I agree with my classmate, Danielle, and her views on nutrition. I think that it would be a good idea for the government to become more involved in improving the health of the children in the United States. Some steps have already been taken at some schools, like removing vending machines or replacing the junk food in the machines to something healthier. I think that the Child Nutrition Bill seems like a better idea because it is also doing things like expanding the eligibility requirements for school lunch programs.
I believe that involving a healthier lifestyle at school is important for a child but a lot of the influence comes from the home child's home life. Like Danielle stated, she "grew up in a middle class home but nutrition was not a priority. Not because my parents hate me. Physical exercise was a daily part of my life. But, I also drank sodas and ate ice cream every night as well." I believe that nutrition information, classes, etc. needs to also be more readily available to all of the United States. Improving one's health is easier to do as a child but that does not mean to just give up on the older generations, especially when they are the ones that are influencing the younger generations.
The United States has an obesity problem. I support my classmate's views and the Child Nutrition Bill to be the start of making it a healthier country.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Blog Stage 7
The US-Mexico border fence, or "The Great Wall of Mexico", is the solution that is being implemented to help prevent illegal immigration. I do not agree with this concept of putting up a wall to keep the people out. It is not fully effective and very expensive for the government.
I believe that there should be other ways to help prevent illegal immigration then just putting up a wall. The government can increase patrol, install more cameras, etc. that may help with the issue. I think this should be done at both borders, not just focused on the US-Mexico border, if illegal immigration is trying to be prevented.
The US-Mexico border, where the fence is proposed to be put up, runs about 2,000 miles long. At first, the government estimated that the cost of the entire thing would cost between $4-$8 billion. However, the fence in the San Diego area it turned out that the costs were ridiculously high. It was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million (approximately $1 million/mile). After actual building, the first 11 miles cost $42 million ($3.8 million/mile) and $35 million ($10 million/mile) to complete the last 3.5 miles. Just this small portion of the fence has caust drastically higher then the estimate. I feel that this money that is being used for a wall could be used in more productive ways to prevent illegal immigration and towards other issues that the United States is facing.
Another factor is that the wall is not fully effective. People can, will, and have found a way to get past the wall and pass between the United States/Mexico. At least 40 tunnel passages have been discovered that have been used for large scale smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants. For example, one tunnel was discovered that ran from San Diego to Tijuana that had 300 pounds of marijuana at each end and was so sophisticated that it had concrete floors, was wired for electricity, and had drainage. The tunnel was about 1/2 a mile long, 60-80 feet deep, and 8 feet tall. It obviously takes a lot of effort to make something like this which shows that if someone wants to come in, they will find a way and a wall will not prevent this.
Overall, I think that more should be done to prevent illegal immigration but building a wall, especially one that is costing so much more then expected, is not the answer to this problem.
I believe that there should be other ways to help prevent illegal immigration then just putting up a wall. The government can increase patrol, install more cameras, etc. that may help with the issue. I think this should be done at both borders, not just focused on the US-Mexico border, if illegal immigration is trying to be prevented.
The US-Mexico border, where the fence is proposed to be put up, runs about 2,000 miles long. At first, the government estimated that the cost of the entire thing would cost between $4-$8 billion. However, the fence in the San Diego area it turned out that the costs were ridiculously high. It was estimated that the San Diego fence would cost $14 million (approximately $1 million/mile). After actual building, the first 11 miles cost $42 million ($3.8 million/mile) and $35 million ($10 million/mile) to complete the last 3.5 miles. Just this small portion of the fence has caust drastically higher then the estimate. I feel that this money that is being used for a wall could be used in more productive ways to prevent illegal immigration and towards other issues that the United States is facing.
Another factor is that the wall is not fully effective. People can, will, and have found a way to get past the wall and pass between the United States/Mexico. At least 40 tunnel passages have been discovered that have been used for large scale smuggling of drugs, weapons, and immigrants. For example, one tunnel was discovered that ran from San Diego to Tijuana that had 300 pounds of marijuana at each end and was so sophisticated that it had concrete floors, was wired for electricity, and had drainage. The tunnel was about 1/2 a mile long, 60-80 feet deep, and 8 feet tall. It obviously takes a lot of effort to make something like this which shows that if someone wants to come in, they will find a way and a wall will not prevent this.
