With the recession in economy, more and more people are losing their jobs and homes. These homeless people are wandering off the streets and are trying to find a place to live. Recent laws passed by some cities have allowed these people to live in camps and shelters. Some people have even found permanent housing thanks to the city and local nonprofits such as charities and church ministries. However, most of them are not that lucky. More help needs to be done. These so called "shelters" are only a temporary solution and not that good. Cities and counties are unwilling to spend a substantial amount of money to aid these homeless people. Some cities are actually shutting down these tent cities. Neighbors believe that a tent city devalues the quality of the community and actively argue against it.
I believe that cities should legalize these camps and allow people to live in organized tent communities. Wherever you go, there will be people who are homeless. Forcing these people to be rousted and cited by the police is not a solution to this problem. Allowing these people to live in organized communities would be much more cost-effective and less time-consuming than chasing after them. Also, federal assistance is necessary for these homeless people. Tent cities can lead to crime and unsanitary conditions. Some homeless people have a mental illness or addiction, or both. The government should serve to help the people, just like we let the government govern us. We cannot just abandon these people.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Classmate's Blog
In one of my classmate's blog, Shaina writes an article called Senators Seek a Ban on Texting and Driving. A legislation was introduced into the Senate that would give states up to 2 years to ban text messaging while driving or face a 25% loss in their highway funds each year.
The author supports passing this law, primarily by some statistics. It was found that truck drivers are 23 times more likely to get in an accident while texting than while not doing so. Also, the author expresses shock when finding out that texting while driving is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. I fully agree with the author. I, too, have been texting while driving and agree that this is very dangerous and distracting. The author says that "distracted drivers account for almost 80% of all crashes in the United States." If texting while driving becomes illegal, surely the number of distracted drivers, and ultimately, the number of accidents will decrease.
Issues like these are usually dealt in the state government but this is not the first time the national government tried to enforce laws to the states. Congress did the same thing by threatening to withhold federal highway funds when it pressured states to raise the drinking age to 21 years old. However, as cell phones have been growing in popularity in recent years, texting while driving has become a problem. I believe the national government is applying pressure on states with good reasons. Even after passing this law, enforcing it will be pretty difficult since it is hard to catch someone who is texting while driving. Additional laws should be made to enforce this law, but as of now, I agree with the author that the government is on the right track.
The author supports passing this law, primarily by some statistics. It was found that truck drivers are 23 times more likely to get in an accident while texting than while not doing so. Also, the author expresses shock when finding out that texting while driving is just as dangerous as driving while intoxicated. I fully agree with the author. I, too, have been texting while driving and agree that this is very dangerous and distracting. The author says that "distracted drivers account for almost 80% of all crashes in the United States." If texting while driving becomes illegal, surely the number of distracted drivers, and ultimately, the number of accidents will decrease.
Issues like these are usually dealt in the state government but this is not the first time the national government tried to enforce laws to the states. Congress did the same thing by threatening to withhold federal highway funds when it pressured states to raise the drinking age to 21 years old. However, as cell phones have been growing in popularity in recent years, texting while driving has become a problem. I believe the national government is applying pressure on states with good reasons. Even after passing this law, enforcing it will be pretty difficult since it is hard to catch someone who is texting while driving. Additional laws should be made to enforce this law, but as of now, I agree with the author that the government is on the right track.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Being involved too much?
It is not wise for a public figure, such as the President of the United States, to make a comment that might fire up racial tensions. With president Obama's approval rating dropping due to the health reform issues, making a remark about racism will not serve to help those ratings.
The incident occurred when black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct at his home by police officer Sgt. James Crowley following a burglary investigation. Gates believed that he was racially profiled by the white officer. The issue grew bigger and bigger following Obama's comments on this matter during a press conference. Obama said that he thought the police "acted stupidly." Later, regretting his remarks, Obama invited the two men over to the White house for beer and to talk it over.
I don't have a problem with the president's attempts to make amends with the two men. What I do not understand is how come this issue became so big that the president has to be personally involved. This issue was poorly handled on the president's part when he made that kind of remark to the police officer. It is true that he was asked for his opinion during the press conference, but he should not have commented like that. Critics think that the president is being vocally involved way too much. He holds many press conferences, talks about his health reform plans, and now, talks about racism. It would be wise if the president does less talking and takes more action. There is nothing to be gained by encouraging the media. Hopefully, from now on, the president will choose not to make comments on these kinds of problems and just focus on the real issues of our country.
The incident occurred when black Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested for disorderly conduct at his home by police officer Sgt. James Crowley following a burglary investigation. Gates believed that he was racially profiled by the white officer. The issue grew bigger and bigger following Obama's comments on this matter during a press conference. Obama said that he thought the police "acted stupidly." Later, regretting his remarks, Obama invited the two men over to the White house for beer and to talk it over.
I don't have a problem with the president's attempts to make amends with the two men. What I do not understand is how come this issue became so big that the president has to be personally involved. This issue was poorly handled on the president's part when he made that kind of remark to the police officer. It is true that he was asked for his opinion during the press conference, but he should not have commented like that. Critics think that the president is being vocally involved way too much. He holds many press conferences, talks about his health reform plans, and now, talks about racism. It would be wise if the president does less talking and takes more action. There is nothing to be gained by encouraging the media. Hopefully, from now on, the president will choose not to make comments on these kinds of problems and just focus on the real issues of our country.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Good Medicine: Why Not for Everyone?
