Current Agenda
GOV 2305
Friday, August 13, 2010
Impact of No Child Left Behind
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Unemployment Woes Continue
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Can't We All Just Get Along
Friday, July 30, 2010
Legalizing Pot, Really?
With the vote on Proposition 19 in California getting closer and closer, voter support is scarily continuing to getting higher and higher. The proposition, if passed, will legalize various marijuana-related activities, allow local governments to regulate these activities, permit local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorize various criminal and civil penalties. The effect will not only have a huge impact on the state of California, but more importantly the nation as a whole. To think that after all the crackdowns we've had, and now we're moving to making marijuana a "recreational" drug, doesn't make any sense at all.
You don't have to go far in California to find proponents of this measure, who point to the massive state budget deficit California is facing, saying that passing the proposition will bring in "billions of dollars" in new state tax revenue. Despite the idea that legalizing pot will be the solution to all problems, in a report by the State Board of Equalization it was determined that revenue generated would be roughly $1.4 billion annually, which is far less than what people are expecting. To go along with this report, President Obama has stated “I don't think that is a good strategy to grow our economy," encouraging looking elsewhere for economic stability. If we legalize marijuana then we are not only going against our president, but also putting a blind bet that pot will become a saving grace in our economy.
Many proponents also cite that legalization would bring down law enforcement expenses, in other words also save the big bucks. One thing that these proponents fail to take into account though, is how they will enforce situations at schools, public use, smoking while minors are present or providing it to people under 21, which is what the measure calls for. Given all these factors, it seems to me like law enforcement is going to have a pretty tough time regulating something like marijuana on such a large scale.
Those in California need to realize that the whole country will be affected by this, not only them, and if passed would put a huge burden on government regulation. The uprising created would be huge, and spring massive controversy over whether the federal government should step in or not. In a recent Fox News report, retired English teacher Shirley Williams comments, "I think it would be chaos if it was legalized," a fear which much of the country might soon see.
Monday, July 26, 2010
How We Look at College
Last Thursday in the National Review's Phi Beta Cons blog, George Leef commented on the way we look at universities and how they look at us. Leef's post, Striving for Socioeconomic Diversity, offers two main points, one of which I agree with and one which I have a big problem with. He presents a very good point saying there's no reason to see it as a "reward to go to an elite college or university," with many teenagers today mystified by the likes of Harvard, Yale, and some of the other college elites. Along with this, Leef finds it hard to justify the characterization by colleges of a poor individual who succeeds, as a "striver" or someone who has "overcome obstacles."
Is going to an ivy league university really going to make a difference in the long run? If anything it might increase possible salaries and connections, but as Leef speculates, you probably won’t have a "brighter, more lucrative career" at a school like Duke than a smaller school such as ECU. To get everything out of these top schools you have to be at the top of a "more intellectually competitive,” which sure does require a lot of drive and eagerness to succeed. To assume "schools with higher U.S. News rankings are “better” schools," and that these schools are your ticket to success is totally wrong. Ultimately it's not the degree from Harvard that's going to matter, but what you're going to do with it in the real world that will determine your success.
Believing that "being relatively poor in the U.S. does not entail deprivation of anything essential," is like saying being rich doesn’t have any benefits. If you don't consider a strong education essential, then I don't know what you do. In many cases poor Americans are strongly deprived of the same standards of education of even the middle-class, with their schools usually struggling to even keep their education system afloat. To go along with this they lack many of the resources and opportunities available to many others which is arguably just as important as the education itself. Leef states that "there are non-poor students who have managed to deal with difficulties," which is true, but the two difficulties are usually on two very different levels and are hard to compare.
In an ideal world to many, such as Leef, colleges in acceptance would look at nothing but academic interest and aptitude, but that's just not the world we live in. There's much more to a person than just academic success, and to look at a person as a whole makes a whole lot more sense than just test results. Just because someone got a great score on the SAT doesn't indicate at all that they will do great in the real world. Interestingly enough it’s those people with the interesting stories and that come from a poor family that are more prepared to face all the difficulties that life has to offer.