Belief is Everything

I recently read a fellow classmates blog article entitled Ty to Listen to Logic for Once, and it left me with a one, nagging question throughout the read.

Is this article merely an opinion or based on hard evidence? I never saw any links to any evidence proving that President Bush is "tapping the wires of 303,907,819 people." Where is that number coming from? I find it very hard to believe that he is listening into everyone's phone line. This ability is used for people the government find suspicious, not the entire country.

I was also left with the impression that the writer was unsure of his facts.

"Out of the seven or so years the government may have found two potential spies using wiretapping."

That just does not sound like concrete evidence and if it is, is not written as such to make the reader BELIVE that it is fact. Belief is everything. This can come sometimes from the way you write things. Using words such as "may" do not sound very conclusive.

The opinions are there, it is just hard to swing my opinions or think along these lines without some evidence to back these ideas up.

Top Ten Percent

In Kelly Fraser's reporting State lawmaker wants ten-percent rule, a lawmaker has proposed a plan similar to the top ten percent rule in Texas. Since the passing of the law in 1997 (Bucks), thousands of students in the state of Texas have entered high school working towards the goal of graduating in the top 10 percent of their high school class. Then, with this task accomplished, they are automatically admitted into any state school of their choice. This accomplishment, which in no sense is an "easy task", has eased numerous students' minds about the college application process and where they will be getting their "higher education".

However, the true results of this legislation are not only in the positive motivation it can provide some high school kids of getting into their "dream school", but also the negative effect of putting, in most cases, less qualified students in the drivers seat of who is getting into the more competitive schools in Texas. In essence, the top ten percent rule, as good as it may seem for some students and law makers, has just as much, if not more negative effects on the high school students of Texas.

Texas is a vast state with many rural cities and towns. Most of these towns high school are very small, with graduating classes much smaller than those of bigger cities. Along with just being simply smaller graduating classes, these high schools also lack AP course and other advanced measures that further prepare students for the workload that college provides. This makes it easy for kids to graduate in the top ten percent of their class than a school such as Westlake, where sometimes a 3.9 on a 4.0 scale is not even good enough for the top ten percent there.

"I've had emails and letters and phone calls from people who literally have changed schools because their kid was in too competitive a high school, and knew they couldn't graduate in the top 10 percent," says Sen. Jeff Wentworth on this issue in an article concerning the Texas system. Promoting a frantic move for a family out of a larger, more competitive school district to a smaller, less challenging one just is surely not the results that the legislatures were looking for or anticipating, but the truth is, its happening.

"The current situation in Texas is that you can have a young man who is an Eagle Scout, who's president of his student council and captain of his football team. But because he's in the top 12 percent, he's not automatically admitted," says Wentworth. "But somebody else who's in the top 10 percent, who didn't even take the recommended curriculum for college work, who took the minimum curriculum, automatically goes to the University of Texas at Austin -- and that's not fair".

It is not fair, but continues to be in full effect and handing qualified college bound students rejection and even countering the motivation that the legislation was designed to provide. To implement this on a national level would cause the same problems that it would cause in any single state.

The Money Herb

Money cannot grow on trees. This is for certain.

Tobacco, barley, and other plants ARE however, grown and used in the manufacturing of products such as alcohol and tobacco products, which continue to provide huge revenue for the government through the regulation and taxation of these products.

Yet despite the proven success of regulating and taxing these less harmful and legal drugs by the government, the possession and/or use of marijuana, continues to be a criminal offense when if legalized, it could generate both spending cut backs and generate money at the same time.

As Mike Moffatt explains in his article "Should Governments Legalize and Tax Marijuana?" its simple economics.

With a risk involved in the buying and selling of marijuana, the average profit for a unit of marijuana of $6.90 (Moffatt) exists as a "risk-premium" due to the risk involved with the business. If legalized, this risk would be gone, allowing for that profit to be dropped and money for the government to make via regulation and taxation of the plant. In addition, with the risk of getting into criminal trouble gone, the demand would likely increase for buyers.

Not only would the government earning more money through taxation and regulation, but legalization would also cut out most of the money spent on enforcing laws against people buying and selling marijuana. The "War on Drugs" is costing the U.S. billions each year. With marijuana legal, much of this money goes towards other financial costs for the country.

More than economics and revenue though, come the basic principles our country was founded on. Individual liberty and freedom has been a major foundation for anything "American", including the use of similar, if not more dangerous (but legal) drugs such as alcohol and tobacco.

The government should only have a right to limit those choices if the individual's actions endanger someone else. If treated like alcohol, and legalized, criminal activities while using marijuana could be limited to while operating a motor vehicle, etc.

With not only many economic oppurtunities for the government but a duty to the people to provide individual freedom and liberty, it only seems like a logical and tradition based decision to legalize the recreational use of marijuana.

Just consider it the money herb.

 

 

 

 

Where is the Fear?

In Jonathan Singer's argument "I Had No Idea Things were THIS Bad for the Republicans", Singer proves that a poor examples lead to a poorly designed argument.

