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.”
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
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.”
US: Doing Its Best
The
Monday, February 12, 2007
Share the Wealth
According to President Bush, the United States has been developing a plan over the past few years that can bring Africa into a "healthy, prosperous country." However, from what the media shows through newspapers and television, Africa is suffering more than ever.
In Africa, there are 12 million orphans who live with aids; and there are 38 million people who live under the threat of starvation. Ironically, private organizations such as missionarys and medical groups are traveling to Africa now more than ever before. Yet the countries in Africa continue to go down hill and the hope of reform seems so far off. It is the job of the government to step in and stop the horrors which occur every day. Rather than sending thousands more troops to Iraq, George Bush should send troops to suffering countries such as Uganda who are basically ignored. The national debt has reached an alltime high of $8 trillion dollars and 90% of that money has been thrown towards the Iraq conflict. Perhaps the government should have used some of that money to buy food for other humans to eat; rather than on guns to blow other humans up.
Knowing that there are other human beings in the world suffering because they were born into a horrible situation is heartbreaking. I remember being in second grade and having a class lesson about the starving children in Ethiopia. My teacher showed our class pictures of kids, the same age as me, laying in the African savannah dying because they hadn't eaten in months. Though this was many years ago, this particular instance still stands out in my head and made me question then, just as I am now, couldn't our rich country do anything to prevent the untimely deaths of these poor people?
In Africa, there are 12 million orphans who live with aids; and there are 38 million people who live under the threat of starvation. Ironically, private organizations such as missionarys and medical groups are traveling to Africa now more than ever before. Yet the countries in Africa continue to go down hill and the hope of reform seems so far off. It is the job of the government to step in and stop the horrors which occur every day. Rather than sending thousands more troops to Iraq, George Bush should send troops to suffering countries such as Uganda who are basically ignored. The national debt has reached an alltime high of $8 trillion dollars and 90% of that money has been thrown towards the Iraq conflict. Perhaps the government should have used some of that money to buy food for other humans to eat; rather than on guns to blow other humans up.
Knowing that there are other human beings in the world suffering because they were born into a horrible situation is heartbreaking. I remember being in second grade and having a class lesson about the starving children in Ethiopia. My teacher showed our class pictures of kids, the same age as me, laying in the African savannah dying because they hadn't eaten in months. Though this was many years ago, this particular instance still stands out in my head and made me question then, just as I am now, couldn't our rich country do anything to prevent the untimely deaths of these poor people?
Blog #3 Due Wednesday February 14
U.S. spending on the invasion, occupation and ongoing pacification of Iraq is approaching $400 billion. U.S. emergency humanitarian aid to Darfur this year, not counting food, will exceed $150 million. In Uganda, it may reach $7 million, even though mortality rates in northern Uganda are three times as high as in Darfur. What is your opinion about U.S. foreign policy and spending?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)