Who's Been Left Behind?

Mr. Bush,


You started with a semi-discrete reference to the war in Iraq while referring more broadly to the war on terror. I refuse to capitalize any of the words referring to the various wars the U.S. conducts because rarely do they breach the line of legitimacy. As you speak of the results in the hard data that lead one to dream of success, the mass grave you dig to bury those who give their lives to the misguided dream of democracy in all nations now grows ever larger. You somehow connect this to the patrolling of our borders, which you clearly hope will lead to better national security. Making giant jumps on topics like these is dangerous and brings to mind the comments made by Mike Huckabee when he made the connection between terrorism and immigration through our porous borders in his campaign speeches in Iowa.
Reacting to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a former Pakistani prime minister, Huckabee said that "it's interesting that there are more Pakistanis who have illegally crossed the border than of any other nationality except for those immediately south of our border." He seemed to believe that a large number of Pakistani immigrants had entered into America illegally in 2007, even though the Border Patrol of the United States said that it had only apprehended a few illegal Pakistani immigrants in 2007. The Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Immigration Statistics did not put Pakistan on the list of the top ten sources of illegal immigrants. The Pew Hispanic Center, which is a "fact-tank" based in Washington, D.C., says that 81% of illegal immigrants are of Latin American origin. Sorry, Mr. Huckabee. Maybe you should stick to touting that evangelical baptist charm of yours.
As a minor point, Mr. Bush, you comment that the state of the union is "confident and strong." When Ben Bernanke has to make the largest one-day cut ever in the federal interest rates, a .75 percent drop to 3.5% just to make sure that the stock market doesn't crash due to declining domestic and foreign investment, America is not at all confident, and the argument is still undecided on whether or not you could call it strong.
I will give you credit on one count, Mr. Bush. You are one stubborn son of a bitch. You say that "we must continue to give our homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the Patriot Act . . ." The 4th amendment of the United States constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." I'm not sure it could get much more explicit than that, but it is obvious that the founders of this nation meant for us to have privacy. Whatever you may say to defend it, whatever scrap of ill-founded logic you may use to justify it, Mr. Bush, the Patriot Act is an affront to the liberties given to us by the men who began this great political experiment we call a democracy.
I will give you a pass on the economy, Mr. Bush, at least for now. I can't say whether or not we are in the beginnings of a recession, at the moment, because not even the most talented of economists can say that. But I will say that tax cuts for the sake of tax cuts (that is to say, for the sake of earning favor with those who always want to see tax cuts) are hardly ever the answer to economic problems. I hope that your economic stimulus plan gives money to those who will put it into savings accounts and the stock market, and that we won't see the immediate effects of the plan. It is the long term that America should worry about, and the way to ensure your survival in a long-term capitalist country is to ensure that you have capital in the future.
Your stubbornness is shown once again as you defend the No Child Left Behind Act, which has hindered the education of students in America since the day it was passed. Schools are required to test students based on state-wide exams in order to receive federal funding. This leads to a low standard in education, with teachers being urged to bring students to the state-wide testing level, and not beyond. States, in general, have opted for the least expensive and one of the least efficient methods of testing students, which is to say that many have adopted standardized multiple choice testing. Rethinking Schools, a website based out of Milwaukee, notes that Philadelphia fourth graders actually end up reading less books due to the act, which is logical because teachers will be forced to teach only the books that appear most regularly on standardized tests. In addition, Maryland schools actually spent 20% less time on social studies in 2002 due to the passage of the NCLB Act. In a nation that is increasingly more diverse with each passing year, and in a world that grows smaller and thus increases cultural interaction by the second, wouldn't it make more sense for individuals to be able to interact with different cultures more easily? Wouldn't that be more useful than knowing a predetermined fact about a predetermined book on tests that show very little, if anything at all, about the true potential of an individual? Just some food for thought as you enter the last year of your maimed and impotent presidency, Mr. Bush.

Regards,
Dave