Hillary Tackles Obama's "Experience"

Here we go again, the Hillary vs. Obama struggle. I found this little number on the Fox News website (interesting sidebar: Fox News is NOT included in the pre-programed Mac "News" favorites tab, something rhetorical in itself). Here, Clinton is commenting on Obama's statement in San Francisco, in which he said he believed "...foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain." You can see for yourself here.

Clinton did not take too kindly to this. She completely rebuked his statement when speaking to Fox News Tuesday morning, claiming to be "shocked." She said that she saw no evidence of his claim, and shot back by saying he was too busy "running for president" to keep up with foreign affairs.

What bothers me is not her outrage, but how at every possible opportunity she interjects some fact about how she knows more about foreign affairs than he does. "I've met leaders from more than 80 countries," she brags. Or, "You know, for 15 years I've been spending a lot of time in other countries."

I find it interesting rhetorically how she takes every opportunity to replace something negative about Obama with something positive about herself. I mean, who wouldn't? He's looking arrogant, and in truth, it's easier to believe that she's more experienced simply due to her history in Washington, and her age. Still, the democratic party seems to be getting a little catty.

I'm not surprised at all to see this on Fox News. This article serves to make BOTH candidates look bad: Obama is taking part in some unnecessary bragging, and Hilary is using it to her advantage. For Fox, this makes them both appear to be taking some cheap shots. I'm sure Fox is eating it up. I just wish these people would focus on policy - not talking crap, so to speak.

American Schools: Full of Bad Writers

As we're all fairly adept writers (being in a writing-based rhetoric class) I found it interesting that this New York Times article reported that only one third of eighth graders are capable of writing at the standardized "proficient" level - and only one in four high schoolers. These results were gathered according to standardized test results from a test given last year. Students previously reported to have "poor" writing skills have showed minor improvement. Apparently, education officials are pleased with the results.

Boys were worse than girls (sorry Linc and Doug), with around 40% of eighth grade girls performing at the "proficient" level and 20% of boys. The trend in schools seems to be that boys don't think writing will be important after they graduate. Overall, 33% of eighth graders are able to write with proficiency. What irritates me about this whole article is that people are pleased with these results. The article reports that these are the best test results ever. I'm glad we live in a country where we can get excited at 33% of our students performing at a proficient level. Aren't these the future leaders of the country we're talking about?

Additionally, the children who did perform well showed no improvement. This, I believe, is due to the educational system's obsession with standardized testing, setting a universal standards that children are expected to perform at, and those performing higher are not given any more challenging material.

Rhetorically, the reaction of officials to these results seems to me like forced enthusiasm in our educational system. We do not want to be disappointed with our children or the school system, so we allow ourselves to believe that 33% proficiency is good enough. Now, I know standardized testing is not necessarily an accurate measure of academic capacity. Nonetheless, the fact that the administration is so happy about this seems a little odd.

One congressman drew laughs when he blamed the lack in writing proficiency on the slow deterioration of the sentence due to fragmented writing through instant messaging and text messaging. Many thought this notion quite absurd. Nonetheless, after attending a school where I was asked on a number of dates through poorly written text messages, I can't help but think that communication skills are suffering in some way.

I wish officials would stop being so happy about mediocrity. Perhaps I'm being heartless here, but I feel like we should be aiming much higher.

7 Year-Old Shooter?

I was browsing around news websites this morning hoping to find an update on all the political drama and I stumbled upon this article about a 7-year-old child who brought 2 loaded handguns to school. Apparently the kid had one in his pocket, as a teacher discovered it when it fell out, and when his locker was searched, another loaded gun was discovered inside.

Naturally, I found this on CNN's website, as I'm sure gun control advocates are all over it. Rhetorically I would expect to find it here, as liberal media seems to support gun control far more than conservative. Personally,  I'm not one for locking guns away from the general public, but this story made me wince. I don't believe the child here is to blame - officials seem to think the child thought it was just a toy. This screams negligence from the adults involved. Wouldn't it simply make sense to keep the guns out of reach of the 7-year-old child?

Apparently the uncle who owned the guns is facing charges of endangerment. It is this sort of irresponsibility that makes be think that some people simply should not be entrusted with dangerous firearms. The problem here is twofold: Adults need to have the foresight to keep guns out of reach of children, and they need to teach kids to leave the weapon alone if they see it. Goodness.

Nonetheless, I'm sure CNN was glad to grab onto this story. More fodder for gun-control arguments, I believe, and a compelling one no matter which side you come from. No one wants to worry about a school shooting until at least middle school, after all.