A flashback to me freshman year: I get a $5,000 scholarship! That is awesome! What do you mean that only covers room and board? Present day me: what do you mean my scholarship doesn’t cover my room and board?
Next year room and board at Piedmont College will cost $6000. At this point in time I can see no advantage to remaining a resident student just to keep a scholarship that is officially costing me money. I was completely okay with living on campus and following rules that I do not agree with because I was living for free. Now that the Presidential Scholarship that I receive from Piedmont will no longer cover room and board I just do not see the advantage of me living on campus.
By moving off campus I will free myself from overtly Christian rules that are enforced on the Piedmont campus. For example: I will be able to whoever I want in my room at anytime of the night and day, I, as a person of legal age, will be able to keep alcohol in my refrigerator and I will be able to whatever kitchen appliances in my room that I choose and be concerned with the fear that my stuff will be taken.
I think that Piedmont would benefit from allowing upperclassmen to move off campus and still keep their scholarships. Piedmont is quickly running out of dorm space and by allowing seniors to move off campus the dorm space issue would be cleared up. I know of at least a half dozen seniors who are being forced to live in freshman dorms next year under the new dorm guidelines. This would be a good way to give the seniors here at Piedmont an advantage over students who have not been at Piedmont as long as them, because as of right now seniority at Piedmont means that you are closer to graduation than your fellow students.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Give me freedom!
Better than some, worse than most.
I moved off campus a couple of years ago because Piedmont saw fit to saddle me with a scholarship that did not even cover the cost of my room/board and "required" meal plan. Not only that, Piedmont also saw fit to have "health and safety" inspections whenever; including when I am not in my own room. Once again, Piedmont is raising tuition and costs across the board while there is hardly any consideration to help off-set these rising prices with increased money in scholarships.
Piedmont, as far as rules while living on campus, isn't entirely bad. You can actually have visitation hours with members of the opposite sex (just take a ride down Highway 17 towards Toccoa Falls College, and you'll find you can't do that PERIOD.) There are still opportunities for students to live in a room by themselves and, when I lived on campus, I was able to live where the RD's and RA's were not Nazi-like in their approach to handling the life inside the dorms. However, where we are better than some, we tend to show up worse than most.
Our cafeteria food (not the workers, I do actually like the workers) is, quite frankly, a joke. The price students pay for the required meal plan is atrocious for the quality of food bought and served. If the school sees fit to charge so much for a meal plan (last time I lived on campus, it was $1000 per SEMESTER) then why do they not consider serving much better food? I've never seen a steak offered for dinner...yet they charge steak prices for Hamburger Helper taste.
On top of the cost of books, a meal plan, room and board and rising tuition, there appears to be no new help for students of the future at Piedmont College. While the cost of everything seems to rise annually, the amount of help money offered remains the same. It is time the school offered more scholarship money to students as the cost of living on campus increases. It would be the fair thing to do.
Piedmont, as far as rules while living on campus, isn't entirely bad. You can actually have visitation hours with members of the opposite sex (just take a ride down Highway 17 towards Toccoa Falls College, and you'll find you can't do that PERIOD.) There are still opportunities for students to live in a room by themselves and, when I lived on campus, I was able to live where the RD's and RA's were not Nazi-like in their approach to handling the life inside the dorms. However, where we are better than some, we tend to show up worse than most.
Our cafeteria food (not the workers, I do actually like the workers) is, quite frankly, a joke. The price students pay for the required meal plan is atrocious for the quality of food bought and served. If the school sees fit to charge so much for a meal plan (last time I lived on campus, it was $1000 per SEMESTER) then why do they not consider serving much better food? I've never seen a steak offered for dinner...yet they charge steak prices for Hamburger Helper taste.
On top of the cost of books, a meal plan, room and board and rising tuition, there appears to be no new help for students of the future at Piedmont College. While the cost of everything seems to rise annually, the amount of help money offered remains the same. It is time the school offered more scholarship money to students as the cost of living on campus increases. It would be the fair thing to do.
Stuck Here
Piedmont College has many regulations regarding student housing on campus. These rules bind and hinder students in many of the decisions that should be made by the student. Students that receive any form of scholarship money from the school are required to live on campus and participate in a meal plan. Because of this many students are forced to live on campus because of not being able to pay the rising tuition costs.
Athletes and people who are under the age of 21 are also required to live on campus. This rule is robbing students of an option to get life experience by living on their own. The meal plan is also mandatory and the only option for students to eat on campus. This rule is taking options as well because if a student wants to eat they have one option on campus. Another policy of Piedmont College is dorm room visitation. At Piedmont, all opposite gender guests are to visit between 12 pm and 12 am. While some students find this outrageous and strict, I must remind them of two of the surrounding college’s visitation policies. At North Georgia Tech, ALL visitors must be out by 10 pm and at Taccoa Fall College no person of the opposite sex is allowed in the dorms. So in comparison to surrounding schools Piedmont is almost lenient. In conclusion, while the scholarship students are stuck at Piedmont College, they should take advantage of what visitation rights they have.
Athletes and people who are under the age of 21 are also required to live on campus. This rule is robbing students of an option to get life experience by living on their own. The meal plan is also mandatory and the only option for students to eat on campus. This rule is taking options as well because if a student wants to eat they have one option on campus. Another policy of Piedmont College is dorm room visitation. At Piedmont, all opposite gender guests are to visit between 12 pm and 12 am. While some students find this outrageous and strict, I must remind them of two of the surrounding college’s visitation policies. At North Georgia Tech, ALL visitors must be out by 10 pm and at Taccoa Fall College no person of the opposite sex is allowed in the dorms. So in comparison to surrounding schools Piedmont is almost lenient. In conclusion, while the scholarship students are stuck at Piedmont College, they should take advantage of what visitation rights they have.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
College Adults
Imagine that you are an 18 year-old person lying in your bed. Next to you is your significant other. The time is about 2 a.m. and there is a knock on the door. The person at the door pushes their way threw and proceeds to throw your significant other out and give you a slip telling you that you must report to a hearing for punishment. Does this sound slightly odd to you? It does to me, but unfortunately visitation hours, and many other restrictions, are placed on
I know that
The meal plan is the thing that really does not make sense to me. I believe students should be allowed to cook in their rooms and not have to have the meals plans. Now there is the side of the argument that this is a fire hazard and Piedmont needs to protect its buildings; however I feel that if they are going to require students to live on campus this is a trade-off they should be willing to make. I know many people, including myself, that would probably not eat in the cafeteria if they did not have to pay for anyways.
The argument has been made, as to the reasoning behind keeping students on campus, that a school as small as
One friend of mine that lived on campus at
Overall my opinion is that if a person is going to be required to live on campus, then that person, presumable being more then 18 years of age, should be allotted the rights and freedoms of any adult living on their own. I believe that if a person is responsible enough to leave home and start college, they should be responsible enough to be trusted with their own lives. One of the ideas behind a college education is to prepare a person for life outside an educational environment. How is a student supposed to learn to live in the real world, when their college regulates so much of their life? Piedmont College should not be baby-sitting and/or enforcing regulations on its students.
on-campus?
At Piedmont College, it does not matter if you are 18, 21, or any other age, you may have to live on campus, and therefore under strict rule. Unfortunately, the only sure way to not have to live on campus is to not take any scholarships from the school. That's right, for most of the big dollar scholarships that are given out by the school and by alumni, one requirement is that the recipient must live on campus. This year, room and board is $2500 a semester. There is a sort of unwritten code between students, if your scholarship is not above room and board, you might as well live off campus.
In addition to requiring residence for scholarships, Piedmont requires it for all athletes. This way the school and the coaches can keep control of the athletes to see that they do not get into any trouble. Athletes are said to represent Piedmont on the fields, and therefore Piedmont does not want to look badly as a reflection of these players.
Compared to Atlanta area public schools, Piedmont is not too harsh. Some schools require students to live on campus just because they are freshmen. Compared to other private schools in the South East, Piedmont is a little strict. Many of the other private schools in the area do not require students to live on campus, even if they are receiving large amounts of scholarship.
Although this issue has been around for a while, it is only recently began to become an irritation to some students because of changes that are going into effect next semester. Starting next year, sophomores and some juniors will have roommates, where traditionally, this has never happened. The cost of room and board are expected to increase with the increase of tuition. Resident students cannot learn to live in the real world since they are required to abide by so many rules.
In addition to requiring residence for scholarships, Piedmont requires it for all athletes. This way the school and the coaches can keep control of the athletes to see that they do not get into any trouble. Athletes are said to represent Piedmont on the fields, and therefore Piedmont does not want to look badly as a reflection of these players.
Compared to Atlanta area public schools, Piedmont is not too harsh. Some schools require students to live on campus just because they are freshmen. Compared to other private schools in the South East, Piedmont is a little strict. Many of the other private schools in the area do not require students to live on campus, even if they are receiving large amounts of scholarship.
Although this issue has been around for a while, it is only recently began to become an irritation to some students because of changes that are going into effect next semester. Starting next year, sophomores and some juniors will have roommates, where traditionally, this has never happened. The cost of room and board are expected to increase with the increase of tuition. Resident students cannot learn to live in the real world since they are required to abide by so many rules.
Piedmont College Campus Life
Students under the age of 21 that do not live in the counties surrounding Piedmont are required to live on campus. They are also required to pay for Piedmont's meal plan and also must adhere to Piedmont's no tobacco and no alcohol policies. Is this right? That is the question many students are always asking themselves and other students. In my opinion no it isn't, but if things were different it wouldn't change my life. I would still live here on campus and live by the rules of the college, probably still complaining about the rules.
I personally believe that students should have the choice of where they live, but around Piedmont there aren't that many off campus places to live. So if students don't sign up to live on campus there is no guarantee that they would have a place to live. Maybe Piedmont is doing us a favor. No one seems to be looking at this situation that way. Even if Piedmont is doing us a favor, why must we pay for the meal plan? This semester the dining hall has made some changes and has been better, but should every student who lives on campus have to pay for it? I don't think so, students should have their own choice of what food they pay for. As far as the tobacco and alcohol policies I think the school has the right to make their own policies for students involving tobacco and alcohol. I don't think many people at this school have much of a right to complain about school policies because they chose to come to this school knowing the policies before hand.
I personally believe that students should have the choice of where they live, but around Piedmont there aren't that many off campus places to live. So if students don't sign up to live on campus there is no guarantee that they would have a place to live. Maybe Piedmont is doing us a favor. No one seems to be looking at this situation that way. Even if Piedmont is doing us a favor, why must we pay for the meal plan? This semester the dining hall has made some changes and has been better, but should every student who lives on campus have to pay for it? I don't think so, students should have their own choice of what food they pay for. As far as the tobacco and alcohol policies I think the school has the right to make their own policies for students involving tobacco and alcohol. I don't think many people at this school have much of a right to complain about school policies because they chose to come to this school knowing the policies before hand.
Rules and Regulations...what did you expect?
My expectation for campus life is living like an adult. To me, this means making my own decisions, being responsible for myself, meeting new people, having fun, and having the convenience of recourses available just a short walk away. This is the reason I have never lived on the Piedmont College campus.
Students who are required to live on campus at Piedmont College are students under the age of 21 who do not live with spouses, parents, grandparents, legal guardians, within the surrounding counties, and all athletes. These rules are similar to the rules at North Georgia College and State University in Dahlonega. At NGCSU it is students under the age of 23. Maybe Piedmont is not that bad.
Because I have lived on my own even before I began my college career in 2004 at the age of 19, I felt I could not comply with the rules and regulation of Piedmont College. Therefore, I chose to live off campus. Students who choose Piedmont for athletics, academics, or any other reason made their decision knowing about the rules. Piedmont is a small private college, rules and regulations are to be expected.
Students who are required to live on campus at Piedmont College are students under the age of 21 who do not live with spouses, parents, grandparents, legal guardians, within the surrounding counties, and all athletes. These rules are similar to the rules at North Georgia College and State University in Dahlonega. At NGCSU it is students under the age of 23. Maybe Piedmont is not that bad.
Because I have lived on my own even before I began my college career in 2004 at the age of 19, I felt I could not comply with the rules and regulation of Piedmont College. Therefore, I chose to live off campus. Students who choose Piedmont for athletics, academics, or any other reason made their decision knowing about the rules. Piedmont is a small private college, rules and regulations are to be expected.
Time is Money…Making the Most of Both
With the understanding that the rich are getting richer, and the poor are barely getting by, there is another class of people, the “middle-class”, that is shrinking proportionally in America.
According to CBS correspondent Rita Braver, “The idea of a thriving middle-class has always been at the heart of the American dream. The concept really took off in the wake of World War II, when the GI Bill started helping everyday Americans pay for college or vocational education and take out loans to buy homes.”
But today those same ideals and principals that were once put into practice, which allowed the American economy to thrive, are being threatened like never before. Middle-class Americans are facing the challenges of making ends meet without being sucked under by over-burdening debt. The rising tuition rates of colleges and universities are just another part of the overwhelming struggle many in middle-class America are facing.
Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, told CBS Sunday Morning correspondent Rita Braver, “It seems as if health care, retirement security, being able to pay for kids’ college, being able to hold on to and afford a home are real sources of anxiety for middle-class Americans today.”
