"We appreciate that today's LAPD is more diverse and generally more restrained than it was in the generations that gave it a reputation for violence and racial animus -- helping to plunge the city into the riots of 1992, only to suddenly go limp and let the riots spread. Today's LAPD is better at keeping public order, more effective at policing and more sensitive to the many communities it protects and serves. Still, just six months ago in MacArthur Park, it elected to broadcast dispersal orders in English only -- this, at an immigration rally -- then unleashed nonlethal projectiles and batons against a crowd that mysteriously refused to obey." ---LA Times Article
Basically, the Los Angeles Police Department is attempting to keep tabs on who they believe might be a threat to the people of L.A., trying g to look as though they are being more productive in the "war on terror." By keeping tabs on the Muslim people and communities, they are racially profiling the people of the city. They are blatantly discriminating against members of a certain race, even though they refuse to admit it.
This is outrageous. The LAPD should not have the right to stereotype and profile people as dangerous simply because of their race and/or religion. It's should not be the police department's number one priority to prevent violence they think might possibly happen, but rather to stop the violence that is happening at this very moment. They need to focus on the present rather than possible crimes in the future based on an assumption of someone's actions based on race.
Friday
"...it isn't surprising that Rudolph W. Giuliani, a self-described pro-choice candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, has been courting religious conservatives who disagree with him on legalized abortion. And it can be argued that if Christian conservatives shouldn't insist on a litmus test in evaluating Giuliani's candidacy, the former New York City mayor shouldn't insist that everyone whose endorsement he accepts agree with him 100%.That said, Giuliani's endorsement by televangelist Pat Robertson is a bizarre addition to the annals of politics making strange bedfellows" --LA Times Article
Strangely enough, Pat Robertson has endorsed Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaigning although he does not agree with Giuliani's platform on legalizing abortion. Pat Robertson is probably one of the most conservative figures in politics at this time, therefore it came a shock when he publicly endorsed Giuliani, who has always been a more liberal Republican candidate.
It really makes one wonder, what in fact motivated Robertson to agree with Giuliani's presidential candidacy? For someone who is so strongly associated with conservative ideals, it is extremely out of character for him to support a candidate with extremely oppositing positions. This endorsement really illuminates the intense nature of the presidential race at this particular moment. Whether Robertson agreed to endorse Guliani for political reasons or because of other means, he agreed to support him nonetheless.
Strangely enough, Pat Robertson has endorsed Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani's presidential campaigning although he does not agree with Giuliani's platform on legalizing abortion. Pat Robertson is probably one of the most conservative figures in politics at this time, therefore it came a shock when he publicly endorsed Giuliani, who has always been a more liberal Republican candidate.
It really makes one wonder, what in fact motivated Robertson to agree with Giuliani's presidential candidacy? For someone who is so strongly associated with conservative ideals, it is extremely out of character for him to support a candidate with extremely oppositing positions. This endorsement really illuminates the intense nature of the presidential race at this particular moment. Whether Robertson agreed to endorse Guliani for political reasons or because of other means, he agreed to support him nonetheless.
Attack on Iraq Teachers
"BAGHDAD -- Gunmen killed a schoolteacher Wednesday on her way to class in a well-to-do Baghdad neighborhood, the third attack on Iraqi educators this week." -- LA Times Article
According to recent news, a number of educators have been killed in Iraq, including a mathematics's teacher and a school principle. Obviously the death rate in Iraq has been high due to the carelessness of the black water guards and others stationed in Iraq, but if we are supposedly there to help the Iraq people build a better, more sufficient government, then we are not doing what we claimed was our goal. The teachers are the foundation of the future, preparing children for advancement in the real world. When soldiers and guards start attacking teachers it just shows how there really are no boundaries in this so called "war on terrorism."
Now I don't condone any sort of killing in Iraq, and I find it extremely interesting that there would be an article on the fact that three educators have died in the past week when hundreds are dying every week. But it is understandable that there is concern, because these deaths affect not only the families of those who died but also the children who depended on their education skills in order to become knowledgeable students.
