"Yes" to Long-Needed Reform

“No Child Left Behind,” one of the most renowned statutes remaining from the Bush Administration constitutes several measures attempting to improve our education system. In summary, “No Child Left Behind” focused on standards-based education, requiring states to set certain goals for which their students to meet. While formulated in good taste, “No Child Left Behind” has been utterly disappointing in benefiting our education system. This is primarily due to the standards that states set for themselves. Schools that struggle to meet their goals begin to lower expectations, cheating their students of a thorough education. Too much emphasis has been placed on standardized testing, so much so that these tests have been completely watered down in order for more students to do well. “No Child Left Behind” has left significant adverse effects on our education system. Unfortunately, hundreds of children are being left behind. Schools attempting to improve their ratings are shunting less adept students aside instead of focusing on their needs as expected. Schools deemed “not up to expectations” receive little monetary help to improve their situation and left to fail. Wrapped up in this law, schools focus more on meeting the numbers than on the true education of their students. What does this mean for the future of America? Our youth is not receiving the knowledge that they deserve. Future doctors, lawyers, politicians are lacking the basis of a strong education. Perhaps, many of those aspiring doctors, lawyers, and politicians won’t ever attain their goals due to their lack of proper education.

I find this outrageous and completely unacceptable. Barack Obama’s suggested overhaul of the “No Child Left Behind” law could not have come soon enough. Finally, something is being done to right all the wrongs of this ineffective attempt to better our education system. Don’t get me wrong, I recognize the good intentions behind President Bush’s law. Yes, it has caused some improvements. But not enough. I simply point out that Obama’s suggestions take on a whole new—and might I add, better—approach. By providing an improved set of guidelines by which to evaluate schools, less emphasis will be placed on standardized testing, allowing for a more wholesome education for students. Instead of grading schools mainly on standardized testing scores, Obama supports looking at graduation and attendance rates as well. Rectifying one of the most troublesome aspects of “No Child Left Behind,” Obama’s reform of the law calls for rigorous intervention for failing schools. Prospects look promising for this all-encompassing and detailed plan to change the current education law. It looks like now, truly no child shall be left behind.

Change is Needed

In the post Emmy-winning actress Patricia Clarkson contributed to The Huffington Post, she calls for the restoration of the Gulf coast and the implementation of stricter drilling measures to prevent an accident such as the BP oil spill from happening again. Titled, “Returning to the Gulf after BP Destroyed It,” her post is directed to all Americans in an (arguably very successful) attempt to convince them of the urgency and importance of rectifying this unacceptable situation. She wields her credibility as a celebrity, having starred in a great variety of films and TV shows, and more importantly, as a former resident of New Orleans, in her tirade against BP. Her post is undoubtedly only one of many regarding the disastrous oil spill, but Patricia Clarkson provides an original take on the issue. Her argument is threefold:

1) BP’s actions are unforgivable and we most hold them accountable for the horrible oil spill.

2) Safety regulations must be put in place in order to prevent any future accidents yielding such disastrous effects.

3) Americans need to continue to fight for the restoration of the once beautiful Gulf in order for success. It is essential that we do not allow this issue to fade.In fact, her post is extremely effective in captivating our attention and convincing us to support her cause. This is for a variety of reasons. First, the harmful effects of the BP oil spill cannot be denied. Evidence can be seen everywhere. Patricia Clarkson wisely cites numerous incidences revealing the many consequences of the oil spill: how wildlife has been harmed; how many future jobs have been destroyed; how the P& J Oyster Company, which endured the Great Depression and numerous wars, could not survive the oil spill. In using these examples, Clarkson calls primarily upon pathos, causing us to emphasize and sympathize with those negatively affected by the spill. Her vivid descriptions of the current appearance of the Gulf successfully convince us of the horrible damage. She then proceeds to detail how ineffective current measures are—“I was shocked to see the booms they are using to try to block the oil. They're like band aids on gunshot wounds. They are incapable of protecting the marshes.” Words meant to outrage readers like us. The language she uses deliberately provokes a reaction, one that condemns BP and hopes for immediate improvements. By providing a very personal take on the oil spill, she successfully makes her commentary more “one-on-one”, “person-to-person” rather than “celebrity-to-average person.” We can relate to the pain she feels upon witnessing the effects of the BP oil spills. Her words make us fight for change.All in all, Patricia Clarkson provides a solid argument criticizing BP and calling for the immediate restoration of the Gulf. Her passionate words, her heart-breaking examples, and her faultless logic are all-convincing in what makes a successful commentary on this disastrous oil spill.

