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

Environmentalists critical of Obama drilling plan

President Obama has recently expressed that he would like to drill for oil in the key atlantic and golf of mexico. Several environmentalists are very upset with this decision. The main thing that these people are worried about is oil spills. They feel that the environmental and economic risks should be better researched. They also feel that we should take our dependency off of oils and try to find other means of energy.

I think that these people should be protesting. To me it doesn't make sense why we would start drilling here. I think the only reason we should start drilling in the Unites States is if we absolutely have no other choice. Yes, i think it is important to not be so dependent on foreign oil but that doesn't mean that we should just start being dependent on our own oil. I really feel like we should be investing in trying to find an efficient energy source that is renewable and not so hazardest to the enviornment.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/energy.environmentalists/index.html

Healthcare blog-5 key things to remember about health care reform

This article explains five things that are important to know about the health care bill. The first thing to know is that the bill does not allow insurance companies to discriminate against people who have pre-existing conditions. Before the health care bill insurance companies would often deny or charge very high rates to people who had a pre-existing condition. Starting in 2014 insurance companies can no longer do that. In the mean time, there will be a "high risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. The second thing is that children can stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26. The child may not have a job that offers them health insurance in order to be on the parents insurance plan and must be claimed as a dependent on the parents taxes.The third thing is that you may be able to get a subsidy to buy insurance. If employers do not provide insurance to you then starting in 2014 you will get a subsidy. This subsidy will depend on your income,whether you are single or have a family, your age, and where you live. The third thing is that companies will be required to offer health plans to its employees if it employees more than 50 people. This plan must cover at least 60 percent of your overall health costs.The company will be fined if it does not offer this. The last thing is knowing what the bill does for seniors.One of the things it will do for them is to give people on medicare new access to free preventive services. Another thing it will do is close the gap in part-d where medicare no longer pays when the senior has spent a certain amount of money.



I think it is good to have an article that explains some of the basics of the health care bill. It seems like most people really don't even know what the bill is about and they are argueing about it. I think it would also be useful to have an article explaining what some of the things are that are making people so bad. As for these five things, I think they are good. It is important for insurance companies to not be able to drop somebody if they have a pre-existing condition or if they get really sick. It is just not fair to the person. I think it is also good that children can stay on their parents plan until they are 26 so they don't have to worry about getting their own insurance until they are out of school and have their own job. I think it is good that companies will need to provide a plan to its employees. That way those employees are not just left by themselves to figure it out. I also think it is good that the bill will allow easier access to prevenative services for seniors. From this information, I think the bill is a good thing. However, I am not aware of the conflicts of the bill.





http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25/health.care.law.basics/index.html?iref=storysearch

Haitian judge files additional charge against missionaries

10 American baptist missionaries who were previously accused of trying to take 33 Haitian children out of Haiti without proper authorization are now being given an additional charge of "organizing irregular travel". 9 of the accused have already been released on bail and have left the country. What the 10 missionaries are charged with according to this article is :

– Criminal association, 3-15 years;
– Kidnapping of a minor, 3-9 years;
– Organizing irregular travel, 3-6 years.

The main leader of the group has said that the parents were orphaned but CNN found out that 20 of the children had at least one living parent. The parents said that they thought putting their children in the care of the missionaries would give them a better life. Apparently, the group planned to keep the children in a hotel in the Dominican Republic and then later in an orphanage.




I think that this is a very confusing situation. I don't understand why the missionaries would take the children just to put them in an orphanage. I would understand if maybe the orphanage they planned to put the children in was a better place for the children to stay then the current situation that they are in. In which case, why wouldn't Haiti let the group take the children? It doesn't make sense to me why Haiti won't let people take the children in order to provide them with a better life. I'm not sure if they do now or not, but they should make a system that makes sense and is easy for people who have good intentions of taking the children and helping them. Although, I don't think that they should just ship the children off with whoever wants them. They need a better system of communication.



http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/12/haitian-judge-files-additional-charge-against-missionaries/

Kansas City board OKs plan to close nearly half of schools

A Kansas City school board in Missouri, recently decided to pass the "right size" plan. This involves cutting basically half of the schools in the city. The plan was initiated because of falling enrollment of students. It was taking up too many recourses to keep schools open for not many students according to the superintendent. The plan cuts 28 0f 61 schools, cuts 700 jobs, and saves $50 million dollars. Many parents are upset with the idea of mearging students into the same schools, like kindergarteners with seniors. The superintendent wants to focus on keeping the schools that aren't closing much stronger.

