Recently my classmate, Caitlin, published a blog post entitled Stressed and Standardized to her blog Ideas are Bulletproof. Her premise was that standardized tests have become a definite issue in public schools. Beginning with her own experience, she recalled “I don’t remember other kids being stressed out by the test.” Then she explained how, through her work as a nanny, she has become aware of the stress and worry the kids she knows are going through because of the upcoming STARR tests. In conclusion, my classmate argued that the tests aren't helping children perform better in school. She stated that standardized testing is “just not a fair assessment of what they are capable of.” Finally, she ended by suggesting that the government institute a pre-test and a post-test for students in order to gain the most accurate and fair picture of their progress.

     Let me just say how much I appreciate this post. For many years people have debated the effectiveness of standardized testing, but from an academic perspective. My classmate has managed to present a personal experience that sheds light on a real problem. Unfortunately she does not include any outside references or statistics, which hurts her credibility some. Also by admitting that her own experience with standardized tests wasn't stressful she undermined her main point a little bit. However, through logical, personal, and professional examples she explained her argument effectively. 

     In the end then, my classmate’s post was very pointed and well-reasoned. She drew attention to an issue that indirectly affects her and directly affects people that she cares about. While she didn't include research and outside perspectives, she still presented a valid argument. And at the end, rather than merely listing a bunch of negatives, she offered a solution for positive action that might fix the problem. Thank you Caitlin, for bringing some personal vision to the discussion of standardized testing. 

     Standing out from the rest of the U.S. presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton is unique for many reasons. Not only is she the only Democrat running, but she’s also the only woman running so far. In addition, she’s the candidate surrounded by the most drama. Is the public’s suspicion well-founded? That depends upon the truth, which may never be revealed. More importantly though, in light of the scandal, is she trustworthy enough to be our president? 

     The first challenge Clinton needs to overcome in this presidential race is the shadow of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. Naturally, she is not responsible for any of the mistakes or accomplishments of her husband while he was in office, but association is a powerful factor. Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post puts it this way, “The single biggest threat to Hillary Clinton’s chances of being elected president next November… is a sense among the electorate that the bad of putting another Clinton in office outweighs the good.” Immaterial suspicion is never a good start to an election.

     Next there is the email controversy of the past few weeks. While working for the State Department, Clinton used her personal email for official purposes. Naturally, when asked to turn over all of her private emails to the State department, she declined to release any that did not directly relate to government business. That refusal has sparked a never-ending controversy. What is she hiding? For more information on this, visit my classmate’s blog: America, the Great Place.

     Finally, Clinton must disprove the allegations surrounding her family’s financial actions. Many people are outraged over rumors that the Clinton Foundation accepted large foreign donations while Hillary Clinton was working at the State Department. The issue involves Canadian miners and Russian nuclear energy and is rather complex. In the editorial Candidate Clinton and the Foundation , the New York Times editorial board outlines the controversy. They sum up Clinton’s problem by saying, “There is no indication that Mrs. Clinton played a role in the uranium deal’s eventual approval by a cabinet-level committee. But the foundation’s role in the lives of the Clinton’s is inevitably becoming a subject of political concern.” I believe this “political concern” is just the beginning of a much broader mess.

     Sorting through all the accusations and evidence is not easy. Personally, I’m inclined to believe the rumors, at least to a certain extent. This wouldn't be the first time a politician made numerous mistakes between campaigns and it probably won’t be the last. Nick Gass of Politico  describes the whole issue, “The Clinton campaign’s strategy to date has failed to stem the flood of negative media coverage.” So what does this mean for Hillary Clinton? Unless she successfully clears up these rumors, she will lose countless valuable votes in the 2016 election. 

    My commentary is in response to Jessica Sloan’s blog post titled "Clinton's Email Controversy Continues!" My colleague describes the controversy surrounding Hillary Clinton concerning her emails being subpoenaed. Taking her readers through the timeline of events, she explains why Clinton is under suspicion right now. Also, she points out the possible repercussions of the timing of this event considering the upcoming presidential elections in which Clinton intends to run.