Worming Our Way out of Global Warming

In this editorial titled “A Tale of Two Targets,” the New York Times editorial board criticizes the United States Senate for its attempts to water down the House’s energy bill combating climate change. In a joint collaboration towards global environmental preservation, our world’s nations, particularly those involved in the December climate change conference in Copenhagen, are currently setting gas emission reduction targets. However, as this editorial critically informs us, the United States is currently skimping in comparison to its European equals--Britain, Germany, and France, for starters.

I completely agree with the arguments presented in this editorial. In short, the United States is failing horribly in fulfilling its duties to prevent global warming. However, this editorial would not have convinced me if I had believed otherwise. Many times, I have heard people say that length doesn’t matter. A short article is not necessarily inferior; it may simply be concise. However, in the case of this editorial, its lack of length also means lack of support and convincing rhetoric. Yes, this editorial comes from an extremely reputable news source, The New York Times, but the authors should not make this the basis of their credibility. They argue that the United States Senate is hindering the progress of the combat against climate change. They claim that opponents of such progress are mistaken in believing that high economic costs will result. But where is the evidence? What is used to support this editorial’s critique of the Senate’s decisions? Frankly, nothing much. A major portion of this editorial consists of a summary of what Europe plans to do and what the United States has not. While this does at least provide a comparison between the two levels of governmental action, it cannot serve as the sole piece of evidence.

The editorial board continuously displays its contempt towards the United States’ policy towards climate change with phrases such as “there is no excuse for the Senate’s backward march” but does not follow these assertive statements with convincing facts. It is evident from the start which standpoint the editorial takes towards how we should deal with climate change, especially since the New York Times is known to be more liberal. However, upon closer examination, the logic is flawed from lack of concrete support. Too much recitation of fact and too little persuasive argument results in an unconvinced reader. If I had not already been of the opinion that the United States must take more drastic steps in preventing the increased warming of the world we share, this article would not have caused me to reconsider.

Arizona's New Immigration Law Continues to Make Ripples

Immigration has always been a prominent aspect of American society. For centuries, our nation has always welcomed newcomers from foreign countries, resulting in our epithet “The Melting Pot.” The words inscribed at the base of the Statue of Liberty read “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” However, the enormous rise in illegal immigration in recent years has caused the attitudes toward immigration to become more critical. A bipartisan bill attempting to address the issue of illegal immigration remains unsuccessful. President Obama continues to convince legislators to agree to the legalization of the millions of illegal immigrants residing in our nation.

In April of this year, Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer approved what is currently considered the most stringent immigration law in existence today. Intended to take effect on July 29, the aforementioned law obliges Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of the people they detain if they believe that he or she is an illegal immigrant. This immigration law has inspired intense controversy and heated debate, primarily because it appears to promote racial profiling.

The New York Times article, “Debate Over Arizona Immigration Law Comes to U.S. Court,” by Randal C . Archibold, discusses the most current step in the great conflict involving this divisive new bill. This article outlines the preliminary hearing posing A Phoenix police officer against Governor Jan Brewer. The police officer and his counsel, Stephen Montoya, argue that Arizona’s Immigration Law is unconstitutional, intruding on the federal government’s own illegal immigration measures. Opposing them, John Bouma, the governor’s lawyer, maintains the stance that illegal immigrants negatively impact Arizona in an economic way and must harshly be dealt with. This article effectively outlines the two opposing viewpoints in this heated debate, taking place for the first time in federal court. Informative and detailed, this article provides a coherent, yet enlightening update on the continuing controversy over Arizona’s new Immigration Law.