The issue of homelessness is becoming more and more prevalent in America. With the unemployment rates hovering around 10%, many Americans cannot afford their housing mortgages. Living in the richest county in the world makes you question how the poverty level keeps increasing. There are roughly about three million Americans who are homeless. This is a very disturbing number for the simple fact that the brutality of poverty is a monumental issue in today’s society. Unfortunately, the recent recession only added to these numbers. With the economy facing issues within the financial market, housing market, health care market, and the business market many Americans cannot afford the growing cost of living. In the year 2007 one statistic showed that 23% of the homeless population were families with children. In essence this notion of homelessness is affecting many Americans in not being able to provide for their families.
Mother Teresa of Calcutta once said, “We think sometimes that poverty is only being hungry, naked and homeless. The poverty of being unwanted, unloved and uncared for is the greatest poverty. We must start in our own homes to remedy this kind of poverty.” I strongly believe that most of us take for granted the gift of having a home and living with people who love us. Consequently, there are many Americans who are forced to live in shelters or on the streets. According to USA Today, about 1.6 million Americans have resorted to living in shelters. Another staggering fact is from a poll that about 53% of Americans are worried about making their housing payment. These statics shows how a falling economy raises the unemployment rates. Homelessness in large part is due to many Americans not having jobs. There is a clear correlation between the recession and an increase in the amount of Homelessness in America. Furthermore, poverty in the US is a very sad reality and tackling this issue is easier said than done.
Poverty is problem that needs to be fixed. In regards to social justice, homelessness has a much broader meaning. The Many Americans that are homeless most likely cannot afford the essential needs such as food, clothing, and water. I could not imagine not having something as simple as a glass of water or a home cooked meal. I truly am privileged to have a home, a place I view as my haven. As the holiday of thanksgiving is on the horizon, this is a time of being thankful for what you have and giving back. One statistic showed that of the 3.5 million Americans that are homeless about 1.35 are children. These children go without food and a roof over there head. They will most like miss out on many of the privileges that I had as a child. Looking forward, our government must establish more policies and create more jobs in order to help Americans pay for their housing mortgages. In final, I believe the being homeless is a horrific aspect of our society that affects many Americans. It is our jobs as Americans to fight for those who less fortunate than us.
How can the issue of homelessness be fixed? Do you believe that issue is directly correlated to the recession? Do you take for granted the essential goods such as food, water, and even your home? How can we make a difference?
Links:
http://homelessnessinamerica.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-foscarinis/homelessness-human-rights_b_781638.html
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Not Politically or Legally Correct
For the members of the Christian Legal Society chapter of the Hastings School of Law out of the University of California, awaiting a decision from the Supreme Court has proved to be a test to their patience. In 2004, the Society sued Hastings School of Law after the school cut their funding and would not allow the club to bear the school’s insignia after the group placed limitations on who could be a member and who could not. The types of student the club mainly discriminated against were non-Christians and gays. In the original case brought to the California court system, the judge sided with Hastings, stating that the school was in the clear when it discounted the club’s credibility as it violated the school’s policies. The case was then brought to the Supreme Court. It was heard in April, 2010, with a decision still pending.
When the club was first established, it did not have any prerequisites when it came to new members. If a person showed interest, they would not be denied entrance. This club policy changed in 2004 when a “statement of Faith” was introduced and needed to be signed by all members, new and old. This statement not so subtly discriminated against non-Christians and gays, denying them entrance into the Christian Legal Society. In order for the club to be recognized by the public institution and to receive its funding, the school requires it to follow the nondiscriminatory policy which Hastings expects all of its student organizations to follow. Because the students were discriminating against others, the school cut their funding and did not want the group to be associated with the school for it had breached policy.
In an attempt to win their funding and recognition back, the group sued the school saying that the group’s first amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion were violated. In 2006, the Federal District Court that heard the case ruled in favor of the school. When the Christian Legal Society appealed the case, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed unanimously that the original court decision was correct for the school’s policies were “viewpoint neutral,” since they require openness of all student groups. Unhappy with this decision, the group took their case to the Supreme Court, citing their former argument that their first amendment rights were violated and that the school’s policy was unconstitutional for denying them these rights.
But who should win here? Should the previous court rulings be upheld because Hastings is a public institution, which “ensures all students have equal access to all school-recognized and school-funded activities”? Or is the Christian Legal Society right? Were their first amendment rights denied to them because they were not allowed to run their club purely by their religion? How should the Supreme Court rule in this matter?
