YouTube is one of the many resources on the Internet that has significantly impacted citizen participation. The 2012 Campaign Advertisement video that I used for the last blog post serves to illustrate my point in the post very well. With YouTube, hundreds of millions of people are given access to the beliefs and views of people around the world in video form. Videos provide the most personal form of communication on the Internet because you are able to see the person moving, talking, and interacting visually instead of just reading what they said or seeing a picture of them. Videos on the Internet combines language and images to get a full, interactive project that demonstrates the individuality of the people who upload those videos.

This campaign advertisement for Trump for president in 2012 allows the person who uploaded it to effectively demonstrate his views, and gives the millions of YouTube users the ability to reflect on this person's views. 

2012 Campaign Political Advertisements

On the democratic side of things, here is President Obama's declaration that he will be running for president in 2012. There are no possible democratic candidates that come close to even rivaling President Obama's popularity, and the current president is the favorite to be the winner of the Democratic Primaries.



This video on YouTube isn't necessarily a campaign advertisement, but it was the closest to one that I could find for President Obama. It's a very direct and clear declaration that he will be running, and even though it could be improved in many ways, this video serves as a fairly good advertisement for the president's campaign in 2012.

Here is a video for Donald Trump's 2012 Presidential Campaign made by a YouTube user.



Although some aspects of the video are amateurish, it is a very good campaign advertisement, and, with a few modifications, could be a real campaign ad on television or spread throughout the web. It is a ferocious and ambitious advertisement, and it does a good job of getting the point across that maybe we need an extreme Republican in office.

Ecommerce Taxation

Ecommerce taxation is a very difficult issue to resolve in the United States, and is a hotly debated issue in many states, including, currently, California. Taxes are a necessity for the state governments and for the federal governments in order to fund highways, public schools, government jobs, programs and numerous other things, but, as we are venturing deeper and deeper into this electronic, Internet-based world, several big issues are arising, including the issue of taxation. Taxes are difficult to assign because many of the things bought online are bought in different states or even in different countries, yet they are bought from a computer in the United States. Governments lose money because they don't know how or what to tax of the items bought online. An opinion article in the Mercury News by Jessica Melugin titled "An alternative to California proposal to tax e-commerce" describes a possible solution to this issue:

An origin-based tax regime, based on the vendor's principal place of business instead of the buyer's location, will address the problems of the current system and avoid the drawbacks of California's plan. This keeps politicians accountable to those they tax. Low-tax states will likely enjoy job creation as businesses locate there. An origin-based regime will free all retailers from the accounting burden of reporting to multiple jurisdictions. Buyers will vote with their wallets, "choosing" the tax rate when making decisions about where to shop online and will benefit from downward pressure on sales taxes. Finally, brick-and-mortar retailers would have the "even playing field" they seek.

This seems like the best possible solution to this seemingly-unsolvable dilemma because states will no longer simply lose the tax revenues that they would normally receive through purchases in stores. In addition, I see little that is objectionable in this solution, so I predict that it has a chance of being implemented fairly easily.

Censorship Close to Home

A week or so ago, overt government censorship was put into effect with regards to a video on the San Francisco Chronicle website. The article in the Examiner entitled "White House, San Francisco Chronicle clash over anti-Obama protest video" by Dennis Bodzash, explains how a video of Obama protesters posted to the website of the Chronicle by Carla Marinucci was censored: 

Last week,San Francisco Chronicle reporter Carla Marinucci was covering an Obama speech as a pool reporter. However, outside the speech itself, Marinucci saw some people protesting the Obama Administration, specifically its dealings with Bradley Manning, the soldier accused to sending secret government documents to Wikileaks. Seeing the unexpected story arise right in front of her, Marinucci pulled out her tiny video recorder, typically used for taking video of speeches, turned it on the protestors, and posted the video on the Chronicle website..

In the act of taking video of the protestors, the White House declared that Marinucci violated pool rules for that event and that only the speech itself was to be reported upon. However,Chronicle editor Ward Bushee defended his reporter, saying that she was covering a legitimate news event in itself and that recording the sudden appearance of protestors were not part of the pooling agreement, which specified the speech.

 In my opinion, even though I am a supporter of the Obama administration, I do not think this censorship was justified. I side with the opinion and the argument of the Chronicle, that Marinucci's video was separate from her  pool reporter coverage, and was simply a news story on the side that just happened to be at the same time and place as the Obama speech. In addition, I think the Internet is a vast and uncontrollable place, and the U.S. government must be very careful in limiting what is on the Internet, because the Internet is a symbol of the freedom that is available in America. I believe that very few things should be censored by the government that is posted on the Internet because anything published on the Internet is an extension of the views and the experiences of the people, and should not be censored.

MSNBC Keeping the Public Informed

Going on to the MSNBC website today, I found one of the biggest news stories of the day in politics in various places and in various forms on the site. MSNBC as a news source on the whole did a good job of covering President Obama's own Roast of Donald Trump, by providing a video clip of Obama's jests directed toward the possible presidential candidate at the White House Correspondents' Association annual dinner. MSNBC's video clip of part of Obama's speech is very funny and is the funniest I have seen the president. The video clip is great, but the article covering Obama's jokes about Trump is good also. The article, entitled "Obama mocks Trump and self at gala dinner" explains how the president took Trump's attacks at him and flipped them into comedy, as much of the democratic party has been viewing Trump's remarks already. The article gives a better overall coverage of the dinner than the video, which discussed some of Obama's other remarks about the Republican party, including this one: 

He said he'd heard that Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota was running for president, adding, "which is weird, because I hear she was born in Canada."

This dinner last night was an important issue because it was Obama's first retaliation after weeks of Trump criticizing and taking shots at Obama, yet, Fox News failed to cover the article, demonstrating better news coverage on the part of MSNBC.

After a week when Obama released his long-form Hawaii birth certificate, he said Trump could now focus on the serious issues, from whether the moon landing actually happened to "where are Biggie and Tupac?"

"No one is prouder to put this birth certificate matter to rest than 'the Donald,'" Obama said, referring to Trump's claims the same day that he was responsible for solving the issue. 

Why Can't Fox Focus on REAL Political Issues?

I went on to the Fox News website, and clicked on Videos and then Politics. One of the main featured videos with a thumbnail was titled "Political Madness" and the name attracted my attention, so I watched. Here's the video:



After watching the entire thing, I realized that it had very little to do with politics, other than the fact that it involved the two main political figures in the news currently. Now, the first few minutes of the video offer little that is objectionable, yet, around three minutes, O'Reilly begins to shift from covering politics to focusing on uttering ridiculous and contradictory statements, such as the one at 3:02, where O'Reilly says that "talking points hopes they cease and desist for the good of the country." It's interesting that he says this when it was the Tea Party Right, which is clearly represented by Fox News and its broadcasting, that began the rumors that President Obama is a liar because he was not born in the United States, in an attempt to smear the president's reputation.

