Commentary on "Moving To Canada? . . . Seriously?"

Chad is definitely one of the most insightful bloggers I have met. I think those people that are confessing about moving to Canada due to the presidential election are just afraid of change. I bet if Senator Obama were to succeed, those inconsiderate jerks that were going to move to Canada would stay.

When Chad states, "I'm sure that they are trying to make a bold statement, but attempting to do so in an extremely ineffective, irrational way. Running away from a situation that opposes a given groups' opinion shows fear and instability." I couldn't have written that any better. I feel that the way people respond or react to change is quite ridiculous sometimes.

I really liked the way how he emphasized PEOPLE in caps and labeling it as a key term because that is what really defines our nation. To be honest, people that complain and don't go outside to voice their opinion are labeled as cowards personally to me. Go out to do something! Don't cause a riot for your cause, but at least something productive.

I agree with all of Chad's post, it is very much a pleasure to read. His post makes me feel as if I want to get out and tell everyone to act as if they are a part of this nation and step forward for our country. The huge future of our country is in the hands of the PEOPLE. Being ignorant and avoiding the situation by moving to Canada is definitely a big no. Leaving the country is not a productive move, we have to take action to actually get out of our couch and get out making our country a better place. That is definitely what I would say.

Warrantless Wiretapping

I disagree with warrantless wiretapping because I don't think the government should have the right or good enough reason to invade our privacy without a warrant. I understand they are trying to protect our nation from further troubles and other happenings, but I still believe that in every condition, they should at least get a warrant before invading our space.

I don't mind if the government is putting surveillance cameras up at street lights and department stores because I believe that is for a good cause, but tapping into our phone conversations and into our internet is kind of crossing the line in my opinion. If the government honestly believes someone could be a terrorist and wants to keep an eye on them, then they should be able to provide proof and get a court order stating its okay to invade their space. I understand that my view on surveillance is a lot of hard work for the government, but I believe it is the right and proper thing to do.

I remember Mr. Seago mentioning in class how warrantless wiretapping wasn't in the constitution, but they didn't necessarily have telephones or internet to even state it in the constitution. The internet is definitely one of the popular fascinating phenomena’s, but people should already know without discussion that it is wrong to invade someone's privacy without permission.

Why is the United States resorting to this? Obviously the reason is because of 9/11, but an incident like that should not penalize everyone in the whole nation. How can the government fix this? Warrantless wiretapping is out of the question and we should spend more money to find another route that doesn’t violate certain rights of the people otherwise it would create chaos within the nation.

If the government believes warrantless wiretapping is fine by any means, there's no telling what they are going to do next. Before you know it, we won't have any privacy whatsoever. I believe something needs to be done before it gets out of hand.

Commentary on "We Are Doomed :("

I agree with Steven's position in his blog post "We Are Doomed :(" which states that the two candidates for president have neither experience nor the worthiness to be president of the United States. Not only does he point out valid statements how President Bush was a terrible president, but the parties behind the presidential candidates are the ones in control compared to the candidates themselves.

I mean I don't see myself voting for any of the two candidates, as Steven also believes, because I don't think they can solve the problem within the country. Maybe I am afraid of the two candidates or just don't think they're up for the task, but it is still too early to say whether they are good or bad because we just don't know the outcome yet. Mr. Tran feels that we should write Ron Paul, I feel as if he should have elaborated on why he feels this way. What makes Ron Paul approvable in Steven's eyes?

I don't agree with Steven when he says "If you want to vote and make a difference for the better of our country, you shouldn’t vote for these two clowns." because not voting is something that we shouldn't do. Even though I don't necessarily see myself voting for any of the two candidates, but I lean a little towards Obama and so I believe that I would have probably voted for Obama. Steven pulls my attention in once again when he writes "We are forced to pick the lesser of the two evils." which I could not have put in better words myself.

Your idea about the candidates not being worthy or ready enough is fairly reasonable. Though Bush has put himself the country in a bad situation, I deeply feel bad for anybody to have to stand up and clean this mess up. It is agreeable to say, that we want what’s best for our country.

America's Education

Obviously the presidential election is getting all the attention right now, but I'm here to approach a different topic. America should be alarmed by the new data revealing that our country's education is losing ground compared to other competitors.

America used to be one of the top leading schools and now it has fallen behind to other countries dramatically. This country is part of the industrial world so we should strive to be the best in it, not decline in it.

I don't think most American parents realize how bad our education system is compared to other nations because they either don't want to believe it or are blind to it. If they were able to see the actual numbers comparing our graduation rates to other countries, I think that parents would open their eyes to improving our country’s education. Other problems dealing with presidential elections or the Iraq matter pulls people away from the problem within our own country.

Some people have noticed this matter and the U.S. government has issued the "No Child Left Behind Act" before to improve these rates, but personally to me it doesn't "help" our education at all. Due to the younger generation not striving in school, I feel as if they have numbed our education so that they could pass. I even feel as if the U.S. government disguises our graduation rate numbers with drop outs that receive G.E.D.S.

