Some Help Just Hurts Critique

   In "Some Help Just Hurts" a post by the proud American talks about how people of misfortunes are abusing the fact that they get the opportunity to use food stamps to purchase items that they do not really need. For example alcoholic beverages, fake nails and other products. That don't help their situation; they just focus on some on purchasing drugs or products that make them look good. Her solution to this is having the users take a drug test to see if they should be eligible for food stamps.
     I agree but the thing is how are you going to drug test for alcohol and cigarettes according to this (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IxipDITq4mMJ:www.netwellness.org/question.cfm/41921.htm+how+long+does+nicotine+stay+in+your+blood%3F&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28&gl=ca) Nicotine doesn't stay in your body for very long nor does cot nine. It depends on the user, and I do not think the food stamp users will be detected for drinking either. I mean they're not going to be always intoxicated. Especially if they know that there will be drug tests. I do not know how they will test for fake nails and hair products; birthday cakes don’t apply because its food.
        Although the idea sounds good and I agree people shouldn't abuse food stamps. There is not a great solution that is addressed to stop this abusiveness. This sounds like an upset employee that is tired of watching people cheating their way through purchasing products that they don’t really need. Instead of an unbiased critique, and I would like to see the link to an article and read it because I’m interested and this blog doesn't provide it.     

http://afsikes.blogspot.com/

President of University of Oregon Fired For Helping School?

      
         As I was going through the Austin American Statesman I noticed that former UT liberal arts dean; Richard Lariviere has been fired from The University of Oregon.  He had made his switch from UT to The University of Oregon in 2009.  Although what Richard Lariviere did was not bad per say; he did do something controversial and was not given any authority for his actions.  Richard getting fired is the right choice in my humble opinion.  Richard tried to make the school a flagship university(meaning it more private and having more research facilities and NCAA division 1 athletic program)  and rose the professor's salaries without permission.  He was not authorized to do so; so he should rightfully be punished; which is what happened.
         Basically Richard was trying to make the school better as he says,  “I rather be fired .... Trying to seize an act to make the university better than watch it on the glide path to mediocrity."  But he wasn't given any authority; I mean where are they going to get this money from?  The answer would be tax payers.  He wants to make the school bigger and better but he does not think of how it will affect the people of Oregon.  If he makes it bigger will he make it more expensive?  How will this effect people of Oregon attending college?  Will the acceptance rate decrease? There are so many unanswered questions; that he doesn't address.
         In conclusion as much as I agree with paying the teachers more money; where is that money going to come from?  Again this whole idea raises the question; how will this affect the economy of the state of Oregon.  On paper this sounds like a great idea, but not very well thought out.  Second of all he was not given any authority to do this.

Educating The Masses Critique

         I agree with her a 100 percent. But at the same time we do need to some sort of scale to measure education and intelligence. In order to pass the kids on to the next grade level. Standardized test don’t mean much but at the same time what alternative/method would you rather choose. Would you choose a Henry David Thoreau method of studying where we would learn by soaking up the outside world and just sit together and talk amongst each other?
       I do agree and I don’t think we should cram material down student’s throats. I also don’t agree that we shouldn't prepare them to take standardized test but as of now there isn't a better alternative.   I just wish she gave an example of alternative ways to measure kids learning ability.  We can’t just assume the kids learned the material they need to be tested. 

http://afsikes.blogspot.com/

When the TROOPS! When the Troops Come Marching HOME!

               
              I agree with President Obama’s decision by bringing home approximately 40,000 troops from Iraq to come home in early 2011; in this (L.A. Times) article.  It’s about time we pull our troops out of Iraq; they should’ve never been there in Iraq.  We didn’t achieve our mission in Iraq in finding weapons of mass destruction(aka WMD's).  We failed finding WMD's so why were we still there?  How many casualties has there been?  How many wounded soldiers have there been?  How many WMD’s have we found?  Was it even worth it?  Now all of these soldiers aren't going to see their families anymore.
            Well according to globalsecurity website there are about 4,000 casualties and 30,000 wounded soldiers.  For what purpose; according to MSNBC there weren’t any WMD’s found and it was published in 2003 and the article has been updated.  There obviously were not any weapons of mass destruction.  So basically the mission in Iraq was complete failure and catastrophe.  All of those lives that were lost in Iraq were for nothing; because they didn't find what they were looking for and had a lot of casualties to pay for their failure.            

            In conclusion I’m supportive of Barack Obama’s choice of bringing our troops home 40,000 troops will come home to be with their families and celebrate the holidays with their families.  Which means 40,000 troops will not be casualties of Iraq.  This Iraq fiasco should’ve ended a long time ago.  I mean we were there for nine years and we were searching WMD's and found nothing.