At around 3:30, O'Reilly shifts completely from the election of 2012 to President Obama's Easter services last Sunday. O'Reilly, for some odd reason, sharply criticizes Obama's choice of church for Easter services, and seems to be hinting that the President is some sort of Constitution-hater or something completely ridiculous like that. I find it very interesting and slightly contradictory that O'Reilly, throughout the early portion of this video, seems to want to get past the birth certificate issue and the rumors surrounding it so everyone can focus on real politics, yet he seems to be vehemently stirring the rumor pot, focusing on the minute details of the president's Easter plans from last Sunday.

New York Times Co. v. United States

The war in Vietnam was causing significant uprising in the United States, and a political scientist working at the Pentagon took action. He smuggled a paper from the Pentagon called the "Pentagon Papers," that detailed the decision-making process of the U.S. in Vietnam, and gave it to the New York Times to publish. The New York Times began publishing this paper on June 13, 1971, and was ordered to stop by the federal government on June 30, 1971. The case was appealed very quickly and was a question of First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The Court ruled in favor of the New York Times with a 6-3 vote, yet all of the justices wrote their own opinions. The majority opinion was that there was nothing in the Constitution that outlawed publishing certain types of material.

I do not side with the Court in this case because there should be some bans on freedom of speech and freedom of the press if the state of the country and foreign policy are in jeopardy, such as what happened with the public release of the Pentagon Papers. 

Here is a preview of a PBS documentary on Daniel Ellsberg and what he did to obtain the Pentagon Papers, his motives behind his actions, and the full story behind the Supreme Court case. 

The per curiam decision made in the Times case was that "any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." In simple terms, the Court saw that the New York Times could publish things like this, even though they might cause issues and uprising.

Gitlow v. New York

Benjamin Gitlow, an communist activist, was convicted of violating the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act and was charged with teaching communist ideals of overthrowing the current United States government. He taught people that it was necessary to overthrow government by advocating mass revolts and political strikes. Gitlow took his conviction to the Supreme Court where the Court decided, with a 7-2 vote, in favor of the state of New York, upholding Gitlow's conviction. the majority opinion of the Court claimed that, even though freedom of speech and freedom of the press are contained within the Constitution, "a state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organizing government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means." In essence, the decision to give or take away right to subversive speech is delivered to the states as an extension of the Constitution.

I agree with the Court's ruling on this case, and I have found the ruling of the Court in monumental cases is very consistent and intelligent. I believe that the Constitution guarantees the rights to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, and that controlling what people are saying about the government is against the Constitution, because speech cannot be violent. The ancient proverb "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me" holds true in my opinion, and words are rarely as effective as actions.

The site CaseBriefs again provides excellent synopses of the rules and precedents established by Supreme Court cases and a great review for major Supreme Court cases. CaseBriefs explains that, according to the ruling of Gitlow v. New York,

State statutes are unconstitutional if they are arbitrary and unreasonable attempts to exercise authority vested in the state to protect public interests.

Criminal anarchy, as defined by the 1902 New York Criminal Anarchy Act, is "the doctrine that organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means."

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas

The 1954 Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas is arguably the most famous and biggest Supreme Court cases in the history of the United States. It overturned the 1896 decision of Plessy v. Ferguson, and established that "separate but equal," in fact, cannot and is not true. Blacks had been denied access to segregated white schools that were clearly much better than the black schools, and the cases came up all through the court system to the Supreme Court. Chief Justice Earl Warren, the same person who mandated the internment of the Japanese after the incident at Pearl Harbor, wrote for the unanimous decision in favor of Brown.Warren took from a Kansas state court ruling that said that "segregation...has a tendency to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school system." With the state of the black facilities in comparison with the white facilities and with the Fourteenth Amendment in mind, the Court decided that separate could not be equal.

This monumental decision was very well argued and thought-out, and reflected the changing views of society at the time. During the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, slavery had recently been eliminated, and accepting blacks into society was very difficult for whites then, but as society progressed, blacks began to fight for their rights more, and whites began to accept blacks as equals, like they should be viewed. I agree with this ruling because there was no way that any of the crappy blacks only facilities were anywhere close to as good or clean as the white only facilities, illustrating that there was no way that having separate facilities could be equal

This clip on YouTube from PBS below examines the case of Brown v. Board of Education. It provides a good feel as to what times were like when this court ruling took place with video footage of the different and unequal facilities.

The case of Brown v. Board of Education was different than Sweatt v. Painter in that the case of Sweatt dealt primarily with universities, and the University of Texas Law School in particular, while Brown dealt with public education facilities for grades K-12.

Gideon v. Wainwright

The 1963 Supreme Court case of Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to an attorney in any court cases. Clarence Gideon was an extremely poor man who was arrested for breaking into a pool hall in Florida. When his case was brought to court, he was unable to provide himself with an attorney, and the court denied his request for a court-appointed attorney because they were only available in the case of a capital crime, something that Gideon was not convicted of. Gideon was sentenced to five years in prison, but from prison, Gideon submitted a hand-written petition that was taken in by the Court. Unanimously, the Court decided in favor of Gideon, overturning the prior case of Betty v. Brady that had set a precedent. The Court ruled that a fair trial is a necessary right as stated in the Constitution, and, therefore, a court-appointed attorney must be provided in cases which the defense cannot provide an attorney for his/her self.

This decision was a monumental one and is a decision that I agree with because the Court did not extend the rights of the Constitution in any strange way; it simply declared that, in order to have a fair trial, the defense must have the means to defend him/her self. This case set a huge precedent in terms of judiciary process and, in my opinion, has made the United States a much more fair place. 

This clip from YouTube provides the background and the surrounding details that would make the case of Gideon v. Wainwright and contains some interesting footage.

While he was in prison, Gideon sent in a handwritten petition, called a in forma pauperis, to the Supreme Court for appeal.

Miranda v. Arizona

The Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona is perhaps among the top most monumental Supreme Court cases and decisions in the history of America. Ernesto Miranda, a convicted kidnapper and rapist was arrested by police officers and submitted to two hours of interrogation, during which signed a written confession, disclosing the crimes he had committed, all without knowing his rights or having them read to him. He was found guilty, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that his Fifth Amendment rights had been violated. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Miranda by a vote of 5 to 4, with Chief Justice Earl Warren writing for the majority opinion. The Court stated that a prosecutor could not use a statement "stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

I agree wholeheartedly with the Supreme Court's decision on this case because it has been mandated for every single arrest since then. It is essential that every person knows the rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution, and if they don't, then they should be told those rights when their freedom and their lives are in jeopardy.

The YouTube video below explains the rights established by the case of Miranda v. Arizona and takes a skeptical, questioning point of view with regards to the decision of the case. The narrator argues that the case may or may not have been directly in the Constitution, yet, I believe that the judicial branch of government, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, has the right and ability to interpret the laws of the Constitution and establish precedents from their interpretations.