I think that it is alarming that the economy has gotten to this point. Education is the last place where things should be cut. I do understand where the superintendent is coming from though. If they MUST cut somwhere out of education I think that this plan is not a bad idea. It allows the remaining schools to get the proper focus and recourses it needs. I don't like that it cuts 700 jobs because they will probably be faces with more problems coming out of unemployment, but thats another issue. Up through 7th grade I was in a school that was K-12 and I didn't see the harm in it. I don't think the parents should be upset students of varied ages are going to the same school, as long as they are not in the same class room of course. I think that it is a good idea, now it all depands how the plan gets carried out. It has good potential.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/11/missouri.school.closings/index.html?hpt=T1

U.S. travel promotion bill signed into law

President Obama has signed a travel promotion act. This act is supposed to promote travel to the United States. This is hoped to act a economic stimulant and to create new jobs. The act will create a corporation that will be in charge of making travel to the United States more appealing. This will be funded by charging visitors a 10 dollar fee, along with a matching program. The U.S has not been spending much on promoting tourism in the past and it is thought that with this bill the U.S will generate an extra 4 billion dollars in tourist spending. They also would like to "improve" entry and exit procedures to make traveling to the U.S more convenient.


I think that this travel promotion act is a little unnecessary. First of all, I don't understand how charging a 10 dollar fee is promoting travel. Also, I think that people are going to travel to the United States if they want to. I don't see how people are going to convince the world to travel to the United States because chances are, people already have their options about the U.S and if they desire to travel there. I don't think the United States is very unknown to many people. Also, from my understanding this act is not giving people money to travel to the U.S, because some people may already want to visit but maybe they don't have the money in the first place. I don't understand how entry and exit procedures are planned to be improved. There is a reason for why the U.S has the systems that they do and I don't understand why they would cut back on security just to make traveling more convenient for people.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/04/travel.promotion.act/index.html

States short $1 trillion to fund retiree benefits

A new report has found that states are not experiencing a 1trillion dollar deficit for public employees retirement funds. That can be condensed to a 8,800 dollar shortfall per household in the nation. According to the report, the states ran into this problem because they by not making annual contributions and by making more benefits to pay for. States must pay the money because they are legally bound to by a union contract. The way that they will most likely come up with the money is by raising taxes for the people. Most states are coming up with rules to be applied to new employees. States are also losing the extra benefits and raising the retirement age.

I think that this is a very alarming situation. Obviously the states should have thought more about the outcomes of their actions before they did them, but that can't be changed. I think it is good that they are trying to come up with solutions to the problem, but I'm not sure the solutions will be able to last very long. If they just continue to raise the retirement age and raise taxes, eventually people will be dead before they reach retirement. Personally, as a young adult I would like to know that I will eventually be able to use the money that I will be contributing to my retirement fund one day. I also would not like to have to work for my entire life. Basically, I think it is good that the states are trying to come up with plans to fix the issue, however these plans will not work for the future. The states should also be concentrating on working on a system that will make retirement available for the future as well.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/02/18/news/economy/public_pension_gap/index.htm

Issue # 2 Spending What We Can Afford

The federal budget is developed by both the president and congress. The president first develops a budget and then it is passed on to congress to be approved. The budget outlines the nation’s priorities and explains how they will reach their goals. Over the last 40 years the government has spent more money than it has taken in. This excessive spending causes threat to entitlement programs. Of course, the people are becoming very angry with the governments over spending. Congress has said that they are going to rein spending with a system called paygo. Some of the arguments for paygo is that it will cause congress to realize that deficits matter and should be monitored. Congress will have to act in the same way that families and businesses do to monitor their own budgets. Arguments against paygo are that it will just cause taxes to go up in order to provide money for new programs. They think that deficits should be taken care of by economic growth rather then cutting budget. They also think it will hinder congress’s ability to respond to national crisis. They also think that this program will cause voters to become angry.