I think our country should really step up and improve our education system by keeping an eye on our education more attentively and spend more to improve our children and country as a whole. Our country has been masking our statistics and doing little to help our schools for quite some time and now we are paying the price.

Eissler & Kolkhorst: The Legislature puts education first

Basically this commentary starts its article with Eddie Rodriguez's misleading attempt of half truth attacks on the Republicans and Speaker Tom Craddick. The intended audience for Eissler and Kolkhorst seems just to be the general informed public. The commentary doesn't seem to aim at a particular age group or ethnicity group. So as Rodriguez suggest incorrect statements about Texas Legislature, it becomes more false as the article goes on.

It is proved that Education receives the largest portion of the state's budge, "Nearly 59 cents of every state tax dollar goes to either higher or public education. In 2007, lawmakers increased state public education funding by $15.3 billion while reducing the local tax burden by $14.4 billion for a net increase of almost $1 billion." Eissler and Kolkhorst's pointings toward Eddie Rodriguez are highly believable due to the specific facts that supported their arguement.

I like the way how Eissler and Kolkhorst openly admits that Texas teacher's salaries are a tiny bit under that national value, but implies that Texas teachers aren't necessarily going to make as much as New York teachers due to the location being in completely different states. Even because of this, it is told that teacher salaries have increased because of Craddick's care.

Parts of the article that displays messages like "Finally, Rodriguez complains that the former Texas Tomorrow Fund is closed, but fails to mention that the innovative Texas Promise Fund. For a few dollars a day, Texans can lock in affordable tuition rates. " easily reveals what side Eissler and Kolkhorst is on. I too is on Eissler and Kolkhorst's side.

I have stated before about the government how I don't appreciate popularity party attacks for personal party gain. Society is what the legislature should be taking care of, especially the kids of our world. This is because with their education that the state legislatures invested will shape the whole country in the future. I definately dislike Eddie Rodriguez's statements and actions just to "supposedly" help with the presidential campaign coming up (Bashing on Republicans). The arguement, logic, and evidence that was laid out by Eissler and Kolkhorst was very reasonable and the way they approached it was very mature. I whole-heartedly agree with very much of Eissler and Kolkhorst's points.
Eissler and Kolkhorst's commentary can be found on a mainstream newspaper media source at Austin American Statesman. Wednesday, October 15, 2008.

Robinson: Will justice be served?

According to a reporter from The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson, Sara Palin's speech made people overf look a critical story that was released by the Justice Department. Evidence that political partisan considerations were an important factor in the removal of several U.S. attorneys. I'm not necessarily sure who Robinson's intended audience was suppose to be, it seems to be just the general public. Considering the statement that was noted, "The investigators wanted to ask White House political czar Karl Rove, White House counsel Harriet Miers, Goodling, Domenici and Domenici's chief of staff about any role they played in Iglesias' dismissal. All refused to be interviewed." shows that Robinson's statement dealing with the removal of U.S. attorneys had political partisan consideration purposes. Robinson's claim comes with not concrete evidence that makes it true, but detail evidence that makes Robinson's prediction more believeable. Robinson states that"The people who have been running our government for the past eight years have nothing but contempt for government." which basically shows what side Robinson is coming from. I personally have to agree with Robinson, people will do possibly anything to keep their status in the office. If there are obstacles in my way, I am obviously going to see what way I can remove them. This just goes the same for people in office that what to keep "staying" in office. I feel like people that don't do much for the government should be removed anyway, but if they do something and get taken out due to political popularity. I definately do not agree.

This commentary could be found at Austin American Statesmen by Eugene Robinson from the Washington Post

Questions Emerge Over Police Conduct in St. Paul

Today, an article by the New York Times brought up questions about police conduct. City officials basically appointed two federal prosecuters to analyze the strategies used by the police before and during the political conventions that were held. Tom Walsh, a spokesman for the St. Paul police department, said "Monday that the officers had performed well in unusual conditions, sometimes facing hundreds who he said were intent on disrupting the convention or damaging property." Obviously he tries to defend his fellow co-workers and tries to justify that the action that was used was necessary which he implies that no serious injuries occured. Most of the demonstrations were considered to be peaceful, but a small masked group crossed the line and caused serious damage. As a result to the chaos, many people were arrested, tear gas, or pepper sprayed to quite the public. Dave Thune, a St. Paul city councilman, said “When clearly the bulk of the peaceful people weren’t joining in a riot, why did we have to go to the extent of using tear gas and percussion grenades?” due to the overflow of complaints. The truth is, innocent people that did not contribute to the riots, but were only onlookers or journalist were also arrested because they were around the area of the riot. When it comes to that point, police action is going out of hand.
This article deserves our attention due to the fact how far U.S. government is willing to take to make the U.S. a stable place to live in (part of the Madison theory). The American public will look at policeman a different way, which would link to the government and the American public will soon associate the whole government system as unfair. The major problem about this is that Americans may look at this situation in a narrow-minded point of view and blame the government for not controlling the police force, but people have to consider the fact that police action is usually necessary to keep structure in the society and prevent it to get out of hand. People fail to realize which side started this, police wouldn't necessarily go out of hand for no reason unless the public does.
This article can be found on the New York Times.