The Fifth Amendment guarantees trial by a Grand Jury, guarantees due process and does not allow for double jeopardy and unwarranted search and seizures. Specifically with respect to this case, the Fifth Amendment guarantees that "no person...shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

The U.C. Davis Medical School used a special type of admissions process to determine which of its applicants should be admitted. In 1973, it had reserved 16 of 100 spots at the medical school for minority or disadvantaged students. Alan Bakke, one of the white applicants to the U.C. Davis Medical School was denied admission even though his MCAT and other test scores were higher than those of the other 84, regular applicants admitted. He took this case to court and, on appeal, the California Supreme Court fell in favor of Bakke and demanded that he be admitted and, in retaliation, the regents appealed to the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 split, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bakke, proclaiming that the admissions program at the university violated the equal protection clause and was not constitutional, even though it said that there were ways of creating a special admissions program that is constitutional. The majority opinion of the Court asserted that the Fourteenth Amendment, although created to create equality for blacks, does not specify race, and demands equality.

In my opinion, the Court's ruling was very fair and reasonable in this major case. People should not obtain unfair advantages over others because of their race or beliefs or anything, and all people should be seen as equals, unless there are special circumstances surrounding a certain person in specific that should be considered. Universities should admit the best of all applicants, rather than separate white applicants from other applicants and admit that way.

There were very few YouTube videos about this Supreme Court case so, again, I went to the site CaseBriefs to obtain a greater understanding of the case. CaseBriefs provides a good overall summary of  Regents of the University of Calfiornia v. Bakke and the decision of the case, and the piece on this case summarizes the rule established by the case as follows:

Race-based classifications, for purposes of school admissions, are constitutional. The use of racial-quotas, however, is unconstitutional.

As I have stated before, I side with the Supreme Court's decision that Fourteenth Amendment, although it was created to create equality for blacks, is not termed in a way that aims the rights it declares as specifically for blacks. The amendment puts no specific terms on the equality it declares, therefore, all races must be considered equal in order to abide by the Constitution.

Miller v. California

The Supreme Court case of Miller v. California was between Marvin Miller, the head of a large "adult" film and literature business, and the state of California. Miller sent out unrequested advertisements that contained explicit photographs to various people, promoting his adult books and films. Miller argued that he was protected under the Constitution because of his rights to freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but the Court stated that "states have a legitimate interest in prohibiting dissemination or exhibition of obscene material." In a 5-4 ruling, the Court decided in California's favor.

In my opinion, Miller, in some respects, invaded the privacy of the people who he mailed his "adult" advertisements to because a majority of people would not want to see these advertisements, nor would they want their children or other young people to see these explicit advertisements. In addition, there must be some limit on the rights in the Constitution that can be controlled by the states because unlimited freedom of speech, such as the distribution of obscene advertisements, can cause uprise, protests and instability.

The site CaseBriefs provides good background and abstracts of ridiculously long Supreme Court cases such as Miller v. California. CaseBriefs explains the viewpoint of the majority opinion of the Court that:

In determining whether speech is obscene, the basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of sex, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value.

These were the new guidelines established for statutes regulating offensive material. These three guidelines, in essence, state that something is obscene if either the average person would find it lustful, or if it shows something, such as sex, in an offensive way, or if it lacks higher values.

Plessy v. Ferguson

As the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum during the Jim Crow era of America, a man by the name of Homer Adolph Plessy decided to take a stand for equality. Plessy challenged a Louisiana law that mandated "separate but equal accommodation for the white and colored races." "Separate but equal" was a standard everywhere in America at that time, and Plessy's case was the biggest challenge of this standard at that point. Plessy, as an activist, volunteered to fight for equality. He went and sat on the white section of a train in Louisiana, and, when the ticket collector of the train came to collect Plessy's ticket, Plessy, who looked white, revealed to the ticket collector that he was one-eighth black, and was then asked to sit in the colored section of the train. Plessy refused, was arrested, and his case was brought to the Supreme Court. The court decided in favor of Louisiana Judge Ferguson and enforced the standard of "separate but equal," asserting that

The decision of the court was consistent with the majority views of society at the time, and, in my opinion, was correctly decided considering the fairly weak argument that Plessy presented, but, was an incorrect ruling according to the laws in the Constitution. I feel that the highest level of the judicial branch of the United States should take into consideration not only the argument that is presented, but also the laws of the United States that may have not been presented in an argument, and I believe that the Supreme Court failed to do this in Plessy v. Ferguson.

This latter part of this clip details the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, and, if you can get past the narrator's accent, this video provides a very nice background and coverage of this case. This provided  a nice overall picture of the case and was one of the few videos on YouTube of the case that was well-rounded and fully informative.


Justice Brown labels Plessy's reasoning that separate cannot be equal as a fallacy because Brown asserted that the segregation laws "do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other." Brown argued that separate but equal can and does mean separate and equal.

United States v. Nixon

The Nixon administration on the whole was responsible for many missteps and grave errors, but the administration also was very effective and capable in some respects. One giant misstep came in 1974, during the then president's reelection campaign that essentially cost him his presidency. Burglars broke into the Democratic National Committee headquarters at Watergate and stole documents in order to help Nixon get reelected. The U.S. Department of Justice hired an investigator to take on this issue and it was revealed that tapes were missing, and Nixon refused to return them, claiming that he possessed executive privilege. In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that Nixon must hand over the tapes for further investigation and that his claimed use of executive privilege would have been a monopoly on power and would have cancelled out the checks and balances that the judicial branch had over the executive branch.

The court did an excellent job handling this case as one of the first cases of a president trying to extend his powers past the Constitution. I side with the court's decision and I, too, believe that once the president declares that he has the right to hide things from other branches of government, he has gone too far.

This video is the first part of President Nixon's resignation after he was confronted in the case of U.S. v Nixon. Instead of waiting to be impeached and forcibly removed from office, Nixon, knowing that an impeachment and removal was coming, decided to resign, and avoided being the first president to be impeached and then removed from office.


President Nixon's claim of executive privilege might have been properly asserted had the tapes contained very classified and volatile information that would cause public outcry and rebellion either within the United States or internationally. Nixon refusing to return the stolen tapes demonstrates a lack of morals and ethics on his part and serves as an insufficient cover for his own wrongdoings.

Roe v. Wade

Jane Roe, a 21 year-old with a baby on the way, brought a lawsuit against the district attorney of Dallas County, Texas when she could not get an abortion. The Supreme Court sided with Roe in a 7-2 decision because the justices felt that the case and Roe's argument concerned the First, Fourth, Ninth, and, as Roe had stated in her argument, the Fourteenth Amendments. Roe wanted to establish the right for a woman to obtain an abortion in the cases that the pregnancy was unwanted, like in cases of rape, and the court sided with her.

In my opinion, as extrapolated from the rights established in the United States Constitution, a woman should have the right to choose because there might be circumstances surrounding the pregnancy that might make a difficult life for the baby and for the parents. In addition, as the the Supreme Court had stated in the explanation of their decision, a fetus in its mother has not developed mentally and physically enough to be considered a person that is covered under the Constitution.