     Overall, the piece is well written and concise. Perhaps my only criticism is that my colleague didn't really provide readers with a definite conclusion. What should we take away from this and why should we care? On the other hand, she lays out the situation in a clear and capable way. Claiming, “there’s no evidence to support any wrongdoing regarding emails,” without providing any evidence for the statement seems to defeat the purpose a little bit. However, mentioning that President Obama has asked for government to use separate email accounts for personal and work correspondence adds credibility to my colleague’s cause.

     In conclusion, Miss Sloan wrote a reasonable and informative criticism. Personally, I appreciate her nonjudgmental tone. But at the same time, I hoped for a more substantial opinion on the subject. Sifting through a news issue like this is no simple task so I appreciate my colleague’s efforts. Since reading this blog post, I have become increasingly engaged by this story, which I feel should be the goal of anybody commenting on political news. 

     Of all the things we, as citizens of the United States, are allowed to participate in voting is one of the most important. Honestly, nobody really wants to vote. However, as an optimist, I still cling to the idea that every vote matters despite what people say. If that’s the case, then isn’t it imperative that the government take every precaution to prevent voter fraud? One of the most prevalent, and disputed, methods of doing this is requiring photo ID. 

     Currently 31 states request or require some form of voter ID, 18 of which request or require photo IDs. Only 7 of those states require photo ID at polling places, although North Carolina and Wisconsin have recently passed similar laws which have yet to take effect. In recent polls, 70-75% of voters supported required voter ID. Just throughout daily life we run across the need for valid ID, such as when applying for a job, when boarding a plane, when buying cigarettes or alcohol, when checking out media from the library, or when driving. Why is it so difficult to present these same IDs to staff when voting? 

    Critics argue that requiring photo ID discriminates against minorities. One of many examples of this argument is an article by James B. Kelleher of Reuters. He explains that, “59 percent of Hispanic women and 55 percent of African-American men in the Milwaukee area lacked a valid state-issued photo ID.” Compared to other democracies, the U.S. has a very low voter turnout. One possible explanation for this is because it’s the citizen’s job to register whereas in other countries the government takes care of it. “In general, the governments know the names, ages and addresses of most of its citizens and – except in the United States – provide the appropriate polling place with a list of those qualified to vote,” explains Minn Post author Eric Black. 

     The system is far from perfect. According to a 2006 survey, around 11% of eligible U.S. citizens don’t actually have access to current or valid government-issued photo ID. Also, low income citizens were found to be  twice as unlikely to have proof of citizenship. Undeniably, these statistics pose a problem to required voter ID. I propose that the government supply free ID to citizens before elections. In 2008, Jimmy Carter and James Baker III of the Carter Center proposed that our government help transition in photo ID voting laws by sending mobile units to distribute IDs in districts where voters likely don't have access to them. This seems like a reasonable solution, if somewhat costly. 

     In the end, we all want accurate election results. Requiring voters to show photo ID at polls is a necessary measure. Of course no idea is flawless. But perhaps this one just might ensure truthful results. Maybe I’m wrong, but if every vote does count, then how can we accept anything less than the best in security? 

     Recently, the Washington Post published an amicus brief which they had received, concerning the Supreme Court case Ohio v. Clark. Two university professors, Richard D. Friedman and Stephen J. Ceci, wrote the brief which is titled "How Courts Should Hear from Children." They tell the story of a 3-year-old, referred to as L.P., who showed up to day care with abuse marks on him. When asked who was responsible, the child indicated it was his mother’s boyfriend, Darius Clark. Friedman and Ceci insist that Clark was unfairly convicted since L.P. had not testified at his trial, thus no legal representative of Clark’s was able to question the boy. They argue that it would be better for the courts to allow young children to be interviewed privately by a forensic examiner in order to authenticate evidence. 

     Because both authors possess distinguished qualifications, they obviously are trustworthy on this issue. Friedman is a professor from the Law School of the University of Michigan. Ceci is a professor at Cornell University in the Department of Human Development. Through a professional presentation, they present competent emotional and logical arguments. Take when they suggest reasons for allowing young children to be treated as physical evidence, “And finally, testimony at trial is simply hard on a child, even if… the child is allowed to testify outside the presence of the accused. The procedure we propose would be much gentler.” Naturally people will support a plan that makes any sort of legal procedures easier on a child of that age. Also, the common sense of this claim is proof of sensible and proficient thought. Of course, this is just one example of their rational expertise.  