I think that pay go is a good idea. I am not positive it will work but I don’t see why the government can’t put it through a test run. I also think it wouldn’t hurt to force them to go through and look very closely where the money is being spent and make alterations and cuts to better ensure the money is going to good use and not getting wasted on unnecessary programs. Right now the fourth largest category of spending is going towards nothing. It goes to pay off interest on the national debt. If we keep spending as we are, the debt will only increase along with the amount of interest owed. President Obama recently said on a radio address that paygo is a common sense rule.



President Obama's paygo opinion - http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/02/13/potus-says-paygo-is-common-sense-rule/?test=latestnews

Issue #1 - War dollars - http://felicia01.blogspot.com/2010/02/issue-1-war-dollars_18.html

Issue # 3- Social Insecurity- http://mschmidt1.blogspot.com/2010/02/issue-3-social-insecurity.html

Biden: Major terror attack on U.S. unlikely

On Larry King Live the Vice President Joe Biden stated that he doesn't think that there will be another mass terrorist attack similar to 9/11, despite popular belief. He thinks that instead, terrorist will take a smaller approach. Making attacks similar to the "underwear" bomber on a recent airplane. He is confident that there will be small "attemps" of terrorists but he is confident that administration will handle them well.

I don't understand why he is so confident that there will not be another big attack. From what I have heard, after the recent video by Osama Bin Laden, there is expected to be some sort of big attack if everything follows the pattern of what has happend in the past. It does seem as though terrorist have resulted to smaller attacks lately but I don't think that that decreases the chances of there be a much larger attack. I would feel more confident in Biden saying that he thinks there will not be a mass terrorist attack if he had reason to backup his case. In my opinion we should be on the look out for both small scale attacks and large scale attacks because nobody can know what will happen for sure.

video: http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/02/10/sot.lkl.biden.terror.911.cnn

'Tenther' movement aims to put power back in states' hands

It seems as though states rights have been pushed aside over time. There is a recent movement by the states to make their rights clear through the 10th amendment which states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The movements have been fueled by recent attempts of the federal government to force policies on the states. Some people believe that the movement of the states has crossed the line because they feel that it is ignoring federal laws.

I think that the states should be authorized to make their own decisions about certain issues such as, abortion and gay marriage. Like the article says, this system allows the states to live united without fighting over these topics. This way the people of the state can vote for whatever they feel comfortable with. I think the 10th amendment is a touchy thing to follow. The states want to make their own decisions but where is the line between what they get to decide and what the federal government gets to decide? It's also hard for the federal government because they want to do what they think is best, and some issues are important for all of the states to agree on. In my opinion education is something that I feel all of the states should go about in the same way. It's not fair just because somebody lives in a different state to have a poorer education then somebody else who lives in the neighboring state. I think that there needs to be a clear "rule book" for the 10th amendment stating what issues should be decided by federal government and what should be decided by state government specifically.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/10/tenth.amendment.movement/index.html

Service members, vets share views on 'Don't ask, don't tell'

The debate continues about the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy in the military. President Obama stated that he would like to see the DADT law repealed. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he would like to make a plan to have the law repealed by the end of the year and to replace it with a more humane policy. Most of the input from current or previous military personel, including homosexuals, state that the law is fine the way it is, or that being homosexual does not even matter in the military.

I feel that the don't ask don't tell policy had good intentions of protecting homosexuals in the military. However, like most laws, I feel it has been corrupted. I think that the law should be something more along the lines of "don't ask, don't show". It is not fair for someone who is homsexual to have to keep that part of themselves completely hidden in order to be able to serve our country. I think that homosexuals serving in the military should be able to say they are gay, or talk about it if they choose. There is bound to be a conversation that comes up or maybe a slip up while telling a story, and I don't believe it is right to discharge someone from serving because of this. I do agree that they should not be "showing" their homosexuality, such as, holding hands with one another and so forth. Reason being that this would most likely make many people uncomfortable. I say that homosexuals are just as dedicated to serve the country as heterosexuals.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/03/dadt.servicemembers.thoughts/index.html