This clip gives some background on the case and viewpoints from various people on the subject. This clip has hints of pro-life, yet on the whole provides a generally unbiased coverage of the case.


As displayed at the end of this YouTube video, Jane Roe never performed the abortion that she fought so hard to obtain the rights for and today, she serves as a pro-life, anti-abortion activist because she explains that she has developed a closer connection with God and now sees the truth and the "horror" of abortion.

Not Going to College May Be Better Than Using a Credit Card?

I will be going to college next year and I have to worry about paying off loans that I will take on in order to pay for my tuition for at least four years of my college education, and, most likely, four, or more, years of college education after that. This would not worry as much if I did not know about this surprising statistic that student loan debt has now surpassed credit card loan debt. The amount of money for college tuition has grown so much in the last few years that now . It may be taking it too far by saying that not going to college may be a better decision than not using a credit card, but this certainly shows us the troubling circumstances in today's America. On top of the increasingly greater education required for getting a job, the tuition for the education and the costs for college is also increasing.

Cuts to Education Despite Obama's Words

The budget for 2011-2012 has been a heated issue for both Republicans and Democrats. The United States came close to its second government shutdown because the two parties had been unable to decide on a budget that would suit them both. Today, April 12, 2011, the Republicans gave in to some of the demands of the Democrats instead of stubbornly pushing for their own way, an attitude that has been recently exhibited by the Democrats. In an earlier post, I explained how President Obama had declared cuts to education for the next budget as something he will not allow because cutting from the education portion of the budget would be cutting from the future of America and cutting possibly an expansion of the economy. According to Ben Wolfgang of the Washington Times in his article titled "Education cuts coming, but fewer than GOP wanted," the two parties finally agreed on a budget, but there were some cuts to education, despite Obama's declaration that education is untouchable for the 2011-2012 budget:

The final spending deal struck by the White House and congressional leaders spares the Education Department the deeper cuts sought by House Republicans, according to the agreement reached Friday. Under the compromise - the details of which started trickling out late Monday night - the popular Pell Grant and pre-kindergarten Head Start programs are preserved, as is funding for the administration’s Race to the Top initiative.

Other Education Department programs weren’t so lucky, with funding reduced for about two dozen programs, though many of the multimillion-dollar cuts already had been proposed by President Obama in his 2011 spending plan.

 Both parties had to come to some sort of a compromise, with the Republicans getting fewer cuts to the budget, particularly the education portion of the budget, and with the Democrats having to deal with more cuts than they wanted to the education portion of the budget.

Obama Attacks Inequalities in Education

Partially in an early attempt to seek votes for his reelection in 2012 and partially as a minority himself, President Barack Obama spoke about inequalities in education and to inspire more and greater achievements by African-Americans and other minority parties at the 20th anniversary Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network. Helene Cooper highlights the important points of the president's speech in her article in the New York Times entitled "Obama Takes Aim at Inequality in Education." 

“Too many of our kids are dropping out of schools,” Mr. Obama told a mostly black audience in the ballroom of the Sheraton New York Hotel in Manhattan. “That’s not a white, black or brown problem. That’s everybody’s problem.”

Despite what he said, Obama's speech at the event was primarily focused on gathering and unifying his African-American base for his reelection campaign for 2012. African-Americans represent a large portion of the country's population, and Obama needs to get back in touch with them in order to garner their support. Obama also emphasized education and achievement in his speech in order to establish that he wants to equalize the generally African-American graduation rates with those of other populations of people in America who tend to have higher graduation, success and achievement rates.

Cell Phones Disrupting Education

The article in the San Francisco Chronicle titled "Bangladesh to teachers: No cellphones in classroom" explains yet another instance of technology, cell phones specifically, disturbing education:

Fed up with educators receiving — and even making — phone calls during their own lectures, Bangladesh's Education Ministry has banned them from bringing their phones into class as well.

The use of cell phones for students had already been taken away for schools in Bangladesh, but that was not enough to eliminate cell phone disturbances in classrooms. Teachers were found spending time on their cell phones now, and they had to ban the use completely in the classrooms. Even though technology can and is of great use in the classroom for teaching purposes, there must be a limit as to how much and when the technology is used. Cell phones provide little to no productive use in the classrooms and banning them in all classrooms would definitely improve education. We are still grappling with how to productively and beneficially intertwine technology, with all of its uses, into classroom learning, but once we do, education will become very effective and easy.

Education in America: An Institution in Need of Remodel

Part I:

                According to the standards set by former President George W. Bush in his “No Child Left Behind” policy, approximately eighty-two percent of United States schools will be considered failing by the next school year in 2011 (Armario). Education lays the foundation for any consistent, exceptional country because no country can run well or smoothly with an ignorant population base that is unable to grasp any of the concepts or issues of the world. As cliché as it may sound, education is the key to the future; it unlocks a whole new world of higher thinking, and it demands respect. An educated population is able to make educated and responsible decisions that will benefit the country both in the present and in the future. Education is a part of America that is in need of improvement and/or reform. In an attempt to improve education 8 years ago, former President George W. Bush implemented his “No Child Left Behind” policy. This policy was a good step forward, but has its flaws, and these flaws are among some of the problems that must be addressed with respect to education. The policy puts emphasis on test scores to a ridiculous extent and does little to prepare students for “the real world.” In addition, the policy puts stress on children below the standards to perform better, yet does not inspire well-performing children to do better (“No Child Left Behind”). In this respect, it is a somewhat one-sided educational initiative because it does not build a much better, overall well-informed and well-educated population.

It is obvious that education is a pressing issue in today’s America and it is clear that the American education system is in serious need of reform not only because we are terribly far from meeting our own standards, but also because America is continuously falling behind and losing speed in terms of world standing and in terms of its economy. China has already pushed its way past the United States to figuratively gain the number one spot in the world and there is no doubt that other countries, such as India, are on the rise and are also pushing past America. While I do not believe that education is the reason behind America’s current fall in standing and its stagnant economy, it was one of the issues facing America for several years that was set aside untreated and left to deteriorate and, in effect, sink the ship that is the United States, with help from other critical issues America has been dealing with for years. In 2006, shortly before the American economy began its sharp downturn and while China was a country rising to the top, Hong Kong, essentially its own country within the larger country of China, had overwhelmingly high math and science literacy rates, both by over ten percent, and had over four percent better language skills. As of 2006, there were also at least twenty countries, including Hong Kong, with overall smarter, better educated children and I doubt that that number has decreased in the last few years (Lubin). Even though the United States is confronting many other issues that are of seemingly greater significance than education and even though, U.S. education is a critical topic that must be addressed because it is an issue that will benefit the U.S. in both the short-term and the long-term, as well as establish a more sophisticated and knowledgeable American population that will be able to make better decisions.