And he says it’s not because the middle-class American isn’t working harder. “I think the symbol is people who are not rich, who have to work hard, usually both parents are working, he said. “They probably have children, that’s sort of the image that we have. It’s a hard- working middle-class family with kids, making $60,000 to $80,000 a year and feeling really strained economically.”
So the idea that it is the poor college student who is struggling to get by is only a part of the problem. The one’s who administrate, teach, coach, cook and maintain the institutions of higher learning are also finding it difficult to live and work in a society where education is the door of opportunity, but money is the key to obtaining it.
Being a non-traditional student who has worked since the age of 15, I’ve seen the growing trend to have more over shadowing the values of what the middle-class population wants for their children. For many middle-class homes, the opportunity to go to college without accumulating any debt is impossible. Even those parents who begin college funds before or shortly after the birth of their first child, still find it difficult to afford college tuition over the four or six year period.
A CBS News poll conducted for Sunday Morning this past week finds that almost 60 percent of Americans think that life for the middle-class has gotten worse in the past ten years. Almost half of those who identified themselves as middle-class are concerned about having enough money to pay for major expenses like health care, tuition, buying a home and retirement. According to the poll, only 19 percent of middle-class Americans feel they are getting ahead in life.
The report goes on to say that a college degree is now seen as an important ticket for entering the middle class and average tuitions are increasing about 8 percent a year.
So what is a struggling college student to do when there doesn’t seem to be any indication that tuition rates will stop rising? I can think of three possible alternatives, 1) Investigate your options. Find schools that offer the course credits needed for your field of study that are the least expensive. 2) Maintain good grades and check into scholarship opportunities within your field of study. 3) If the realities of your financial situation won’t allow you to do one or two—take time off from school and work a job that will help pay for your college and go to night and weekend classes. There are many colleges and universities that now offer degrees for anyone wanting to complete their education at their own pace.
Bottom line...using time wisely to find a solution to any problem is a proactive way to keep from becoming a statistic on the negative side of the scales. Do I feel that higher tuitions are fair? Yes, because I feel that those who contribute to my education deserve to be given the same quality of life I want for myself. A person is worthy of his/her hire. That individual has dedicated his/herself to the betterment of my education and future endeavors. They also have to eat and take care of their families. A true life lesson …Nothing in life is free; somebody has to pay the bills.
According to CBS correspondent Rita Braver, “The idea of a thriving middle-class has always been at the heart of the American dream. The concept really took off in the wake of World War II, when the GI Bill started helping everyday Americans pay for college or vocational education and take out loans to buy homes.”
But today those same ideals and principals that were once put into practice, which allowed the American economy to thrive, are being threatened like never before. Middle-class Americans are facing the challenges of making ends meet without being sucked under by over-burdening debt. The rising tuition rates of colleges and universities are just another part of the overwhelming struggle many in middle-class America are facing.
Jacob Hacker, a professor of political science at Yale University, told CBS Sunday Morning correspondent Rita Braver, “It seems as if health care, retirement security, being able to pay for kids’ college, being able to hold on to and afford a home are real sources of anxiety for middle-class Americans today.”
And he says it’s not because the middle-class American isn’t working harder. “I think the symbol is people who are not rich, who have to work hard, usually both parents are working, he said. “They probably have children, that’s sort of the image that we have. It’s a hard- working middle-class family with kids, making $60,000 to $80,000 a year and feeling really strained economically.”
So the idea that it is the poor college student who is struggling to get by is only a part of the problem. The one’s who administrate, teach, coach, cook and maintain the institutions of higher learning are also finding it difficult to live and work in a society where education is the door of opportunity, but money is the key to obtaining it.
Being a non-traditional student who has worked since the age of 15, I’ve seen the growing trend to have more over shadowing the values of what the middle-class population wants for their children. For many middle-class homes, the opportunity to go to college without accumulating any debt is impossible. Even those parents who begin college funds before or shortly after the birth of their first child, still find it difficult to afford college tuition over the four or six year period.
A CBS News poll conducted for Sunday Morning this past week finds that almost 60 percent of Americans think that life for the middle-class has gotten worse in the past ten years. Almost half of those who identified themselves as middle-class are concerned about having enough money to pay for major expenses like health care, tuition, buying a home and retirement. According to the poll, only 19 percent of middle-class Americans feel they are getting ahead in life.
The report goes on to say that a college degree is now seen as an important ticket for entering the middle class and average tuitions are increasing about 8 percent a year.
So what is a struggling college student to do when there doesn’t seem to be any indication that tuition rates will stop rising? I can think of three possible alternatives, 1) Investigate your options. Find schools that offer the course credits needed for your field of study that are the least expensive. 2) Maintain good grades and check into scholarship opportunities within your field of study. 3) If the realities of your financial situation won’t allow you to do one or two—take time off from school and work a job that will help pay for your college and go to night and weekend classes. There are many colleges and universities that now offer degrees for anyone wanting to complete their education at their own pace.
Bottom line...using time wisely to find a solution to any problem is a proactive way to keep from becoming a statistic on the negative side of the scales. Do I feel that higher tuitions are fair? Yes, because I feel that those who contribute to my education deserve to be given the same quality of life I want for myself. A person is worthy of his/her hire. That individual has dedicated his/herself to the betterment of my education and future endeavors. They also have to eat and take care of their families. A true life lesson …Nothing in life is free; somebody has to pay the bills.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Look at it this way
Give us democracy!
The housing requirements for Piedmont College are absolutely rediculous and show that this college is not a democracy encouraging young adults to grow. The college takes great measures to see that every student gets the "college experience," but at a small school like Piedmont College, there is no such as thing as college life. Large schools that are located in what is considered to be college towns, such as the University of Georgia in Athens have a booming atmosphere with a wide variety of activities. However, many students have called the campus of Piedmont College a ghost town, claiming that at times it is very hard to find stuff to do. Students who live in Habersham, Banks, Hall, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, or White County are allowed to attend Piedmont as commuters; but if you live father then that premises, and are under 21 and single, you are required to live in the dorm. Last fall, I had a knee injury and required surgery, I had major complications with the surgery and it was a month before I could walk again. I asked the college if I could live at home in Gwinnett County and commute for remainder of the semester. But Piedmont College put their foot down and said I would not be able to get any kind of refund for my room and was required to keep it. This was an outrage being that I was very dependent on my mother to help me with every day things.
Another thing Piedmont College enforces with an iron fist is the meal plan for resident students. All students living on campus are required to have a meal plan which pays for 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. I myself am a very picky eater and do not like most of the food served in the cafeteria. I would prefer to buy my own food from the grocery store and keep it in my refrigerator rather then buying the meal plan. I also am constantly on the go, and many days my meals are just grab-and-go type things from my refrigerator. The meal plan at Piedmont College is very expensive, and the food is very cheap. Each meal covered on the meal plan is the equivelancy of a meal at Red Lobster. At the University of Georgia, students living on campus are allowed to choose from a variety of meal plans. Students can choose a plan which allows them to eat one meal a day, three meals a day, or no meal in the cafeteria. Piedmont College claims that they require students to have a full meal plan because they are worried students will not eat and may become mal-nurished. They say eating disorders become a huge problem for many college students; well, college is a time for a young adult to learn how to take care of his or herself, if a young adult doesn't realize that he or she needs to eat, he or she should not be at college. Piedmont College needs to offer more living arrangement options for students interested in attending the school, and it would draw the interest of many more students.
Another thing Piedmont College enforces with an iron fist is the meal plan for resident students. All students living on campus are required to have a meal plan which pays for 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. I myself am a very picky eater and do not like most of the food served in the cafeteria. I would prefer to buy my own food from the grocery store and keep it in my refrigerator rather then buying the meal plan. I also am constantly on the go, and many days my meals are just grab-and-go type things from my refrigerator. The meal plan at Piedmont College is very expensive, and the food is very cheap. Each meal covered on the meal plan is the equivelancy of a meal at Red Lobster. At the University of Georgia, students living on campus are allowed to choose from a variety of meal plans. Students can choose a plan which allows them to eat one meal a day, three meals a day, or no meal in the cafeteria. Piedmont College claims that they require students to have a full meal plan because they are worried students will not eat and may become mal-nurished. They say eating disorders become a huge problem for many college students; well, college is a time for a young adult to learn how to take care of his or herself, if a young adult doesn't realize that he or she needs to eat, he or she should not be at college. Piedmont College needs to offer more living arrangement options for students interested in attending the school, and it would draw the interest of many more students.
Friday, April 13, 2007
On-Campus Living
Blog Post #7 Due Wednesday, April 18
Look up Piedmont's rules about who must live on-campus and who may live off-campus. Discover the reasons behind these rules. Compare the rules to those of other institutions. In your blog, consider discussing some or all of the following: additional rules and restrictions placed on dorm residents, requirements regarding food service, changes in how students are assigned to dorms and to rooms, and rules for athletes regarding campus living. Before writing your blog, examine your expectations for reasonable rules regarding campus living. Be careful not to sound whiny, or you won't be taken seriously.
Look up Piedmont's rules about who must live on-campus and who may live off-campus. Discover the reasons behind these rules. Compare the rules to those of other institutions. In your blog, consider discussing some or all of the following: additional rules and restrictions placed on dorm residents, requirements regarding food service, changes in how students are assigned to dorms and to rooms, and rules for athletes regarding campus living. Before writing your blog, examine your expectations for reasonable rules regarding campus living. Be careful not to sound whiny, or you won't be taken seriously.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
we're dependent enough
A little bit of pot never hurt anyone right? Wrong. With every joint smoked an individual harms his lung to the equivalence of smoking seven cigarettes, and loses up to 300 brain cells depending of the poutiness of the marijuana. Doesn’t sound like something the government would approve of does it? Well once again you would be wrong, in Nevada legislation is considering letting up to an ounce of pot legally be bought, sold, and smoked.
Not only is pot unhealthy, but it is also a gateway drug. You very seldom turn on the television and see where someone has died form marijuana overdoes, you hear of cocaine, heroin, meth overdoses and acid related suicides. Now how does this relate to pot? See the thing is that when one starts marijuana- alls good, he gets high, laughs a lot, gets the munches, and then comes off his high all happy, but after a while pot just doesn’t do it any more. His high isn’t as long or as intense so he starts to explore new more powerful drugs to get that same high.
One of the big arguments for the legalization of pot is the fact that it doesn’t hurt anyone but yourself so why is it such a big deal. Well, as I said you don’t turn on the television and here of marijuana related accidents . . . yet. If pot is legalized and more people are smoking, more people are losing brain cells doesn’t it seem logical to assume it will become more abused thus more harmful to the society as a whole? Suppose that pot is legalized, kids smoke pot like the smoke cigarettes then an entire generation will be killing their brains. Test scores will drop, more kids will drop out of school because as a side effect pot doesn’t make you very motivated, fewer going to college all because another substance abuse issue in our country. Car wreck involving pot are very rare now but if a greater percentage of Americans become carefree stoners then it’s safe to say they might be a little more careless at the wheel, especially since the fear of getting busted would be eliminated.
Now I don’t know about you but I think America has enough dependences already. The legalization of marijuana is just one more reason for a father to forget about his kids, One more substance to blame for someone to not be able to hold a job, one more accuses for the drive that accidentally killed a family of four, one more thing for Americans to abuse.
Not only is pot unhealthy, but it is also a gateway drug. You very seldom turn on the television and see where someone has died form marijuana overdoes, you hear of cocaine, heroin, meth overdoses and acid related suicides. Now how does this relate to pot? See the thing is that when one starts marijuana- alls good, he gets high, laughs a lot, gets the munches, and then comes off his high all happy, but after a while pot just doesn’t do it any more. His high isn’t as long or as intense so he starts to explore new more powerful drugs to get that same high.
One of the big arguments for the legalization of pot is the fact that it doesn’t hurt anyone but yourself so why is it such a big deal. Well, as I said you don’t turn on the television and here of marijuana related accidents . . . yet. If pot is legalized and more people are smoking, more people are losing brain cells doesn’t it seem logical to assume it will become more abused thus more harmful to the society as a whole? Suppose that pot is legalized, kids smoke pot like the smoke cigarettes then an entire generation will be killing their brains. Test scores will drop, more kids will drop out of school because as a side effect pot doesn’t make you very motivated, fewer going to college all because another substance abuse issue in our country. Car wreck involving pot are very rare now but if a greater percentage of Americans become carefree stoners then it’s safe to say they might be a little more careless at the wheel, especially since the fear of getting busted would be eliminated.
Now I don’t know about you but I think America has enough dependences already. The legalization of marijuana is just one more reason for a father to forget about his kids, One more substance to blame for someone to not be able to hold a job, one more accuses for the drive that accidentally killed a family of four, one more thing for Americans to abuse.
Legalize it
“Legalize it – don’t criticize it
Legalize it and I will advertise it”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh
Once again we return to the controversial topic of the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is demonized in the media eye as addictive, but alcohol and cigarettes are just as, if not more, addictive than marijuana with none of the health benefits.
