5 January 2013
Article from NY Times found here.
50 years ago, President Lindon B. Johnson spoke about the role of government in providing equal opportunities to its citizens and eliminating poverty. Today, some argue that not much has improved since LBJ's important address, that poverty rates and the numbers of those dependent on government programs are still high. Many families today need programs, such as food stamps, in order to get by.
Republicans say that the government needs put their focus on creating jobs and economic opportunities. Others say that we need to change "the personal decisions of more young Americans" (Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution) in order to fight poverty in our country.
Even though the numbers may not show it, the living standard for those in poverty or on low incomes has improved greatly since the time of LBJ, with higher college graduation rates and more women working. Unfortunately, many Americans still remain in the hardships of poverty, including about 30% of single mothers.
Poverty is still a part of America today, but government programs alone cannot remedy the problem. According to Jason Furman, chairman of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors, the biggest gains would be found in "raising market incomes. In the short run, that means things like the minimum wage, and in the long run, things like early education.”
I thought this was a good reflection on what we as Americans have done to eliminate poverty and create equal opportunities in our country. So often in our little suburban lives, we forget about those who don't have enough to eat, who don't have a home at the end of the day, and who don't enjoy many of the simple luxuries we often take for granted.
This was also a good reminder on why government welfare programs are so important. Would all of these people really be taken care of by just private charities and religious groups? I think we wish that could happen, but the reality of the situation is that we need these government programs as a part of our society in order to keep the heads of those in poverty above the water.
I also think it's important to note that the article says that the war on poverty cannot be won with government programs alone. It talks about things like education and job opportunities, but I also think that we need to have a mental shift as a country. We need to do what we can as individuals to help those with less and not leave it to the government alone to help those struggling to survive.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Justices Are Asked to Reject Nuns' Challenge to Health Law
4 January 2014
Article from NY Times found here
One of the new requirements of Obamacare is contraceptive health insurance coverage for women. This includes abortion drugs and other forms of birth control. Employers can opt out of this program for religious reasons.
The Roman Catholic nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor think that this requirement imposes on their religious beliefs. If they don't sign the paperwork, they will face enormous fines. If they opt out of the coverage, it would only authorize administrators to give the contraceptives instead. About this opting out, the nuns said that “The Little Sisters and other applicants cannot execute the form because they cannot deputize a third party to sin on their behalf.”
On Friday, however, the president's administration asked the Supreme Court to reject this lawsuit, one of many nationwide challenging this part of Obamacare.
I also think that the Supreme Court should consider taking this suit despite what the administration says, because I believe that this is an issue that could use their attention, no matter what the ruling may be.
Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor temporarily kept the Obama administration from acting on these requirements in regard to the nuns on Tuesday.
I think that this does violate the religious freedom of these nuns. They don't believe that these contraceptives are morally correct, and I think that the Obama administration should respect their beliefs. If the contraceptive coverage must be a part of the Affordable Care Act, fine, but there should be an opt-out for religious groups that complies with their beliefs. I thought it was interesting how the sisters put it as having someone "sin on their behalf." They not only don't want to support the measure directly, but refuse to even support it indirectly.
Article from NY Times found here
One of the new requirements of Obamacare is contraceptive health insurance coverage for women. This includes abortion drugs and other forms of birth control. Employers can opt out of this program for religious reasons.
The Roman Catholic nuns of the Little Sisters of the Poor think that this requirement imposes on their religious beliefs. If they don't sign the paperwork, they will face enormous fines. If they opt out of the coverage, it would only authorize administrators to give the contraceptives instead. About this opting out, the nuns said that “The Little Sisters and other applicants cannot execute the form because they cannot deputize a third party to sin on their behalf.”
On Friday, however, the president's administration asked the Supreme Court to reject this lawsuit, one of many nationwide challenging this part of Obamacare.
I also think that the Supreme Court should consider taking this suit despite what the administration says, because I believe that this is an issue that could use their attention, no matter what the ruling may be.
Supreme Court Judge Sotomayor temporarily kept the Obama administration from acting on these requirements in regard to the nuns on Tuesday.
I think that this does violate the religious freedom of these nuns. They don't believe that these contraceptives are morally correct, and I think that the Obama administration should respect their beliefs. If the contraceptive coverage must be a part of the Affordable Care Act, fine, but there should be an opt-out for religious groups that complies with their beliefs. I thought it was interesting how the sisters put it as having someone "sin on their behalf." They not only don't want to support the measure directly, but refuse to even support it indirectly.
Friday, January 3, 2014
Marines Postpone Pull-Up Requirement for Female Recruits
3 January 2014
Article from TIME found here
This article is super short, but I thought the information was worth discussing.
The minimum pull-up requirement for female marines for the new year was three. Over half of the women failed the test. Now the Marine Corps is trying to find a "fair" fitness test for women wanting to serve in combat positions.
Now there are some who wonder whether or not women are physically strong enough to fill the military roles traditionally given to men.
Until another test is decided upon, women are given the choice between the pull-up test or a 15-second flexed arm hang.
As I have never considered military service as an option for myself, I had no idea what the physical strength requirements for women wanting to serve in the Marines included. I agree that a truly fair test must be found that will accurately assess the physical strength of these women.
I am all for women having the opportunity to serve in the military, but if indeed the Corps decides that women cannot do all of the same military jobs that men do, I don't think that will in any show that women in the military are "weaker" than their male counterparts. Women are obviously built completely differently than men, and this needs to be taken into account when creating a test for upper body strength.
These women want to serve their country by serving in the Marines, and I think that when the majority of the recruits fail a test, that is a sign that something about that test is unfair. I appreciated the words of Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos when he said that he wants to the Marines training officials to "ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed.”
