PACS: Civil unions for straight couples

A friend of mine, let’s call him Jack, who lives in Paris, France, emailed me that he has decided to tie the knot –so to speak as it turned out- with his girlfriend, Marie, whom he had been living with for five years. Jack moved to Paris after a messy divorce in the US, during which he lost a substantial amount of money to his ex.

Why do I say “so to speak?”

Because the couple did not opt for the traditional marriage but rather for a “civil union” solution, the one we have been reading in the news concerning gay couples. It took 15 minutes in front of a judge and they got their Civil Solidarity Pact (PACS) which gives them a half-way status between living together and getting married.

“Why did you choose such a half-solution? It must be a handful of people opting for this kind of thing” I sort of guessed in an uneducated manner. I understood that the law had been drafted mainly for gays, but since the language was rather ambiguous, it was also adopted by a few straight couples. “Not that few” Jack corrected me. Close to 150,000 couples chose it last year I was informed. It has an air of independence, it has incorporated financial advantages, and it is easier to terminate than a traditional marriage, Jack continued, obviously beaming on the other end.
“It sounds like a substitute for marriage” I pressed.
“But it is” Jack explained. “Don’t you love it?... This is how I declare my independence from society’s rules, expectations. Not to mention the mess of divorce. If either one of us wants to end it, I or Marie, go to the court, declare our wish in writing, and we are done. Neither one has any rights on the other person’s property or money.”

So I decided to do a bit more research on this PACS half-solution. I found that although it was designed for gay couples, 90% of "solidarity pacts" a year are now being made between people of the opposite sex. Indeed, as Jack said, it can be ended with a simple letter from either partner. And indeed it provides near-identical financial and benefits as marriage, like joint tax returns and qualification for deductions. However evaluation of this plan remains difficult as various privacy laws prohibit the collection of statistics on this particular arrangement.

As we observe the collapse of the nuclear family and the rising number of single parents, I wonder whether we are heading towards a PACS alternative in this country too.

Do you think the circumstances are ripe for such a shift in the US? Would you personally support it or oppose it?

Abortion increase in young girls

The number of abortions among girls aged under 16 rose by 10% to 4,376 in 2007, official figures for England and Wales show.

In the under 14s, abortions rose by 21% from 135 in 2006 to 163 last year.
The number of abortions in all women rose by 2.5% to reach an all time high of almost 200,000.
Government advisers called for high quality sex education at school and investment in contraception services for young people.

Scotland has also seen a rise in the number of abortions with figures published in May showing there were 13,703 carried out in 2007 compared with 13,163 in 2006.
The number of abortions carried out has been rising ever since the 1967 Abortion Act - with just over 22,000 terminations in the first year.
In the past decade, the number of abortions in the under 16s has risen by 27%.
But at the same time the teenage pregnancy rate has fallen.

If you want to read the whole article click here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7462934.stm

DO YOU SUPPORT OR OPPOSE ABORTION?

TIME FOR FEEDBACK AND EXTRA CREDIT!!!!

Please read the text on the right about the definition on students success. Give it some thought and vote on all three polls. Email the link to your friends at HCC and ask them to vote as well. Write on the possible answers you have chosen. What does "student success" mean to you and why? Put some extra effort into this and you will get extra credit for this post!

License to parent

While last week the US press was busy reporting on the Octuplet mother, the British press was buzzing with the story of a 13 year-old boy who became a father. Alfie Patten, was 12 when the baby was conceived (his girlfriend, Chantelle Steadman, was 15) and was quoted as saying “it would be good to have a baby…I didn't think about how we would afford it. ... I didn't know what it would be like to be a dad. I will be good, though, and care for it." Chantelle, told the newspapers that they wanted to "prove to everyone" that they could give Maisie a "great future" and also expressed her commitment to stay in school.

Former Conservative party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who runs the Centre for Social Justice think tank, described the birth as another case of "broken Britain" where "Anything goes…It's not being accusative; it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong… There is no opprobrium any more about behavior, and quite often, children witness behavior that's aggressive, violent, rude and sexual. It's as if no one is saying this is wrong." The Times reported that during the last ten years more than 40 other boys younger than 14 had fathered children. At the same time Tony Kerridge, a health specialist of Marie Stopes International, spoke of the need for better education and added that "We have got the social aspect of young girls in the UK seeing having a baby as a route to getting their own place."

And thus, some commentators started discussing the licensing thesis, advanced by Hugh LaFollette, a philosophy professor at East Tennessee State University, who called for the adoption of a parenting license through administering competence tests. You can't become a parent unless you pass certain competence tests. If you do become a parent without asking for a license, you will have to take these tests after the birth of the child, and if you fail, the child will be taken from you until you improve. LaFollette believes that although such testing may not be accurate and may prove unjust to some prospective parents, the benefits should outweigh the costs. Naturally, many people objected: “People have a right to having children, as they have the right to free speech and religion.” LaFollette answered that freedom of speech does not make slander acceptable nor does freedom of religion make human sacrifice legal.