In the Firedoglake blog, Dean Baker posted an article talking about the health care package by President Obama. Obama proposed to create a commission of medical experts that would figure out the medical procedures for which Medicare will pay. This was an attempt to reduce the costly procedures that gave very little medical benefit and even possibly improve health outcomes. Obama says that this is promoting good medicine.
The author's intended audience are most likely people interested in the health reform. He also seems to be targeting everyone, since he wants everyone to receive this "good medicine." The author supports this measure, but he questions why the elderly are the only ones receiving this Medicare. He wants everyone to receive this benefit. The author provides the reader with information on how the government could follow the experts' judgements on procedures to government supported insurance plans. He asserts that if we are confident that the experts will act on good evidence, we should apply these measures everywhere. He believes if the medical procedures were applied to everyone as opposed to just the elderly, there will be more eyes on the issue. This will help reduce bias and serve to help the panel decide on sound evidence. The author does not overlook the fact that the experts themselves might be biased, since many top researchers take fees from health companies. However, the author is optimistic that they will be able to eliminate this issue by finding top experts who do not accept these fees. The author says that the only question is what procedures these government-subsidized insurances will cover.
I agree with the author. He is convincing in his argument and uses reasoning and persuasion to get his points covered. It would help so many people if unbiased medical experts could set appropriate medical procedures.
The author's intended audience are most likely people interested in the health reform. He also seems to be targeting everyone, since he wants everyone to receive this "good medicine." The author supports this measure, but he questions why the elderly are the only ones receiving this Medicare. He wants everyone to receive this benefit. The author provides the reader with information on how the government could follow the experts' judgements on procedures to government supported insurance plans. He asserts that if we are confident that the experts will act on good evidence, we should apply these measures everywhere. He believes if the medical procedures were applied to everyone as opposed to just the elderly, there will be more eyes on the issue. This will help reduce bias and serve to help the panel decide on sound evidence. The author does not overlook the fact that the experts themselves might be biased, since many top researchers take fees from health companies. However, the author is optimistic that they will be able to eliminate this issue by finding top experts who do not accept these fees. The author says that the only question is what procedures these government-subsidized insurances will cover.
I agree with the author. He is convincing in his argument and uses reasoning and persuasion to get his points covered. It would help so many people if unbiased medical experts could set appropriate medical procedures.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Gun Crazy in the Senate
A New York Times commentary article published a story that concerns the upcoming vote of a gun ownership bill by the Senate. Currently, states have their own standards for issuing a license to carry firearms and have the choice to decide whether to accept another state's license. However, Senator John Thune, a Republican of South Dakota, proposed an amendment. If the Thune Amendment is passed, every state has to accept permits from other states. In other words, states with more restrictive standards would be forced to accept licenses from states with less strict standards.
The author's intended audience are most likely people from the states that will be impacted most from this bill. The author may as well be targeting everyone in the United States, from the way he calls this bill an "assault on public safety." The author strongly opposes this bill, calling it a "radical" measure. The author provides the reader with many standards states have in granting a permit, including restrictive standards and lax standards. He also points out that passing this amendment would cause trouble for law enforcements to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of firearms. Proponents of the amendment say that this will reduce crime but the author would beg to differ. He provides data of police officers and citizens killed by people who had concealed handgun permits. These crimes would most likely increase if the bill was passed. The author furthermore says that this amendment violates state's rights, saying that this "would nullify the laws of almost every state." He says that Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, both Democrats, are fighting against this amendment and hopes that they are successful.
I agree with the author. This amendment will cause too much danger to the public and would put fear in our lives. The federal government should not interfere with each state's law in granting a license to carry firearms. This power should be given entirely to the states.
The author's intended audience are most likely people from the states that will be impacted most from this bill. The author may as well be targeting everyone in the United States, from the way he calls this bill an "assault on public safety." The author strongly opposes this bill, calling it a "radical" measure. The author provides the reader with many standards states have in granting a permit, including restrictive standards and lax standards. He also points out that passing this amendment would cause trouble for law enforcements to distinguish between legal and illegal possession of firearms. Proponents of the amendment say that this will reduce crime but the author would beg to differ. He provides data of police officers and citizens killed by people who had concealed handgun permits. These crimes would most likely increase if the bill was passed. The author furthermore says that this amendment violates state's rights, saying that this "would nullify the laws of almost every state." He says that Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, both Democrats, are fighting against this amendment and hopes that they are successful.
I agree with the author. This amendment will cause too much danger to the public and would put fear in our lives. The federal government should not interfere with each state's law in granting a license to carry firearms. This power should be given entirely to the states.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Obama Pushes for More Aid to Community Colleges
Time article published a story on July 15th about President Obama's attempts to increase funding in community colleges. He seeks to boost the funding from $1.9 billion in 2006 to $12 billion in the next decade. According to Obama, community colleges are "one of America's underappreciated assets." Community colleges are undergoing hardship as states cut their budgets. As a result, they had to let go of faculty or cap enrollment effectively. With the increased funds from Obama's proposal, many programs would be created to help improve student education, track progress, and train workers. Also, the programs would promote community college students to successfully obtain a degree. Also, online classes would be made free if this actually happens. Most of us attend community colleges whether it is for summer school or for the whole year. If any changes in community colleges are made, we should certainly know what changes have or will be made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)