Following the very public suicide of a University student, New Jersey is looking into a new anti-bullying bill. The suicide in question involves a young man who was attending the Rutgers University and committed suicide by jumping off of a bridge. His roommate had filmed him and another man having intimate contact and posted the video online. New Jersey has since placed much more importance on this bill. The bill that was previously in place didn't require anti-bullying programs in schools instead of requiring them, and citizens and Senators alike don't think it's doing enough. Bullying is getting more and more common, particularly harassment directed at gay students. That was originally what inspired this bill. While not yet officially named, the bill is completely finished. It includes anti-bullying programs to be mandatory--in it, there are requirements for public and private schools or universities. Schools would need to have preventative programs and have a more hands-on way of dealing with bullying incidents.
Yes. Yes, this bill needs to be passed. Without a doubt, with all certainty. I used to think that bullying was sort of an urban myth, something that didn't really happen in my schools. After all, I'd never been seriously bullied. It's sad that that is the opinion so many people, previously including me, have. Bullying truly is a dangerous problem--I've seen firsthand how nasty some of the insults can get. And the fact that so much of recent news-worthy bullying has been directed at gay kids? Heartbreaking. People are people; everyone has the right to be respected. That student's roommate should be severely punished. It's not so much that he filmed it in the first place; that was bad enough, but then he had the gall to go and post it on Youtube??? That is none of his business! This bill can't guarantee the complete elimination of all bullying, but if it prevents even one kid from being harassed, I think that makes it worth passing.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Federal Budget
#1 War Dollars
The President is granted the power to command the army by the Constitution. This title is one of commander in chief. This allows the President to have major influence in how the U.S's wars are fought. Congress also has some power--it and the President have to come up with a federal budget which Congress is authorized to approve. Congress can influence how much money goes to which interests, such as homeland securtity.
This is called the "power of the purse" and can be used to limit the amount of money spent on war and war efforts. Some people are of the opinion that Congress should use its influence on the purse of America to pull out of Iraq. Congress would do this by refusing to fund the war efforts any longer. However, the other side of the arguement is that the President say that Congress should stay out of such decisions and let the President handle wars. Congress and the President are not always of the same opinion and critics believe that such an image will encourage war enemies. They hold the belief that the President should have the power to make war policy decisions only to prevent this disagreement.
commander in chief- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States
power of the purse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse
The President is granted the power to command the army by the Constitution. This title is one of commander in chief. This allows the President to have major influence in how the U.S's wars are fought. Congress also has some power--it and the President have to come up with a federal budget which Congress is authorized to approve. Congress can influence how much money goes to which interests, such as homeland securtity.
This is called the "power of the purse" and can be used to limit the amount of money spent on war and war efforts. Some people are of the opinion that Congress should use its influence on the purse of America to pull out of Iraq. Congress would do this by refusing to fund the war efforts any longer. However, the other side of the arguement is that the President say that Congress should stay out of such decisions and let the President handle wars. Congress and the President are not always of the same opinion and critics believe that such an image will encourage war enemies. They hold the belief that the President should have the power to make war policy decisions only to prevent this disagreement.
commander in chief- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commander_in_chief#United_States
power of the purse- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_the_purse
The problem I have with the war dollars is this: the executive and legislative branches can't agree. The longer a country involves itself in a war, the more debt it accumulates. The United States is already something like $13 trillion dollars in debt. I think the President should not have the only say in how these war dollars are spent. It's harder for a large group of people (Congress) to all have the same personal agenda than it is for only one person (President). I'm not saying that Obama had his own personal reasons for staying in Iraq or that Bush had ulterior motives for going into Iraq, but if the funding for armies or homeland security is in the hands of one person, that leaves plenty of room for corruption. The stereotypical politician is sleazy, shady, and fraudulent and only wants power. Now, I know there are some politicians out there that fit that description perfectly. However, there are also many politicians who are looking for ways to improve the country and help citizens. It's irritating to have to put up a safeguard for cheaters when the majority are honest, but that way the U.S is safer from being overtaken by the will of a single person. This is why I think that Congress should have the most influence when it comes to war funding. War is expensive, and it is much harder to convince an entire house of people to think exactly the same way. This method would let more opinions into the mix. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Act
Opinon on issue #3: social security: http://rachelrachrachel.blogspot.com/2010/10/topic-3-social-insecurity.html
Another shooting
Yet another shooting spree has taken place in America. The one in question was in Flordia, where a man shot and killed one person while wounding five others. The victims and shooter were seemingly unrelated and police are still searching for a motive. At the moment, it seems like a random shooting. He was driving around the Gainesville neighborhood sniping victims that seem to have no particular connection. After the man was pulled over and apprehended by the police, he committed suicide.
