"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.
Thursday
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)