“It’s good for the flu,
It’s good for asthma,
Good for tuberculosis,
Even umara composis”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh
Marijuana has been used to treat all of these things in the past and currently serves the medicinal purpose of treating AIDS and cancer patient. Despite the benefits that could be pasted along to the average consumer marijuana remains illegal in this country and alcohol and cigarettes are not. It is hard to believe that something, smoking a cigarette, which kills more than 400,000 Americans annually, is considered to be less dangerous than marijuana. While the only benefit that can be said for alcohol consumption is that a glass of red wine a day is good for your heart.
“Legalize it – don’t criticize it
Legalize it and I will advertise it”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh
When used in moderation, marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. By legalizing marijuana we as a nation will also reap the other benefits from the hemp plant. The most surprising of which is hemp oil, which is very effective as fuel and could be used as an alternative energy source.
All I am saying is, legalize it – don’t criticize it.
Legalize it and I will advertise it”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh
Once again we return to the controversial topic of the legalization of marijuana. Marijuana is demonized in the media eye as addictive, but alcohol and cigarettes are just as, if not more, addictive than marijuana with none of the health benefits.
“It’s good for the flu,
It’s good for asthma,
Good for tuberculosis,
Even umara composis”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh
Marijuana has been used to treat all of these things in the past and currently serves the medicinal purpose of treating AIDS and cancer patient. Despite the benefits that could be pasted along to the average consumer marijuana remains illegal in this country and alcohol and cigarettes are not. It is hard to believe that something, smoking a cigarette, which kills more than 400,000 Americans annually, is considered to be less dangerous than marijuana. While the only benefit that can be said for alcohol consumption is that a glass of red wine a day is good for your heart.
“Legalize it – don’t criticize it
Legalize it and I will advertise it”
-From the song Legalize it by Peter Tosh
When used in moderation, marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes. By legalizing marijuana we as a nation will also reap the other benefits from the hemp plant. The most surprising of which is hemp oil, which is very effective as fuel and could be used as an alternative energy source.
All I am saying is, legalize it – don’t criticize it.
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Here's what they didn't tell you...
How many more lame commercials depiciting teenagers who are "high" do I have to see? The ones that end up with the "high" kids running over some innocent girl riding her bike in front of a fast food drive-thru or with the "high" kids picking up dad's gun and shooting one another or themselves...Where are the commercials concerning a real problematic drug, crystal meth? I suppose that meth heads go out and plant gardens, help the elderly and promote gun safety when they're all geeked up.
For too long, this country has alienated people for making a lifestyle choice by smoking marijuana. Only because our government says it's illegal does it present a problem, and let me tell you about our government's past with the hemp plant. In the early days of America, the hemp plant was probably one of the 5 biggest cash crops. Not only did it present hundreds of uses (rope, paper, hemp oil - which is a VERY efficient fuel), but it also served as an important crop planted along with others such as soybean and corn. The hemp plant made the soil it was planted in richer in minerals and aided the growth plus productivity of the crops planted along with it. Our greatest surplus of main crops came when the hemp plant was used in this manner. Suddenly, the government took a 180 degree turn on the hemp plant because of the "high" produced by the leaves and buds of the plant. It was deemed illegal and now we arrive at this conversation today with a whole lot of problems over a very small thing.
Marijuana, when used in moderation, is a very effective drug. It can help cancer patients who are going through chemotherapy fight the side effects of treatments. It can help with headaches, it can calm you down if you're feeling really angry and it can help you laugh when you might be feeling down. Personally, I view marijuana as no drug at all. It was a plant that was here on Earth. It wasn't made in some laboratory. It grows naturally and, believe it or not, natural things tend to do a lot a less harm to the human body. Sure, smoking cannot be much good at all, but I would much rather smoke a fattie of Mary Jane than some nasty, chemical-ridden, factory made cigarette. I would rather toke up on a few buds than drink a few Buds. Marijuana was not a problem until the United States government made it a problem. It appears to me that the day this country backed away from the hemp plant, we not only lost the great revenues and positives of the plant as a whole, but we created a whole different monster of minor problems to combat when we should be focused a whole lot more on the major ones.
It is one of my hopes that during my lifetime, marijuana is legalized in some form so that citizens may be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes and possess a certain amount for personal recreation. But who am I kidding? I live under a government that brings up issues, makes them a hot topic for 3 days on the news circuits and drops them like a wet bag of bricks. Maybe Congress should take a recess, smoke out the Capitol Building, and start to tackle some real issues after they get their mind right. It's 4:20 somewhere!
For too long, this country has alienated people for making a lifestyle choice by smoking marijuana. Only because our government says it's illegal does it present a problem, and let me tell you about our government's past with the hemp plant. In the early days of America, the hemp plant was probably one of the 5 biggest cash crops. Not only did it present hundreds of uses (rope, paper, hemp oil - which is a VERY efficient fuel), but it also served as an important crop planted along with others such as soybean and corn. The hemp plant made the soil it was planted in richer in minerals and aided the growth plus productivity of the crops planted along with it. Our greatest surplus of main crops came when the hemp plant was used in this manner. Suddenly, the government took a 180 degree turn on the hemp plant because of the "high" produced by the leaves and buds of the plant. It was deemed illegal and now we arrive at this conversation today with a whole lot of problems over a very small thing.
Marijuana, when used in moderation, is a very effective drug. It can help cancer patients who are going through chemotherapy fight the side effects of treatments. It can help with headaches, it can calm you down if you're feeling really angry and it can help you laugh when you might be feeling down. Personally, I view marijuana as no drug at all. It was a plant that was here on Earth. It wasn't made in some laboratory. It grows naturally and, believe it or not, natural things tend to do a lot a less harm to the human body. Sure, smoking cannot be much good at all, but I would much rather smoke a fattie of Mary Jane than some nasty, chemical-ridden, factory made cigarette. I would rather toke up on a few buds than drink a few Buds. Marijuana was not a problem until the United States government made it a problem. It appears to me that the day this country backed away from the hemp plant, we not only lost the great revenues and positives of the plant as a whole, but we created a whole different monster of minor problems to combat when we should be focused a whole lot more on the major ones.
It is one of my hopes that during my lifetime, marijuana is legalized in some form so that citizens may be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes and possess a certain amount for personal recreation. But who am I kidding? I live under a government that brings up issues, makes them a hot topic for 3 days on the news circuits and drops them like a wet bag of bricks. Maybe Congress should take a recess, smoke out the Capitol Building, and start to tackle some real issues after they get their mind right. It's 4:20 somewhere!
Up in Smoke
Marijuana is a highly addictive drug; this, or some version of it, is what we are all told as we grow up. But for that matter is alcohol not a highly addictive drug. And what of cigarettes?
Webster’s dictionary defines the word “drug” as “something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness.” Except for “illegal” alcohol and cigarettes both fit this definition. So what is it that makes marijuana so different?
Many argue that marijuana is detrimental to a person’s health. However the fact is, according to many university studies including one at UCLA from which I get my information, smoking marijuana actually causes a lower risk of such things as lung cancer than regular smoking. This is due to the fact that most marijuana uses smoke at most 3-5 cigarettes (or joints) a day, where as a tobacco smoker may smoke as many as 16-40.
Of course the argument we all know against marijuana is that it causes brain damage to the user. However, at closer inspection on finds that in the experiments cited to prove this theory, the rodents that were used as test subjects were subjected to up to 200 times the psychoactive does in humans. A later test performed on rhesus monkeys showed no noticeable changed, when exposed to the smoke equivalent of four to five joints per day, after a year.
So if there is not a physical health reason against marijuana better than those standing against tobacco and alcohol, then what is left? There is the argument, of course, that marijuana impairs judgment. But, following that reasoning, alcohol should be illegal as well.
As far as I can tell, according to the studies I have seen, marijuana is no more dangerous then the package of tobacco cigarettes I can go to the nearest gas station and buy. While there should be laws limiting and controlling marijuana, just as there are laws limiting and controlling both tobacco and alcohol, there is not substantial reason why marijuana should be illegal.
What is the problem?
The number of alcohol and tobacco related deaths are overwhelming. According to the Surgeon General there are 400,000 deaths annually in the United States that are contributed to smoking tobacco. In 2003, there were 28,085 deaths related to alcohol. These numbers speak for themselves. The ironic and confusing part of this research is that I was unable to find statistics as to how many people die from smoking marijuana. This is, perhaps, because people do not die from smoking marijuana. However, marijuana is illegal while tobacco and alcohol is not.
Marijuana is a drug which is known for relaxing people. It may hurt a person by making them lazy, unmotivated, and perhaps even increasing their apatite. A person’s life may pass them by while they sit around smoking marijuana every day. However, violence, and danger to yourself or to others is not something that is of a particular concern of in regards to smoking marihuana. Why then is it illegal? Essentially, being a “pot head” is a lifestyle choice. I do not feel it is the place of the government to make lifestyle choices for the citizens of the United States when it is not harmful to themselves others.
With all the medicinal purposes to which marijuana contributes, the United States should legalize it. It seems marijuana has more benefits than risks. This natural herb is not harmful to people. Lets legalized marijuana and focus on the real dangers which circulate on our streets and threaten people’s lives everyday.
Marijuana is a drug which is known for relaxing people. It may hurt a person by making them lazy, unmotivated, and perhaps even increasing their apatite. A person’s life may pass them by while they sit around smoking marijuana every day. However, violence, and danger to yourself or to others is not something that is of a particular concern of in regards to smoking marihuana. Why then is it illegal? Essentially, being a “pot head” is a lifestyle choice. I do not feel it is the place of the government to make lifestyle choices for the citizens of the United States when it is not harmful to themselves others.
With all the medicinal purposes to which marijuana contributes, the United States should legalize it. It seems marijuana has more benefits than risks. This natural herb is not harmful to people. Lets legalized marijuana and focus on the real dangers which circulate on our streets and threaten people’s lives everyday.
Government and Marijuana--The Boundaries of Legalization
In 1996 voters in California approved SB420, known as the Compassionate Use Act. The bill makes medical use of marijuana legal for patients with a doctor’s recommendation. It also establishes guidelines for distribution along with an identification card program.
But according to a recent article written by the Daily News, Pleasanton, California’s Police Chief Michael Fraser and City Attorney Michael Roush are proposing a band on all medical marijuana clinics in town.
The ordinance cites “incidents of armed robberies, burglaries, vagrancy and resale to nonqualified persons in other communities with marijuana dispensaries…” But this does not apply to those who use marijuana for medical use in the privacy of their homes.
The ongoing debate over whether or not to legalize marijuana came after the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in 2005, the federal government’s power to enforce federal drug laws.
According to the Daily News, “The federal-state conflict led Pleasanton and dozens of other cities to enact moratoriums on the establishment of marijuana dispensaries.”
Why all the fuss about legalizing marijuana--this would depend greatly on who you ask.
In 1950 a quiz show called Truth or Consequences, hosted by Ralph Edwards, came to the American TV audience. The premise of the show was if the contestant could not complete the "Truth" portion; there would be "Consequences," usually something embarrassing. The show was very popular and lasted until the late '80's.
The reason I mention this quiz show is because if the truth is not told about whether or not to legalize marijuana society will suffer the consequences. For this both sides of the argument should be reviewed.
Some medical benefits of legalized marijuana are, 1) access and protection for pain control, 2) legal sale would only be for medical use and not personal pleasure and 3) the prescription drug will bring in added income for government use.
But on the other side some doctors writing prescriptions may be tempted to personally make money on the side by selling in on the black market or patients who use marijuana may become dependant on it and not seek further medical treatment. Also, if marijuana is legalized the likelihood of children being exposed in the privacy of their home becomes a greater possibility.
In my opinion, the most compassionate act is not about making marijuana legal…it’s about helping those who can’t say no—say yes to a healthy life by not being tempted to try it.
Let Everyone Light Up
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death according to the US Surgeon General. Why then, are cigarettes legal, and marijuana not? There are no proven deaths that are linked solely to marijuana use. In other parts of the world, like Europe, marijuana is used frequently as a pain killing remedy.
The only downside is that every once in a while a young kid is introduced to pot and then later that day is introduced to other, more harmful drugs. The number of times that this happens would drastically decrease if marijuana was made legal. If it were legal, kids and people of all ages would not have to go to bad areas that house loads of harmful drugs. Instead these so-called "pot-heads" could just light up on the corner, just like a tobacco user could.
Marijuana use should be a choice. If the government wants to limit this choice, let them limit their limitations to those that apply to tobacco. April 20th is coming up. 4-20 is the Unofficial National "Get High" Day. Why can we not just bring the world together and have a jolly ole time.
The only downside is that every once in a while a young kid is introduced to pot and then later that day is introduced to other, more harmful drugs. The number of times that this happens would drastically decrease if marijuana was made legal. If it were legal, kids and people of all ages would not have to go to bad areas that house loads of harmful drugs. Instead these so-called "pot-heads" could just light up on the corner, just like a tobacco user could.
Marijuana use should be a choice. If the government wants to limit this choice, let them limit their limitations to those that apply to tobacco. April 20th is coming up. 4-20 is the Unofficial National "Get High" Day. Why can we not just bring the world together and have a jolly ole time.