Incidents like this are the perfect example of why I want to look into the Criminal Justice field for college. I want to be able to prevent things like this; I want to protect citizens and be the superhero that saves everyone. There is something very sad about the fact that shootings are something of a normality now. Ten years ago, a random shooting would have thrown the entire state, if not parts of the country, into complete shock. Now its more of a "oh, that's too bad" kind of reaction. Isn't there something a little perverse about such an easy dismissal of a life? Especially one not related to a war, or some kind of risk.
Incidents like this are the perfect example of why I want to look into the Criminal Justice field for college. I want to be able to prevent things like this; I want to protect citizens and be the superhero that saves everyone. There is something very sad about the fact that shootings are something of a normality now. Ten years ago, a random shooting would have thrown the entire state, if not parts of the country, into complete shock. Now its more of a "oh, that's too bad" kind of reaction. Isn't there something a little perverse about such an easy dismissal of a life? Especially one not related to a war, or some kind of risk.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Pre-Existing Condition
President Obama's healthcare plan has an extra cherry on top that's falling off the sundae. There is a dramatically lower number of people who have signed up for this plan. The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance plan is for people who have had trouble getting insurance or medical help because of a previous medical condition, such as diabetes. If someone gets into the plan, they can recieve health insurance at the same price that a normally healthy person would pay. This particular plan will last until 2014--then a new law requiring acceptance of all applicants regardless of any medical conditions comes into play. However, some state officials have pointed out some potential problems. 1) It may be too expensive 2) The requirement that an applicant has to have been uninsured for at least six months is not actually met by a large number of citizens--it is very hard to locate papers that state they've been turned down by an insurance company 3) The high annual deductible. Anyone in the plan needs to pay approximately $2500 a year before they can recieve coverage for prescription drugs.
I think in theory this is a good idea! It is ridiculous that someone who needs help cannot recieve it because they have diabetes, or once had a yeast infection. Insurance companies need to do their job and give the assistance they are pledged to give. Obama is on the right track with trying to give insurance to everyone regardless of any other conditions they might have, but if the "experts" think this isn't going to work, now what? Perhaps these brilliant minds can come up with ways to smooth out the three problems mentioned above. This is a GOOD IDEA. It is despicable that someone with cancer must face the decision to either undergo chemo or go into debt. Their life with financial ruin or no treatment and a greater chance of dying? What kind of country are we that we would be okay with forcing someone to make such a decision? The officials and experts that are pointing out all the holes in this plan would do well do offer ways to patch them so this can become an affordable reality.
I think in theory this is a good idea! It is ridiculous that someone who needs help cannot recieve it because they have diabetes, or once had a yeast infection. Insurance companies need to do their job and give the assistance they are pledged to give. Obama is on the right track with trying to give insurance to everyone regardless of any other conditions they might have, but if the "experts" think this isn't going to work, now what? Perhaps these brilliant minds can come up with ways to smooth out the three problems mentioned above. This is a GOOD IDEA. It is despicable that someone with cancer must face the decision to either undergo chemo or go into debt. Their life with financial ruin or no treatment and a greater chance of dying? What kind of country are we that we would be okay with forcing someone to make such a decision? The officials and experts that are pointing out all the holes in this plan would do well do offer ways to patch them so this can become an affordable reality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)