The U.S. Dollar and Facebook

In the article, "Foreign Policy: Why The U.S. Dollar Is Like Facebook," Daniel W. Drezner, the writer, uses Facebook and general social networking sites as a way to more effectively convey why he believes that the end of the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency is far from near. In the simplest of terms, he states “the U.S. dollar is the Facebook of hard currencies.”
He explains that both Facebook and the U.S. dollar are only as useful and powerful as the amount of people using it. He argues, “It doesn't matter if there's another site that's superior, unless everyone is willing to simultaneously switch over.” He also points out that without another place that everyone can and wants to move to that peoples are more reluctant to end their usage of a social networking site—the concept applies to the U.S. dollar. And at the moment, the Euro—the dollar’s biggest rival—is in trouble.
So, by comparing the U.S. dollar to Facebook, Drezner cleverly and clearly gets his positive opinion on the U.S. dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency across. It's definitely worth reading if only to better understand the status of our currency in the world and the actions of people. Drezner's comparison is informative, interesting, and easy to understand.

Arizona: an example of how not to deal with illegal immigration.

I have to agree with Politically Curious' recent blog post — I bet Mexicans clean their house... — that Arizona's new law is completely ridiculous, and it also hits home for me as well. My mother and oldest brother came here 34 years ago and have lived here legally ever since. My mom has a very strong accent and would most likely have her citizenship taken into question. The law is insulting to all living here legally and to all vacationing here from foreign countries.
There is a lot of discussion on the possible economic pitfalls that could come with the spread of this law to more states. It's theorized that should the law spread to other states that many foreign countries will become wary of bringing their business here because of the fear of being unnecessarily questioned or hassled. Many areas that rely on the economic support of tourists and foreign business could end up feeling the effects of the immigration law financially, and not in a positive way.
The issue of illegal immigration needs to be dealt with, but not like this. Racial profiling is completely unavoidable through Arizona's law, and they have no right to go against the rights of U.S. citizens to privacy. There are better ways to deal with illegal immigration. Racial discrimination and the violation of the right to privacy are far from a solution.

A small piece of the new health reform law

On June 1st another piece of the new health reform law will be phased in—the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program. The program will subsidize some $5 billion to employers in order for them to help pay for some of their retired workers within the 55-64 age group who are not yet eligible for Medicare. Personally, I don't see too much good coming from the program.
The program is authorized to continue up to 2014, but many say the money will most likely run out within 18-24 months--half the allotted time. That's all well and good, but only about 31% of businesses offer retiree coverage, and the program doesn't allow any new programs to receive any money until a new plan year begins, which is usually January 1st. Which means about 1/3 of the time estimated for the money to last will have been lost to many retirees. For a plan to be eligible it must have one participant that generates between $15,000 and $90,000 of health claims per year, and save the retiree money when managing any chronic diseases.
With the drawbacks for many companies to offer retiree coverage, mainly the high possibility that they will lose funding rather quickly, I don't see many eager to jump on the bandwagon. In my opinion, the program will greatly benefit businesses with retiree coverage plans already in place for a short amount of time, and it won't greatly impact the percentage of businesses who offer retiree coverage. It’s a good-hearted effort, but it's really just a nice reward for those large companies who are still able to offer such retiree benefits to their older employees.

President Obama signs a good but unfair memorandum.

I have to admit that I am not too familiar with visitation regulations in hospitals because I have never had to visit anyone outside of my family in the hospital, but from what I have heard visits from anyone outside of a person's family is not permitted to visit a patient in critical condition. In Sarah's Government Blog, she talks about how President Obama recently signed a memorandum allowing homosexuals to have visits from people outside of their family. As someone that supports same-sex marriage, I am thrilled, but as someone that also supports equal rights for everyone, I am a bit disappointed. While I like that the partners of homosexual patients are now able to be there for their loved one, I have to argue why can't this right be extended to everyone? Why can't we all have EVERYONE that loves us, not just our families, the right to visit us when we are at our weakest? If we want equal rights for everyone, then we should all have the same rights. In a way, I agree with Sarah that this shows that President Obama wants to the right thing for everyone, I think that he could have gone about it in a way that truly shows that homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else. Giving them extra rights is not the way to gain the support of the nation for same-sex marriage. We are all equals as citizens of the United States, so we should all have equal rights.