Reliving Prohibition
The circumstances regarding the legalization of marijuana are comparable to that of the legalization of alcohol after the prohibition in the United States. From 1920-1933, the U.S. government outlawed alcohol. According to a policy analysis by the Cato Institute, the experiment was an effort to reduce crime and corruption, solve social problems, reduce the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses, and improve health and hygiene in America. However, it had the opposite effect than the one intended. According to the History of Alcohol Prohibition, crime rates skyrocketed due to the insurmountable bootlegging organizations operating across the country. After it was finally legalized, crime rates dropped. Contrary to popular belief, alcoholism did not surge out of control.
The U.S. faces the same problems today with regard to the legalization of marijuana. Like alcohol, marijuana is a highly sought substance that people will seek with or without the government’s approval. Many high school and college students try the drug on experimental basis. Reports by the White House suggest that these individuals are not lifetime users. Marijuana should be legalized by the government and treated just like alcohol. As a commercial item, it can be regulated by price and tax. To keep it out of the hands of youths, the government could put an age restriction policy on sales of the drug.
The U.S. faces the same problems today with regard to the legalization of marijuana. Like alcohol, marijuana is a highly sought substance that people will seek with or without the government’s approval. Many high school and college students try the drug on experimental basis. Reports by the White House suggest that these individuals are not lifetime users. Marijuana should be legalized by the government and treated just like alcohol. As a commercial item, it can be regulated by price and tax. To keep it out of the hands of youths, the government could put an age restriction policy on sales of the drug.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Who's it gonna hurt?
According to a recent pyschological study, approximately 80% of the population has smoked marijuana at least once in their life. That means that 80% of the population have broken the law and could have been given jail time for the use of an illegal drug. America is supposed to be a democracy and given the percentage of people who have tried the drug, Americans seem to be in favor of looking into having it legalized.
There is one exception to the prohibition of marijuana in this country and that is for those who are suffering. A legal marijuana farm is running in Mississippi and the drug is given to hospitals to use for medical reasons. The two main medical conditions in which patients are given marijuana are cancer and muscular sclerosis. Marijuana not only helps the patients cope with pain, but it also creates an appetite for those patients struggling to eat. Marijuana should be given to any hospital patient who is experiencing great pain and wants some relief.
Another plus side of marijuana is that it has never killed anyone. Unlike alcohol, you cannot overdose on it and experience critical conditions. With large amounts of marijuana, black outs are possible, however they are not serious. Also, marijuana does not have hangover side affects as alcohol does; after smoking it at night, users wake up hungry, but not normally noxious.
Basically, smoking pot is no worse than drinking alcohol, and if the government is going to prohibit marijuana, they might as well outlaw liquor. Marijuana helps people relax and is not known to create violence, as crystal meth or other drugs. Of course, restrictions such as "no driving under the influence of marijuana," should be enforced, as well as a legal age limit. But it is still wrong to outlaw the drug completely. Besides, think of all the money late night drive-throughs would make if marijuana was legalized.
There is one exception to the prohibition of marijuana in this country and that is for those who are suffering. A legal marijuana farm is running in Mississippi and the drug is given to hospitals to use for medical reasons. The two main medical conditions in which patients are given marijuana are cancer and muscular sclerosis. Marijuana not only helps the patients cope with pain, but it also creates an appetite for those patients struggling to eat. Marijuana should be given to any hospital patient who is experiencing great pain and wants some relief.
Another plus side of marijuana is that it has never killed anyone. Unlike alcohol, you cannot overdose on it and experience critical conditions. With large amounts of marijuana, black outs are possible, however they are not serious. Also, marijuana does not have hangover side affects as alcohol does; after smoking it at night, users wake up hungry, but not normally noxious.
Basically, smoking pot is no worse than drinking alcohol, and if the government is going to prohibit marijuana, they might as well outlaw liquor. Marijuana helps people relax and is not known to create violence, as crystal meth or other drugs. Of course, restrictions such as "no driving under the influence of marijuana," should be enforced, as well as a legal age limit. But it is still wrong to outlaw the drug completely. Besides, think of all the money late night drive-throughs would make if marijuana was legalized.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Legalizing Marijuana
Blog Post #6 due Wednesday, April 4.
Should the United States legalize the sale and possession of marijuana? Why or why not? Remember you can't simply give your opinion; you also have to back it up with factual information gathered through research.
Should the United States legalize the sale and possession of marijuana? Why or why not? Remember you can't simply give your opinion; you also have to back it up with factual information gathered through research.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Slowly...but surely.
Some of the best teachers I have had were not only great teachers, but also great individuals who freely expressed themselves but not once imposed their beliefs on any of their students. That ability to express their opinion is something that helps make each teacher unique to us, and not just be a drone belting out homework assignments and project due dates.
If we take away this freedom for professors to express opinions, specifically political ones, in the college classroom, then we are beginning to abandon the very fabric of this nation's backbone.
We are given the freedom to express our political opinions because it creates forums for discussion when we disagree on an issue.
In Russia currently, there have been over 15 journalists killed mysteriously. They all had one thing in common; a dislike of the current regime run by Vladimir Putin. Some had uncovered dirty secrets about Putin and some deals he has cut in private (for instance, selling nuclear capabilities to Iran and North Korea) Then suddenly, they have died. These people were killed because of a true lack of freedom concerning political opinion.
If we begin to take away a professor's ability to express him or herself politically, then we are moving slowly towards a Russia-like America. Why is it that we pride ourselves on freedom yet, slowly but surely, we are taking them all away from ourselves?
If we take away this freedom for professors to express opinions, specifically political ones, in the college classroom, then we are beginning to abandon the very fabric of this nation's backbone.
We are given the freedom to express our political opinions because it creates forums for discussion when we disagree on an issue.
In Russia currently, there have been over 15 journalists killed mysteriously. They all had one thing in common; a dislike of the current regime run by Vladimir Putin. Some had uncovered dirty secrets about Putin and some deals he has cut in private (for instance, selling nuclear capabilities to Iran and North Korea) Then suddenly, they have died. These people were killed because of a true lack of freedom concerning political opinion.
If we begin to take away a professor's ability to express him or herself politically, then we are moving slowly towards a Russia-like America. Why is it that we pride ourselves on freedom yet, slowly but surely, we are taking them all away from ourselves?
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
America: land of the free, except when it is offensive
In college there is a thing called academic freedom, which allows full discussion and debate on any issue, this legislation would limit that discussion and debate. The problem with our collages and universities is too much political correctness, which limits expressing any opinion on an issue. This legislation is a limit on free speech and would be a violation of, if not the letter then at least the spirit of the First Amendment. No more limits on speech are needed in our colleges and universities, but more freedom and protection of speech from the limits currently placed there.
Aside from its debilitating effect on active discussion of issues and censoring of practically all college discussion, the reserving of college professor’s opinions suggest that students automatically believe whatever their teachers say--a gross underestimation of students' own good minds and developing thinking skills. There has not been a political question, raised by a professor, in any of my classes that both sides of the issue were not represented; thus making it clear that students are making up their own minds and are not afraid to express their opinions. Discussion of issues that may not seem political at the outset--the nature of Gatsby's obsession, for example-- often move toward the politics of the era, or the political influences on characters in fiction. Will big government stifle this kind of active engagement in learning?
Open Discussion
In recent years many different groups encouraged young people in the United States to go out and vote, one of the more noticeable being MTV’s Rock the Vote campaign. I feel that there is a more direct method that can be implied here and that is by allowing college professors to have free and open conversations about politics in class.
College is place where young people go to learn, expand their minds, and experience new things. College is also a place to hear new ideas and think about things in a new light. In the atmosphere of a classroom it is easy to talk about subjects like politics because you are with your peers and the professor can very easily play referee or even devil’s advocate.
These in class discussions would also help to inform students on the serious issues of the day and thereby create more informed voters, which is the only way that a democracy can be successful.
It is the duty of college professors to expand the minds of young people around the world and politics should be one of the subjects that are discussed in the classroom anytime it applies to topic at hand. Open discussion is one of the most powerful tools that a democracy has and it should be a part of the college experience no matter the topic of conversation or the people involved.
College is place where young people go to learn, expand their minds, and experience new things. College is also a place to hear new ideas and think about things in a new light. In the atmosphere of a classroom it is easy to talk about subjects like politics because you are with your peers and the professor can very easily play referee or even devil’s advocate.
These in class discussions would also help to inform students on the serious issues of the day and thereby create more informed voters, which is the only way that a democracy can be successful.
It is the duty of college professors to expand the minds of young people around the world and politics should be one of the subjects that are discussed in the classroom anytime it applies to topic at hand. Open discussion is one of the most powerful tools that a democracy has and it should be a part of the college experience no matter the topic of conversation or the people involved.
Only if it is appropriate
In today’s college society, issues have come up concerning teachers’ right to express their political views in class. Some students say that they go to class on a daily basis hoping that they will be taught the curriculum only to find that they are being lectured on the professor’s political beliefs. It takes away from the lesson and makes the students feel threatened. Professors should be able to express their political beliefs or any belief in general if it is appropriate to the lesson. If the belief is discussed in class and it is not appropriate for the curriculum, it is a waste of good class time. Students are paying for an education at that college; therefore, they should be entitled to at least coverage of the material.
A professor should have the right to express their beliefs to the class, but if the professor punishes a student for having different beliefs that violates the students right to have an opinion. College students know that the professor can have an opinion as well. College students are considered adults; therefore, they should be able to make educated decisions on their beliefs. Because of this, professors can express their beliefs only if it is appropriate.
A professor should have the right to express their beliefs to the class, but if the professor punishes a student for having different beliefs that violates the students right to have an opinion. College students know that the professor can have an opinion as well. College students are considered adults; therefore, they should be able to make educated decisions on their beliefs. Because of this, professors can express their beliefs only if it is appropriate.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Professor's Political Views in Class--Who's Listening--Who Cares?
According to a recent article written by InsiderHigherEd.com entitled, Bias Seen in Bias Studies, “Professors are all Democrats, except those who are communist. Professors all hate Bush. Professors favor like-minded students and love converting those who love God, country and the president.”
In the article education researcher and consultant, John B. Lee says, “Among the most serious claims the authors make is that this liberal dominance results in systematic exclusion of conservative ideas…that damage student learning.”
His study was conducted in elite institutions where the faculty members are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans. He writes, “Passing off personal opinions as facts is not science; it is the antithesis of what serious researchers try to do, regardless of whether they are conservative or liberal.”
This controversial topic is not limited just to the “elite institutions” but all areas of higher education from high school classrooms to college and university campuses all over the country.
In a story written by the Sun Chronicle, Paula Sollitto, a history teacher for 35 years at Attleboro High School says, “I think there are two schools of thought…there are those people who let issues be worn on their sleeve. My style was to try to get out of the students what their views were and get them, working together, to form their own views.”
She says she directed students to research all sides of an issue—lead them to make informed opinions—and get students to learn how to respect others’ opinions.
A recent poll published in the campus newspapers of Columbia, Harvard, Princeton, University of Arizona, University of Chicago, Tufts, UCLA, UC-Berkley, Bucknell, and Dartmouth, by Campus Corner, entitled, Top Ten Things Professors Do to Skew You, showed;
- 70% of students say their professors express their political views in class.
- More than one-third of students describe their professors as either somewhat or extremely liberal.
- 42% of students report political discussion in the classroom lean to a leftist point of view, with only 18% saying they hear the conservative side of an issue.
- Only 13% of students can describe their professors as conservative.
- 31% of students report having to do an assignment which forced them to take a philosophical position they were uncomfortable with. Professors are using their influence as “teacher” to teach you what to think, not how to think.
- Nearly one-third of students say they are uncomfortable expressing their opinions in class if they differ from their professor’s point of view.
- 16% of students say they fear their grade could suffer for disagreeing with a professor’s political point of view.
- One-quarter of students say they are afraid to speak up in class if they don’t agree with a professor. Professors should welcome debate, not stifle it.
- Only 24% of students report their professors have the same viewpoints on issues the do.
- 32% of students identify themselves as Democrat and 29% identify as Republican. But overall ratio of Democrat to Republican registered faculty at 32 elite schools was more than 10 to 1.
Assistant professor of English at Johnson C. Smith University, Matthew M. DeForrest, says, “If an instructor cannot maintain a separation of our personal politics and our professional obligations, that instructors needs to, learn to do so quickly.”
While in Arizona, Senate Bill 1542, written by, Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, was approved 4-3 in the Senate. This law if passed by Congress would forbid public K-12 and college instructors from giving their partisan political opinions while teaching. Currently this law reads,
- Apply only when instructor is acting in an official capacity.
- Forbid specific endorsement or opposition of candidates, legislation or court action as well as any social, political or cultural issues of a partisan nature.
- Mandate three hours of instruction annually to tell teachers what is expected under the law.
- Forbid instructors from impeding military recruiters on campus.
- Punish those who break the law with possible suspension, firing, certification revocation or $500 penalty.
According to an article published in USA Today, by David Horowitz, similar laws are before legislatures in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee, Missouri, Georgia and a dozen other states this spring.
Horowitz view on solving the problem would be to have a “Academic Bill of Rights” for universities, which says, “shall provide its students with a learning environment in which the students have access to a broad range of serious scholarly opinion pertaining to the subjects they study.” He says, “It’s not so revolutionary.”
