A toxic history lesson

In the early 1940's there were informecials for the pesdicide DDT. It claimed to be completely safe to use around the home, even around childrent. They later found, of course, that it was not. We may have not learned from this mistake. Lead is another example of a toxic chemical thought to be safe but later found to have many health complications. Now is the question of what we are doing TODAY that we may find harmful later on. This article (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/01/backpack.cord.blood/index.html )
Explains many many chemicals we are exposed to and that children have in their blood even before they are born.

It doesn't really surprise me all of the chemicals that are out there. There is no way we can keep creating the things we are with out some sort of side affects. I have done research on pestisides on crops and hormones in animals. We don't think that us eating plants and animals that have chemicals on and in them will hurt us, but how can they not? Another big thing is GMO's (genetically modified organisms). They literally take apart the genes of the plant and mutate it to create something that is more convienient for us. They are finding that this can actually change humans genetic make-up and is creating many new diseases and allergies. I think that things like this will be one of the things we look back on that we thought was totally safe and then realize, after the fact of our genes being muated, that it wasn't safe after all. I feel like things should definatly be more deeply researched before it is put out for consumption to avoid this continuous cycle.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/03/ddt.toxic.america/index.html

Video of 1940's infomercial: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/health/2010/06/03/gupta.toxic.childhood.promo.cnn

Document says number of attempted attacks on U.S. is at all-time high

Following the attempted car bombing in times square the department of homeland security is saying that the rate of attacks on america has been more frequent then all of the attacks in one year. A memo that has been sent to different law enforcement groups says that there will be attacks at an "increased frequency", with little to no warning. The previous attacks were hard to suspect because the men lived in the U.S for long periods of time and used common products that would not lead to suspicion. They also left for only short periods of time for training overseas.

This is obviously very alarming. I'm not sure what can be done about this because the attacks are smaller(not any less serious, however) which makes them harder to figure out because they are easier to cover up. I hope that they can get to the root of the attacks or figure who is doing it and where the training is happening. It is even more scary that some of these people have been U.S citizens for quite some time. It makes me feel less safe and more sceptical of people.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/26/terrorism.document/index.html?npt=NP1

Lawyer questions police version of raid that killed girl

A 7-year old girl was accidentally killed in a police rade. Apparently the police raided the wrong house. This happend in Detroit. The police claim that they were searching for a person who recently shot a high school student, and that they did find the suspect in the house the the 7-year old was killed. However, people argueing against the police claim that he was not in the same house, but that he was in an apartment next to the house and that he surrendered himself.

I feel that this should never happen. No matter if the guy was in the same house or not. If he did shoot the highschooler what is going to be solved by going into the house and shooting by the police? They should have maybe knocked on the door, asked if the person was there, and if the people took out their own gun or were trying to result to violence they should have warned them, and if their lives were in danger shoot. But in no way should the 7 year old have been killed that had nothing to do with the case.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/16/michigan.police.child/index.html

video: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/05/17/bts.child.killed.wdiv

Kids' test answers on race brings mother to tears

There is a new cnn pilot study testing kids on their opinion on race. The study showed that white children show more of a bias then black children. Meaning the the white children related their own skin town to good qualities more so then blacks who sometimes think that white skin tone are better. The researchers would show the children a paper will many children ranging from very light skined to very dark skined. They then asked questions suchas, "who is the nice child?". The children would usually point to their own skin color and vis versa when asked who is the mean child. The study included all different types of children from all different types of background. Overall, the study found that parents of white children discuss race with them less then black childrens parents.

I find this very interesting, and also sad. The children clearly are not getting talked to about race or are getting bad information . I feel that this may be an issue that most parents don't really think to discuss. I also think that the media plays a big role in this. The country as a whole seems to be getting better about black and white equality, but there is still underlying biases. I feel like white skin is portreyed as "prettier". This study is good because it bring attention to the issue and helps parents understand that this is something that should be discussed, and not just assumed.

video of study: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2010/05/17/ac360.doll.study.cnn

link to article : http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/18/doll.study.parents/index.html?npt=NP1

Cop-watchers look for racial profiling on the streets of Phoenix

The new immigration law in Arizona has many people watching cops. They believe that racial profiling is already taking place and the this law will give cops even more reason to do so. This law begins in August and it will require every immigrant to carry proof that they are legal. It also will make it illegal to live in Arizona and travel through Arizona illegally. The police will not legally be able confront someone illegal about being an immigrant, they must have a different reason before they can ask for the papers. There are some people who believe that the police racial profile. These people essentially follow cops around, watching what they are doing. The followers will watch the cop pull somebody over, they will record this and take notes on it as well. After the matter, they may follow the vehicle that was pulled over and ask them why the cop pulled them over etc.


