The Cost of America's Education Failures

In this brief clip, NPR does a great job representing the economic costs of a broken education system for their series on America's Dropout Crisis (Editor's Note: The link on the NPR site for the clip I wanted to show displays a different video, so just follow the link and watch the clip at the top of the page. Sorry for the inconvenience). Later reports document the human toll it takes on individuals and its effect on our culture and national well-being. You don't need to look very far to see how Education has the power to transform economies and cultures, and something tells me that the United States does not want to go down as the case-study of what not to do in this essential field.

Are there problems with our education system? Absolutely, and our public school system is painfully outdated and burdened with limitations, creating an inefficient and ineffective system which lacks valuable accountability and competition. Part of this is due to fund cuts, some of it is do to restrictive legislation, and some of it is, yes, do to aggressive and powerful unions. By definition, union representatives are obligated to protect those who fund them, which includes the best and worst teachers. But that is also how our system of adversarial legalism works. Whether someone is on trial for a white collar crime, petty larcen, or child molestation, they are entitled to have a lawyer provide the best case. It is then up to the judge / jury to take both sides into consideration and come to a conclusion. Does that mean that a child molester will be freed because someone is presenting his case? No, but having a voice is an important part of our legal system. We may not like it, but the reason why the man responsible for the Tuscon shootings / Gabby Gifford situation cannot be put to trial is because he cannot assist in his defense and his voice cannot be heard. Many may disagree with that, and I'm not saying that our justice system is perfect, but its the closest thing we've got to an objective power.

Maybe instead of looking at why the bad teachers get represented, we should look at why they are teaching in the first place? How come it seems that only Teach for American can attract the best and brightest young people to get infront of a classroom? Do we need a more rigorous hiring process to weed out the teachers? Do they need better on the job training? How much of the fault on the administration? Do we need to improve metrics? Are we not attracting good teachers because they don't get paid a high salary but are instead compensated in the long term with a pension, or is it a cultural stigma that prevents people from being teachers, and if so how can we change this? How do we make sure that we help our teachers (and in turn our kids) reach their highest potential, and if they are unable to achieve satisfactory standards, fire them?

There are a lot of questions about our system, and I think its time we had some honest debate about an issue that every American cares about. This is an issue that can cut the partisan politics if our elected legislators were willing to frame the issue in a clear way for the American people. Instead of worrying about elections, it would be nice if Washington attempted to restore a little bit of trust after this disastrous self-inflicted debt ceiling debate by making real progress on an essential policy issue. Sure, providing funding for the FAA gave me a little confidence that Washington still had a pulse, but I'm not sold that Washington is reliable and willing to be held accountable for making tough decisions.

And if we can't fix these issues through Washington, its up to local and state municipalities to get involved. However, true change is only going to come if the people demand it. Let your representatives know that you care about our future, and whether its the environment or our education system, you want your voice to be heard.

Legalize It: How Marijuana Can Save California

In order to clarify any sort of potential biases that could affect the following post, let me first go ahead say that I do not and will not smoke marijuana either recreationally or for medical reasons, regardless of its legal status. Between my asthma and personal preference to retain sound judgment and a clear conscious whenever possible, it’s not something for me. However I am not one to impose my opinion on others. After all, I’m no expert in pharmacology nor should I tell anyone how they must spend their free time until it infringes upon the rights of others.

To legalize, or not to legalize, that is the question. As the subject of archives of music, plenty of apparel, a plethora of blogs and diggs, and so much more, this topic is nothing new to the public discourse, but rarely do politicians make it a serious issue in fear of alienating a large demographic of voters who are morally opposed to the use of the plant. Ever since the flower children of the sixties, every subsequent generation has become increasingly more open minded to use of marijuana, especially in Los Angeles where there are more medical marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops. While it is impossible to predict the number of Californians that smoke pot (check out this compliation of street names for marijuana) legally or illegally, there is a significant enough consumer base to justify the Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act (AB 2254) proposed by Assembly Tom Ammiano of San Francisco. With the state budget deficit stacking higher and higher despite huge cuts to social programs, California’s politicians will have to seriously consider whether taxing and legalizing marijuana, the state’s largest cash crop at approximately $14 billion, is in the best interest of the state.

There’s a laundry list of explanations as to why California could benfit from decriminalizing marijuana. In a state where balancing the budget is nearly impossible thanks in part to the infamous Prop. 13, the retired judge James Gray suggests that on top of the new source of tax revenue, the state would save close to a billion dollars since the state would no longer have to arrest, prosecute, and imprison non-violent offenders. Currently, marijuana makes up 47% of all drug related arrests, 88% of which are for possession.

