need to accommodate for individual students needs.  I think there needs to more focus on how to learn material, not just what to learn.  If a student knows how to study on her own and when to ask for help, then she can learn virtually anything.  The government’s focus, however, is not on how a student learns, but what they learn.  If the government was less involved with regulating public schools then teachers would have more freedom and would be able to teach their students how to learn, not just what to learn.  

Even though I think the government should be less involved in public education I know that it would be foolish to say the government should get completely out.  Public schools are funded by the government so it makes sense that the government would want to have some say in how they are run, but problems occur when the government gets too involved.  For our public education system to be fixed the government will have to realize that it’s increased involvement is actually hurting education, not helping it.  Unfortunately, the day the government realizes this is probably a long way off.

Response to "A Time for Change"

In a post by one of my classmate’s A Time for Change he discusses what is wrong with American politics today and some of the things that should be done to change them. He states that politicians are greedy people who care more about their own agendas then the people they represent and concludes that we need to get rid of political parties and this will result in better candidates running for office.  While I agree that many, if not all, politicians are care more about being elected then the people and that we need more choices then just the two candidates our current parties provide, I disagree that eliminating political parties will fix our government and it’s politician’s.

My classmate seems to imply that one of the main obstacles in the way of having good politicians is the fact that we have only two political parties and says that people should not be “stuck voting for the lesser of two evils.”  I agree that we should believe the people we vote for have our best interests at heart and shouldn’t feel like we’re voting for the person who will do the “least damage.”  I don’t agree, however, that eliminating all political parties will be what fixes this problem.  Political parties do not create politicians who care more about their own agenda then their people, the politicians themselves create this.  

Now, I do think eliminating political parties - or at least making it easier for third party candidates to run - will help this issue, but it doesn’t fix the heart of the problem, corrupt people running for office.  So how do we solve the issue of corrupt people running for office?  I don’t think there’s anything we can change in our government that will help.  As Lord Acton said "Power tends to corrupt."  There is no law we can pass that will force a person not to be corrupt, he must choose that for himself.  I think the only way the problem of corruption in politics will be solved is if someone who truly cares about the people steps up and is elected, paving the way for others to follow.  But this can only happen if we, the people support them.  If we want to be a change come about, we must be the ones to start it.

My classmate makes several good points and I agree that something has to change in our government, but I disagree that simply eliminating all political parties will cause the changes American politics need.

The Case for Life

There are many different social issues being debated by our society today, one of the most controversial being the issue of abortion.  There are many people who are passionately involved with this issue, both those who are pro-life and those who are pro-choice.  I believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, and thus is wrong.  For this reason, I believe that our Federal government should make abortion illegal.

Before I explain why I believe abortion should be made illegal, I want you to understand why I believe it is wrong.  The disagreements between pro-life and pro-choice advocates can be boiled down to just one question, is an unborn child alive? If a pro-choice advocate believed that an unborn child is alive, then they wouldn’t agree with abortion.  I believe that an unborn child is fully human, fully a person, and fully alive from the moment of conception.  Dr. Maureen Condic, an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah, says that embryos are living human beings "precisely because they possess the single defining feature of human life that is lost in the moment of death - the ability to function as a coordinated organism rather than merely as a group of living cells."  She goes on to say that “Embryos are not merely collections of human cells, but living creatures with all the properties that define any organism as distinct from a group of cells; embryos are capable of growing, maturing, maintaining a physiologic balance between various organ systems, adapting to changing circumstances, and repairing injury. Mere groups of human cells do nothing like this under any circumstances.” (1)  Clearly, from a scientific point of view, an unborn human is alive right from the moment of conception, so abortion, the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy (2), kills a human being.  This is why I believe abortion is wrong.    

Now that I have established why abortion is wrong it is easy to understand that I believe it should be illegal because it takes a human life.  The Federal government does not make things like drunk driving legal, which sometimes kill a human, so how can it make abortion legal which always kills a human?  Similarly, I believe the Federal government needs to be the one who makes abortion illegal, not the individual states.  Individual states were not allowed to determine whether or not slavery should be legal within their borders because slavery is always wrong, no matter the circumstance.  Abortion is just as wrong in Texas as it is in New York and every other state, so it makes sense to that the Federal government should be the one to make it illegal.  