A press release of the Supreme Court hearing can be found at http://www.uchastings.edu/news/docs/cls-v-martinez.pdf
A newspaper editorial expressing thoughts on this case can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19mon2.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=discrimination&st=cse
When the club was first established, it did not have any prerequisites when it came to new members. If a person showed interest, they would not be denied entrance. This club policy changed in 2004 when a “statement of Faith” was introduced and needed to be signed by all members, new and old. This statement not so subtly discriminated against non-Christians and gays, denying them entrance into the Christian Legal Society. In order for the club to be recognized by the public institution and to receive its funding, the school requires it to follow the nondiscriminatory policy which Hastings expects all of its student organizations to follow. Because the students were discriminating against others, the school cut their funding and did not want the group to be associated with the school for it had breached policy.
In an attempt to win their funding and recognition back, the group sued the school saying that the group’s first amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion were violated. In 2006, the Federal District Court that heard the case ruled in favor of the school. When the Christian Legal Society appealed the case, a three-judge panel of the San Francisco United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed unanimously that the original court decision was correct for the school’s policies were “viewpoint neutral,” since they require openness of all student groups. Unhappy with this decision, the group took their case to the Supreme Court, citing their former argument that their first amendment rights were violated and that the school’s policy was unconstitutional for denying them these rights.
But who should win here? Should the previous court rulings be upheld because Hastings is a public institution, which “ensures all students have equal access to all school-recognized and school-funded activities”? Or is the Christian Legal Society right? Were their first amendment rights denied to them because they were not allowed to run their club purely by their religion? How should the Supreme Court rule in this matter?
A press release of the Supreme Court hearing can be found at http://www.uchastings.edu/news/docs/cls-v-martinez.pdf
A newspaper editorial expressing thoughts on this case can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/opinion/19mon2.html?_r=1&scp=9&sq=discrimination&st=cse
Monday, November 8, 2010
Black WWII vets still recall racism
Racism is a subject that we have recently talked about in class and it is a subject that is constantly talked about and brought up here in America. It has been a problem here for over two hundred years and is still a problem today. But, the biggest problem that I have with racism is that it was even a problem in the military. Black American citizens who were fighting for their country, just like the white Americans, were still treated differently and still suffered racism. They fought with honor and risked their lives for a nation who still considered them second-class citizens and kept them segregated from their white military counterparts in the Navy, Army and Air Corps.
Black military veterans of World War II, from Lafayette recently reflected and discussed their military tours. “World War II was the greatest war we ever fought,” said Alex Taylor, 89, who witnessed Pearl Harbor aboard the USS Dobbin. “What I remember most is even though I was in the service with a uniform, I experienced the same segregation,” said 92 year old Lloyd Foote. It angers me to think that even though Foote was risking his life for his country, he was still forced to ride in the back of the bus and was not able to visit certain places in the Nation's Capitol because of his skin color. They explained how even the German soldiers asked them why they were fighting for a country who did not want them there. " 'What are you black folks doing here? You’re fighting for a country that don’t want you. Why don’t you go home?'That’s what they told some of our people," they explained.
The early military movies were also racist and did not include scenes with black soldiers in them. According to Foote, "the early movies made on Gen. George Patton’s famous march during the Battle of the Bulge failed to show the black support battalions. They were portrayed as white." With Veteran's Day nearing, the soldiers were asked how they feel during the day. Foote felt that being a veteran held little significance. He felt that black soldiers’ contributions were ignored, even discarded. As a result of this, Foote said, “I don’t try to remember anything on Veterans Day.” “I have no feelings,” he added.
How can people treat veterans differently just because the color of their skin? They risked their lives for the freedom of the white citizens in America and fought for a country who did not characterize them as equal. These black soldiers fought for the rights that we have today as American citizens and yet they are still shunned upon by some racist white Americans. What are your thoughts and opinions about the way black American soldiers were treated during their military tours and when they came back to America? Does this make you feel embarrassed to call yourself an American? Does it anger you in anyway?
Black military veterans of World War II, from Lafayette recently reflected and discussed their military tours. “World War II was the greatest war we ever fought,” said Alex Taylor, 89, who witnessed Pearl Harbor aboard the USS Dobbin. “What I remember most is even though I was in the service with a uniform, I experienced the same segregation,” said 92 year old Lloyd Foote. It angers me to think that even though Foote was risking his life for his country, he was still forced to ride in the back of the bus and was not able to visit certain places in the Nation's Capitol because of his skin color. They explained how even the German soldiers asked them why they were fighting for a country who did not want them there. " 'What are you black folks doing here? You’re fighting for a country that don’t want you. Why don’t you go home?'That’s what they told some of our people," they explained.