In Singer's argument, posted on "MyDD", Singer uses Josh Romney, who on Saturday announced his decision against running for the United States Congress in the state of Utah, as an example of Romney being "afraid to campaign" and thinking he "can't win". All of this, Singer says, is "a sign of how bad things are for Republicans, whether on the congressional level or the presidential level…"

However, if you not only read the section that Singer uses as an example in his argument from the article posted in the "Salt Lake City Tribune", but in fact the entire thing, one striking question comes to mind.

Where is the fear?

Singer claims Romney to be afraid to campaign and afraid of not winning. Neither of these claims are supported in the least by the article cited.

"Just having come off a tough election with my dad, I think the family's not quite ready to hop back into another race," Josh Romney said Saturday. "It's going to be nice to spend some time with the kids and take some time out of politics."

That is it. Romney's reasons are not fabricated or unclear. He is not afraid of losing. He rather feels that it is in the best interest of his family NOT to run. The Republican Party, exampled by Romney, has stuck to a core value system, in which family is high up in that system. Things are not "bad" for the Republican Party, but are instead stable, with a stable value system affecting the decisions made by its leaders and followers.

Singer sets this argument and himself up to be questioned, by making strong claims backed with evidence that shows no logical connection to the claims made. Although the things for the Republican Party may be "bad", this article and its claims and examples are a "bad" way of proving the well-being of the Republican Party.

Babies Cry too: That’s Just Noise

In Bill Simpich's article We Can Shout: All at the Same Time, Simpich delivers the argument that with enough people voicing out against the war, opinions and minds could be altered in Washington to end the war in Iraq. Simpich, an organizer with Iraq Moratorium in San Francisco that is also a supporter of Direct Action to Stop the War, posted his article on the left leaning blog site "counterpunch.org".

Targeted toward the public in order to spark them to speak out against the war, it seems as though Sampich posted his argument on the right sort of website to make his idea heard to people who might actually care about his opinion on the war. The left-leaning liberals could possibly (and probably have) stop in for a look and might even wind up supporting the idea of voicing out an end to the war that Simpich believes to be the end all solution to bringing it to a halt. So yes, his efforts are published in the right realm for the argument to render some success based on his audience.

Where Simpich's argument falls short is the evidence provided to convince an even non-informed reader of either political ideology, liberal or not. His main evidence brings us back to the Clinton administration, in which a "town meeting" ended up changing the outcome and decisions made against Iraq during Clintons' presidency. These few Ohio State faculty and students, who spoke out against the military force in Iraq, seemingly changed the outcome of the situation and decisions made in Washington.

This was simply not the case. Simpich even points in his own argument the major reasons for these plans making the news or even considered in the first place.

"The previous month, Matt Drudge had tipped off the world that Newsweek had preventing Michael Isikoff's story about President Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky from going to publication. Clinton needed a distraction--and quick. Once again, the President invoked an all-too-familiar mantra: Saddam Hussein had to be stopped before he got his hands on weapons of mass destruction."

This right here was the main reason of war against Iraq and Hussein ever was mentioned and brought to national attention. It simply was a distraction or diversion away from the scandals of Clinton-Lewinsky affair.

And it worked!

Their shouts and cries against the war were not heard anymore then than the shouts and cries of today would be heard. Not to say it is right, but babies cry too. That's just noise.

The right circumstances and results of this evidence fooled Simpich into believing that this was truly what could happen if voices united against the war today in Iraq. His argument only becomes weaker after his own recognition of that trickery and deception was placed into the argument itself. The fact is that this war is not a cover up (or has not been proven to be) for scandals in which President Bush wants to cover up by bigger national news about the war. Although their beliefs about the war may be right, and the best thing might be for the U.S. to get out of Iraq, the fact is that Washington will not give into the people's will power as easily this time because this war was not set up for the personal benefit of the higher authority.

 

Super Tuesday "Super" for Huckabee

A day after Super Tuesday, a day in which over 20 states decided where their delegate votes shall be placed, it seemed that all is not lost for Mr. Huckabee in his presidential campaign. Mike Huckabee, who for weeks has been virtually counted out by political analysts, had a strong showing on Super Tuesday, winning five states in the South. This showing has re-vitalized both him and his campaign, as both and he and his pocket book saw a boost with Tuesday’s success. Mitt Romney however, seems to see Huckabee as someone who doesn’t have a prayer and needs to get out of the race due to the fact that with him there, it is just someone else for him to compete with in votes. This attitude by Mr. Romney does not look to be one that will bring him success, as Huckabee has stated his intentions of staying for the long haul as Chip Saltsman, Mr. Huckabee’s campaign manager has been quoted saying “We are still running for president. We’re not running for Vice President.” A different attitude and a focus shift to his own campaign might help Mr. Romney with his own worries.

This is a summary of the article “As Romney Falters in Republican Race, Huckabee’s Drive Gathers Momentum” from The New York Times on February 6, 2008 by Michael Luo and Adam Nossiter. I chose this article and believe it should be read because it has to do with a topic that has huge implications on the Republican race for their party nomination for President.