It may not be revolutionary but it seems it definitely debatable. And as with all things political and social in our society—it will be up to the politicians and the courts to decide.
Political Discussion
Imagine you are sitting at the local coffee shop, discussing topics with your friends and maybe the owner of the shop, who you greatly respect. As your coffee begins to cool the topic turns to politics. The conversation centered on anything from the latest presidential candidates to current House representatives. Just a normal day, right?
Now picture this same situation, only the setting is a classroom, the friends are classmates, and the coffee shop owner is your professor. Does anything change?
Some would argue that a classroom is not the proper setting for social or political topics and that professor should not “bias” their students with their opinions on political issues. However, it occurs to me that politics is an important part of life. College students are at the age where they are beginning to need to think about issues in their government.
The argument has been made that professors who speak of politics in their classes bias students. But the vast majority of college students are over the age of 18 and, in my opinion, should be capable of making up their own minds and forming their own opinions.
For that matter, are we not influenced everyday by those around us? Our college professors are just a few of many people who we speak to everyday of our life. Should all talk of politics be banned so that we are not influenced by the views of those around us? Sorting through the information we are given from sources around us is just another thing we all have to do to form our own intelligent opinions.
If professors speaking politics in the classroom does anything it exposes a student to thoughts and views that may differ from their own. A college student should be intelligent enough to sort out what they should and should not believe.
I believe that college professors should be allowed to speak their opinions about politics in their classroom. I personally believe it creates an environment of debate and discussion in the classroom; and I feel that in that sort of environment a student can learn many things about the world and him or herself.
A Professor's Opinion
College professors should share their political opinions with their students if they feel led to do so. In a democracy, many diverse viewpoints are the key to a successful working order in the government and society. However, the notion of sharing views is significantly different from the notion of trying to convince students of a political ideology. The first instance benefits democracy. It allows for the student to consider a political perspective without being forced to accept it. In the latter scenario, the student will most likely feel pressured to accept the analysis enforced by the professor.
Teachers who force their political ideology on students create unfair circumstances. According to an anonymous college professor in an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, students he came into contact with on a daily basis suffered from professors’ views. “One of my students told me how he had been given writing assignments in a foreign language class that were always based on texts critical of President Bush,” he said. Another professor notified students that they were misinformed if they did not espouse the same political view that she did. Students protested that they felt like second class citizens when they didn’t agree with their professor’s political views.
It is detrimental to democracy when a college professor thrusts their political opinions on students and forces them to accept them. The power in a democracy lies in the views of the people and the equality that those people possess that allows them to voice those different opinions. Democracy profits, on the other hand, when a college professor contributes their political opinions in order to enhance students’ perspectives.
Teachers who force their political ideology on students create unfair circumstances. According to an anonymous college professor in an article in FrontPageMagazine.com, students he came into contact with on a daily basis suffered from professors’ views. “One of my students told me how he had been given writing assignments in a foreign language class that were always based on texts critical of President Bush,” he said. Another professor notified students that they were misinformed if they did not espouse the same political view that she did. Students protested that they felt like second class citizens when they didn’t agree with their professor’s political views.
It is detrimental to democracy when a college professor thrusts their political opinions on students and forces them to accept them. The power in a democracy lies in the views of the people and the equality that those people possess that allows them to voice those different opinions. Democracy profits, on the other hand, when a college professor contributes their political opinions in order to enhance students’ perspectives.
Freedom of Political Discussion
In America there is a first amendment that allows each citizen the freedom of speech. There is no law requiring that said citizens must listen to certain people. Professors at any college should be allowed to talk about politics in the class. In fact, professors should be able to speak about their personal political beliefs. Maybe I am biased, since generally in my experience, my views are similar to those of my professors. I am positive that I do not let this bias get to me in my decision.
If a professor feels inclined to speak about their personal political views, more power to them. As long as these professors stay professional about it, and not bias grading or evaluation based on their views. Professors should not attempt to force their students to give their opinions, unless they want to. Professors should also not make students feel uncomfortable when stating their opinions.
As long as the professor stays professional, there is no problem with them talking about their political views. In my opinion, students should feel good since the professor feels that they can open up to them. Professors should feel like they are able to have open political discussions in class. College is the last step before the real world, and in the real world, no one hesitates to get atop their soap box.
If a professor feels inclined to speak about their personal political views, more power to them. As long as these professors stay professional about it, and not bias grading or evaluation based on their views. Professors should not attempt to force their students to give their opinions, unless they want to. Professors should also not make students feel uncomfortable when stating their opinions.
As long as the professor stays professional, there is no problem with them talking about their political views. In my opinion, students should feel good since the professor feels that they can open up to them. Professors should feel like they are able to have open political discussions in class. College is the last step before the real world, and in the real world, no one hesitates to get atop their soap box.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Create an open-minded learning environment
In order to truly connect and understand a person, you must know his or her beliefs and why he or she has these beliefs. This holds true in relationships with family members, friends, co-workers, and even teachers. Studies show that students learn better when they have a more personal relationship with their teacher and know a tidbit about their teacher's life. Don't get me wrong, it would be inappropriate for a teacher to share every intimate detail of his or her life with the class, but knowing the teacher in a less formal way will encourage class involvement and help students feel comfortable.
A person's political views can be very personal, which is why voting takes place privately. No one should feel inclined to express their political views if it makes them uncomfortable. However, being a college student is about "finding yourself" and how you view the world. Teachers are some of the most influential forces in a college student's life and they must recognize this and lead by example. It is not a big deal for a college professor to express his or her political beliefs to a class as long as these beliefs are not forced onto the students. By giving their views, students recognize teachers as another person, rather then just a teacher they are forced to deal with a couple times a week. If teachers would present their beliefs to students with patients and an open mind, then groups such as "Students for Academic Freedom," who feel that all the power is given to the faculty members would not be formed. In the same sense, teachers should give their students an opportunity to express their views and not be critical or judgemental. In the end, it proves to make for a healthy relationship when students can interact and even debate issues with their teachers. However, in no situation should a teacher force their beliefs on a student or treat a student differently for his or her beliefs. The key to this issue is for teachers and students to remain openminded. If teachers can share their views in a educated way, there is no reason why they should not be able to let their class in on that part of their life.
A person's political views can be very personal, which is why voting takes place privately. No one should feel inclined to express their political views if it makes them uncomfortable. However, being a college student is about "finding yourself" and how you view the world. Teachers are some of the most influential forces in a college student's life and they must recognize this and lead by example. It is not a big deal for a college professor to express his or her political beliefs to a class as long as these beliefs are not forced onto the students. By giving their views, students recognize teachers as another person, rather then just a teacher they are forced to deal with a couple times a week. If teachers would present their beliefs to students with patients and an open mind, then groups such as "Students for Academic Freedom," who feel that all the power is given to the faculty members would not be formed. In the same sense, teachers should give their students an opportunity to express their views and not be critical or judgemental. In the end, it proves to make for a healthy relationship when students can interact and even debate issues with their teachers. However, in no situation should a teacher force their beliefs on a student or treat a student differently for his or her beliefs. The key to this issue is for teachers and students to remain openminded. If teachers can share their views in a educated way, there is no reason why they should not be able to let their class in on that part of their life.
Political Speech
Assignment Due Wednesday, March 21st, 2007:
Should college professors express their political views in class?
Should college professors express their political views in class?
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
High Speed Car Chase--Is it Necessary?
The Supreme Court is currently considering placing constitutional limits on police use of deadly force to stop fleeing suspects. The courts define deadly force as “creating a substantial risk of death or serious injury”.
According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 314 people were killed during pursuits in 1998. Of this total, two were police officers and 198 were individuals being chased. The remaining 114 were either occupants of unrelated vehicles or pedestrians. The total was higher in each of the four previous years.”
Because there is not a mandatory reporting system, the attempts by NHTSA to track pursuit fatalities and results account for only one-half of the actual data is collected. By pulling the 5-year totals to include 100 percent reporting, calculations would reflect an average of 375 deaths per year.
The FBI report states that one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit and that most police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation. “Innocent third parties who just happen to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits. Further, one out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.”
Many agree that high-speed chases are dangerous and any fatality is a tragic, but if law enforcement is not allowed to protect the innocent, will a greater numbers suffer? One solution by the FBI suggests a policy be in place that would require police officers to have extensive training in “pursuit-driving techniques”. In this course police officers would learn “when” as well as “how” to pursue. Currently, police officers are only trained to know “how” to pursue.
A comprehensive study conducted by the FBI concluded that of 146 jailed suspects who had been involved as drivers in high-speed chases, more than 70 percent said they would have slowed down if the police had terminated the pursuit or even backed off, while 64 percent believed they would not be caught. FBI officials say, “Clearly, the police must be concerned with public safety during pursuits because the suspects are not.”
According to the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, “The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that 314 people were killed during pursuits in 1998. Of this total, two were police officers and 198 were individuals being chased. The remaining 114 were either occupants of unrelated vehicles or pedestrians. The total was higher in each of the four previous years.”
Because there is not a mandatory reporting system, the attempts by NHTSA to track pursuit fatalities and results account for only one-half of the actual data is collected. By pulling the 5-year totals to include 100 percent reporting, calculations would reflect an average of 375 deaths per year.
The FBI report states that one person dies every day as a result of a police pursuit and that most police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation. “Innocent third parties who just happen to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits. Further, one out of every 100 high-speed pursuits results in a fatality.”
Many agree that high-speed chases are dangerous and any fatality is a tragic, but if law enforcement is not allowed to protect the innocent, will a greater numbers suffer? One solution by the FBI suggests a policy be in place that would require police officers to have extensive training in “pursuit-driving techniques”. In this course police officers would learn “when” as well as “how” to pursue. Currently, police officers are only trained to know “how” to pursue.
A comprehensive study conducted by the FBI concluded that of 146 jailed suspects who had been involved as drivers in high-speed chases, more than 70 percent said they would have slowed down if the police had terminated the pursuit or even backed off, while 64 percent believed they would not be caught. FBI officials say, “Clearly, the police must be concerned with public safety during pursuits because the suspects are not.”
Go on that the money and run
On the night of March 29, 2001, Victor Harris was driving 73 mph in a 55 mph zone when he passed a Coweta County police officer. The officer started pursuing Harris and flashing his lights at him, but Harris refused to stop.
Harris drove at speeds reaching 90 mph, ran several red lights and crossed over double yellow traffic lines to pass other drivers during the pursuit.
When Harris was about to cross into Fayette County, another officer, Timothy Scott, heard about the chase on his dispatch radio and decided to join the pursuit. After Harris turned onto a highway, Scott became the lead vehicle in the chase. Scott then decided to call his supervisor, Sergeant Mark Fenninger, for permission to perform a Precision Invention Technique – PIT – maneuver on Harris’s car. After listening to his request, Scott’s supervisor then granted him permission for a PIT maneuver. Scott waited until he thought no other motorists were in the area then ran his front bumper into Harris’s car.
Harris, who was not wearing a seatbelt, then lost control of his car and crashed off the roadway, becoming paralyzed from the neck down. But aside from Harris, No one else was hurt in the police chase.
Harris a 19 year old that evaded the police at speeds up to 90 mph is suing them for doing their job and stopping him. Spike Helmick, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, argues that the law is clear: It's unlawful to flee. "The other side always suggests maybe it's not worth the pursuit," he says. "But if you no longer pursue people, what do you think your bank robbers and auto thieves are going to do?" They are going to run.
I do not disagree that police chases are dangerous; 350 people die each year from them, but one must remember that 230 of these deaths are of fleeing suspects. I do think it is terrible that this many people have to die in these situations, but think of the thousands that would die if these criminals where not brought to justice. Statistics show that 87 percent of traffic violators that evade the police are guilty of more that the crime they are being chased for. If this case rules in favor of Harris, all of these people doing a lot more that just speeding are going to be free to run.This case has the bearings of the McDonald’s case, when the older lady sued for the coffee being hot and burning her. Americans do not have the constitutional freedom to do whatever they want, they have to use common sense and obey the law. When confronted with Harris’s lawyer bring up the fact that Harris used his turning signals during the chase, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “That’s like the strangler who observes the no-smoking sign.”
Harris drove at speeds reaching 90 mph, ran several red lights and crossed over double yellow traffic lines to pass other drivers during the pursuit.
When Harris was about to cross into Fayette County, another officer, Timothy Scott, heard about the chase on his dispatch radio and decided to join the pursuit. After Harris turned onto a highway, Scott became the lead vehicle in the chase. Scott then decided to call his supervisor, Sergeant Mark Fenninger, for permission to perform a Precision Invention Technique – PIT – maneuver on Harris’s car. After listening to his request, Scott’s supervisor then granted him permission for a PIT maneuver. Scott waited until he thought no other motorists were in the area then ran his front bumper into Harris’s car.
Harris, who was not wearing a seatbelt, then lost control of his car and crashed off the roadway, becoming paralyzed from the neck down. But aside from Harris, No one else was hurt in the police chase.
Harris a 19 year old that evaded the police at speeds up to 90 mph is suing them for doing their job and stopping him. Spike Helmick, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, argues that the law is clear: It's unlawful to flee. "The other side always suggests maybe it's not worth the pursuit," he says. "But if you no longer pursue people, what do you think your bank robbers and auto thieves are going to do?" They are going to run.
