Race Advantages?

Racism has always been a big problem in this country. Slowly it becomes less and less a problem, but, even though many think it is no longer an issue, there are sections of the country who are still racist.
However, I would like to talk about a different kind of racism. And before you read the next sentence and accuse me of being racist, just hear me out. I think that we give too much advantage to races outside of caucasion/white. I do not believe playing fields are as equal in this country as they should be.
When you apply for college and go searching for scholarships, other races aside from whites have advantages - to an extent - because you can get scholarships just by checking that little race box that says your hispanic, or black, or etc.
I think that this race box should be taken out of tests like the SAT, ACT, and on applications. I do not understand why it is necessary to know the race of an applicant. If admission is equally dispersed to all the races, you should not receive money for college simply because you are a certain race.

Presidential Priorities - Popularity or Responsibility?

Ashley has made a very good point in her article "Presidents or Celebrities?" as she talks about Presidents and presidential canidates and their many appearances on talk shows. She makes some very good points. "Usually, Presidents and presidential candidates do anything from make jokes about opponents or give opinions on fashion...I feel that, sometimes, appearances like this take priority over critical issues facing our country." I really enjoyed her article and agree with her opinions.
I would like to stay in the same topic but in a slightly different direction and talk about specifically how these media appearances affect elections. In any sort of election, many times popularity plays a big role. Typically, and this makes obvious sense,  people are more likely to vote for someone if they are popular - their friends, family, or media likes them - and, in the case of younger voters, cool. We've all seen those commercials with celebrities promoting presidential candidates, or presidents/candidates being interviewed on talk shows talking about every day things, such as fashion, like Ashley mentioned.
I think it is unfortunate that elections, particularly presidential, are often times affected by popularity rather than how responsible an individual is. Just because someone is popular and has a good taste in fashion does not mean they are fit to run the county. But then, how would we know, when they are too busy talking about simple things irrelivant to running the country instead of more serious talks?

Penumbras?

The Roe v. Wade decision of 1973 used the "penumbras" of the Bill of Rights to justify their decision.
A penumbra is an area of partial illumination, as shown in the picture to the left. For example, if the sun is the Bill of Rights, the earth - or the light illuminating the earth - is everything the Bill of Rights addresses as a right the people of America possess. The shadows behind the earth represent things that citizens do not have a right to do, and the gray area is a sort of in between - an area that the Bill of Rights does not necessarily address or does not technically say that the people can't do it.
I do not think that it is right that we can justify rights of the people using the penumbras in the Bill of Rights. The reason I say this is because when you do not give people a clear, black and white list of what they can and cannot do, there are always going to be people out there that try to get away with as much as possible. I believe when you begin to take the gray area as acceptable, it is hard to know where the gray stops and where the black begins.

Playing Offense Without Offense?

"Big Bad Biden." That is what Frank Bruni is calling Biden after the Vice Presidential debate on October 10th. Bruni talks about Biden's attitude towards Congressman Ryan at the debate. He says, "this was listening as an aerobic exercise, muscle-taxing and calorie burning, and the message that he conveyed with it was clear: This widow-peaked pipsqueak to my side has a lot of nerve, a lot to learn and no place at the same table where I'm sitting."
Ouch. With Biden's incessant laughter and mockful smiles, it was clear he had no respect for Ryan. Bruni's article conveys his view that Biden went a little overboard with his act - "I'm not sure Biden did nearly as well."
I agree with Bruni's opinion in this article. Biden was bound and determined to not be "accused of underreacting." Obama had left many Democrats depressed after the first debate, and it was Biden's responsibility to "revivify them." But Bruni asks, "could Biden find the level of aggression he clearly wanted without tiping into a degree of obnoxiousness that would do him and Obama no good at all?"
Biden made a point to hit on all the sore subjects Obama hadn't - Romney's tax return, the 47 percent comment, challenging Romney's claims. He even reprimanded the moderator at one point.
This being said, "on substance, Biden scored many points with enormous effectiveness." On this point, however, I disagree with and ask, what effectiveness is Biden achieving? Bruni's examples of Biden's "substance" all consist of attacking Romney and Ryan's claims, or blaming problems on Bush, rather than stating Obama's clear plans for the future, which is one thing Obama and Biden have yet to share with us.  The point for these debates is for the debators to clearly state their opinions on issues, their plans to fix problems, etc. Bruni writes, "the abortion passage of the debate was one of those rare and refreshing instances when neither candidate could or did try to straddle a fence. The Democratic ticket stood on one side, the Republican on the other. Voters could see which was where and factor it into their decisions." That is what a debate is for, to give voters clear lines on where each side stands.
Throughout the debate Biden continued to "play the put-upon adult, a role he took to such heights that it attained an air of unintended buffoonery." And "in the end it was a bit much."

Are Unemployment Rates in America Really Down?

On October 5, 2012 the government released the current official unemployment rate to be 7.8% - a .3% decrease in past month. While Obama is using this to his advantage, Fox News journalist John Lott, in his article “What the 7.8 percent jobless number really means,” argues that this is not an accurate representation of the current unemployment rate in America.

            Lott refers to the decrease – “That may seem like great news. However, a more serious analysis of the job market numbers indicates continued gloom.” He then goes on to explain how this increase in jobs measures part-time workers as employed. People all over the country with families are being forced into part-time jobs because that is their last resort. Some people are even finding themselves forced from their full-time jobs to part-time within their own companies, who can’t afford to keep them on full-time. “People who are classified by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as ‘part time for economic reasons’ soared from about 8 million to 8.6 million, a 581,000 increase,” reports Lott. Meanwhile, the full-time employment rate has dropped by 218,000. Can we really be excited about this .3% decrease, after knowing the truth about those numbers? Is a decrease in full-time employment by 218,000 really on the road to recovery from these unemployment rates in this country? “After all, businesses shifting workers from full-time to part-time in large numbers is not signaling a general economic upswing.”

            It is important for us to do research on numbers that we are given from the government. While it’s true that the “unemployment” rate has dropped by .3%, we have to realize what those numbers are measuring. It is good to stay well-informed and not to go with the flow when it comes to misleading statistics.

On Thursday, September 20, 2012 New York Times published an article titled "Before Debates, Romney Faces a Daunting Path."

The article starts with an update on the current nominees standing in polls, as well as the time remaining until their debates and election day. With early voting seven days away in Iowa, and their first debate two weeks away, Obama still maintains the lead in the majority of polls. However, with 44 days left in the home stretch, President Obama’s advisors acknowledge that Romney has plenty of time to turn the game around.

The leaked video of Mr. Romney’s “47 percent” comments have not played in his favor, and many states – such as Ohio, Florida and Colorado – are worried he is not campaigning enough in their states and he is not spending enough of his resources in vital communities. Political director Rich Beeson, however, states that they’re “making some very strategic decisions. And when we’re coming down to the end, you’ll see the governor everywhere he needs to be.”

So, is Romney digging himself into deeper trouble by not addressing this “47 percent” of the public he’s convinced will never vote for him? Or is he playing it smart by visiting voters who are unsure of where they stand?

Time can only tell.