Political Issues of Politics

1. Education : Common Core 

With A Side Note On College Tuition

Common Core  

My stance: 

The Common Core State Standards Initiative is an education initiative that details what K-12 should know in English and Math at the end of each grade, seeking to establish consistent education standards across the states as well as ensure that students graduating from high school are prepared to enter two to four year college programs or enter the work force. However, there are several problems involved in this program. First off, those who drafted the Common Core are supposed "experts" behind closed doors, many with ties to testing companies. Of course teachers were brought on board to review this draft, but many the writers were not too keen on making many adjustments. Thus, the education system is left with stricter rules on teachers, more tests for students, and the value of education thrown out the window. The essential substance of Common Core standards are supposed to be evolving around the concept of "college readiness", degrading the learning process to merely moving up to the next level. Common Core puts priority on the close reading of texts in a way that devalue student experience and prior knowledge. Therefore, the focal point of education has turned to merely test scores that reflect on both the students and the teachers. The students are pushed and prepped to get these high test scores and teachers are pestered about the scores in general. The biggest problem with this system is that it is no longer an education plan, but a marketing campaign for schools and colleges to gain other students, higher rankings, better funding, etc. and on the behalf of the test scores. Students end up being overstressed and feeling underprepared and teachers end up feeling used to encourage this scheme or else end up either in trouble or fired. The testing never ends and students in this generation are suffering because of it. Anxiety and test-stress has sky rocketed since the implementation of Common Core and it's standards and benchmarks. The nation needs to be concerned about this issue because it is actually dumbing down the students. Rather than knowing information and building off their knowledge, students are being taught to get a good grade on a test, resulting in crammed memorization. The United States, one of the richest and highest resource countries, is ranked 14 out of 40 countries in education; this should not be the case. The kids are getting "dumber" so to speak from younger and younger ages. Common Core must be stopped in order to ensure a proper education for future generations; the kids are always the future, education is the only way to ensure the nation remains stable. Promoting a valued education system is the way to and to begin paving that road, Common Core must be extinguished. 

Parties' stance: 

• The Green Party and Socialist party agree that the adoption of the Common Core's national educational standards are not okay and that the education system should teach to each student's potential instead of uniform testing.
• Republicans do not agree with the adoption of the Common Core's national educational standards but do not necessarily have a solution to the problem.
• Democrats agree with the concept but not the implementation.
• Libertarians do not agree with the Common Core's national educational standards and believe education should be handled at the state and local level instead of the national level. 

Side Note: College Tuition

College Tuition

My stance: 

The issue of rising college tuition has been an one all-too-known to the public and especially college students and their families. Tuition has increased 225% since 1984-1985, forcing many students to take out student loans and remain in debt for most of their lives. The students' debt has played a tremendous part of contributing to the national debt. Another major issue is that today's student's may not be able to send their own children to college if tuition's remain increasing as they have. Being involved in a highly-competitive global economy requires a well educated workforce; it is a shame that hundred of thousands of bright young people cannot go to college due to the initial price or that those who do manage to go have debt that burdens them for decades. Germany, Chile, Finland, Norway, Sweden and many other countries around the world already offer or are in the process of offering students with free college education. In fact, considering the drastic increase, that must mean there used to be some schools that either had a low tuition amount or did not have one at all; the country's economy did fine then, why not now? The profits the federal government makes on student loan programs is an appalling $110 billion amount. Another issue with college tuition being so high is not even just the student loans itself that are being given, but the interest rate at a whopping 4.29%, explaining why so many are in debt for over half their lives. The price tag of college has risen to an extent that it actually scares students and parents out of paying for college, which should not be the case. Money should not be the factor that plays a part into someone's education. Education in a first world country, with resources to provide for it's citizens, should be a right not a privilege. 

2. Global Warming and the Environment

My stance:

Global warming is an increase in the earth's atmospheric temperature since the late 19th century. In politics, the debate over global warming is centered on whether this increase in temperature is a result of greenhouse gas emissions or the result of a natural pattern in the earth's temperature. Earth's temperature begins with the Sun. Roughly 30% of incoming sunlight is reflected back into space by bright surfaces like clouds and ice; the remaining 70% must be absorbed into the land, ocean, and atmosphere. As the lands and seas radiate heat energy, the energy travels into the atmosphere where much of it is absorbed by water vapor and greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. Like bricks in a fireplace, these gases radiate heat even after the fire goes out. The absorption and radiation of heat by the atmosphere is natural and even good for the planet. In fact, if there were no greenhouse effect, the Earth would be be very chilly with an average temperature of 0 degrees Fahrenheit. What has scientists worried now is that humans, over the past 250 years, have been artificially raising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and cutting down carbon-absorbing forests. According to a few of NASA's Earth Observatory Global Warming articles, since the Industrial Revolution in 1750, carbon dioxide levels have increased 38% and methane levels 148%. The issues of Global Warming are that they are destroying our environment and earth's atmosphere. If anything else, resources should be focused on this issue for a mere matter of "self-preservation". The planet is our home and through all the chemicals we release into the air, they endanger our home and ourselves. We must find a greener way to live and government should increase environmental regulations to prevent global warming.

Parties' stances:

• Democrats, Green Party, and Socialists agree with my stance of government increasing environmental regulations to prevent global warming and are open to ideas of addressing the challenge of climate change and seize the idea of a clean-energy future.
• Republicans and Libertarians do not agree with stance on government increasing environmental regulations to prevent global warming and have minimal care about the issue. 