I do not disagree that police chases are dangerous; 350 people die each year from them, but one must remember that 230 of these deaths are of fleeing suspects. I do think it is terrible that this many people have to die in these situations, but think of the thousands that would die if these criminals where not brought to justice. Statistics show that 87 percent of traffic violators that evade the police are guilty of more that the crime they are being chased for. If this case rules in favor of Harris, all of these people doing a lot more that just speeding are going to be free to run.This case has the bearings of the McDonald’s case, when the older lady sued for the coffee being hot and burning her. Americans do not have the constitutional freedom to do whatever they want, they have to use common sense and obey the law. When confronted with Harris’s lawyer bring up the fact that Harris used his turning signals during the chase, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “That’s like the strangler who observes the no-smoking sign.”
Serve and Protect, but if they try to get away it's best to let them
This is the most ignorant thing I have heard since, McDonald’s got sued for having hot coffee. This teenager suing the police is just another example of ignorance being rewarded. When is this country going to realize that it is not okay to be an idiot? I think that it is time that we take natural selection in to our own hands and slowly breed the stupid out of country.
I do not care if this teen driver was “scared” as his lawyer put it, because I know I was nervous and a little bit scared the first time I ever got pulled over and running from the cops never once entered my mind. His lawyers are also claiming that the police used excessive force, but this is how I would imagine the cop saw this “scared” kid. (Hypothetical Situation) Pull someone over for a routine traffic violation and he starts to run, my first thought is that he is up to something more, and now he is driving in both lanes at speeds excess of 80 miles per hour, this is too dangerous I have to stop it. To me it makes perfect since that this was the course of action. Statistics show that more than 350 people die every year from high-speed pursuits and in 230 of those cases it is the fleeing suspect. That should tell you something, “Don’t run from the cops!” Yes high-speed pursuits are dangerous, but it is not logical to say that police should simply allow criminals trying to escape to simply do so. If police are not allowed to pursue suspected criminals then how are they supposed to “serve and protect?”
I do not care if this teen driver was “scared” as his lawyer put it, because I know I was nervous and a little bit scared the first time I ever got pulled over and running from the cops never once entered my mind. His lawyers are also claiming that the police used excessive force, but this is how I would imagine the cop saw this “scared” kid. (Hypothetical Situation) Pull someone over for a routine traffic violation and he starts to run, my first thought is that he is up to something more, and now he is driving in both lanes at speeds excess of 80 miles per hour, this is too dangerous I have to stop it. To me it makes perfect since that this was the course of action. Statistics show that more than 350 people die every year from high-speed pursuits and in 230 of those cases it is the fleeing suspect. That should tell you something, “Don’t run from the cops!” Yes high-speed pursuits are dangerous, but it is not logical to say that police should simply allow criminals trying to escape to simply do so. If police are not allowed to pursue suspected criminals then how are they supposed to “serve and protect?”
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Keep It Simple Stupid
You know the sick feeling... that burning sensation on the back of your neck as the police officer behind you hits his blue lights to pull you over coupled with the knots in your stomach thinking about the ticket he or she is probably about to write you. Chances of you getting away if you decide to run are slim to none, so do you even risk it?
350 people die each year in high speed police chases and the sad fact is that most of those 350 end up being innocent bystanders who had absolutely nothing to do with the person who decided to run and the cops who saw fit to make a big deal out of nothing. What do the police expect of a suspect who decides to take off? That seeing 8 cars behind him or her will make them smarten up and pull over now? Once the decision is made to run, it's set in stone more times than not for the fleeing suspect. It's time that police forces nationwide start to seek alternative methods to pursuing a suspect who decides to flee.
Most cars have tags. Those tags are linked to a certain address and name (unless the car is stolen.) Why can the cops not just take down the tag of the person who is fleeing, back off, and then go file a report? I know, I know...easier said than done, but I would hope that cops generally have good enough vision to get down a tag number even from a safe distance of a speeding suspect. Then the police can go to this person's house and wait on them. If they don't show up, find out where they work and get them there the next day. In the rare case of a suspect who just murdered someone or robbed a bank, I do believe that the police should have the right to follow the suspect but keep their distance and not attempt to wreck the person. We have this neat invention called a spike strip. It will disable a vehicle's tires in an instant. Use that instead of the famed PIT manuever and, VOILA!, flat-tired suspect now driving on 4 metal wheels. I promise you that sucker isn't going anywhere too fast or too soon.
People are just so complacent now that they'd rather try some massive idea (like a constitutional amendment) when there are smarter and smaller methods to employ that work just as well if not better. Lets save constitutional amendments for something much more important, like immigration or limiting the powers of a President in war time....and lets save the lives of innocent men, women and children by employing different tactics when it comes to high-speed chases.
350 people die each year in high speed police chases and the sad fact is that most of those 350 end up being innocent bystanders who had absolutely nothing to do with the person who decided to run and the cops who saw fit to make a big deal out of nothing. What do the police expect of a suspect who decides to take off? That seeing 8 cars behind him or her will make them smarten up and pull over now? Once the decision is made to run, it's set in stone more times than not for the fleeing suspect. It's time that police forces nationwide start to seek alternative methods to pursuing a suspect who decides to flee.
Most cars have tags. Those tags are linked to a certain address and name (unless the car is stolen.) Why can the cops not just take down the tag of the person who is fleeing, back off, and then go file a report? I know, I know...easier said than done, but I would hope that cops generally have good enough vision to get down a tag number even from a safe distance of a speeding suspect. Then the police can go to this person's house and wait on them. If they don't show up, find out where they work and get them there the next day. In the rare case of a suspect who just murdered someone or robbed a bank, I do believe that the police should have the right to follow the suspect but keep their distance and not attempt to wreck the person. We have this neat invention called a spike strip. It will disable a vehicle's tires in an instant. Use that instead of the famed PIT manuever and, VOILA!, flat-tired suspect now driving on 4 metal wheels. I promise you that sucker isn't going anywhere too fast or too soon.
People are just so complacent now that they'd rather try some massive idea (like a constitutional amendment) when there are smarter and smaller methods to employ that work just as well if not better. Lets save constitutional amendments for something much more important, like immigration or limiting the powers of a President in war time....and lets save the lives of innocent men, women and children by employing different tactics when it comes to high-speed chases.
I Guess We Just Don't Need Driving Laws
If the Supreme Court rules against the officer in this case, we might as well tell every criminal "Gentlemen Start Your Engines." I understand that over 350 people die each year because of accidents that occur from high speed chases. But I also know how many more people will die if the police are not allowed to chase after criminals. Lets say one person speeds, the cop flashes their lights at the person telling them to pull over, this person decides that they don't have to pull over because the cop cannot chase them at high speeds. They then go faster speeding away from the cops and lose control of their vehicle crashing into a tree killing them. If they feared the cop chasing them they might have pulled over in the first place and paid their $100 fine, but because the cop cannot chase them they wind up dead. Some times you just have to take risks to save lives, and the police should not be punished for doing so. Letting people run from the law will do no good in trying to combat crime. It will only hinder the police in doing their jobs. This entire debate just seems silly to me, why are we even discussing this? The police have got to be able to do their jobs, and if the Supreme Court takes that away from them then why even have law enforcement?
Stop in the name of the law!
Stop, in the name of the law! This common catchphrase soon may have no more validity. Police are now being put to the test. A case is going before the Supreme Court that will determine what kinds of force there are allowed to uses on evading cars. Now, police are able to bump cars in high speed chases. This could all change. Victor Harris, 19, was paralyzed in a crash caused by a police officer bumping his car in pursuit. The family decided to sue the local police. The case is now going before the Supreme Court. I believe that police should be able to use force to stop an evader of the law. If a person is speeding in a car away from police, they are putting other citizens in danger. Police should be able to use any means necessary to stop them. Many people say they have constitutional rights protecting them against such acts. I think that the minute a person breaks the law, their rights should be revoked. If a person evades the police they should be held responsible for their actions. This new law would essentially say, “If you drive away fast enough, the cops can’t get you.” What kind of country are we living in that lets criminals have a run away free clause? I think that the police should be able to keep their right to stop evaders of the law. It is their job after all.
In The Pursuit of Protection
Imagine you are speeding down the road going 75 mph in a 55 mph zone. All of a sudden you see blue lights in your rear view mirror. What do you do? Do you slow your car and pull over; or do you increase your speed to 85 and continue down the road?
Now imagine you are a police officer in pursuit of a fleeing suspect. You radio for permission to continue the pursuit and to end the chase. Instead of receiving this permission you are told to break the pursuit, to let them go.
The Supreme Court is hearing evidence and ruling this week on the case of a 19 year-old who made the decision to run. Victor Harris is now a quadriplegic after Deputy Sheriff Timothy Scott rammed into his car in order to stop the pursuit.
The argument from Harris’ lawyers is that Scott used excessive and deadly force against an offender who posed no immediate threat to the public. However, Harris was recorded at times running between 80 and 90 mph, and was recorded changing lanes over a double yellow line if any cars were in his way. Personally, that sounds like a threat to me.
The prospect of laws defining “necessary” force concerns me. This concerns me because law, for the most part, is left open to interpretation. In a split second decision, an officer is likely to shy away from the choice that could find him facing a judge. This means many criminals would begin to get away simply because they drove faster and more dangerously.
What this causes is a situation in which criminals running from the police can see a light at the end of the tunnel. If they can run a little faster, or drive a little more reckless, the police will quit pursuing them. I believe that mentality in a criminal is far more dangerous than the current situation we have, in which most of the time it is the fleeing driver who is injured.
What of the rights of the criminal, a person may ask. It occurs to me that most of the fleeing drivers every year are adults, capable of making their own decisions. If they decide to flee, they are putting their own life at risk, as well as the life of many others. My question is: What of the rights of the police and innocent bystanders?
Innocent drivers and pedestrians deserve to be protected from reckless and dangerous drivers; letting criminals go if they try hard enough is not the way to achieve this protection.
Who decides?
In regard to a situation in which a speeder will not stop at the request of the police, police officers are allowed to use an amount of force in proportion to the offense, according to The Christian Science Monitor. However, who decides what the right amount of force is in any given situation? People are subject to differing opinions, as is the case for a 19-year-old quadriplegic who received his injuries after a high speed chase ended in a collision instigated by police trying to stop him. Police say that the suspect posed a threat to other motorists and pedestrians alike as he swerved into the wrong lane and traveled at excessive speeds.
The teen claims that police used unnecessary actions to pull him over and that his crime, simply running, did not call for so much force. The hole in this logic is that police had no other way of stopping the offender. The job of the police is to protect and defend the community from harm. They do not give chase to offending motorists because it is an enjoyable activity; quite the contrary, police officers run the risk of being injured trying to pull over run-away cars. As the authorities put in place by our government to uphold peace and justice, in cases such as the one argued by the injured teenager, police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “…one of the most effective tools in a law enforcement agency is the alert patrol officer.”
The teen claims that police used unnecessary actions to pull him over and that his crime, simply running, did not call for so much force. The hole in this logic is that police had no other way of stopping the offender. The job of the police is to protect and defend the community from harm. They do not give chase to offending motorists because it is an enjoyable activity; quite the contrary, police officers run the risk of being injured trying to pull over run-away cars. As the authorities put in place by our government to uphold peace and justice, in cases such as the one argued by the injured teenager, police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “…one of the most effective tools in a law enforcement agency is the alert patrol officer.”
Save the Innocent!
The decision on whether or not police officers should be held liable for someone’s death or injury in a high speed chase is a decision that should be well thought out and considered. While I do not agree that criminals running from the police should have laws protecting them, I do believe that changes and limits should be put into action to protect innocent bystanders on the roads.
According to the North County Times in California, Kristie Priano, a 15-year-old honor student was killed when police chased a young girl who took her mother’s SUV without permission. A rebellious teenager driving her mother’s car without permission is hardly a crime which justifies the death of young Kristie Priano. After this tragedy which took place a few years ago, Sen. Sam Aanestad has tried to pass Kristie’s Law which would create standards for such police pursuits. Sen. Aanestad was hoping to reduce the number of deaths due to high speed chases. Unfortunately this bill failed to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a result, the citizens of California as well as the citizens across the country can expect to see another 114 innocent bystanders killed as a result of a high speed chase. The number of innocent lives taken due to high speed pursuits makes up about 42 percent of all deaths or injuries related to high speed chases, that’s almost half. In addition to these ridiculous and overwhelming numbers, police records also show that the majority of high speed police pursuits begin with a simple traffic violation.
While I do not wish to impose punishment on police officers who are trying to protect citizens, I do hope that standards and limits will be considered to protect innocent lives. It is important to me that criminals and traffic violators are caught and punished, but my life, as well as the lives of my friends and loved ones is even more important.