     On the other hand, Friedman and Ceci offer no outside evidence for the argument. Personally I feel their words would hold more weight if they cited other court cases or used data to support their points. Furthermore the authors do not really explain their proposed policy changes. They declare, “Instead, he [Clark] should be able to choose a qualified forensic examiner to interview L.P., under a prescribed protocol, in an attempt to determine whether there are grounds for doubting L.P.’s statement that Clark abused him.” As a legally inexperienced civilian, I feel that a vague outline like this is an insufficient plan for change. Naturally some of the Washington Post readers have a great deal more knowledge than me, but I believe, unfortunately, the majority of Friedman’s and Ceci’s audience remain largely ignorant of legal process.     

    In the end, I am convinced. According to the logical reasoning presented in this amicus brief, the Supreme Court should change the way it treats very young witnesses. We can all agree that small children like that are not capable of equivalent testimony as adults. But what should the solution be? I agree with Friedman and Ceci that the kids should be looked upon as evidence and their testimony examined respectfully out of court.

     The Boston Globe published an editorial on February 24 titled "Congress should pass Central American aid package."  The author presents his or her opinion that the cause of many young undocumented immigrants flooding into the U.S. is violence and economic instability in the "Northern Triangle” – Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Obviously from the title, the argument is that America needs to send funds to Central America to deter those people from leaving their countries. In the author’s words, “The more economic success comes to the region, the less incentive there is to migrate.” The funds would incidentally reduce spending on border patrol.
         My first concern with this editorial is that the author fails to establish that the unrest in these countries is truly the “source” of our immigration problem. Surely the readers of the Boston Globe possess differing viewpoints. Based on that one assumption, the entire argument may fall short for some people.
         In contrast, the author presents other information very persuasively. He or she includes numerous links to outside sources which support his or her claims. Proving the high number of youth in the Northern Triangle countries effectively backs up the point of funding education and job creation. Including the opinions of Jason Marczak and Adriana Beltran, both authorities on U.S. and Latin American relations, adds credibility to the foreign policy angle. Perhaps the best selling point for a skeptic of the proposed aid package is the emotionally appealing idea that this one is different because it focuses on community strengthening.
       Another major issue of alarm is the vague description of where the money is actually going. My concern is that the author does not explain or include any links to the actual content of the proposal. After all, who exactly will receive the aid funding? It can be assumed that if the money finds its way into the hands of the same people who managed Plan Colombia and the Merida Initiative, which were both unproductive failures, the results will be no different this time. Naturally, we don’t want to support Central American aid that is doomed to have no net effect on those countries or our own.
       In my opinion, the magnitude of the author’s oversights in this editorial overbears the supportive evidence. While no doubt the piece is well researched, the author neglects to include valuable information that directly relates to the legitimacy of this proposal. I disagree that sending aid to the Northern Triangle will resolve the issue of mass immigration. Of course we need to do something to help these children, but this is not the solution. 

     On February 13, the New York Times published an article titled "Obama Signs Suicide Prevention for Veterans Act Into Law". The story is that a young veteran, Clay Hunt, returned home after serving and struggled with PTSD, eventually taking his own life. The unfortunate truth is that this law is going into action for the very reason that Hunt's tale is not isolated. In the article, the author claims that some people estimate 22 U.S. veterans kill themselves each day. Offering multiple new ways for homecoming military members to gain help, this law is one step toward ensuring they have access to the effective healthcare that they need. 

     The reason this article is worth reading is because the bill passed unanimously in both houses of Congress. I believe our lawmakers are sending us, the American people, a very clear message: it is not their job alone to help our veterans when they need someone. As he was signing the bill into law, President Obama called upon Americans to become involved in aiding our veterans. Perhaps we can prevent those 22 deaths if we all pay attention and take action. The new law is named in honor of Clay Hunt.