  The author’s audience in this article(Huffington Post) is adults but mainly parents who have children and are going to school.   Mark Kennedy Shriver(the author) is a U.S. Democratic Party politician who served as a member of Maryland House of Delegates for two terms from 1995 to 2003.  Mr. Striver wants to draft a bill that would modernize the no child left behind in rural areas.  Claims it will increase economic growth, keep kids off the streets and them becoming criminals and increase testing standards.

                I actually agree with his policy; there isn’t a policy established so they might as well do something and this sounds like a good investment.   Mr. Striver’s logic sounds spot on why just educate the urban and neglect the rural; when the rural people could be just as beneficial to our economy.  If not more beneficial.   He gives statistics saying, “That the Literacy Instruction and Achievement would incentivize on states and improve on early childhood education the key to elementary school success and, reduced crime and as much as $2trillion dollars.”  He says Striver says experts have tested this but he does not list any and doesn’t explain their credibility he just calls them “experts.”

                Overall I would say Mr. Striver has merit in his case and I would agree that we should balance the scales and invest in educating the rural economy.  But he doesn’t give sufficient evidence into why this would be great plan.  Mr. Striver makes a good argument and we should invest in the rural economy.

No way Jose!

                In the L.A. Times article: “Alabama’s Win or Loss”; the author’s (Andrew Kydd and Barbra F. Walters) wrote about immigration in Alabama.   Andrew Kydd has a Ph. D. in political science from the University of Chicago and is an associate professor.  Barbra F. Walters has a Ph. D. in political science and is a professor University of California, San Diego.  The professors intended audience is the American public.  The argument they’re making is that they should do something about immigration that way states don’t pass laws where if they think if anyone is illegal they can detain them, and take them under custody.  That Congress and the president must step up! The suggestions they made were: secure the border, Dream Act and Security Act.  I agree with some of the views they have for solving the immigration policy but I don’t agree with the Security Act.

                The Security Act seems reasonable but at the end of the day most of the illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don’t want.  They are not harming anyone by doing their job.  Most of them are just trying to support their families by sending money back home.  Although they should contribute in our society if they are going to live here; I feel like there is a better alternative than this solution right here.   I agree with a more secure border that deals with the 11 million immigrants in the U.S. as well to deport those who pose a threat.   This can come in handy that way we don’t have to result to racism and cause riot because we choose to remain ignorant and not have a solid policy!

                The Dream Act would allow immigrants an opportunity to be successful in this nation if they serve at least two years in the military or two years in a community college or university.  If they do either of the two options; than they can apply for a permanent residence.  I like this I think it gives the immigrants a chance at an education and to be a legal citizen.  The only problem I have is what if they choose to the military option and they get stop – loss.  Where they end up serving more than what was stated in their contract and the military has done this to their own citizens so what makes you think they wouldn’t do it to illegal immigrants? 

                In conclusion I believe most of the policies could help our society and turn illegal immigrants into citizens and productive citizens at that and at the same time prevent ignorant and racist laws being passed in Alabama and other states where they just pull over and detain anyone who the police think is illegal. 

No Juan Crow!

In the New York Times article: “Alabama’s Win or Loss”; the author’s (Andrew Kydd and Barbra F. Walters) wrote about immigration in Alabama.   Andrew Kydd has a Ph. D. in political science from the University of Chicago and is an associate professor.  Barbra F. Walters has a Ph. D. in political science and is a professor University of California, San Diego.  These professors intended audience is the American public.  The argument they’re making is that they should do something about immigration that way states don’t pass laws where if they think if anyone is illegal they can detain them, and take them under custody if they think they’re illegal.  That Congress and the president must step up! The suggestions they made were: secure the border, Dream Act and Security Act.  I agree with some of the views they have for solving the immigration policy but I don’t agree with the Security Act.

                The Security Act seems reasonable but at the end of the day most of the illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don’t want.  They are not harming anyone by doing their job.  Most of them are just trying to support their families by sending money back home.  Although they should contribute in our society if they are going to live here; I feel like there is a better alternative than this solution right here.   I agree with a more secure border that deals with the 11 million immigrants in the U.S. as well to deport those who pose a threat.   Which can come in handy that way we don’t have to result to racism and cause riot because we choose to remain ignorant and not have a solid policy?

                The Dream Act would allow immigrants an opportunity to be successful in this nation if they serve at least two years in the military or two years in a community college or university.  If they either of the two than they can apply for a permanent residence.  I like this I think it gives the immigrants a chance at an education and to be a legal citizen.  The only problem I have is what if they choose to the military option and they get stop – loss.  Where they end up serving more than what was stated in their contract and the military has done this to their own citizens so what makes you think they wouldn’t do it to illegal immigrants? 

                In conclusion I believe most of the policies could help our society and turn illegal immigrants into citizens and productive citizens at that and at the same time prevent ignorant and racist laws being passed in Alabama and other states where they just pull over and detain anyone who the police think is illegal.