Overall, I think that more should be done to prevent illegal immigration but building a wall, especially one that is costing so much more then expected, is not the answer to this problem.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Blog Stage 6
I agree with my classmate, Sarah Cahill, about her thoughts on national healthcare. She gives great facts from her personal experiences with the issue due to where she is employed. The average costs of materials in a physician's office is not too high, it is the cost to actually see the physician that is too high for much of the population if you do not have insurance. Also, the amount that is collected from bills that are sent out, less then 5%, is very surprising!
I believe that national healthcare/insurance needs to be more available and at a more reasonable cost to the population of the United States, not necessarily free. I think that everyone should be accountable to pay for the services that they receive, just not at such a steep price. There should be more free clinics available to those who may be unable to pay anything but I believe that others should at least pay something. You are still receiving services from a medically trained professional. Insurance should be offered to everyone, and at a reasonable price. Like for Sarah, who's company does not offer her insurance, it would be very expensive for her to pay for private insurance. For example, I know someone that pays $300+ per month with private insurance. This is unreasonably high for many people.
In conclusion, I agree with Sarah that everyone needs to be able to have access to reliable healthcare that is affordable. This can be accomplished by making prices lower or even making insurance available at lower prices. But like she said, everyone should be able to go to the doctor when they feel unwell. Whether you have a lot or none at all, money should not be the deciding factor when it comes to someone's well being.
I believe that national healthcare/insurance needs to be more available and at a more reasonable cost to the population of the United States, not necessarily free. I think that everyone should be accountable to pay for the services that they receive, just not at such a steep price. There should be more free clinics available to those who may be unable to pay anything but I believe that others should at least pay something. You are still receiving services from a medically trained professional. Insurance should be offered to everyone, and at a reasonable price. Like for Sarah, who's company does not offer her insurance, it would be very expensive for her to pay for private insurance. For example, I know someone that pays $300+ per month with private insurance. This is unreasonably high for many people.
In conclusion, I agree with Sarah that everyone needs to be able to have access to reliable healthcare that is affordable. This can be accomplished by making prices lower or even making insurance available at lower prices. But like she said, everyone should be able to go to the doctor when they feel unwell. Whether you have a lot or none at all, money should not be the deciding factor when it comes to someone's well being.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Blog Stage 5
Arizona Immigration Law
In April of 2010, Arizona signed a new immigration law. The Arizona law states that all immigrants must carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires that law enforcement question anyone that they believe to be in the United States illegally. This law does not just target the immigrants themselves, but also the employers who hire them for labor.
There is a lot of controversy around this law. Many believe that it will cause an increase in racial profiling, and that many law enforcement officials will not look beyond race when they suspect and decide to question someone about their immigration status. I agree with this thought. Much of the population, whether they want to admit it or not, will make judgements about people just because of the way they look or what race they are. This law should be more specific in the reasons that a person can be stopped and asked for their immigration status, not just due to a suspicion that a law enforcement agent might have unless it is based on solid evidence/reason.
I believe that the government's focus should be more on preventing further illegal immigration then questioning the population that already resides in the United States. Also, to evaluate and check the individuals legal status if there is strong reason to believe that they may be here illegally. However, I do not agree with the process that the Arizona law has enforced which gives the power to the law enforcement agents to decide who to question about their legal status. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, argue that most police officers do not have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status. So, if Arizona plans to keep/maintain this law then the government needs to properly train their employees so that there will be a lower risk for racial profiling to occur. Many other states are considering writing/implementing a law similar to Arizona's. I think that many more considerations and improvements should be made before finalizing a similar immigration law in other states.
In April of 2010, Arizona signed a new immigration law. The Arizona law states that all immigrants must carry their alien registration documents at all times and requires that law enforcement question anyone that they believe to be in the United States illegally. This law does not just target the immigrants themselves, but also the employers who hire them for labor.