Currently, education reform or simple education improvement is a farfetched idea. With the economy mightily struggling, few people are willing to give up any extra portion of their continuously decreasing salaries in taxes in order to pay for improvements and enhancements in the educational system and its components. Significant spending is more or less the only means by which education may be noticeably improved, and, considering the economy, any additional spending is unlikely. A large portion of the Republican Party is also unwilling to pay any higher taxes in general, and are especially unwilling in the recession that America is facing presently, therefore, any type of vast changes or improvements in education are doubtful. In referring to the Republican Party, I am alluding to not only Republican leaders across the country, but also the Republican population of the nation. Additionally, people who are falling short in terms of money, a population of people which is considerably large and is frequently increasing, vehemently reject any sort of tax or additional costs that will detract from their paychecks. Recently, President Barack Obama declared, during the 2011 budget talks, that “even as we find ways to cut spending we cannot cut back on job-creating investments like education. We cannot cut back on the very investments that will help our economy grow” (Johnston). Obama is definitively setting his foot down to protect the education budget in order to protect the level of education of the future leaders of the United States.

Part II:

Former President George W. Bush and current president, Barack Obama have taken some steps in order to help alleviate the problems in American education in the last decade. In a very bold and far-ranging move, Bush introduced a new education initiative called “No Child Left Behind.” This policy, in essence, aimed to provide incentive for federally funded schools to perform better by promising greater funding to the schools with low education rankings whose students performed well on standardized tests. Standardized tests were to be administered from third through eighth grades and in at least one year of high school “with the goal of making every U.S.student proficient (performing at grade level) in reading and math by 2014” (“No Child Left Behind”). This program was a large part of Bush’s campaign as well as one of the biggest productions of his presidency and it unquestionably established a sort of precedent in education that was to be followed by President Barack Obama. While in the first year or so of his presidency, Obama concentrated on issues that were focused much more towards restoring America and bringing the country back into its own from the recession it had dipped into over the last several years, he has recently been taking steps to demonstrate his personal stand on American education. Notably, Obama declared the education portion of the budget untouchable, and for good reason. He said that education provides the foundation for the future of our country and will instigate future U.S. economic competitiveness and is one of the keys to finding our way out of this economic hole (Johnston). Additionally, the Obama Administration implemented a new program, entitled “Race to the Top,” designed to boost college graduation rates ("Obama Administration Education Policy”). Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have, together, set a goal of adding eight million college graduates by 2020 through offering grants to enhance college graduation rates (Lewin).  Through this and other small expansions in the American educational system, President Obama has slightly altered and improved aspects of Bush’s initiative that were rough and undeveloped. In addition, in Obama’s “Race to the Top” policy, he has made it clear that teachers with low performing students should be replaced, even those who have extensive tenures and that principals and people who overlook schools should be replaced if their school’s students are not performing well. To contribute to Obama’s education improvements, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is helping and has “helped subsidize states' applications for Race to the Top funds” ("Obama Administration Education Policy”).

Starting in 1999, the state of California implemented a new addition to the state educational procedure with the CAHSEE (California High School Exit Exam) to test that students were at grade level in writing, reading and mathematics. I took this test at Acalanes my sophomore year and I passed on my first attempt. Most people take it and pass it their first time during sophomore year, but if not, they are given another chance the same year, “two more chances in their junior year, two more in their senior year and at least one more chance after their senior year” ("Standardized High School Exit Exams”).  These exit exams have stimulated greater academic achievement in California because they increase the value of the diploma and ensure that students have the necessary skills to succeed in the future, in college and in the workplace. The CAHSEE also ensures that new immigrants are not forced into the workplace with limited reading and writing skills and an overall limited education, therefore providing for a better educated and better performing population ("Standardized High School Exit Exams”).

                Even though we have not studied education specifically in Government or Economics this year, we have dipped into the topic of education in America briefly from time to time. Thomas Friedman is the author of the book Hot, Flat, and Crowded, which details America’s current situation, the dip in the American economy, and why we are in our unfortunate current situation. Part of Friedman’s argument in the book is that the world is getting flat, or evening out, because of the explosion of a world on the web, but I contribute part of this flattening of the world, as he mentions, to recent American laziness. Friedman argues that “America’s problem is that it has lost its way in recent years…partly because of the bad habits that we have let build up over the last three decades…that have weakened our society’s ability and willingness to take on big challenges” (Friedman 5). According to Friedman, large issues, education in particular, have been left to deteriorate due to the inability and unwillingness U.S. leaders itself has fostered among its own people while America has been enjoying its spot at the top. Friedman also asserts that “the prevailing attitude on so many key issues in Washington today is ‘We’ll get to it when we feel like getting to it and it will never catch up to us, because we’re America’” (Friedman 8). Friedman, in effect, is saying that America has taken on an attitude of arrogance, laziness and has developed a feeling of imperviousness, and exhibits, as he puts it, an attitude of “dumb as we wanna be.” These attitudes are precisely the reason that America is quickly falling from the top and that education has gone south in the last several years. This unhealthy attitude must be quickly changed, or society will suffer, and the economy will improve very little, if at all.

Part III:

                In spite of the progress and the measures taken to upgrade education in the United States by the last two presidents in the recent decade, there remain numerous issues, both small and large, in the educational system currently that must be tackled. Obama has taken some of the rough edges of Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” policy and smoothed them out or added on to the policy:

With the Race to the Top, Obama has stiffened Bush's mandates, requiring states to put specific policies in place (such as firing tenured teachers whose students' test scores are low) before the schools can compete for federal funds. Through this approach, Obama is achieving Bush's desired changes without any guarantee that states will be funded. These mandates are the most intrusive federal education policies ever imposed on public schools (Stephens).

While Obama has taken several steps in his own education policy such as the ones described above, the American education system still needs improvements in many aspects in order to fully improve and reach the next level. For example, both Bush and Obama did little for the middle- to high-performing schools across the nation. Both presidents’ policies have been focused close to entirely around bringing poor-performing schools up to par, without advancing the American educational system as a whole. I expect to see some expansions in education involving the schools that are in the middle area with respect to quality of education during the rest of Obama’s current presidential term and in his possible next presidential term. Because the “No Child Left Behind” policy is still in effect today, some of its problems that Obama has yet to fix still exist. The policy relies heavily on standardized tests, an issue that the majority of critics of the policy focus on. Standardized tests not only restrict the amount of real world teaching and preparation that may be done in schools, but they are also very ineffective ways of measuring learning in students. Learning is measured by how much students have been taught, not by specific standards that students are expected to meet, and the standardized tests ignore this. The standardized testing program as a means of evaluating student, teacher and school performance must either be altered drastically in order to measure learning better, or must be replaced by another means of evaluating educational performance.      