One issue that pro-choice advocates bring up when pro-lifers say that abortion should be illegal is, what should happen to the mother?  Should she be treated as a murderer and sent to prison?  I don’t believe a woman who has an illegal abortion should be treated as a criminal.  Many women who are considering an abortion feel it is their only choice and can’t see the other options that are available.  They do not have an abortion because they want to kill their baby, they have an abortion to fix what they consider a problem that has no other solution.  For this reason, I believe that instead of being treated with hate, a woman who has an illegal abortion should be treated with compassion and love.  Sending her to prison will not fix anything.  I think a woman who has an illegal abortion should be given counseling and help with whatever made her decide an abortion was her only option.  After all, just as the mother is not more important then the unborn baby, the unborn baby is not more important then the mother and so the mother should not be forgotten. 

The issue of abortion has been debated for many years, and no doubt will continue to be debated for many more.  But I believe that eventually, because of the scientific evidence, abortion will be seen for what it really is, the taking of a human life and our Federal government will take action to make it illegal.  

(1) http://www.caseforlife.com/evidence.asp

(2) New Oxford American Dictionary

Good Points Do Not Always Mean Good Arguments

In an article written by Ann Coulter entitled “Get Rid of Government -- But First Make Me President!” published on June 15, 2011 on anncoulter.com, Coulter talks about all the reasons she can’t stand libertarians.  While she makes some good points about flaws in the thinking of libertarians, Coulter attacks libertarians too aggressively to 

effectively convince anyone who doesn’t already share her opinions to agree with her.  

Coulter’s choice of words in this article alienates any readers who don’t already agree with her.  By using words like “babbling” (paragraph 2) to describe libertarians she makes libertarians sound like idiots thus making everyone who even slightly agrees with them become defensive.  This tactic of aggressively attacking libertarians is somewhat effective for the conservative readers who frequent her blog, but if anyone comes in search of an opinion different from their own they will have to look past the attacks to see Coulter’s points.  

One of the main statements Coulter attacks is a suggestion made by Rep. Ron Paul on June 13, 2011.  Ron Paul, in response to his opinion of gay marriage, suggests that marriage should not be something the government needs to be involved with, saying that it should go to the church and individuals (paragraph 7).  Coulter’s says this is a very impractical idea because of all the legal issues and government programs that rely on the  legal contract of marriage.  She asks, “If state governments stop officially registering marriages, then who gets to adopt? How are child support and child custody issues determined? ... Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?” (paragraphs 8-9)  By pointing out all of these issues Coulter shows that it would be impossible to take away the government’s registration of marriage because of all the marriage related programs and legal issues we’ve created for the government to oversee.  

While Coulter’s assessment of Ron Paul’s argument has many valid points, she does nothing to convince people who don’t share her beliefs to agree with her.  No one who agrees with Ron Paul in anyway will be very willing to listen to her argument against him when they read Coulter comparing him to a vegetarian who still eats meat (paragraph 11).  Coulter also doesn’t do herself any favors by saying all liberals and libertarians “appeal to irrational mobs to attain power” while conservatives never do (paragraph 23).  In both groups there are people who do that, and it is unfair to both groups to make that statement. 

Coulter makes many good points in this article and calls out some faulty thinking of libertarians and Ron Paul.  Her opinions are well thought out and backed up by reliable evidence, but her manner of presenting it is completely off.  If Coulter had communicated her views in a way that sought to convince her reads more then to attack those she disagrees with, then this would have been a much more effective article

Is It Time To Change How We Vote?

Many people are frustrated with how our country is being run today, blaming the government for every problem they see.  But this is not entirely the government’s fault.  We the people elect our representatives which makes us at least partially responsible for how the government is run.  Our inability to elect good officials, however, is not entirely our fault.  Some people believe that the manner in which we elect out officials is a major part of the problem.  In this editorial written on September 1, 2011 for the opinion section of the Christian Science Monitor (CSM), John B. Anderson argues that we need to reform our voting system to allow more proportional representation and to allow third party or independent candidates a greater chance of being elected.  