I feel like this entire situation dealing with this new immigration law is a bit of a mess. It is a very tricky situation to try to determine if someone is racial profiling or not. I think it is a good thing that they have to have a reason to pull someone over before they can ask them if they are an illegal immigrant, however I don't think it would be that hard for an officer to find a reason. It might be a good idea to have the officers take some sort of test, if any such thing exists, that determines if they judge by race, or things like that. It is good that people are monitoring the cops, but it seems like the people who are monitoring the cops are immigrants themselves, which create a large bias with the situation. I don't see why they don't get the government in there to monitor what is going on.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/05/11/phoenix.copwatch.arpaio/index.html

Obama vows 'relentless' response to oil spill

President Obama has resently said that he doing everything in his power to deal with the recent oil spill. He met with officials involved in the clean-up of the spill in southeastern Louisiana. He said that the clean up will most likely take many days even with the best technology. Interior secretary Ken Salazar says that the spill may take weeks to get under control and that we should prepare for the worst. BP owned that well and is responisble for all the consequences of the spill. They are building a system to prevent leaking from spreading but it will be another 6-8 days to be put into affect. There are many people who are concerned with the long term results of the spill.

I think this whole deal is not okay. I am not completly sure how it happened in the first place. No matter how it happend, there should have been many safety and security levels that the rigs should have to go through. Something like this should never happen. There are already many obvious short term effects of the spill. Not to mention all of the long term effects that are bound to occur. Again, I don't see how something like this could have happend. I feel like something like this is preventable, but I am not familiar with the process so I could be wrong. I think it is better to be safe then sorry, instead of the situation that we are in now.. not safe and very sorry.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/02/louisiana.oil.spill/index.html

Obama addressing the issue in video :http://cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/05/02/sot.obama.louisiana.oil.cnn

Issue #2- boosting the minimum

Many people are not happy with minimum wage. Rasing the minimum wage would increase the amount of money for many families. Rasing minimum wage would hopefully lessen the amount of people who are in poverty. Congress passed a war funding bill in May 2007. This bill included raising minimum wage. However, there is still disputes over minimum wage. People who are for rasing minimum wage argue that even with the raise before people are still living in poverty. They argue that boosting the minimum wage would benefit many people with in turn would boost the economy as a whole. They also think that the wage increase should not have been tied to tax cuts because businesses get tax cuts very often. People who are against rasing minimum wage say it is counterproductive. They say that it only affects a smal percentage of the workforce so it does not have a significant effect of lowering poverty. They also say that teenagers make up half of the people who recieve minimum wage and they are not living in poverty. They say that rasing minimum wage will cause businesses to spend more which will lead to cuts which will lead to people not having jobs. They also say that a better way to go about this is to epand the EITC.

I believe that minimum wage should be increased. It is only fair to increase the amount that people get paid when prices go up. If wage doesn't go up with inflation then workers are actually getting pay cuts. Their dollar will not be worth as much. It is also not fair for people to sit in an office all day to get paid $88,000 a year and someone doing hard labor to get paid $11,000 a year. I know that those people went to college and have more education, so they should not be getting paid the same, that would also not be fair. I just think that minimum wage is not enough to keep up with rising prices. I disagree that the people who get paid minimum wage only make up a small percentage of the work force. Without the people to work in McDonald's and Wal-mart I'm not sure where everything would be. Those people keep everything together. Boosting minimum wage is not giving people a raise, it is just to keep up with rising prices. Nancy Pelosi is a house democrat who supports minimum wage. You can read more about her on this issue here:
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/Feb05/ProsperityJobs.html

Issue#3- http://mschmidt1.blogspot.com/2010/04/issue-3-putting-welfare-to-work.html

Issue#1- http://felicia01.blogspot.com/2010/05/all-things-being-unequal.html