                Through my work with BuildOn, I feel that I have grasped a more real sense of the world and the issues that America, as well as the rest of the world, faces today. I have realized how necessary education is across the globe and how much it is lacking in a countless number of places. As a member of the BuildOn club, I have personally contributed significantly to buying supplies for building at least two schools in Nicaragua. In addition, I have provided the means by which prisoners in American prisons can educate themselves and improve their own language skills while they are spending time in prison, and I feel great about that. This year alone, I have helped raise nearly one thousand dollars with the BuildOn club in order to expand education in the world. I now realize how many issues there are in the world and how lacking our world is in almost every aspect. I feel that education is one of the most important matters that must be expanded because it leads to both the advancement of the human race, and it creates awareness among the entire educated population and inspires compassion, therefore channeling a desire to help with other enormous issues, such as poverty. Unfortunately, I have also become conscious of the fact that none of the substantial concerns in America and the world may ever be solved, which has brought me a slight feeling of hopelessness, but I have never been one to give up because I lost a little hope Just like with poverty, there is no way to resolve education problems because there will always be a certain issues that will continue to come up or matters that are difficult to fix, and, on top of that, education is something that can always be improved because nobody has or can have “too much” education.. I will continue to do community service throughout my life because I feel it will contribute to me as a person, and it will help at least one or more people in the world who are almost dying for the help.

Another Blow to Tokyo

After the earthquake rated over 9.0 on the Richter scale hit Japan two weeks ago, the entire country was in shock, but then a tsunami came as a result of the earthquake, destroying anything and everything that it came in contact with, and destroying all the buildings and places and things that Japan had fortified through earthquake precautionary measures. Then, the nuclear reactors that were hit by the tsunami began to have some trouble, consisting of some explosions and a near-meltdown. As if Japan wasn't suffering enough, the country has been dealt yet another devastating blow. Juro Osawa and Hiroyuki Kachi detail the new story out of Tokyo in their Wall Street Journal articled titled "Tokyo Issues Warning on Water" on March 23, 2011. 

Tokyo officials said infants in Japan's capital shouldn't be given city tap water due to elevated radiation levels, as the country's nuclear crisis broadened into a public-health issue for its biggest city.

Some Tokyo tap water could represent a long-term health risk to infants, officials said Wednesday, after tests done earlier this week at three Tokyo water plants showed levels of radioactive iodine-131 at one plant exceeded the government's threshold for consumption by infants.

Because of the troubles with the nuclear reactors from the tsunami hit, Japan is now struggling mightily with issues concerning radiation. Along with the immensely elevated levels of exceptionally dangerous airborne radiation, radiation has now infiltrated the water supply of Tokyo and possibly other cities in Japan. Hopefully this is the end of an incredible wave of disasters hitting Japan and the country will be able to recover and reconstruct.

Time for CSU's to Get Their Act Together

Everyone knows that the economy of the state of California is one of the largest economies in the entire world. Everyone also knows that the California's economy, and more largely that of the United States, is very close to its lowest point ever. Part of this economic failure is due to bad practices, and some of it is simply due to bad luck. The bad practices probably have more weight for you if you're not into the whole "luck" thing (which I can understand because I am not very into it either), but regardless, California is in a hole, and needs to change those bad practices into good ones. The California State University system  is in shady territory currently because of a "commingling of public and private funds," as Nanette Asimov states in her San Francisco Chronicle article entitled "CSU audit suggests better accounting on foundations." Asimov also explains that:

California State University should fix sloppy accounting practices that have led to confusion about which funds are public or private, says a new internal review of the $1.2 billion managed by more than 90 campus foundations and private enterprises on CSU property.

To be completely honest, parts of this article are entirely over my head, yet I can understand the gist of it, and I understand that the CSU's should not be so careless with their accounting. Dealing with cuts in their budget should be the main issue that they are dealing with, they shouldn't be dealing with their own "sloppy accounting practices." This misstep exemplifies the laziness and carelessness that America has exhibited lately, which is possibly one of the bigger contributors to its economic failures.

Duncan and Obama Double-Team Issues in Education

The declining state of education in the United States today is miserable and embarrassing. Even though increasing numbers of credentials are expected for higher-paying jobs today, few people take the time and effort to obtain these greater credentials, and a large number of people either don't go to college, or attend college for a couple years, then drop out. In an attempt to ameliorate some of the issues in education, the Obama Administration, primarily Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, has taken steps and developed educational plans for the future. One of these reforms in education came in an announcement on Tuesday, March 22, 2011, by Vice-President Joseph Biden. The New York Times article by Tamar Lewin entitled "Incentives Offered to Raise College Graduation Rates" covers the story on the Obama Administration's recent additions to improve America's educational system: 

During a news briefing Monday, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said the program, to be formally announced Tuesday by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., would include only incentives — no “sticks” — for reforms aimed at helping the administration meet its goal of adding eight million college graduates by 2020...In addition, as part of its 2012 budget, the administration has proposed the $123 million “First in the World” initiative for programs that hold down tuition, increase completion rates and move students through college faster. Last, the $50 million College Completion Incentive Grants would reward states and schools for reforms that produce more college graduates.

This move will definitely serve Americans, as well as the country as a whole by stimulating the economy through having a more educated workforce and by adding money to states that succeed in improving their number of college graduates. Hopefully this move will motivate states like Arkansas, Nevada and New Mexico to improve the education of their citizens, only 28% of which currently have college degrees.

E-Waste

This Saturday and Sunday, from 9-3 both days, Acalanes High School will be host to an electronics recycling event, called E-Waste. Acalanes has been a part of E-Waste for the past two years As the Fundraising Officer for BuildOn, I wanted to set up this event, partly because I wanted to continue this BuildOn, Acalanes, and Lafayette tradition, and partly because this event usually brings in a significant amount of money in fundraising for our club. By setting this event up through BuildOn, our club is able to make a percentage of the profits from the recycled goods that people bring in, in addition to receiving donations from people recycling their used electronics who come through the Acalanes parking lot.This event was somewhat of a hassle to set up, but as long as we get people constantly driving in, then I know we will be able to make a substantial amount of money close to what we made last year. I will be spending at least six of my weekend hours, three on Saturday and three on Sunday, to this event.
While it may seem tempting, the money we fund-raise never goes to use for the club's operations; all the money always goes to purchasing supplies for the Trek trips that will now be available every season of the year except fall. These Trek trips are what BuildOn members and supervisors live for because going to a developing country and helping build a school there is an incredibly fun and memorable experience because you know that you are making a difference and you are having fun at the same time. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to go on one of BuildOn's Trek trips because, even though a trip is offered this summer and graduated seniors are allowed to come, it does not look like our club will have the proper fundraising necessary ($5,000 for two people) in order to support a trip this year. With the expansion of BuildOn to colleges across the country, hopefully I will be able to continue my involvement with the organization and be able to possibly attend a Trek For Knowledge.