There is a lot of controversy around this law. Many believe that it will cause an increase in racial profiling, and that many law enforcement officials will not look beyond race when they suspect and decide to question someone about their immigration status. I agree with this thought. Much of the population, whether they want to admit it or not, will make judgements about people just because of the way they look or what race they are. This law should be more specific in the reasons that a person can be stopped and asked for their immigration status, not just due to a suspicion that a law enforcement agent might have unless it is based on solid evidence/reason.
I believe that the government's focus should be more on preventing further illegal immigration then questioning the population that already resides in the United States. Also, to evaluate and check the individuals legal status if there is strong reason to believe that they may be here illegally. However, I do not agree with the process that the Arizona law has enforced which gives the power to the law enforcement agents to decide who to question about their legal status. Critics, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, argue that most police officers do not have enough training to look past race while investigating a person's legal status. So, if Arizona plans to keep/maintain this law then the government needs to properly train their employees so that there will be a lower risk for racial profiling to occur. Many other states are considering writing/implementing a law similar to Arizona's. I think that many more considerations and improvements should be made before finalizing a similar immigration law in other states.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Blog Stage 4
In the blog that I read on Thursday October 14th, The Wars on Drugs and Terror: mirror images, Glen Greenwald is discussing his views on how these two wars (on drugs/terror) have many commonalities and how they are both not beneficial to the general public. I think that the author's intended audience is for the population that believes these wars are beneficial and he is trying to open their eyes to what he believes is the truth about the situations.
He believes that both wars are providing people with profit, whether it be private war making industries or the privatized American prison industry. Also, that both of these wars try to depict a type of villain to make the population believe that the war on drugs and terror is for a good reason however that this is just empowering the villains. He believes that these depictions are empowering them because in the situation of the War on Drugs it is ensuring that profits from illegal drug trade remains high and that in the War on Terror it ensures support and followers who may be anti-American. The view of giving up before "winning" a war is also noticed so that the cycle of both wars seems never ending.
I somewhat agree with this author. I think that he makes valid points about both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and how it may not be benefiting the general public but may actually be more harmful because we, the general public, are the ones paying for it. However, I do think that all drugs should not be legalized and that some wars on terror are called for but overall everything should be considered and not dragged out if it is not beneficial to the majority of the population of the United States.
He believes that both wars are providing people with profit, whether it be private war making industries or the privatized American prison industry. Also, that both of these wars try to depict a type of villain to make the population believe that the war on drugs and terror is for a good reason however that this is just empowering the villains. He believes that these depictions are empowering them because in the situation of the War on Drugs it is ensuring that profits from illegal drug trade remains high and that in the War on Terror it ensures support and followers who may be anti-American. The view of giving up before "winning" a war is also noticed so that the cycle of both wars seems never ending.
I somewhat agree with this author. I think that he makes valid points about both the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and how it may not be benefiting the general public but may actually be more harmful because we, the general public, are the ones paying for it. However, I do think that all drugs should not be legalized and that some wars on terror are called for but overall everything should be considered and not dragged out if it is not beneficial to the majority of the population of the United States.
Friday, October 1, 2010
We Are What We Eat
We Are What We Eat
In this editorial, taken from The New York Times, the author is talking about the need for the FDA and Obama administration to become more involved in the regulation of the use of antibiotics that are used by growers when raising animals that are later used for Americans' to consume. I believe that the author's intended audience may be the public just to spread knowledge of the situation that is going on and to get other's involved in improving this situation.
The author's claim is that the FDA should make it mandatory for growers to only be able to use antibiotics under the supervision of a veterinarian and only in the case that illness/emergency is apparant. Also, to gradually phase out the use of antibiotics altogether. The author is making these statements due to the evidence and statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which stated that there is "a clear link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans."
I agree with the author of this article because of so many strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria that are effecting people. I think that if the FDA or the government can help regulate the usage of antibiotics to decrease the chance of bacteria resistance in humans then it should be done. With many cases of antibiotic resistant strains (example: MRSA), it is making it more difficult for some to get over their illness. I believe that most of the population does not realize that these antibiotics are effecting us, but from this article we can see that it does. I believe that antibiotics can be used if an animal becomes ill but not to assist with speeding up growth or as a preventative measure, which this article states is the normal routine for many growers.