In his editorial, Anderson claims that because of our current voting system Americans are not able to elect a president they truly agree with and are not being fairly represented in Congress.  The Democrat and Republican parties have been getting stronger in recent decades, making it so voters are forced to vote for a candidate from one of those two parties, even if then don’t truly agree with either candidate.  The dominance of the these two parties, Anderson argues, makes it virtually impossible for a third party or independent candidate to win a presidential election.  When voters who support a third party or independent candidate see that candidate’s support starting to slip Anderson says they often decide to settle for “the lesser of two evils” instead of continuing to back their top choice.  This happens when voters fear their top choice has no chance of being elected but they still want to have a say in who gets elected.  Anderson preposes we need to make changes to our voting system to allow third party and independent candidates a real chance of being elected.    

Another problem Anderson sees is how we elect our representatives.  He argues that Congress is not responsive to all Americans, it is only responsive to hard-line partisans.  Anderson proposes that we need to adopt a proportional representation system.  This means, says Anderson, that in states like Massachusetts, where Democrats regularly win all the house seats but a full third of the population votes Republican, three of the ten seats would be Republican, thus allowing the minority a voice.

Anderson’s proposals will be most appealing to people who are frustrated with the current state of our government and those who don’t agree entirely agree with either party.  Many people see politicians as only caring about being reelected and not listening to the people they serve.  But a third party or independent candidate offers hope that a politician might actually care about what the people think.  Though this may not turn out to be true, it offers hope and since many people have lost faith in the people that run our country, a third party or independent candidate is be very appealing.  

The argument in this editorial is very compelling.  Anderson has written it so that he favors neither Democrats nor Republicans, talking about each party equally.  This way Anderson hasn’t limited is his audience to a particular party or a certain set of beliefs.  The tone is non-volatile which makes people more receptive to his argument.  Anderson also does a good job of showing that his ideas actually have the potential to work.  He shows that several different independent candidates for president have gained significant voter support, and some have even been a real threat.  He also tells us that in recent years third party and independent candidates have won state elections and been elected to Congress.  This shows readers that people really do want those candidates in office and that those candidates have a chance of being elected.  

Anderson has served in Congress, run as an independent candidate for president - receiving seven percent of the popular vote, and served as board chair for FairVote.  This shows readers that he really does know what he’s talking about and isn’t just some news paper contributer giving their two cents worth.  These changes to our voting system that Anderson proposes are not just based on his own musing however.  Anderson also gives examples of his proposal for how to elect representatives actually working in Illinois.  Even though he cannot give us an example of his proposal for how we elect our president working, readers are inclined to believe that it will work as well because his other proposal has been proven to work.  

This editorial is very well thought out and makes a very convincing argument.  Because his writing style uses hardly any inflammatory words Anderson has made a wide range of people receptive to his argument.  He is also considered a trustworthy source because he has had first hand experience with these issues.  Another point that helps Anderson’s argument is the fact that it is published in the CSM, which is considered one of the most unbiased papers in the US.  Many people come to the CSM looking for an unbiased view of things, and Anderson’s editorial provides them with his view on how to fix our voting system without revealing his political views on any other subject.  Anderson has done a wonderful job writing and editorial that will convince his readers to consider his opinion on how we elect those running our country. 

The Federal Government's Problem of Interpreting the Constitution

Our Federal Government is often accused of using certain sections of the Constitution (such as the Elastic Clause) to justify the bills they pass.  This issue has become even more pronounced since the institution of a new rule in the House which requires all bills to carry a “Constitutional Authority Statement.”  Though implemented to help show that the new GOP majority in the House respects the restrictions placed on the Federal Government in the Constitution, this rule has only made more prominent the use of the Constitution to pass any law Congress wants.  

This article on Washingtonpost.com gives examples of this problem pointing out instances such as when the House used article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as justification for passing a bill that prohibits pointing lasers at aircrafts.  The article also shows, however, that this rule has been put to good use as well.  A bill to repeal the health care law cited articles 1, 2, 3, and 6, the 10th amendment and quoted James Madison.  This shows that the new rule is not useless.  

Though this new rule hasn’t made huge improvements in regards to the problem of the Federal Government using the Constitution to justify passing whatever laws they want, it does require representatives to constantly check themselves against the Constitution.  This article does a wonderful job of showing that.  It also shows that even though the House is still using the Constitution to their advantage, this rule has helped to pronounce that problem and thus it will be easier to eliminate the problem in the future.