Showtime, Gone

Netflix, a company that offers movies and television shows both online streaming to your computer or wireless device, or shipped to your house, has experienced incredible growth since the launch of its "Watch Instantly" program in 2007. Netflix offers a variety of Starz and Showtime productions available instantly, along with the thousands of movies, and some people, especially those work for the companies that manage Starz and Showtime are criticizing Netflix because it essentially defeats the purpose of Starz and Showtime, which offer a greater variety of shows and movies. According the March 23, 2011 article in the Wall Street Journal by Nat Worden titled "CBS to Remove Some Showtime Content From Netflix," Showtime is moving on to bigger and better things. Worden states that: 

CBS Corp.'s Showtime unit said it will remove some of the premium cable network's shows from Netflix Inc.'s streaming video service, days after the online video distributor said it planned to offer its own original programming.

Showtime spokeswoman Johanna Fuentes confirmed that it will remove from Netflix all episodes of TV series that are currently running on the channel when the current distribution deal expires this summer. That leaves Netflix subscribers with limited time to watch old episodes of shows such as "Dexter" and "Californication," which are currently available on the streaming service.

Showtime has decided to step away from Netflix with its newer shows with its contract with Netflix expiring within the next few months. This move marks yet another of Showtime's attempts to bring in more direct revenue, along with offering "its own original programming." Netflix may experience some loss of business, but I doubt it will be anything significant because Netflix has already become so widely popular as of late, and I doubt this move will affect Netflix much overall.

Mental Health Break

MVP!

The Road to Negotiation: 2011 Budget Crisis

In this battle between the republicans and the democrats, it looks like some of the republicans are reaching a point where they would like to solve current issues facing the United States instead of sticking with the republican way 'till the end. Among these republicans willing to negotiate is Eric Cantor, the Virginia republican and majority leader, who was quoted saying:

We are not interested in giving any speeches but really want to see what the impediments are here, what we can do. We are not interested in beating our chests. We are trying to get results.

Carl Hulse's article in the New York Times on March 9, 2011 entitled "Amid Battle to Cut Spending, Republicans Turn Spotlight to Jobs" explains Cantor's view on the 2011 budget issue and the issue of jobs, one of the main problems between democrats and republicans. Hopefully the republicans and the democrats will be able to resolve this budget crisis prior to the deadline and following government shutdown, and it looks like the republicans have are beginning to come to the table ready to negotiate. The republicans know that they are in hot water because they are consistently demanding cuts anywhere and everywhere, yet these cuts can, will and have been proven dangerous to our economy, which is most likely, as Hulse explains, the reason why they are now willing to slightly alter their ways and negotiate to solve this issue.

Don't Touch the Education Budget!

Recently, a debate has broken out between President Obama and his democrats, and the republicans of the House and the Senate about the 2011 budget. Obama proposed a budget with very few cuts, as expected, and the republicans, vehemently opposed it, again, as expected. A debate has broken out between the two parties because the democrats want to keep spending high to stimulate the economy, while the republicans want to cut spending universally in order to stimulate the economy. This debate has raged and America and government employees are in jeopardy because a government shut down is possible if the two parties do not come to an agreement by March 18. In the midst of the debate, Obama has declared education as one of the things that he refuses to subject to budget cuts. The article titled "Obama Says U.S. Can't Sacrifice Education in Cutting Deficit" in the San Francisco Chronicle details the president's viewpoint regarding education with respect to the 2011 budget:

Obama has made education a centerpiece of his agenda to bolster U.S. economic competitiveness. Amid a debate with Republican lawmakers over how to trim the $3.7 trillion budget, the president is proposing to shift money from other departments and programs in order to provide more money to fund his education priorities. Among these are increasing the number of science, technology and mathematics teachers and producing an additional 8 million college graduates by 2020.

Rather than looking for a quick-fix to boost the economy, the president is looking towards the future, looking to build the start of a generation of American schoolchildren who are smarter, more efficient and more proficient than the generation before them. He is unwilling to cut spending because he sees that education truly should be the centerpiece of any presidential agenda because it is one of the centerpieces of a strong nation.

No Child Left Behind?

Former president George W. Bush set up the No Child Left Behind policy which is now either making the students of America look completely incompetent, or making the policy look ridiculous, or a little of both. Even though President Obama will not have a chance to reform education within the span of the rest of his current term, America's education policy does need reform in the near future if we, as a country are to maintain our status as a superior nation. Christine Armario, in her article on March 9, 2011 entitled "82 percent of US schools may be labeled 'failing'" in the San Francisco Chronicle, explains that:

The Department of Education estimates the percentage of schools not meeting yearly targets for their students' proficiency in in math and reading could jump from 37 to 82 percent as states raise standards in attempts to satisfy the law's mandates.

Simply raising the standards for U.S. children is not going to make the children work harder, or be smarter, or test better. Education Secretary Arne Duncan believes that the No Child Left Behind policy is sorely undeveloped in its current state, and if nationwide education is to be improved, a few more, possibly significant changes will be required as a whole and in Bush's policy. The education system, the way teachers teach, the credentials teachers must have, and things of that nature must be modified, rather than taking the easy route of improving education by raising standards. Raising the standards might give some children less incentive to work harder because they know that they're already below standards, so it can't be the only method of attempting to raise test scores. This policy must be combined with another significant change in education in order for American schoolchildren to actually start to get smarter.

Recent Community Work

On Saturday, March 5, 2011, I attended the BuildOn Regional Service Project. For this project, BuildOn members from the East Bay all came and set up and worked at an event for kids in Richmond at the Richmond Public Library. I was in Richmond from 11 am to 4 pm for this project but we didn't begin the work until after we did a few icebreaker activities to get to know and talk to some of our fellow BuildOn members from different schools of the East Bay. After the icebreaker activities we got free lunch which was burritos with chips and salsa and it was delicious. After lunch, we got to work setting up the small fair in the courtyard of the Richmond Public Library. The job of my group was to set up a booth to give passports to kids for the fair so that they could get stamps after each activity they completed on the passport. With four stamps for four completed activities, the kids would get a raffle ticket. With the raffle ticket they would get a chance to win a copy of the book Richmond Tales by author Summer Brenner, who was also a guest at the event, reading her book. If they got more than four stamps then they would get another raffle ticket and they would receive a free used book that was provided by BuildOn and people from the community who donated their used books. The fair was very popular among the kids and I had a lot of fun myself just welcoming the kids to the fair. I did this same project last year and it was very fun last year too. My favorite part of this community service project was being able to have fun and play with the kids who constantly flowed in. I joined in a few games of musical chairs and other activities that other BuildOn members had set up and I enjoyed the community service project greatly as a whole.

Mental Health Break

So Long to Ya 2010!

System Overhaul - Education

The state of American education today is sorely disappointing to say the least. American schoolchildren are among the stupidest bunch of kids in the class of the more prosperous countries. American children are being cheated out of a good public education because the government won't improve the educational system. It may be a difficult task, but it's a task that must be dealt with in the near future and must be handled carefully. Very few in America have the money to send their children to private schools, and American citizens should not only be guaranteed a free public education, but a good, free public education that spans all subjects well. In this declining economy, education should be our top priority because it develops the future of our country, but according to an article in the New York Times titled "The Tricky Terrain of Education Finances" by Ross Ramsey, a $10 million dollar cut is in the works and this cut schools will suffer immensely, and even greater than they have suffered before. We have a growing population, yet we are cutting funding to schools that educate this population, therefore, we are enhancing the deterioration of education. There needs to be an immediate, complete overhaul of the American education system in order to better educate the population and better prepare them for the real world.