I believe that what can be done, should be done by our government especially if it would be more beneficial to the health of the United States. More knowledge should be spread about how the use of these antibiotics are effecting our health, it may not be an immediate effect but it is still effecting our bodies. Antibiotic resistance is never a good thing, we do not want to contribute to this by just eating the foods we normally do. The FDA and government should be more active in regulating the use of antibiotics by growers.
In this editorial, taken from The New York Times, the author is talking about the need for the FDA and Obama administration to become more involved in the regulation of the use of antibiotics that are used by growers when raising animals that are later used for Americans' to consume. I believe that the author's intended audience may be the public just to spread knowledge of the situation that is going on and to get other's involved in improving this situation.
The author's claim is that the FDA should make it mandatory for growers to only be able to use antibiotics under the supervision of a veterinarian and only in the case that illness/emergency is apparant. Also, to gradually phase out the use of antibiotics altogether. The author is making these statements due to the evidence and statement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which stated that there is "a clear link between antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic resistance in humans."
I agree with the author of this article because of so many strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria that are effecting people. I think that if the FDA or the government can help regulate the usage of antibiotics to decrease the chance of bacteria resistance in humans then it should be done. With many cases of antibiotic resistant strains (example: MRSA), it is making it more difficult for some to get over their illness. I believe that most of the population does not realize that these antibiotics are effecting us, but from this article we can see that it does. I believe that antibiotics can be used if an animal becomes ill but not to assist with speeding up growth or as a preventative measure, which this article states is the normal routine for many growers.
I believe that what can be done, should be done by our government especially if it would be more beneficial to the health of the United States. More knowledge should be spread about how the use of these antibiotics are effecting our health, it may not be an immediate effect but it is still effecting our bodies. Antibiotic resistance is never a good thing, we do not want to contribute to this by just eating the foods we normally do. The FDA and government should be more active in regulating the use of antibiotics by growers.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Blog Stage Two
Recession Raises Poverty Rate to a 15-Year High
The article that I have chosen is focused on how the recession has effected our nation's poverty level. It also describes the statistics on poverty and what can effect the calculation of who falls into the poverty category. It is very surprising that our nation is at the highest poverty level that it has been for 15 years, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The article also states that the reason that the levels may not be higher is due to the fact that people are sharing their living space with others when times have gotten hard. Poverty climbed to 14.3% in 2009 and the article states that the highest rise was for children. Many things are assisting those in need like the stimulus bill given last year. However, this article states that the government may be changing how they determine if someone is in the poverty category. For example, food stamps and tax credits are not currently included in the calculation. With these things, which can provide at least hundreds more in extra income, may change whether someone falls above or below the poverty line which can then effect whether some qualify for Medicaid or even free school lunches for their children. It states that the federal government will issue an alternate way of calculating the poverty line next year.
This article is interesting to read to see how much the recession has effected the United States. It may not seem like it when you go, shop and see many people out but the statistics show that it has strongly impacted us. These numbers that have been collected by the Census Bureau prove how many Americans are struggling with their finances today.
The article that I have chosen is focused on how the recession has effected our nation's poverty level. It also describes the statistics on poverty and what can effect the calculation of who falls into the poverty category. It is very surprising that our nation is at the highest poverty level that it has been for 15 years, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
The article also states that the reason that the levels may not be higher is due to the fact that people are sharing their living space with others when times have gotten hard. Poverty climbed to 14.3% in 2009 and the article states that the highest rise was for children. Many things are assisting those in need like the stimulus bill given last year. However, this article states that the government may be changing how they determine if someone is in the poverty category. For example, food stamps and tax credits are not currently included in the calculation. With these things, which can provide at least hundreds more in extra income, may change whether someone falls above or below the poverty line which can then effect whether some qualify for Medicaid or even free school lunches for their children. It states that the federal government will issue an alternate way of calculating the poverty line next year.
This article is interesting to read to see how much the recession has effected the United States. It may not seem like it when you go, shop and see many people out but the statistics show that it has strongly impacted us. These numbers that have been collected by the Census Bureau prove how many Americans are struggling with their finances today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)