According to the North County Times in California, Kristie Priano, a 15-year-old honor student was killed when police chased a young girl who took her mother’s SUV without permission. A rebellious teenager driving her mother’s car without permission is hardly a crime which justifies the death of young Kristie Priano. After this tragedy which took place a few years ago, Sen. Sam Aanestad has tried to pass Kristie’s Law which would create standards for such police pursuits. Sen. Aanestad was hoping to reduce the number of deaths due to high speed chases. Unfortunately this bill failed to pass the Senate Judiciary Committee. As a result, the citizens of California as well as the citizens across the country can expect to see another 114 innocent bystanders killed as a result of a high speed chase. The number of innocent lives taken due to high speed pursuits makes up about 42 percent of all deaths or injuries related to high speed chases, that’s almost half. In addition to these ridiculous and overwhelming numbers, police records also show that the majority of high speed police pursuits begin with a simple traffic violation.
While I do not wish to impose punishment on police officers who are trying to protect citizens, I do hope that standards and limits will be considered to protect innocent lives. It is important to me that criminals and traffic violators are caught and punished, but my life, as well as the lives of my friends and loved ones is even more important.
Monday, February 26, 2007
I'm Free!
Another step toward complete freedom is possible depending on the rule of a Supreme Court case. The Supreme Court is deciding on whether police officers can be held liable for injuries or fatalities caused from high-speed chases. This sounds like a bad idea: are the police not helping by chasing after these criminals? If they are working toward deterring crime, then why should we penalize them for accidents? With just over 350 people killed a year, it should be obvious that something needs to be done about the situation.
If the Supreme Court rules that police are liable for these deaths and injuries, police will be less likely to participate in high-speed chases as to avoid the risk of being held responsible. This would give Americans a new freedom: the freedom to not be chased by the cops. This decision would be the first time the Supreme Court has ever given us freedom, rather than take it away.
I think that I would rather enjoy this new freedom. I would be able to go rob a bank, say Community Bank and Trust, then as long as I drive badly and unsafely, which I do anyways, and the police will not chase me. This would help me when I return next semester to help to pay the 10% increase in tuition. I definitely think that the Supreme Court should pass this law.
If the Supreme Court rules that police are liable for these deaths and injuries, police will be less likely to participate in high-speed chases as to avoid the risk of being held responsible. This would give Americans a new freedom: the freedom to not be chased by the cops. This decision would be the first time the Supreme Court has ever given us freedom, rather than take it away.
I think that I would rather enjoy this new freedom. I would be able to go rob a bank, say Community Bank and Trust, then as long as I drive badly and unsafely, which I do anyways, and the police will not chase me. This would help me when I return next semester to help to pay the 10% increase in tuition. I definitely think that the Supreme Court should pass this law.
No one is above the law
A nation cannot have wellbeing and function successfully without rules. Though some rules the United States enforces seem rediculous and serve no purpose, it is still the citizen's responsibility to follow them accordingly. No one is above the law.
Unfortunately, many Americans have or will experience a speeding ticket at one point in their life. The process of being pulled over and put under the authority of a powerful officer is frightening for everyone, and the best way to handle this process is to simply be respectful and do as the officer says. However, some Americans take it upon themselves to try and beat the authorities by speeding away, causing the officer to chase them down and endangering all the bystanders.
In 2001, a 19-year-old driver became a quadriplegic after trying to esape from a police officer; now, the boy and his family are claiming the police officer who hit his car is to blame for the tragedy. The police officer says he did not violate any codes and was commanded to handle the situation as he did. Ironically, the boy who claimed the police officer should be held completely accountable for the accident was not wearing a seat belt during the accident.
So would it be safer for everyone if the police officials simply let the runners get away with pursuing them? The short term answer is most likely yes. However, our world would go to choas because no one would answer to enforcing officers. The long term answer is no; if police officers were to allow runners to get away from the scene without chasing them, everyone would drive like maniacs because even if you were caught driving recklessly, it would be easy to get away with it. If cops were told they can no longer pursue citizens who run from them, we might as well not even have any road rules to follow. Imagine the number of fatalities that would occur without any sort of driving system to follow.
Unfortunately, many Americans have or will experience a speeding ticket at one point in their life. The process of being pulled over and put under the authority of a powerful officer is frightening for everyone, and the best way to handle this process is to simply be respectful and do as the officer says. However, some Americans take it upon themselves to try and beat the authorities by speeding away, causing the officer to chase them down and endangering all the bystanders.
In 2001, a 19-year-old driver became a quadriplegic after trying to esape from a police officer; now, the boy and his family are claiming the police officer who hit his car is to blame for the tragedy. The police officer says he did not violate any codes and was commanded to handle the situation as he did. Ironically, the boy who claimed the police officer should be held completely accountable for the accident was not wearing a seat belt during the accident.
So would it be safer for everyone if the police officials simply let the runners get away with pursuing them? The short term answer is most likely yes. However, our world would go to choas because no one would answer to enforcing officers. The long term answer is no; if police officers were to allow runners to get away from the scene without chasing them, everyone would drive like maniacs because even if you were caught driving recklessly, it would be easy to get away with it. If cops were told they can no longer pursue citizens who run from them, we might as well not even have any road rules to follow. Imagine the number of fatalities that would occur without any sort of driving system to follow.
Police Chases
Assignment Due Wednesday, February 28:
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on when police can be held liable for someone's death or injury in high speed chases. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says
more than 350 people are killed each year in the United States, in crashes related to high-speed pursuits by law enforcement, and it’s usually the fleeing suspect who dies.
Congress is considering a national standard for police pursuits that could lead to a Constitutional Amendment.
What is your opinion?
Here is the link to the Christian Science Monitor article I read in class:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0226/p01s04-usju.html
Here is the link to the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Web site:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
You should also research other cases, articles and resources to support your opinion.
The Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday on when police can be held liable for someone's death or injury in high speed chases. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration says
more than 350 people are killed each year in the United States, in crashes related to high-speed pursuits by law enforcement, and it’s usually the fleeing suspect who dies.
Congress is considering a national standard for police pursuits that could lead to a Constitutional Amendment.
What is your opinion?
Here is the link to the Christian Science Monitor article I read in class:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0226/p01s04-usju.html
Here is the link to the The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Web site:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/
You should also research other cases, articles and resources to support your opinion.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Someone has to put out this fire
According to the Worldbank, Americans between to age of 18 and 27 in ten years will accommodate for 50% of the world’s wealth. This generation that is becoming so wealthy has a lot of decisions to make. One of the biggest is how we will help other parts of the world that are suffering. As we all know, the United States is in the middle of trying to provide peace to one country all right, Iraq. The U.S. has spent $365 billion on this war to liberate the people of Iraq, and many think that because it has cost so much that the U.S. should put out of Iraq and stop helping any other country. “We should worry about Americans,” said Josh Lions, Hart County High School Senior.
Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau show that United States has 35.9 million people living in poverty in our country. Are they not just important as the 314 million people, according to statistics from the Worldbank, living in Africa? Of course they are the difference is the standard of being poor. In the U.S. the poverty threshold according to the U.S. Census Bureau is $9,645 per person. In Africa the 314 million people that are in poverty are living on $1 or less a day, thus only living on $364 a year. The poverty in the United States is not something to be ignored, but the government does supply food stamps, WIC, and housing development to many of the poor in our county. Many African countries are run by corrupt governments and cannot provide any of these programs to their people. For example, according to the UNICEF in sub-Saharan Africa, measles takes the life of a child nearly every minute of every day, one in six African children dies before the age of five, only 57% of African children are enrolled in primary education, and one in three of those does not complete school.
If we, this group that is becoming so wealthy, all contribute only $5, roughly the price of a chicken sandwich combo at McDonalds, a week to helping the people of Africa, we can cut in half these numbers in only four years. Granted to get every person in this age group to do this for four years is improbable, but it is possible.
So next time you go out to eat or buy a movie ticket, think of the three children in Africa that are dieing because of the lack of vaccines and malnutrition and what that $5 could pay for. We are the next generation of world leaders, being so it is our job to help make a difference in the lives of those that share this planet with us.
Statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau show that United States has 35.9 million people living in poverty in our country. Are they not just important as the 314 million people, according to statistics from the Worldbank, living in Africa? Of course they are the difference is the standard of being poor. In the U.S. the poverty threshold according to the U.S. Census Bureau is $9,645 per person. In Africa the 314 million people that are in poverty are living on $1 or less a day, thus only living on $364 a year. The poverty in the United States is not something to be ignored, but the government does supply food stamps, WIC, and housing development to many of the poor in our county. Many African countries are run by corrupt governments and cannot provide any of these programs to their people. For example, according to the UNICEF in sub-Saharan Africa, measles takes the life of a child nearly every minute of every day, one in six African children dies before the age of five, only 57% of African children are enrolled in primary education, and one in three of those does not complete school.
If we, this group that is becoming so wealthy, all contribute only $5, roughly the price of a chicken sandwich combo at McDonalds, a week to helping the people of Africa, we can cut in half these numbers in only four years. Granted to get every person in this age group to do this for four years is improbable, but it is possible.
So next time you go out to eat or buy a movie ticket, think of the three children in Africa that are dieing because of the lack of vaccines and malnutrition and what that $5 could pay for. We are the next generation of world leaders, being so it is our job to help make a difference in the lives of those that share this planet with us.
Get your head out of the sand, you big stupid bird!
As a nation we have lost control. Our government is waging war and spending taxpayer’s money like there is no tomorrow. All this is happening while many other countries, like Uganda, are in desperate need of aid and support and while many are in need in our own country.
The country I am talking about here is the impoverished country of Uganda. Uganda is involved in a civil war that is in the beginning of its twentieth year. The people of Uganda are at risk daily. At anytime the Lord’s Resistance Army could decide to raid the villages and mercilessly kill innocent people. The children of the villages do what is called a night commute every night, from there homes to the towns, and sleep anywhere they can, hospital floors, orphanages, park benches, or verandas of store fronts. The children do this so that they are not taken in the night by the LRA to become, for little boys, soldiers or, for little girls, sold into prostitution or forced marriages.
America has spent nearly 400 billion dollars over the time of the Iraq war and only about seven million dollars in aid has been given to Uganda. If we were to divert a fraction of the money we are spending in Iraq the war in Uganda could be ended. It is time for America to get its head out of the sand and look around, at its self and the rest of the world, not just the Middle East. It is time to spend money on fixing our problems at home. Social Security is dying in America and will likely not be around we my generation is ready for it, so why are we spending more than 400 billion dollars on a stupid war about oil?
The country I am talking about here is the impoverished country of Uganda. Uganda is involved in a civil war that is in the beginning of its twentieth year. The people of Uganda are at risk daily. At anytime the Lord’s Resistance Army could decide to raid the villages and mercilessly kill innocent people. The children of the villages do what is called a night commute every night, from there homes to the towns, and sleep anywhere they can, hospital floors, orphanages, park benches, or verandas of store fronts. The children do this so that they are not taken in the night by the LRA to become, for little boys, soldiers or, for little girls, sold into prostitution or forced marriages.
America has spent nearly 400 billion dollars over the time of the Iraq war and only about seven million dollars in aid has been given to Uganda. If we were to divert a fraction of the money we are spending in Iraq the war in Uganda could be ended. It is time for America to get its head out of the sand and look around, at its self and the rest of the world, not just the Middle East. It is time to spend money on fixing our problems at home. Social Security is dying in America and will likely not be around we my generation is ready for it, so why are we spending more than 400 billion dollars on a stupid war about oil?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Nice Guys Finish Last
Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on the war in Iraq. President Bush claims that they money is well spent and that we must stay the course. Yet take a look at home since the initiation of that war in 2002.
Gas prices have rocketed to all-time highs and continue to rise despite the lower price of oil per barrel and the lack of natural disasters to disrupt our flow of supply into the United States. The cost of living continually increases yet it has taken nearly 13 years to get another minimum wage increase, and we are only going to increase it a little over $7? Medication prices are so out of hand that senior citizens are forced to purchase medication from Canada or simply do without. Medicare is dangling in the balance for the future recipients, jobs are disappearing everywhere and the rich continue getting richer.
Our government has, for too long, ignored the real problems it should be tackling here on our soil. Look at the poor response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. You can attribute that to the fact our military is spread across the world when we needed them here the most. People will argue that we must continue having interests across the globe or it could end up causing us great harm in the end. I am here to tell you that, with prior experience, nice guys finish last and that is exactly where the United States will end up if we keep shoving ourselves into places where we do not belong thinking we are playing the nice guy. Our kindness is not wanted by the majority of the world, believe it or not. So it is time we bring the troops home, stop spending money on forced conflicts with innocent nations and try to mend the opens wounds we have left throughout the world over the last 50 years while starting what we should have started on decades ago: Helping ourselves.
Here's a solution. How about dividing up that money you say that need for YOUR war, Mr. Bush, and giving it to the people who need it most...the people who put you in that damn office.
Gas prices have rocketed to all-time highs and continue to rise despite the lower price of oil per barrel and the lack of natural disasters to disrupt our flow of supply into the United States. The cost of living continually increases yet it has taken nearly 13 years to get another minimum wage increase, and we are only going to increase it a little over $7? Medication prices are so out of hand that senior citizens are forced to purchase medication from Canada or simply do without. Medicare is dangling in the balance for the future recipients, jobs are disappearing everywhere and the rich continue getting richer.