Article from TIME found here
This article is super short, but I thought the information was worth discussing.
The minimum pull-up requirement for female marines for the new year was three. Over half of the women failed the test. Now the Marine Corps is trying to find a "fair" fitness test for women wanting to serve in combat positions.
Now there are some who wonder whether or not women are physically strong enough to fill the military roles traditionally given to men.
Until another test is decided upon, women are given the choice between the pull-up test or a 15-second flexed arm hang.
As I have never considered military service as an option for myself, I had no idea what the physical strength requirements for women wanting to serve in the Marines included. I agree that a truly fair test must be found that will accurately assess the physical strength of these women.
I am all for women having the opportunity to serve in the military, but if indeed the Corps decides that women cannot do all of the same military jobs that men do, I don't think that will in any show that women in the military are "weaker" than their male counterparts. Women are obviously built completely differently than men, and this needs to be taken into account when creating a test for upper body strength.
These women want to serve their country by serving in the Marines, and I think that when the majority of the recruits fail a test, that is a sign that something about that test is unfair. I appreciated the words of Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos when he said that he wants to the Marines training officials to "ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed.”
Florida Law on Drug Tests for Welfare Is Struck Down
3 January 2014
Article from NY Times found here
In 2011, Florida passed a law requiring those applying for welfare to take a mandatory drug tests. Many other states have considered such laws (29 in 2013), and 9 have passed similar laws since 2011.
This law was passed in order to protect children from living in a home with parents under the influence. While this makes sense when the stereotypical belief of those who receive welfare, in reality only 2.6 percent of the welfare applicants tested were using drugs. This meant that the cost of running the tests exceeded the amount of money saved.
On Tuesday, federal judge Mary S. Scriven of Orlando ruled Florida's law unconstitutional, stating that it "violated the protection against unreasonable searches."
This supports a case from 2003 in Michigan that ruled out drug testing for those on welfare because it was considered an illegal search.
I'm glad that this law was ruled unconstitutional, and I hope that other states with similar laws will have to get rid of their testing, too. The stereotype that people on welfare are using the money for drugs and alcohol, though perhaps it might fit in a few cases, is unfair and sad. Those on welfare need the money they are getting in order to survive, and we can't treat them in a subhuman fashion in order to satiate our own prejudices.
All in all, I hope that the words of Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida will prove true and will help future cases in other states be settled in a similar fashion. He stated that "the courts are now signaling to politicians that they are not going to treat poor people as if they were exempt from constitutional rights.”
We need to recognize that welfare recipients are just as human as anyone else, with the same mix of good and bad individuals. We need to treat them as any other citizen, with the same rights and freedoms we enjoy.
Article from NY Times found here
In 2011, Florida passed a law requiring those applying for welfare to take a mandatory drug tests. Many other states have considered such laws (29 in 2013), and 9 have passed similar laws since 2011.
This law was passed in order to protect children from living in a home with parents under the influence. While this makes sense when the stereotypical belief of those who receive welfare, in reality only 2.6 percent of the welfare applicants tested were using drugs. This meant that the cost of running the tests exceeded the amount of money saved.
On Tuesday, federal judge Mary S. Scriven of Orlando ruled Florida's law unconstitutional, stating that it "violated the protection against unreasonable searches."
This supports a case from 2003 in Michigan that ruled out drug testing for those on welfare because it was considered an illegal search.
I'm glad that this law was ruled unconstitutional, and I hope that other states with similar laws will have to get rid of their testing, too. The stereotype that people on welfare are using the money for drugs and alcohol, though perhaps it might fit in a few cases, is unfair and sad. Those on welfare need the money they are getting in order to survive, and we can't treat them in a subhuman fashion in order to satiate our own prejudices.
All in all, I hope that the words of Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida will prove true and will help future cases in other states be settled in a similar fashion. He stated that "the courts are now signaling to politicians that they are not going to treat poor people as if they were exempt from constitutional rights.”
We need to recognize that welfare recipients are just as human as anyone else, with the same mix of good and bad individuals. We need to treat them as any other citizen, with the same rights and freedoms we enjoy.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Clothing Brands Sidestep Blame for Safety Lapses
1 January 2014
Article found here (NY Times)
I encourage everyone to please go on and read this entire article; it's a real eye opener.
On April 24th in Bangladesh, the Rana Plaza factory complex collapsed, killing 1,100 workers. Within the complex was the Phantom Tac factory, which produced clothing for several different companies around the world. One of these companies is called Mango, a label based in Spain. Although much evidence has been found supporting that the factory was working on an order for Mango at the time of the collapse, the company denies this and now will not give any money for the victims of the accident.
In class, we've talked several times about how pretty much everything we wear and use here in the US is imported from somewhere else. These things, especially clothing, are usually made in sweatshops by underpaid, underfed, and overworked adults and even children.
I also think it's terrible that this company, Mango, won't do the honorable thing and admit their involvement at the time and pay the money due to the victims.
Mango has stores right here in the US. Most of our own brands get their products made in a similar fashion. The ugly reality of the situation is that our economy could not survive without the things, including clothing, that we import from developing countries. Our companies take advantage of their cheap labor and lack of protective labor laws to make products for a low cost and a huge profit. Reading this article made me wonder which American clothing labels were having products made in that same factory, and if those companies paid their dues to the victims or not.
Out of curiosity, I did a search for sweatshop-free clothing, and it's not easy to find. We have become so dependent on our imported goods that we have almost completely run out of other options. Are we supposed to stop buying imported products completely? It's impossible. Will American companies ever have their products produced here? Probably not. We've also talked in class about how having our products made in the US would boost our economy, but let's face it, most business owners are more concerned about their own profits than what would help our economy most in the long run.
Comments are appreciated. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)