According to recent news, a number of educators have been killed in Iraq, including a mathematics's teacher and a school principle. Obviously the death rate in Iraq has been high due to the carelessness of the black water guards and others stationed in Iraq, but if we are supposedly there to help the Iraq people build a better, more sufficient government, then we are not doing what we claimed was our goal. The teachers are the foundation of the future, preparing children for advancement in the real world. When soldiers and guards start attacking teachers it just shows how there really are no boundaries in this so called "war on terrorism."
Now I don't condone any sort of killing in Iraq, and I find it extremely interesting that there would be an article on the fact that three educators have died in the past week when hundreds are dying every week. But it is understandable that there is concern, because these deaths affect not only the families of those who died but also the children who depended on their education skills in order to become knowledgeable students.
Thursday
California Needs Clean Air
"The Supreme Court decision wasn't the only loss for those trying to stop California's new regulations, which require automakers to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions by 30% between 2009 and 2016. Under the Clean Air Act, other states are empowered to adopt California's tougher environmental standards if they so choose, and so far about a dozen, including Vermont, are ready to duplicate this state's "clean cars" law if it gets an EPA waiver. The auto industry responded by filing federal lawsuits in Vermont and California, and although the latter hasn't been heard, the former was a conclusive defeat. A judge in Vermont ruled last month that California's rules weren't "sufficiently draconian" to interfere with the federal government's authority to set fuel-economy standards, as car makers had argued." --LA Times
So apparently California has been striving for ways to help clean the environment, ultimately making the air safer to breath and improving the health of California citizens. By not agreeing to help regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the supreme court and the Bush administration are stating that they don't care about the health of the people in California or the environment. It is our responsibility to take care of our world, yet how do we achieve a cleaner world if they government is not willing to support us when we try to take the first step.
Carbon dioxide emissions and green house gases are destroying our world and we are willing to work to fix that, however the government is showing that our health and the state of our world are not important on their list of priorities. They would rather be spending our money on a war we don't agree with than working with the people of California to help purify our air, ultimately making the work a safer place to live in.
If we have learned anything since Al Gore's campaign against Global Warming it is that we need to be willing to use less energy and to decrease the amount of green house gases being emitted into our air. We are ready to start saving the earth but the government has proved that they are not.
So apparently California has been striving for ways to help clean the environment, ultimately making the air safer to breath and improving the health of California citizens. By not agreeing to help regulate carbon dioxide emissions, the supreme court and the Bush administration are stating that they don't care about the health of the people in California or the environment. It is our responsibility to take care of our world, yet how do we achieve a cleaner world if they government is not willing to support us when we try to take the first step.
Carbon dioxide emissions and green house gases are destroying our world and we are willing to work to fix that, however the government is showing that our health and the state of our world are not important on their list of priorities. They would rather be spending our money on a war we don't agree with than working with the people of California to help purify our air, ultimately making the work a safer place to live in.
If we have learned anything since Al Gore's campaign against Global Warming it is that we need to be willing to use less energy and to decrease the amount of green house gases being emitted into our air. We are ready to start saving the earth but the government has proved that they are not.
Sex Offenders Untracked
"Hundreds of California sex offenders who are supposed to be monitored for life under an initiative approved by voters last year are now unsupervised because the law does not detail who is responsible for tracking them or how to pay for enforcement. The ambiguity in the measure, Proposition 83, commonly known as Jessica's law, could affect thousands of sex offenders returning to local communities." ---LA Times Article
So, this is a little ridiculous. If the government promises to keep track of sex offenders when they are set free into normal society then they need to take the responsibility and look after them. It is dangerous for the communities to allow these criminals to walk among the people without any proper supervision.
According to the article, in California alone 553 convicted sex offenders who have been dismissed but are not currently being monitored. If they are not living within 2000 feet from a school or park, then, according to the law, they do not need to be monitored.