Peg Tittle, professor of applied ethics put it as follows: “"We already license pilots, salesmen, scuba divers, plumbers, electricians, teachers, veterinarians, cab drivers, soil testers and television repairmen. ... Are our TV sets and toilets more important to us than our children?.. Then again, wait a minute -- we have set a bar for parents: adoptive/foster parents. Those would-be parents have to prove their competence. Why do we cling to the irrational belief that biological parents are automatically competent -- in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary? We have, without justification, a double standard.”

Pierre Lemieux attacked the concept. He wrote: “It is not clear if, in LaFollette's scheme, a license would be required before conceiving a child, or only for keeping and rearing the baby. LaFollette claims that enforcement problems are not insurmountable. ‘We might not punish parents at all,’ he adds, ‘we might just remove the children and put them up for adoption.’ Of course, laws are ultimately enforced by armed men, and scenes similar to agents with fully automatic weapons seizing Elian Gonzalez would be repeated. Usually, though, parents would let a social worker ‘peacefully’ take their children away because they know that they have no chance against the SWAT team. So, with a few exceptions, the tyranny would be soft and quiet -- tyranny with an invisible hand.”

What do you think? Do we need a license for parenthood or is it a form of tyranny?

With the rising cost of health care, should age play a factor?

By JoNel Aleccia
Health writer
msnbc.com




At 102, Thelma Vette likes to whiz around her Littleton, Colo., retirement center in an electric wheelchair, bright red and outfitted with a joystick.

She certainly can walk if she wants to, and often does, thanks to the total knee replacement surgery she had two years ago, when she was merely 100...

Read the rest at here



The article poses this question:"In a country where health care costs are fast outpacing the ability to pay, and where it’s feared that the federal Medicare program could fail within a decade, should doctors perform surgery on the elderly just because they can? Or are limited resources better reserved for younger people who will benefit longer?"

What do you think?

The doctrine of alimony in today's society

Alimony (not to be confused with child support) is an established doctrine in divorce cases, designed to maintain the standard of living of a dependent spouse at levels maintained during the marriage. The ideological basis has been that marriage is a social and economic contract between two people whose obligations do not end with a divorce. The same ideological basis has been applied to couples who simply have lived together. The most famous case, that of the late Lee Marvin led to the adoption of the term “palimony.” When the famous Hollywood actor split with his live-in partner Michelle after 6 years of co-habitation, the court awarded her $104,000 for "rehabilitation purposes" but denied her community property claim for one-half of the $3.6 million which Marvin had earned during that period. Later, the decision was reversed, but in the meantime it had created new grounds for questioning the concept of “alimony” or “palimony” according to which the primary wage-earner should be obliged to maintain the standard of living of the other partner.

In the past, the law benefited mostly women as they were the dependent spouse but as women have been involved in the work force far more intensely than in the past and since often they are the prime wage–earners, the alimony doctrine has hit them as hard as it has hit men. Now that it has, we have started hearing all sorts of complains about the unfairness of the doctrine. In the Forbes article Women Increasingly Paying Alimony we read the story of Kim Shamsky, a 47-year-old business owner who pays her ex, a 65-year-old retired Major League Baseball player, thousands per month in temporary spousal support (they don’t have any kids). It looks like that she built her business on her own without his assistance. She is so frustrated that she has started printing T-shirts with the word “PRENUP” in the front.

The percentage of alimony recipients who are male has risen to 3.6% from 2001-2006 from 2.4%, in the previous five-year period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. That percentage is likely to rise even more given that more and more primary wage-earners are female. In 2005 wives out earned their husbands in 33% of all families, up from 28.2% the decade before.

The alimony doctrine has come under attack, most often when women have to foot the bill. Controversy has also arisen over the way alimony is implemented. We have rehabilitative alimony which lasts until the receiving spouse is either financially independent or enters into a cohabiting relationship with another person. But we also have lifetime alimony that has led many spouses complain that their ex is simply freeloading on money they have not earned.

Recently the story of Dr. Richard Batista has attracted media attention. While married, he donated a kidney to his wife. Now that they are getting divorced, he demands $1.5 million in compensation for the kidney. Or as he said in a Larry King interview, he wants the court to co-assess the donated organ when the judge decides on alimony payments. One suspects that he has resorted to that demand to lower the potential alimony payment to his ex (given that he is a successful surgeon).


So the question is: Would you demand alimony from your ex if he/she were the prime wage earner? (Do not confuse it with child support, the two doctrines are totally different).

Are Kidneys a Commodity?