Get Up and Get to Work

Poverty has always been and will always be an issue in the world no matter what we do to eliminate it. It is a problem that can only be ameliorated, yet we as Americans are failing to do so. Poverty is a growing issue as of late because of the recent downturn of the economy, and we need to make sure we don't fall into a hole too big to get out of. According to an article in the New York Times entitled "Rising Food Prices Push Millions Into Poverty, Study Says" by Sewell Chan, food prices have consistently been on the rise lately, and this has pushed a whopping fourty-four million into poverty. This presents an issue because America, with its influence, is affecting other countries, making other economies unstable, and the world is beginning to collapse into a never-ending black hole that we will never be able to get out of. Ever. Unless we do something to change that. Part of my solution to alleviate poverty is community service and donations and establishing charities. Every American who is economically capable should donate money to the less fortunate. And America needs to get up and stop whining and get to work on improving itself and the world. Whatever happened to the old America that was a force to be reckoned with and had a booming economy and immigrants were flowing in like schools of fish that scatter after a shark comes around or something.

My Political Standpoint

PoliticsMatch Your Political Philosophy The below is a way of thinking about your political philosophy by dividing your PoliticsMatch answers into "personal" and "economic" questions.  It is only a theory - please take it with a grain of salt! Personal Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and authoritarians agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers. Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and authoritarians agree in choosing the more-restrictions answers.   Your Score You scored the following on the PoliticsMatch questions:
Personal Score	60%
Economic Score	48%

Gay Rights - Democratic View

Equality is one of the more current issues that America has been dealing with in the past century and a half. There are always people in this country who oppose equality or certain equalities, yet the majority rules, and the view of the majority of the American population has been shifting recently. First, African-Americans were granted equality, yet did not fully obtain it until a quarter of a century ago. Then, women began fighting for suffrage, and then for their equality, and are still fighting for full equality. Now, as gays are beginning to develop more comfort with publicly expressing their sexuality, gay rights is becoming an issue. As a firm believer in the Constitution and in equality, I believe that gays should be allowed to marry without a doubt, especially in a country where church is supposed to be separated from state. There isn't really a true argument against gay marriage other than that it's against common religious beliefs, which should not matter politically. Recently, President Obama has changed his actions as the head of the executive branch and now claims that the law that banned gay marriage is unconstitutional, and must not be upheld by the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump has recently sided against gay marriage, following his republican standing, yet he also said that he thinks the gay population of his city of New York is "great." Unless Trump truly is against gay marriage, the only reason he would side against gay marriage is to please his republican followers, because, supposedly having interacted with gays on many occasions, he can't have anything personal against them.
Like Barbara Bush, I have spent time talking to and interacting with gays, and I find that there is nothing different about them and nothing wrong with their desire to be able to marry in a country that prides itself on equality and individual liberties.

Republicans - Strengths and Weaknesses

One strength of the republican party is that it manages to push through legislation that they are in favor of, such as cutting spending and cutting taxes. Especially as of late, because people are beginning to think that the democratic way of stimulating the economy through spending isn't working, they are beginning to side with the republican view of cutting spending and taxes in order to stimulate the economy.
One of the biggest weaknesses for the Republican party as of late is that it is beginning to split off into extreme right, the Tea Party, and the rest of the right. The issue isn't simply that the Tea Party is emerging, the issue is that so much of the Republican vote and viewpoint is shifting toward the extreme right of the Tea Party, leaving a smaller population of total other Republicans. A significant advantage is gained by this for the democrats, a party which has demonstrated much greater unity and ability to agree on certain issues. Another weakness which is the reason why the republican party has split, is the disunity of the republican party. This is an issue because center-oriented people of the U.S. begin to lose interest in the republican party because there is a civil war going on within the party and because there is so little unity within the party, which gives a clear advantage to the democrats.

Democrats - Strengths and Weaknesses

I believe that right now, the democratic party has many strengths and picks the more socially acceptable side on many issues. I believe one of the biggest strengths of the democratic party today is that it is, for the most part, unified, and there isn't a huge split between extreme left and center-left, and that most democrats get along with each other and can agree with each other on most issues. Another strength for the democrats is that they support for freedoms and rights, an issue for which the democrats possess a standpoint that they will be able to gain support with in the near future due to the apparent interest in the advancement of individual human rights. The democrats view on abortion is that people should have the right to choose, aka pro-choice. Backing for this view can be found here. This view is a strength for democrats because I believe, in the future, more people will begin to lean in this direction because they will feel more strongly about preserving individual liberties. The democrat view on gay rights is also a definite strength because leading democrats such as Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are pro-equality, meaning that they support the right for same-sex marriages. I believe that this is a view that will become more widespread also because homophobia will decrease as more people become more comfortable with their sexual orientation, and again, people will want to preserve individual liberties.
A weakness right now for the democrats is that they are trying to push bills and legislation that seem to be against the public's desire or at least against the outspoken public's desire. Many in government and many people seem to be for tax cuts, yet Obama and other democrats are pushing strongly to increase taxes and spend more in order to stimulate the economy. Also, another weakness for the democrats is that their tactic of spending more seems to be ineffective in the eye of the American public, which is putting them out of favor and is bringing pieces of legislation like this, which are designed to cut spending in order to stimulate the economy.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

My work as an officer for the BuildOn Club at Acalanes involves setting up fund-raising events that will provide BuildOn with money in order to build a school over the summer in a developing country such as Mali, or Nicaragua. Recently, this past Sunday, I took part in a fundraiser at Diablo Foods selling Chinook Books, which are large coupon books that contain coupons for stores and items that emphasize living healthy and protecting the environment. I knew Diablo Foods would be a good location to sell the books because, while they do save you an enormous amount of money on good, sustainable products, they aren't very cheap at the price of $20 and people who shop at Diablo Foods, one of the more expensive grocery stores in the area, will have more money to donate and will therefore be more willing to donate. In spite of this, the sale of the books did not go as well as I had expected on such a busy day with people who have money to give. It is unfair to demand that people donate money because we do live in America where citizens hold specific rights to decide what they want to do with their money, but I was sorely disappointed in the number of people who were willing to donate a tiny portion of their excess money to the noble and inspiring cause of education. I am not trying to say that some people don't care about the world, but it seems somewhat ridiculous that these people, who have money to give, are not willing to give it up for a world and for a future that will exist long after they pass away. Such resembles the arrogant attitude of upper-class Americans, who will be part of this country's demise if they refuse to selflessly give up an almost insignificant amount of the money they make in order to benefit America and the world as a whole.