The early military movies were also racist and did not include scenes with black soldiers in them. According to Foote, "the early movies made on Gen. George Patton’s famous march during the Battle of the Bulge failed to show the black support battalions. They were portrayed as white." With Veteran's Day nearing, the soldiers were asked how they feel during the day. Foote felt that being a veteran held little significance. He felt that black soldiers’ contributions were ignored, even discarded. As a result of this, Foote said, “I don’t try to remember anything on Veterans Day.” “I have no feelings,” he added.
How can people treat veterans differently just because the color of their skin? They risked their lives for the freedom of the white citizens in America and fought for a country who did not characterize them as equal. These black soldiers fought for the rights that we have today as American citizens and yet they are still shunned upon by some racist white Americans. What are your thoughts and opinions about the way black American soldiers were treated during their military tours and when they came back to America? Does this make you feel embarrassed to call yourself an American? Does it anger you in anyway?
Gender & Sexual Orientation are Not Treats
Halloween is a time for fun, candy, tricks and treats. Last week, however, one mother experienced no treat when she and her five-year old son walked into his Catholic preschool. Dressed as Daphne from Scooby Doo, the little boy horrified and disgusted mothers with his choice of costume. A picture of the boy in the costume has since then gone viral and shows him wearing purple tights, a wig, a dress, and even pink boots.
The mother had no problem with her son’s choice of costume, but we live in a country where following gender roles and being heterosexual are the norms. Therefore, it is no surprise that people have made verbal attacks at the boy’s mother for letting him dress in “drag” and for jeopardizing his sexual orientation. Some individuals even questioned the seriousness of the Catholic preschool the boy attends.
The mother’s reaction is an admirable, must-read that can be found below. She wrote, “If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.” She also made a wise comment towards what society deems acceptable in saying, “If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.” This is no doubt an example of the double standard that affects gender.
There are, thankfully, many who have commended and supported the mother. Outrage against Dr. Jeff Gardere, a clinical psychologist, surfaced after he appeared on CNN disapproving of the mother’s choices. He said, “It is the worst nightmare of heterosexual and gay couples to have to fathom that their child might be gay.” Since then, Gardere apologized in saying, “… it is a real issue for [parents] because they are afraid … even gay parents say it … [they] do not want their children to have to deal with the pain and the isolation and a lot of the emotional trauma ... as far as coming to terms with their sexuality.” It is absurd that a preschooler’s costume has the ability to turn into a dispute about sexual orientation.
Do you agree with the mother in her decision to let her son wear a costume that did not conform to society’s expectations? Do you agree with her posting the story online? Will it ever be possible for a greater amount of acceptance to exist when gender or sexual orientation is questioned? Would there have been any comments about a girl in a batman costume, as the mother mentioned? If you were a parent, would you have let your son wear the costume? Does this double standard of gender outrage you?
Saturday, November 6, 2010
SHOULD WE CHANLLENGE GOD, AND MESS WITH NATURE?
Cloning and genetic engineering do of course have some pros and cons; one of the most exciting potential applications of genetic engineering involves the treatment of genetic disorders. Medical scientists now know of about 3,000 disorders that arise because of errors in an individual's DNA. Conditions such as sickle-cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Huntington's chorea, cystic fibrosis, and Lesch-Nyhan syndrome are the result of the loss, mistaken insertion, or change of a single nitrogen base in a DNA molecule. Genetic engineering makes it possible for scientists to provide individuals who lack a certain gene with correct copies of that gene.
Genetic engineering also promises a revolution in agriculture. It is now possible to produce plants that will survive freezing temperatures, take longer to ripen, convert atmospheric nitrogen to a form they can use, manufacture their own resistance to pests, and so on. Domestic animals have been genetically "engineered" in an inexact way through breeding programs to create more meaty animals, etc., but with genetic engineering, these desirable traits could be guaranteed for each new generation of animal.
Shouldn’t we be worried as a society about where genetic engineering/cloning might lead us? If we can cure genetic disorders, can we also design individuals who are taller, more intelligent, more athletic, or better looking? Is that a good use of the technology? Will the manipulated agricultural products be safe for humans, or will they alter us in some unknown way? Will we be able to control all the changes that might occur, and lastly how can we socially, accept and justify all of this? All the above are of the few of the many ethical questions we should ask ourselves.
