18 weeks ago, we were asked just what it means to be a well-informed 21st century citizen. After all that time, my opinion on the topic hasn't really changed, just become a bit more informed (ironic, huh?).

Being a well-informed citizen is not really a hard thing to do. All it requires is knowledge, which is a readily accessible resource in today's society. With all of the advances in technology, the necessary information is always at the touch of your fingertips. The internet, daily news programs, newspapers. Heck, even watching comedy shows like the Colbert Report keeps you updated on the going-ons in the world pretty adequately. But just knowing what's happening in the world isn't quite enough. Knowing something and understanding it are two completely different things. And that's one of the problems we face in America; people rarely seem to actually understand what it is that they are talking about. People often debate based off of no background knowledge, which only aggravates those who are knowledgeable. So actually understanding things is incredibly important.

There's a level that goes even deeper than that as well: knowing how your government and society function. Knowing how elections work, how the economy functions, how our society began . It's history, economics, government. Really, it's high school to be honest. Knowing the things that we learn here give us the ability to be the citizen that we should be. Without knowledge, even at a rather basic level, our society can't function the way that it should. So what does it take to be a well-informed 21st century citizen? All it takes is a high school diploma and a willingness to learn.

NASA: Fund it or Flush it?

July 20, 1969, one of the greatest days in American and even human history: the day Neil Armstrong stepped off the Apollo 11 and onto a new world. September, 2008: the year of the Great Recession, one of the worst times of economic hardship since the Great Depression itself. 4 years have passed and we as Americans are still suffering in many ways. In times like these, people become rather wary of their money, watching it carefully, hiding it, saving it, spending less and focusing more on the necessities. People start protesting for government cuts in order to slim the budget and lower the debt, getting our economy back to where it should be. It's unfortunate that it takes an economic crisis for most people to become aware of their surroundings, but better late than never. And, unfortunately, programs that have served us well in the past might fall by the wayside.

As an American, NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) just seems like something that should be, that will always be there. It's not something that we ever really think about. It's just a group of people that build rocket ships. Rarely do we think about who's funding those rocket ships (personally, I think it's the Martians). But the fact of the matter is that we as American citizens are funding those rocket ships. Our tax money is going to them in massive quantities. On average, NASA costs about $17 billion to keep itself afloat. That's, as Keith Yost, author for tech.mit.edu, puts it, "the sweat of our laborers, the genius of our scientists, the hopes of our children". Many people protest that NASA has contributed very little to society since the moon landing more than 40 years ago, which isn't entirely true. But is it enough? Is it worth the $17 billion that we spend on it every year? Times are rough, and we can use every dollar that we can get. 


However, this may seems a bit sentimental, but can you really price everything that NASA has done? "Who hasn't been moved by the majesty of the cosmos at some point in their life?" (Jacob Lubman, thedaonline.com) Space is one of the more widely studied things by the population. When i say studied, however, I don't mean necessarily with test tubes and lab coats. I'm simply talking about all those that look up at the stars every night and wonder what else is out there. The moon landing was a great day for science, but a better day for human beings. It gave us hope. It expanded the parameters of our imaginations. It's allowed us to become citizens of the universe.


Cheesy sentiments aside, we pose the same question again: Can you put a price on all that NASA has done? Maybe. But that price would be rather high. Even naysayer Kevin Yost admits that NASA has contributed greatly to society, inventing things like wireless drills, bar-code scanners, and Velcro, along with their advances with shuttle and satellite technology. The moon landing should perhaps buy them the benefit of the doubt for just a bit longer. Hell, we pay war veterans billions every year. NASA is a veteran too, a veteran of space. I understand that it's a different concept, but it's gotta count for something.


 So are they worth all that we pay for them? I say yes. $17 billion sounds like a lot, but it actually amounts to "half of one percent of the federal budget" (Josh Levinger, tech.mit.edu). Even at it's most expensive time, funding for space exploration still accounted for only 4%, and that was in the years surrounding the moon landing. The funding doesn't even touch what, for example, military spending costs. 


Before we cut a program so vital to both science and the hopes of America, we should make sure that it is absolutely vital that we do so. And at this point, it is not. "I, for one, am glad that people still stare up at the stars, even if things still need work here on Earth. How else will we get to the future that we all deserve?" (Josh Levinger, tech.mit.edu).


http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasap.html
http://www.thedaonline.com/opinion/cuts-in-nasa-funding-a-step-in-the-wrong-direction-for-us-1.2530184#.T82HTejY-8A
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/nlsi/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf
http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasacp.html


(the 2 MIT websites are different articles with contrasting opinions. Why they show up as the same URL I'm not really sure.)

The way in which we elect our presidents has remained more or less unchanged for the past 200 years, and perhaps for good reason. It has in some ways transformed or evolved, but that can be said of just about everything. For example, money has become a huge part of the election process, dare i say the most important part. Without copious amounts of amassed wealth, becoming the next president of the United States is nearly impossible. Paying for the absolute necessities alone (getting your name on the ballot in 50 states, for example) costs thousands and thousands of dollars, and that's before adding in the price of travel, advertising, staffing, etc. Perhaps it would be better to have a lower middle class citizen as president. Maybe they would budget better. 