3. Gun Control

My stance:
In 2012, a shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School caused several states and cities to pass strict gun control measures. However, in response, state lawmakers in gun friendly states in the South and West passed bills that would strengthen Stand Your Ground laws and allow weapons in most public places. In 2014, 21 states passed laws that expanded gun owner's rights to posses firearms in churches, bars, schools, and college campuses. The federal government, on the other hand, has not passed any gun control regulation laws since 1994. Recently, within this past year, there have been numerous cases of gun violence, shootings, and protests that end in shoot outs. Although I realize the 2nd amendment allows for the right to bear arms, what others seem to not realize, is that this amendment was put into the Constitution in 1791 to protect the citizens against bears and british soldiers, not to kill one another. There are plenty of other countries that do not have gun rights at all, and while that would create an absolute uproar within the nation, the government should at the very least increase gun regulation. First, because it was too simple for someone with a mental illness or some issue to get a gun and either a) kill themselves or b) kill others. Secondly, it is rather simple for terrorists and other evil people to get themselves weapons as well and cause harm to the citizens of our country. Third, why is it ever necessary to have a gun on someone at all times anyway? People may be shouting "protection" or "self-defense" right about now, however, how would a having a gun on hand help the situation anyway. Imagine a group of bad guys, entering a public square and randomly shooting people. Now there are plenty of people within the square holding guns and shooting back. The individual "good guys" cannot tell each other apart from the spread out "bad guys" and now we have ourselves a mass shooting with police wondering who was in the right and who was in the wrong. Just recently, there were massive terrorists attacks in Paris and plenty of gun-rights activists turning the situation into an "example". However, what many Americans don't realize first, is that the most of the people of France do not want guns because even if they would have had them, it would not have assuage the situation. Gun control needs to be better regulated and maintained for the safety of the country and the citizens.

Parties' stance:

• The Socialist party agrees with my stance that gun control should be increased, as well as require strict background checks, psychological tests, and training.
• The Democrats agree with increased gun control and everyone purchasing a gun required to pass a criminal and public safety background check.
• The Green party suggests not only increased gun control but also banning all guns from public use.
• The Republicans do not agree with any increased gun control and find that requiring people who purchase a gun to pass a background check as a waste of government resources and ineffective.
• The Libertarians not only disagree with increased gun control and background checks, but also support the federal government passing "Stand Your Ground" laws.

4. Death Penalty

My stance:

The death penalty or capital punishment is the punishment by death for a crime. Currently 58 countries worldwide allow the death penalty, including the U.S., while 97 countries have outlawed it. A new analysis concludes that more than twice as many inmates are wrongfully convinced and sentenced to death than have been exonerated and freed. My biggest issue with the death penalty is that no matter how many statistics there are out there to say the death of guilty to death of innocent ratio is one way or another, there is no way to be one hundred percent absolutely certain. To put an innocent man to death should not be something a highly advanced first-world country should participate in. As a humanitarian, killing with the ideology of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is ridiculously absurd and ignorant. Secondly, if one were to get the death penalty after committing a mass homicide or rapping plenty of women, death is the easy way out. In a sense, those that commit the most horrific of crimes should spend the rest of their lives in prison, locked up, with plenty of time to think of their horrors and be in the company of other horrible people. That is the greatest punishment of all. Despite one's religion or spiritual belief, sentencing someone to death is simply giving them the easy way out.

Parties' stance:

• Green Party and Socialists agree with my stance that there should be no death penalty. 
• Democrats agree with the federal government allowing the death penalty but only in certain circumstances in which a heinous crime has been committed and there is irrefutable evidence.
• Republicans and Libertarians back the federal government allowing the death penalty without any regulation. 

5. Immigration/Foreign Policy : Refugees

My stance:

President Barack Obama recently declared that the U.S. will accept 10,000 Syrian refugees. The U.S. has been under pressure from its Syrian allies to help out with the crisis in which 3 million refugees have fled Syria within the past year. Those in favor of accepting the refugees believe that the U.S. has a duty to its allies in Europe and accept at least the 10,000 refugees. Opponents argue that the U.S. should stay out of this crisis because accepting refugees from the Middle East will lead to a risk of terrorism leaking into the nation's borders. As a supporter of the 10,000 Syrian refugees, I have several reasons as to why the nation should. First, because there have been over 2,000 Syrian refugees already settled into the United states and not one has been arrested or removed for terrorism. Secondly, although a main reason opponents now say absolutely no refugees is because of the recent Paris terror attacks. As a French native, with strong ties to the country, I was also upset by the horrific terror attacks that caused so many their lives. And although those terrorist attacks were linked to ISIS, not one of them was actually Syrian. Another rumor spreading around is that a majority of the refugees are young males that might be terrorists, however, only 2% of the Syrians seeking refuge are young males of combat age and without families. In fact, most applicants are women and children under the age of twelve. Not to mention, getting into the U.S. itself is an extensive thirteen step process and yet only about half the applicants are approved. Regardless of all this, even France, just days after the horrendous terrorist attacks, agreed to take in 30,000 refugees within the next two years. If a country recently attacked by ISIS affiliated terrorists can accept the fact that there are plenty of innocent people among the Syrian refugees, why can't the United States? Although the U.S. has history with terrorists groups and has been scared and scarred by Middle-Eastern peoples, primarily Muslims, the people need to realize that there are innocent, peaceful Muslims. This country was founded on immigration and has forever been a melting pot; the nation must lead the world in compassion and for the innocent people who are fleeing the war and terror in their home country and surrounding ones. I believe that the U.S. should take in all the 10,000 refugees as promised, make them go through background checks and care for them since they are the innocents fleeing the atrocities that is their home.

Parties' stance: 

• The Green Party agrees with taking in Syrian Refugees, but thinks the nation should accept much more than the proposed 10,000.
• The Democrats and Socialists agree in simply taking in the 10,000 refugees as promised.
• The Republicans and Libertarians do not want the U.S. to take in any of the refugees.