A better approach to teaching and learning

It seems to me that good teachers are hard to come by these days, but why is that? Most would agree that a good teacher know how to engage students, are knowledgeable in their subject, and understand the best ways for students to learn. In a very broad sense, all great teachers possess those traits. So, why are so many schools throughout the United States on probation while such a high rate of their teachers are rated as “excellent”? That’s what Excellence in Teaching wants to know.

Excellence in Teaching is a pilot program that was started in 2008 to improve schools throughout the U.S. and has been successful in the schools that they have been tested at for the past couple years. It targets the main reasons for faulty teacher evaluations and aims to produce feedback to teachers that will improve their methods and improve education on a whole.

A typical teacher evaluation comes from the principal checking off a generalized list of what the teachers are or are not doing well in the classroom. There are a few problems with this very vague evaluation. In order to evaluate a teacher, a principal will sit in a class and determine the teacher’s ability in that sitting. Usually, children are on their best behavior and teachers are more attentive during those times and know what to do to gain the best scores, so obviously the results will be slightly skewed and vague at best.

Excellence in Teaching wants to correct this by doing away with the checklist and replace it with conversation. So, rather than just rating the teacher, they want to discover how the students are learning from a teacher’s methods and what can be changed to increase students’ understanding. It’s similar to getting an essay back with feedback on your work and how you can improve it written throughout the paper rather than getting it back with a simple grade stamped at the top and you’re left to question why you got that grade.

I think it is great that so many schools have started to evaluate teachers through this program. If every school in the United States adopted Excellence in Teaching’s methods of evaluation, then the quality of learning would definitely go up and the number of successful students would rise along with it.

Republicans' Pre-Existing Condition? Not Likely.

When I approached this assignment to critique a blog, I decided to start with conservative ones and move to liberal ones if I didn't find anything that caught my interest. Then one story did on the blog, RedState. It's titled, "Republicans' Pre-Existing Condition" and hogan, the author, basically discusses how necessary it is for Republicans to call for a repeal of the new health care law. He accuses Republicans of being afraid to vy for its repeal mainly due to its "mandate [on] coverage of pre-existing conditions" because they either a) have a pre-existing condition or b) they are a politician and are afraid to be seen in opposition of the sick. He further argues that healthy people don't need a significant amount of healthcare, but sick people do and will be a greater risk. While that is true, isn't that why we have health insurance? To help us when we're sick? He does, however, propose other routes of paying for health insurance for the less able, which is one of the main issues many have with the new law. No one wants to pay for someone else's health care. The law isn't perfect, but it's a start. It will protect those that are in desperate need of healthcare from being dropped from their insurance because they become ill. Many people are dropped from their insurance each year and lose limbs or their lives to illnesses that could have been cured or treated, but weren't due to lack of insurance. He, hogan, makes his point to Republicans effectively, but as a liberal and someone who has seen the pain families can go through when they are denied health insurance or dropped from it, I have to argue that the healthcare law should definitely stay in place.

A registry of animal abusers: a good or bad idea?

In California, Senator Dean Florez has proposed the creation of a registry of  animal abusers, which would be funded by increased taxes on pet food. An article in the L.A. Times plainly titled "A registry of animal abusers is a bad idea" is clearly against this proposition. Whether or not this author is credible as a person is unknown to me, considering that I couldn't find the author's name, but the paper itself is one that many read nation-wide, while its intended audience is that of California.
Whoever the author is, they argue that it serves no purpose and shouldn't be done when there is no registry on drug dealers or domestically violent people. They also claim that the cost of such a registry, which would be paid for by new taxes placed on pet food, would be far too much and should not be paid for by those who are not responsible for animal abuse. They provide decent enough evidence, but why should a registry not be created? Their own evidence against one supports one. Animal abuse is commonly linked with the development of "serial killers and school shooters". While there's a registry for sex offenders to warn people of those who are prone to that kind of behavior, should we not also be warned of the possibility of people who may be prone to murder? While they push that the cost would be outrageous and that the people convicted of animal abuse should be allowed to start over like all the other criminals in the U.S., except for sex offenders, I have to disagree.
I agree that the cost for the registry should be found elsewhere, I don't agree that animal abusers should be allowed to start over if sex offenders cannot. Most animal abusers have the same tendencies towards murder and abuse that most sex offenders have towards rape, child pornography, etc. So, while the author believes that a registry of animal abusers is a bad idea, I think it is a very good idea.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-registry26-2010feb26,0,1167169.story