Outside of that, the system works pretty darn well. But, as is the case with any system, there have been some issues. The 2000 Bush-Gore race highlights a good few. In order to become the next president of the United States, you must win 270 of the 538 total electoral votes distributed throughout the country. Each state is given a set number of votes determined by their overall population so that each state is weighted to represent the number of people. Which seems like it would make sense. But, in 2000, George W. Bush beat Al Gore to become the 43 president of the United States. At least, that's what the electoral college said. In reality, Al Gore won the popular vote by .5%, which, in races of these sort, is a rather sizable margin. So more people voted for Gore, but just not in the right states.


And there have been several other situations where the system has had a bad day, perhaps most notably the Florida recount. During the 2000 election, Al Gore and George Bush were extraordinarily close. News teams across the country were concerned only with being the first to report the outcome of the Florida poll. At around 8:00 pm, news stations began reporting that Al Gore had won Florida's 25 electoral votes. Only a few hours later, as more votes were counted, they began placing Florida back into the "undecided" category, as it was too close to call. At around 2:30 am, Bush was leading Gore by roughly 100,000 votes, so they declared that now Bush had won the Florida votes and the presidency. And then again, two hours later, it got too close to call again. The election was so close that by state law, a recount was mandatory. In the end, Bush won. But there has been a lot of speculation as to if Bush won fairly. 


Our ways of electing presidents is reasonably effective. I certainly couldn't come up with a better way to do it. But, unfortunately, it has failed us a few times in the past.

Those whose jobs it is to balance the budget of the United States perhaps have the most difficult job in the country. It's hard to please everyone. Every decision you make is going to adversely affect someone, which means there are always going to be those who refute the policy. Also, no one really likes change. No matter how much we say we do, change is still something most people struggle with. And in order to balance the budget, things will need to be taken away or modified. Health care programs, social security, education funding, welfare. It's a lot like giving a child a toy. Give a child a toy, let him play with it for a little while, and then take it right back. The kid will cry and scream until he gets that toy back or until you give him a better toy. It's the same concept. If you let people collect social security when they're 65, and then you push it back to 68, Americans will cry and scream until you give it back. And then, of course, there's the simple matter of the $15,723,136,659 we owe as Americans. Those in charge of the budget have to, more or less, make that money appear from nowhere. Everyone whines and complains about the debt, but refuse to make any sort of change to aid in its payoff. So the government must make money appear from thin air.

As your typical, whiny, middle-class American teenager, I would obviously be inclined to argue that we as Americans have too few rights and are oppressed by the government, the man, the fuzz, or whatever other colloquialism kids these days use. But the fact of the matter is that actually that we may have been given a few too many rights. Its and ideal that may sound unusual at first glance, but upon delving further into the matter, the ridiculous seems to be running rampant within society, as is evidenced generally by the court cases that come to follow.

The Westboro Baptist Church has been gaining quite a bit of press within the past several years, most notably for their protesting at the funerals of fallen military soldiers. As a congregation, the Westboro Baptist Church spreads a message of hatred towards those peoples and events which do not follow their strict guidelines, including (but not limited to):

• Barack Obama
• Italy
• The KKK
• Jews
• Australia
• Homosexuals 
• People that allow others to be homosexual
• Muslims
• Mormons

And, though they spread messages of hate towards just about every group of people other than themselves, they are protected under their first amendment rights to do so. They are allowed to go to funerals and disturb those grieving, they are allowed to teach their message to the future generation, because the Constitution protects them.

And then there's the case of the "wrongful" tracking. A man was believed to be involved with drug trafficking, so a trace was placed on his car and he was closely monitored and followed. As it would happen, he in fact was involved in illegal substances, and the police arrested him. He was released after a short time, however, because the police officer monitoring him hadn't been given proper clearance to do so, and was therefore imposing on his Constitutional rights. 

Things like that happen all the time. There were tons of cases involving illegal searches and probable cause, spanning from searching someones house for bodies to looking through a high school girl's purse. If nothing was found, then the response from the courts would be sensible. But, for example, in the case of the girl's purse, they found drugs, a pipe, and a wad of money, which suggested that she had intent to distribute. Probable cause is important, but when it bears those kinds of results, maybe we ought take a step back.

Constitution Schmonstitution

The Constitution is filled to the brim with lots of important stuff and big words. But if I had to pick one really important stuff, I'd say the Seperation of Powers is pretty important stuff. For starters, it's the basis of our form of government. It is the foundation for our entire system. Without it, chaos may very well ensue. The powers of government would fall less evenly, or fall all together. The Seperation of Powers was America's way to ensuring that their newfound country would not be ran in the same manner as their old Mother. Also, in seperating the powers from the one to the many provides jobs. They are very exclusive and higher-end jobs, but without them, thousands would be out of work. And who would represent those out of a job in their frivolous lawsuits against McDonald's for making their coffee too hot or against Adidas because one time I fell down and hurt my back and i was wearing Adidas when i fell? Who I ask you?! Who would give those poor people in desperate need of their court-ordered compensation that they so rightously deserve a fair trial? Who would keep the government fair for everyone? So yeah. Seperation of Powers is pretty important i guess. Oooh! But so is Xbox! Why am I still here? Don't you just love that awkward moment when a blog post doesn't end the way you think it octopus?

preamble?

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are like fraternal twins. They were born around the same time for the same reason, but they are very different documents. The Declaration of Independence was written in 1776 as a justification for starting their war against the mother country. The Constitution, written 11 years later and ratified 2 more years after that, was a result of the Declaration.