It is the law's responsibility to make sure that the community is safe and secure and by overlooking these criminals, they are allowing the possibility for such behavior to continue. The government should follow through on it's convictions. If it is okay to let a convicted sex offender back into society than the government should be keeping tabs on this criminal to make sure they don't continue to molest people in the communities.
So, this is a little ridiculous. If the government promises to keep track of sex offenders when they are set free into normal society then they need to take the responsibility and look after them. It is dangerous for the communities to allow these criminals to walk among the people without any proper supervision.
According to the article, in California alone 553 convicted sex offenders who have been dismissed but are not currently being monitored. If they are not living within 2000 feet from a school or park, then, according to the law, they do not need to be monitored.
It is the law's responsibility to make sure that the community is safe and secure and by overlooking these criminals, they are allowing the possibility for such behavior to continue. The government should follow through on it's convictions. If it is okay to let a convicted sex offender back into society than the government should be keeping tabs on this criminal to make sure they don't continue to molest people in the communities.
Friday
Al Gore
The former US Vice President, Al Gore, won the Nobel Peace Prize yesterday because of his campaign for Global Warming:
"Gore, who has devoted his efforts to the environment since losing the 2000 US presidential election, said he was "deeply honored" by the award and spoke of the "planetary emergency" brought about by man's imprint on the climate.
The prize was jointly awarded to Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a UN body of about 3,000 experts that highlights pollution causing steadily mounting global temperatures."
-Taipei Times
It really makes the nation question right now whether or not Al Gore will be running in the 2008 Presidential Election. He definitely would have the support of the nation because of his increasing popularity and dedication to enviornmental issues. Al Gore's campaign for the fight against Global Warming has made the nation aware of our earth's declining environment. Because of this, more people are becoming more environmentally aware, cutting down on energy use, converting to hybrid cars, etc.
His achievments have surpassed a number of other political figures, winning awards for his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and other works to make the public aware of the earth's destruction.
"Gore, who has devoted his efforts to the environment since losing the 2000 US presidential election, said he was "deeply honored" by the award and spoke of the "planetary emergency" brought about by man's imprint on the climate.
The prize was jointly awarded to Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) -- a UN body of about 3,000 experts that highlights pollution causing steadily mounting global temperatures."
-Taipei Times
It really makes the nation question right now whether or not Al Gore will be running in the 2008 Presidential Election. He definitely would have the support of the nation because of his increasing popularity and dedication to enviornmental issues. Al Gore's campaign for the fight against Global Warming has made the nation aware of our earth's declining environment. Because of this, more people are becoming more environmentally aware, cutting down on energy use, converting to hybrid cars, etc.
His achievments have surpassed a number of other political figures, winning awards for his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, and other works to make the public aware of the earth's destruction.
Duke Lacrosse Players Sue
On Friday, the Duke lacrosse players who were falsely accused of rape filed a lawsuit against prosecuter Mike Nifong, the city of Durham, and the police involved with the investigation. They are claiming their lawsuit on the grounds of misconduct and hopes to reform the way the Durham police department handles criminal investigations. It was filed about a month after city officials met with the families' lawers who were seeking a $30 million settlement along with these legal reforms. The attornies gave the city a month to respond or they would have to face a civil rights lawsuit.
Althought it is understandable that these boys went through a great deal of trauma and are very hostile towards the city for the way they were treated, making a crapload of money off of it will not make things right or erase what has happened in the past. The city made a mistake, but the police investagators were doing their job and attempting to get the people they thought were responsible for the supposed rape of this woman.
However, I do agree with the fact that some of the legal customs in such cases should be changed. It is rediculous to think that so many boys who were believed to be involved in the rape of this woman could be suspected, tried, and then foud guilty.
Situations like this are hard to find closure, yet these boys do not need to sue the city because they were wrongly accused. The right thing to do would be to simply move on and try and get their lives back on track. $30 million dollars wont fix the damages or erase the horrible incident they had to go through.