Shouldn’t we be worried as a society about where genetic engineering/cloning might lead us? If we can cure genetic disorders, can we also design individuals who are taller, more intelligent, more athletic, or better looking? Is that a good use of the technology? Will the manipulated agricultural products be safe for humans, or will they alter us in some unknown way? Will we be able to control all the changes that might occur, and lastly how can we socially, accept and justify all of this? All the above are of the few of the many ethical questions we should ask ourselves.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Healthcare Reform
Healthcare originally was for people who could only afford it and now the reform is so everybody can have it. This affects social justice because it is making healthcare equal for everyone, but is it actually hurting people in the long run. You could live in the healthiest state, but the reality is that people in your state still go hungry every night and this reform would help them be able to have a steady income to live on and to be treated if they receive a disease. There are 46.6 million people without health insurance.
Is it fair for the people that have health insurance to get these benefits, they are paying for it because they can afford it. The reform wants to make it so that everybody has healthcare and that it is all equal. In doing this it makes everybody have benefits, which might help the population increase because less would be dieing from diseases and starvation, but the personal care might go down towards patients because there would be less people in the health field to help them, and there might be an overload in patients. Also, care to the elderly might go down because they will get less benefits since they are older and if this happens is it fair to them. I don't think it is. There are 81% of uninsured families that have at least one adult working, but still don't have insurance because of their job and they can afford it on the salary they are getting. People who used to have insurance might have lost it because now companies are taking away their insurance because it is cheaper for them, which i think is wrong to do. When creating this healthcare reform you have to think about the cost it is going to have because it is going to be expensive to pay for every body's insurance, which will put the United States in more debt.
The main problem I am getting to is, Is it fair for us to accept the Healthcare Reform because it makes everybody have equal insurance? Does that make it better for everyone? Is this reform a good thing to accept into our lives? I think we won't really know until we try it out, but if the coverage for other people goes down is it worth hurting some people to help out other people?
If you want to read the article the site is http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/marapr2007p24.shtml .
Is it fair for the people that have health insurance to get these benefits, they are paying for it because they can afford it. The reform wants to make it so that everybody has healthcare and that it is all equal. In doing this it makes everybody have benefits, which might help the population increase because less would be dieing from diseases and starvation, but the personal care might go down towards patients because there would be less people in the health field to help them, and there might be an overload in patients. Also, care to the elderly might go down because they will get less benefits since they are older and if this happens is it fair to them. I don't think it is. There are 81% of uninsured families that have at least one adult working, but still don't have insurance because of their job and they can afford it on the salary they are getting. People who used to have insurance might have lost it because now companies are taking away their insurance because it is cheaper for them, which i think is wrong to do. When creating this healthcare reform you have to think about the cost it is going to have because it is going to be expensive to pay for every body's insurance, which will put the United States in more debt.
The main problem I am getting to is, Is it fair for us to accept the Healthcare Reform because it makes everybody have equal insurance? Does that make it better for everyone? Is this reform a good thing to accept into our lives? I think we won't really know until we try it out, but if the coverage for other people goes down is it worth hurting some people to help out other people?
If you want to read the article the site is http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/marapr2007p24.shtml .
Monday, November 1, 2010
Drug Abuse
Drug usage is a very risky behavior that everyone should avoid. Drug usage causes addiction and can be life threatening. Based on the estimation from the National Drug Control Strategy in 2009, at over time in their lives, 104,446 Americans have used Marijuana, 36,599 have used Cocaine, 8,359 have used Crack, and 3,863 have used Heroin.
Generally, people choose to use drug because of peer pressure, they want to alleviate their stress or they are curious about it. Using illegal drugs put people into trouble. Some people believe that just one dose of Marijuana or other types of drugs cannot possibly make the users addicted. That is not true. Once they use the drugs, they become dependent. When the effect of the drugs wear off, the users start to crave for more drugs, they feel uneasy and pain in their bodies. They become aggressive and panic.
Daily use of drugs can lead to numerous types of disease such as respiratory failure, rapid heart rate, memory impairment, weaken immune system, lung damage, insomnia, hyperactivity, and agitation. Sometimes it causes death. These sicknesses make the drug users to lose their abilities to perform their jobs. For students, they lose ability to concentrate and memorize schoolwork.
Dealing with drugs steers people away from comfortable lives. Drugs are very expensive, most drug users become criminals because they tend to find money to buy drugs by robbing other people. They have to live as gypsies, and hide from the society, Besides living with guilt, they have to suffer the consequences of drug abuse such as sicknesses caused by the effect of using drugs.
Choice is in our own hands. There are many drug free activities available for us that are food enough to keep us away from stress and stay healthy. If someone is obsessed with drugs, please get help as soon as possible before it is too late. Regret cannot put you back to the starting point, so think carefully about your own future.
Imagine if you are parents of drug dealers, how worried will you feel?
What else should we all do as members of society to help the government eliminate drug abuse?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)