Our government has, for too long, ignored the real problems it should be tackling here on our soil. Look at the poor response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. You can attribute that to the fact our military is spread across the world when we needed them here the most. People will argue that we must continue having interests across the globe or it could end up causing us great harm in the end. I am here to tell you that, with prior experience, nice guys finish last and that is exactly where the United States will end up if we keep shoving ourselves into places where we do not belong thinking we are playing the nice guy. Our kindness is not wanted by the majority of the world, believe it or not. So it is time we bring the troops home, stop spending money on forced conflicts with innocent nations and try to mend the opens wounds we have left throughout the world over the last 50 years while starting what we should have started on decades ago: Helping ourselves.
Here's a solution. How about dividing up that money you say that need for YOUR war, Mr. Bush, and giving it to the people who need it most...the people who put you in that damn office.
Brother's Keeper
Money is one of those words. Any sentence containing it is bound to, in one way or another, being about opposing views. That idea is magnified exponentially when talk turns to spending on a national scale. How should the
It seems that whenever this topic is brought up, discussion immediately turns to foreign spending and which countries we should and should not aid.
According to the
The plight of those in foreign countries is definitely tragic; however, consider the homeless on the streets of
Even setting the fact that we have problems to solve here, there is another issue that arises. Who are we to play God, swooping in and deciding who gets aid and who does not?
In an ideal world there would be a way to help everyone that needed help. We, however, do not live in a utopian existence. As long as living continues there will be suffering. Suffering overseas as well as suffering in
There is no final answer on this issue; there is simply no way to definitively say that one country deserves aid and another does not, there are too many variables. But one issue there is an answer too is the fact that
U.S.:Be Balanced
The U.S. needs to quit putting itself into debt because of problems that do not even pertain to us. We, as a country, should try to repair America before we help anyone else. Is it really our civic duty to help others so much, to be a big brother with bail money per say? I do not think so. Do not think I am being harsh. I do believe that other countries do need help, but in moderation. America should focus on its own problems before helping others. Now I can understand if helping others, helps us. The U.S. should focus on battling hunger and unemployment before we help other countries do the same.
Now there is an exception to every rule. For instance, with the war in Iraq, the money going toward that endeavor is climbing to 400 billion. That is huge. It is almost unimaginable to think how much money that is. Although I believe that this amount of money is a bit over the top, I grant that is indeed necessary for the time being.
America needs to find a healthy balance that can determine who needs help and to what degree of aid they will receive. With regulations in place, aid can be given out proportionately and the money saved can go back into the country’s needs.
Now there is an exception to every rule. For instance, with the war in Iraq, the money going toward that endeavor is climbing to 400 billion. That is huge. It is almost unimaginable to think how much money that is. Although I believe that this amount of money is a bit over the top, I grant that is indeed necessary for the time being.
America needs to find a healthy balance that can determine who needs help and to what degree of aid they will receive. With regulations in place, aid can be given out proportionately and the money saved can go back into the country’s needs.
It’s My Money, Spend it on Me
In America, over a million people die every year from starvation and homelessness. Every year America spends billions of dollars on foreign aide. Why is America spending so much money on other countries when our own country already has its own problems to deal with. America spends all of this money on its invested capitalist interests.
The wars in the Middle East for instance, were started to maintain our positive relations and support with the many nations. America wants to keep this relationship to keep the same relationship with the oil companies in the area.
President Bush has talked many times about freeing the nations of their oppressions and promoting democracy. This is absurd. If America wanted to stop oppressions, why are we not spending as much on countries that are worse off like Darfur and Uganda?
It would not be right to just take all of the funding away from those countries that America is currently providing “aid” to. Instead the funding should be slowly cut so the countries can learn to be independent of America. Once funding is cut, the money should go toward fixing the problems here in America. Keep the money where it belongs. We do not have to go as far as socializing medicine or establishing a communist workforce, but something needs to be done.
Just think, a few billion dollars to be spent to help the million starving Americans equals a few hundred dollars per person. That money could mean life or death for those people.
The wars in the Middle East for instance, were started to maintain our positive relations and support with the many nations. America wants to keep this relationship to keep the same relationship with the oil companies in the area.
President Bush has talked many times about freeing the nations of their oppressions and promoting democracy. This is absurd. If America wanted to stop oppressions, why are we not spending as much on countries that are worse off like Darfur and Uganda?
It would not be right to just take all of the funding away from those countries that America is currently providing “aid” to. Instead the funding should be slowly cut so the countries can learn to be independent of America. Once funding is cut, the money should go toward fixing the problems here in America. Keep the money where it belongs. We do not have to go as far as socializing medicine or establishing a communist workforce, but something needs to be done.
Just think, a few billion dollars to be spent to help the million starving Americans equals a few hundred dollars per person. That money could mean life or death for those people.
Team America: World Police?
The United States of America is not the world police, nor should we try to be. George Bush and the former Republican controlled Congress got so much criticism for going to Iraq in the first place. What would they get if they decided to invade Darfur or other countries like Iran which pose a much bigger threat toward the U.S.A.? The same criticism they received for going to Iraq. What makes people think that if we do invade Darfur it will be any easier than Iraq or Vietnam? Don’t get me wrong I think that the genocide that is happening in this place is a horrible thing, but why is it the United States’ responsibility to invade and liberate these people?
The government went to Iraq with more intentions of just getting Saddam Hussein out of power. They were trying to stop the harboring of terrorists, find the “WMD”s, that seemed to disappear, and there is one key ingredient in Iraq, OIL. Darfur and the Sudanese are posing no immediate threat to the people of the United States. Their government is not threatening us, they are not harboring terrorists, and they don’t have the weapons of mass destruction, as far as we know. If we started to invade every country in the world that has problems, then we would get so many more people killed and spend so much more money that we don’t have. America has to look out for its best interest, even if the public wants to think otherwise.
The government went to Iraq with more intentions of just getting Saddam Hussein out of power. They were trying to stop the harboring of terrorists, find the “WMD”s, that seemed to disappear, and there is one key ingredient in Iraq, OIL. Darfur and the Sudanese are posing no immediate threat to the people of the United States. Their government is not threatening us, they are not harboring terrorists, and they don’t have the weapons of mass destruction, as far as we know. If we started to invade every country in the world that has problems, then we would get so many more people killed and spend so much more money that we don’t have. America has to look out for its best interest, even if the public wants to think otherwise.
United States: Doing the Best We Can
The United States is often criticized for spending huge amounts of money on the War in Iraq. Many people state that we need to be spending this money on our own country, helping our own citizens who are indeed struggling and starving right here on our own soil. Yet, it seems to me these are also the same people criticizing the United States for not spending enough money in places such as Uganda and Darfur. Yes, it is true the people of these countries are starving and living in poverty levels that most people in the United States cannot even imagine, but what are some of the reasons for this? I think that what most Americans do not understand is the incredible amount of corruption within the governments of these countries. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell called the current situation in Darfur “genocide.” These corrupt governments are in fact responsible for their starving citizens. When aid is sent to these poverty stricken countries it doesn’t get to the people who need it. The aid is stolen by these corrupt leaders of these countries.
The more I focus on this issue at hand, the more I find myself asking; why these countries? Why are people fighting so hard for aid in Darfur and Uganda? There are poverty stricken countries all over the world. There is poverty and corruption in South American countries, Asian countries, and even Russia. Should we be giving aid to these countries as well? The United States is a country that spends billions of dollars giving aid all over the world. What is our limit? Our limit is whether or not spending billions of dollars “liberating” a country is in the best interest for the future of the United States. Obviously there are benefits for our country by “liberating” Iraq. There is the issue of oil, but more importantly there is the issue of terrorism that threats the United States. We are not at war in Africa because it would not benefit our country. The United States government must protect its citizens and must do what is best for the country first and foremost.
The more I focus on this issue at hand, the more I find myself asking; why these countries? Why are people fighting so hard for aid in Darfur and Uganda? There are poverty stricken countries all over the world. There is poverty and corruption in South American countries, Asian countries, and even Russia. Should we be giving aid to these countries as well? The United States is a country that spends billions of dollars giving aid all over the world. What is our limit? Our limit is whether or not spending billions of dollars “liberating” a country is in the best interest for the future of the United States. Obviously there are benefits for our country by “liberating” Iraq. There is the issue of oil, but more importantly there is the issue of terrorism that threats the United States. We are not at war in Africa because it would not benefit our country. The United States government must protect its citizens and must do what is best for the country first and foremost.
Where does the money go?
The foreign spending policy of the United States is an ongoing debate, which incites emotion and political agendas from both sides of the issue. “Does foreign aid actually help the poor?”
In a recent article published by the National Post it stated, “True aid bestows benefits…. eases rich-nation guilt and makes those who favor government solutions very happy.”
According to Jeffrey Sachs in his book The End of Poverty, 30,000 children die every day from the diseases and malnutrition that go along with extreme poverty. Meaning, nearly 2 million children die a year from diarrhea, which could be easily prevented with 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy.
Also, the West has already spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over five decades, and babies with diarrhea are still not getting the 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy. Even in what the World Bank calls an aid success story like Ghana, 50 percent of babies with diarrhea never receive oral rehydration care.
The point is--this money never reaches the desperate poor. And the circular response when asked how can we help the poor in places like Uganda, Somali, Darfur--is to give more money. Yet it doesn’t answer the question of where the original funds went.
According to the Africa News, “not long ago the G-8 summit, in July 2005, agreed to double aid to Africa. They also agreed to double foreign aid a whole by the year 2010, and the aid campaigners will then ask for doubling aid again after 2010.”
Unfortunately, the mania with the amount spent substitutes for customer feedback, incentives, and accountability. It substitutes for focus on whether the money actually reaches the poor, so a second tragedy occurs. It also creates the perverse incentives in aid agencies just to spend money, because if money is the indicator of success, then all the incentives are just to spend aid money and not get results. So here in lies the conundrum.
Nobel prize winner in economics, F.A. Hayek said, “the success of action in society depends on more particular facts than anyone can possibly know.”
According to experts, “the Sub-Saharan Africa is an aid magnet--$400-billion has flowed in since 1970.” If foreign aid worked, Africa would be a prosperous nation, yet, living conditions continually deteriorate in poverty stricken areas like Uganda.
The African Times states monies allocated to help the migrant farmers in Africa went instead to build a new road for mining and drove “the few existing farmers out of business. This is the kind of mess-up on the ground that happens when you try to plan from the top down.”
While African baby stomachs remain distended from malnourishment—wars escalate from factions within corrupt government— the monies allocated to end world hungry and poverty will never produce the desired results. This will continue as long as hidden agendas go unchecked and propaganda in government continues to intercept the funds. That’s why you’ll often find fleets of Mercedes for government officials in aid-receiving nations while the poor stay poor.
When Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper was asked if there could ever be any sort of comprehensive plan to remake society in a way that eliminates poverty, he said, “it’s not reasonable to assume that a complete reconstruction of our social system would lead at once to a workable system.”
In a recent article published by the National Post it stated, “True aid bestows benefits…. eases rich-nation guilt and makes those who favor government solutions very happy.”
According to Jeffrey Sachs in his book The End of Poverty, 30,000 children die every day from the diseases and malnutrition that go along with extreme poverty. Meaning, nearly 2 million children die a year from diarrhea, which could be easily prevented with 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy.
Also, the West has already spent $2.3 trillion on foreign aid over five decades, and babies with diarrhea are still not getting the 10-cent doses of oral rehydration therapy. Even in what the World Bank calls an aid success story like Ghana, 50 percent of babies with diarrhea never receive oral rehydration care.
The point is--this money never reaches the desperate poor. And the circular response when asked how can we help the poor in places like Uganda, Somali, Darfur--is to give more money. Yet it doesn’t answer the question of where the original funds went.
According to the Africa News, “not long ago the G-8 summit, in July 2005, agreed to double aid to Africa. They also agreed to double foreign aid a whole by the year 2010, and the aid campaigners will then ask for doubling aid again after 2010.”
Unfortunately, the mania with the amount spent substitutes for customer feedback, incentives, and accountability. It substitutes for focus on whether the money actually reaches the poor, so a second tragedy occurs. It also creates the perverse incentives in aid agencies just to spend money, because if money is the indicator of success, then all the incentives are just to spend aid money and not get results. So here in lies the conundrum.
Nobel prize winner in economics, F.A. Hayek said, “the success of action in society depends on more particular facts than anyone can possibly know.”
According to experts, “the Sub-Saharan Africa is an aid magnet--$400-billion has flowed in since 1970.” If foreign aid worked, Africa would be a prosperous nation, yet, living conditions continually deteriorate in poverty stricken areas like Uganda.
The African Times states monies allocated to help the migrant farmers in Africa went instead to build a new road for mining and drove “the few existing farmers out of business. This is the kind of mess-up on the ground that happens when you try to plan from the top down.”
While African baby stomachs remain distended from malnourishment—wars escalate from factions within corrupt government— the monies allocated to end world hungry and poverty will never produce the desired results. This will continue as long as hidden agendas go unchecked and propaganda in government continues to intercept the funds. That’s why you’ll often find fleets of Mercedes for government officials in aid-receiving nations while the poor stay poor.
When Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper was asked if there could ever be any sort of comprehensive plan to remake society in a way that eliminates poverty, he said, “it’s not reasonable to assume that a complete reconstruction of our social system would lead at once to a workable system.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)