Althought it is understandable that these boys went through a great deal of trauma and are very hostile towards the city for the way they were treated, making a crapload of money off of it will not make things right or erase what has happened in the past. The city made a mistake, but the police investagators were doing their job and attempting to get the people they thought were responsible for the supposed rape of this woman.
However, I do agree with the fact that some of the legal customs in such cases should be changed. It is rediculous to think that so many boys who were believed to be involved in the rape of this woman could be suspected, tried, and then foud guilty.
Situations like this are hard to find closure, yet these boys do not need to sue the city because they were wrongly accused. The right thing to do would be to simply move on and try and get their lives back on track. $30 million dollars wont fix the damages or erase the horrible incident they had to go through.
Bush Vetos Children's Healthcare
Okay, so this post is a little late because I was on Kairos, but here's what happened that week:
Basically, both liberals and conservatives were pushing to get a bill passed that would provide children with healthcare but Bush decided to veto it because he says it would hurt the national defecit if it were passed. Unfortunately, if the bill were to be vetoed, than over 6 million young kinds would lose their healthcare. Bush attacked the compromise bill because it would expand coverage to some middle-class families instead of retaining the plan's original focus for those with low income. He said the bill can lay the groundwork for government-run national healthcare.With the average cost of family coverage about $12,000 a year, some parents with middle-class incomes can't afford it if their employers don't help shoulder the cost.
Although President Bush’s plan to veto the Children’s healthcare bill is intended to help with cost defects in the government today, it will put millions of kids out of luck when they are ill and cant afford the necessary treatment to get better. It may benefit governmental funds, it ultimately hurts the Children who cannot afford appropriate healthcare because now they will not get adequate treatment in medical facilities.
I believe that this is an extremely bad move on the President’s part. Obviously there is a deficit in governmental funds today, all fault of our government I may add, but it is not their place to try and cut costs by denying children healthcare. If are children truly are our future than we will have no future because President Bush believes that it is more important to balance out the funds than to care about the health of his people.
Basically, both liberals and conservatives were pushing to get a bill passed that would provide children with healthcare but Bush decided to veto it because he says it would hurt the national defecit if it were passed. Unfortunately, if the bill were to be vetoed, than over 6 million young kinds would lose their healthcare. Bush attacked the compromise bill because it would expand coverage to some middle-class families instead of retaining the plan's original focus for those with low income. He said the bill can lay the groundwork for government-run national healthcare.With the average cost of family coverage about $12,000 a year, some parents with middle-class incomes can't afford it if their employers don't help shoulder the cost.
Although President Bush’s plan to veto the Children’s healthcare bill is intended to help with cost defects in the government today, it will put millions of kids out of luck when they are ill and cant afford the necessary treatment to get better. It may benefit governmental funds, it ultimately hurts the Children who cannot afford appropriate healthcare because now they will not get adequate treatment in medical facilities.
I believe that this is an extremely bad move on the President’s part. Obviously there is a deficit in governmental funds today, all fault of our government I may add, but it is not their place to try and cut costs by denying children healthcare. If are children truly are our future than we will have no future because President Bush believes that it is more important to balance out the funds than to care about the health of his people.
Thursday
Universal Health Care Plan
Hillary Clinton announced this week that, as part of her candidacy for president, she was incorporating a plan for Universal Health Care. The costs would amount to around $110 million a year, obviously not a great figure, but the American people are in dire need of a better system for Health care so that everyone has the opportunity to get medical attention. This new health care system would offer Americans more coverage than they were able to afford previously, giving more choices in health care plans and ultimately lowering the costs. If people are not able to afford the basic health care plans, then there will be a number of tax credits to help people get the medical attention they need.
I believe that the most important factor in this proposition is Clinton's incorporation of the "Individual Mandate," which requires every American citizen to have some sort of health insurance, similar to how a number of states require everyone to have auto insurance.