The state would also be able to track the distribution of marijuana, helping the DEA and police crack down on underage consumption of marijuana since it would follow alcohol’s precedent and remain illegal to purchase or possess for those under the age of 21. Since it is commonly agreed that marijuana is most harmful when it is consumed while the mind is still developing, this will focus the efforts of law enforcement in the right place. Additionally, some of the tax revenue would go towards marijuana education and rehabilitation programs, again mimicking successful trends to curb abuse and encourage safe and responsible use of marijuana through healthier means like edibles and vaporizers.

Decriminalization would also destigmatize the safe medical use of marijuana and encourage more research on the medicinal use of pot. After a 20 year period where almost no research was done on the subject, the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research was created in 2000 and has shown promising health benefits in treating a number diseases and ailments with marijuana. However, the state funding for the Center is almost depleted, and researchers are hoping its success will encourage the Federal Government to provide the grants needs to keep the successful program afloat. As more information is learned and the public becomes more accepting of the many medical uses of pot, doctors from all walks of life will feel more comfortable prescribing the drug to the patients, allowing a greater number of Californians to reap the medical benefits of marijuana.

Legalization is accordant with California’s claim to being a political pioneer of civil liberties. Marijuana laws are just another way that citizens see the government as overstepping their jurisdiction and unnecessarily treading upon personal freedoms. In a time when the public trust toward the government is already dwindling toward historic lows, every step to restore the state’s images must be taken in order to retain democracy. By appeasing the wants and needs of the people through the legalization of marijuana, Sacramento would work towards repairing its shattered image by lowering public contempt toward government.

However, despite all these things, there are moral arguments keeping AB 2254 from passing. Because of intense propaganda campaigns that have demonized the plant, rational arguments for the safe use of marijuana have been disregarded because of the moral stigma of the drug. Compared to many both legal and illicit drugs, the side effects for marijuana are relatively harmless. Users also do not have the dangerous withdrawal symptoms from physiological dependency commonly found in other street drugs.



With both alcohol and tobacco known to be far more dangerous than marijuana, doesn’t it seem logical that the safer drug be legal? Since history shows that the consequences of prohibiting the use of alcohol or tobacco far outweigh the benefits, decriminalizing marijuana would prevent a hypocritical situation where Americans could recreationally get drunk or smoke a cigarette, but not engage in the healthier behavior of smoking marijuana.

Some argue that since marijuana is a ‘gateway’ drug, that more people will be vulnerable to eliciting more dangerous drugs, but both scientifically and socially that argument falls short. Dr. Andrew Moral studied the issue, and his research showed that people who are predisposed to using drugs tend to use marijuana because it is more readily available. This shows that marijuana, contrary to the gateway argument, do not cause people to try hard drugs, but instead connects them with drug dealers. If marijuana was legally sold, pot smokers would be purchasing their product from reputable sources, and no longer need to enter into the world of illicit drugs.

All in all, it seems clear that politicians from California need to seriously consider its current drug policies and whether they are in the best interests of their constituents or even the government itself. The Marijuana Control, Regulation, and Education Act balances the budget, encourages the use of medicinal marijuana, furthers research on the effects of marijuana in both recreation and medical scenarios, promotes safer use, and expands civil liberties. Before writing it off as some hippie movement, rationally consider how the legalization of marijuana would benefit the common good.

For more information, check out the fascinating history of marijuana policy in America.

Too Scared to Compete: China Suppresses Avatar's Success to Protect the Domestic Film Industry

It looks like even though Axl Rose's Chinese Democracy was finally released, the Communist Party is still totally in charge in China. By their government's decision to end the distribution of the 2d version of Avatar, the highest grossing film of all time will only be shown in a third of the 2,500 theaters it was initially released in. Granted, Cameron's 3d eye candy has already been in Chinese theaters ten days longer than the average foreign film, there still remains a market for the film as it has been become a cultural phenomena. The wildly popular epic, which has shattered Chinese box office records, even inspired a city to rename the Southern Sky Column in Zhangjiajie after the Hallelujah Mountains featured in the film.

So why would the Chinese government require cinemas to stop showing such a successful movie? They feared the American film would hinder the sales of the state-backed production Confucius, which was hoped to have the largest grossing release in the nation's history. However, the consumers responded with mediocre reviews and underwhelming box office numbers.

Whether this was an act of protest by the people or simply a testament to a sub par film, the Chinese film industry, even if they want to protect their domestic films, should have taken some notes in their Economics classes and possibly even take a look at the success of the film industry of capitalist nations. Quite simply, your 800 theaters with 3d capacity won't support your population of one billion, and when a movie is in high demand, you're only hurting the smaller theaters owners by forcing them to show your average government financed film. By ignoring the market's preference, a lot of money was lost for the hard working theater owners that drive your film industry. Maybe even more important to consider, is how this decision affects the morale of your citizens.

Sparked by globalization and the spread of ideas through the Internet (despite China's efforts to censor the web), it seems like just a matter of time before the one billion man revolution begins as the Chinese people get a taste for democracy and decide to over through their government in favor on one a state by the people for the people that echoes the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

For more information on Avatar's success, check out projections.