Artificially Stupid?

So I came across an article called, "Artificial Stupidy," on the National Review. The title intrigue me to read it. It was written by Thomas Sowell, he is an American economist, social and political commentator. He has written several books and recieved several awards for his achievements. He has extensive background in politics. His blog is on a conservative website so his audience is probably them and everybody else who cares about education and being knowledgeable.
The article addresses how our education system is failing us, because we are being taught what to think, NOT how to think. The article starts off with a woman who had made a petition to ban dihydroxymonoxide, claiming "it was in our lakes and streams, and now it was in our sweat and urine and tears." She somehow collected hundreds of signatures from that statement, yet that word meant water in simpler terms. This story showed how conditioned we are and how much groupthink occurs. He claims that, "the American education system focuses more on politically correct crusades than intellectually correct arguments." "Much of the stupidity we see today is induced by our educational system, from the elementary schools to the universities." It states that we take action, when only hearing one side of the story, not both. We have not been taught how to test out one set of ideas against another. Since our lack in education, our mind capacity is not capable to weigh out other opposing views. Basically, what he is saying is that we are ignorant when it comes to seeing the big picture, and I concur. I have to say that this was a good article, and it started off with an example with the petition of water, which was great because it showed our ignorance as humans. It helped build the base of his story. I have to agree with him for the most part. Most teachers and educators today do teach us how to think and what to think, instead of "expanding our horizons." I think a lot of people are not able to defend both sides or weigh out opposing views. We do lack that ability to see the whole picture and then take action. I do think our education system has a lot of improvements to do!

Mitch Daniel, the next president?

I like to start off by saying that I read tons of articles because I had a hard time finding one I wanted to write about. I've been reading a lot about Mitch Daniels. I finally came across the tittle "A Republican Surprise," which made me curious, and opted to read more. Ross Douthat the writer of the article is a Op-Ed columnist for NY Times. Although being the youngest writer in the paper's history, he is very knowledgeable with political information. He is a conservative writer, so his audience is republicans (probably).
Mitch Daniels is getting a lot of notice for the 2012 election, which the article talks about. The republican party obviously thinks he is the best or top candidate for presidency. It talks about Mitch's great accomplishments since he has been Indiana's governor. He has cut government spending, which led from a $800 million deficit into a surplus for the state. In Douthat's words he proclaims that, "In a just world, Daniel's record would make him the Tea Party movement's favorite politician." He proclaims that Daniels is "America's best govenor." Douthat, seems to think highly of Daniels, yet questions whether he could make it into presidency, since he already has several issues going against him. Like, his involvemnet in the Bush admininstration and being "unknown at the grass-roots level." Also, lacking "built-in constituencies of other candidates." He mentions his appearance more than once in the article, which I found weird, maybe emphasizing on how he does not look like a president. His ending statement says it all, "nominate a balding, wonky Midwesternerw who reminds voters of their accountant." Then proceeds with this concluding statement, "strangers things have happened." Which, re-emphasizes that he thinks it's a little far fetch for him to win presidency. I think Douthat wrote a good article, he was factual yet held his own opinion. I think what he was trying to do was analyze whether or not Daniels would be in the running for presidency coming this next election. Now, whether or not I agree with him is unknown. I know from what I have read that Mitch did some great things, by getting his state out of debt. Yet, he also messed up with the Bush admininstration who helped increase deficit in the country. Kind of seems like a contradiction in itself. No one knows really if someone will be a great president, they have to wait and see. They can look at his background, which for the most part Mitch has a great record, that is why he would be a awesome politician for the Tea Pary, Douthat was saying.