First off, this is a very effective move on Hillary Clinton's part, bringing up an issue that everyone is debating over. With her support on an issue such as this, she is guaranteed more voters who are concerned about the issue of health care costs. A majority of Americans today cannot afford health care, therefore they are not getting adequate medical attention. If a man is sick and does not have insurance, he needs to be able to pay for it out of his own pocket or he's out of luck. Other countries who have Incorporated the idea of universal health care, such as Canada, live longer, healthier lives because they have the ability to receive health care that is equal to everyone else.
I believe that the most important factor in this proposition is Clinton's incorporation of the "Individual Mandate," which requires every American citizen to have some sort of health insurance, similar to how a number of states require everyone to have auto insurance.
First off, this is a very effective move on Hillary Clinton's part, bringing up an issue that everyone is debating over. With her support on an issue such as this, she is guaranteed more voters who are concerned about the issue of health care costs. A majority of Americans today cannot afford health care, therefore they are not getting adequate medical attention. If a man is sick and does not have insurance, he needs to be able to pay for it out of his own pocket or he's out of luck. Other countries who have Incorporated the idea of universal health care, such as Canada, live longer, healthier lives because they have the ability to receive health care that is equal to everyone else.
Missouri Abortion Law "Alterations"
Hey guys, this is Stephanie. This week I found one of the more interesting current even topics (for me at least) to be what's going on in Missouri with the so-called raised health expectations for Abortion clinics. So, if you haven't heard about this, basically Missouri is trying to BAN abortion without actually banning it. They're being super sneaky and found a way to run all of the clinic (and doctors) out of business so women would not have the option to have an abortion in that state.
These absurd health code "corrections" include:
-widening hallways (because obviously its really a major health risk to have small hallways)
-raising ceilings
-installing locker rooms
-rerouting plumbing
-creating surgical "suites" with emergency resuscitation equipment, even if there are no surgeries performed in those rooms.
Although Missouri claims that it intends to improve these environments for the safety of the women who have abortions there, the changes that they are requiring ultimately will end up costing about $1 million, a great deal of money which most of the abortion clinics do not have. These clinics that cannot afford to pay for the "necessary" changes will be forced to close down. Now, all in all this is a bad idea, because no matter what some women will go to all means possible to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and if these clinics, which seem to be relatively safe now, are shut down, then young girls and women will be forced to become involved in extremely dangerous back-alley abortions, which are much less safe where no one cares what the size of the hallways and ceilings are.
Although a number of these clinics do not tend to the women in the way that they should, they should not have to go to outrageous costs and procedures in order to be deemed safe by the government. It is ultimately the women's choice what to do with her body, and the state should not be able to rid her of places where she can get a procedure that she feels is necessary. There are ways we can make abortion clinics safer, but widening hallways and putting in lockers does not change how well a women is treated and how she feels after the procedure.
-Stephanie Dotto
These absurd health code "corrections" include:
-widening hallways (because obviously its really a major health risk to have small hallways)
-raising ceilings
-installing locker rooms
-rerouting plumbing
-creating surgical "suites" with emergency resuscitation equipment, even if there are no surgeries performed in those rooms.
Although Missouri claims that it intends to improve these environments for the safety of the women who have abortions there, the changes that they are requiring ultimately will end up costing about $1 million, a great deal of money which most of the abortion clinics do not have. These clinics that cannot afford to pay for the "necessary" changes will be forced to close down. Now, all in all this is a bad idea, because no matter what some women will go to all means possible to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, and if these clinics, which seem to be relatively safe now, are shut down, then young girls and women will be forced to become involved in extremely dangerous back-alley abortions, which are much less safe where no one cares what the size of the hallways and ceilings are.
Although a number of these clinics do not tend to the women in the way that they should, they should not have to go to outrageous costs and procedures in order to be deemed safe by the government. It is ultimately the women's choice what to do with her body, and the state should not be able to rid her of places where she can get a procedure that she feels is necessary. There are ways we can make abortion clinics safer, but widening hallways and putting in lockers does not change how well a women is treated and how she feels after the procedure.
-Stephanie Dotto
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)