By Jerry Adler, Newsweek, May 26, 2008

Lloyd Cohen thinks people should have the right to buy or sell organs, an idea reviled by docs.

As of last Wednesday at 5:44 p.m., according to the minute-by-minute count on the Web site of the United Network for Organ Sharing, there were 75,629 people awaiting kidney transplants in the United States. Here's roughly what we can expect to happen over the next 12 months, based on the experience of recent years. About 10,000 of them will receive transplants from deceased strangers, awarded by UNOS roughly in order of waiting time. An additional 6,000 or so on the waiting list will get a transplant from a living donor, almost invariably a close friend or relative. About 5,000 will either die or become too sick to qualify for a transplant. Most of the rest will still be waiting a year from now. They might want to consider talking to Lloyd Cohen....

Please read the rest of the article here

Do you agree with Dr. Cohen or not and why?

Feminism: Women's Rights or Wrong for Women?

Feminism is defined as a doctrine advocating social, political, economic, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. An organized movement centralized around the belief in equality of the sexes. Hence feminists are individuals who advocate for equal rights for women. Although feminism has a text book definition, it seems to have taken on 2 distinct meanings by society as a whole.

On one hand feminism is seen as an evolution of women’s rights. Feminism has been noted as an emergence of women as leaders, contributors, and strong persons of value in our society. People, who understand that women can handle the same tasks, responsibilities, and achievements as men can, and are taking steps to ensure that women have the opportunities they deserve. A group that has been oppressed marginalized, and subordinate, that promotes for rights equal to standards of rights for men. Often times feminism is understood as a celebration of equal rights for both genders (or sexes), as both men and women can support equal rights and be against sexism.
On the other hand, feminism is seen as a digres

sion for women and spawn of hatred toward men. To many, feminism is a means for women to congregate with other women in efforts to overthrow men. A movement that fights for women to be at the leading helm of society due to being wiser, more civil, and rational than men. People that are causing ideals and principles like femininity, chivalry, and courtesy to be lost or forgotten by enforcing equitable treatment of both men and women. In addition, many also consider feminism as a rebellion against God’s authority; being that men should rule over their wives and feminism seeks for women to be in control.
As illustrated in this topic, feminism has taken on distinctly opposing views in the eyes of society. Feminism is also a concept that is growing rapidly, whether good or bad, in the way that it affects more and more of everyday citizens. The label of ‘feminist’ has drawn on various connotations that affect students at a school, colleagues in a workplace, or even members on a sports team. The opposing views many times spill over to demonstrated acts of discrimination, from either perspective, in attempt for pro-feminism or anti-feminism ideology to prevail. There are more and more increased altercations on the concept of feminism as more and more women start make their marks in various facets of life previously dominated by men. Although we currently see women succeeding and achieving in areas of sports, politics, and economic success, we still seem to face a discrepancy on what feminism is, and if it actually benefits women or in turn does more to harm women.
--Taurean Wong

Is feminism as practiced today good or bad for both sexes? And children as well, not just women? What do you think?

Evolution of Digital Play

At the Electronic Entertainment Expo in 2008, one of the biggest gaming press events of the year, Nintendo was the laughing stock of the show. Many gamers pointed and laughed at the gaming giant while others sulked at the announcements. So, what was the big announcement that made Nintendo look like a stumbling fool? It was the announcement of Wii Music and Wii Sports Resorts (a sequel to the game that took everyone by storm). To anyone outside the gaming loop they might look at these gamers in a weird way (a.k.a. “what are you, stupid?”)

So maybe I started off with a tangent, but the point of this is the creation of what Malstrom calls, in his article "Why Wii Music is Genius", digital play . It probably existed before, yet I don’t think it dawned on me until I saw Wii Music. Most “music” game we play are not about playing music, but rather keeping rhythm to a song. The idea of Wii Music is to play music with the Wii remote without the ability to mess up. In that sense, you can enjoy playing and creating music without taking a lot of time (and, potentially, money) to play a song. See, this is what the “gamers” gawked at. “Oh, there is no way to mess up. It’s a baby game.” “Who would want to play a game that is that easy.” Of course, if I told a normal person on the street that there was a way to play music without learning an instrument they would probable thing I’m crazy. That is the point. To enjoy playing music, without a sense of easy or hard.

The idea here is Digital Play. This is what the Wii is about. It’s not really a videogame as we normally see them, but instead a tool to do things we can’t normally do. It may be hard to stay fit in this day and age, or even go to the gym every day. So what does Nintendo make? Wii fit, a game about trying to stay fit. We might not always be able to go out and play a sport (especially boxing). What does Nintendo make? Wii Sports, a game where you use the Wii remote to play games. Does it make sense? Nintendo is moving games from being for basement dwellers to something anyone can enjoy.

It wasn’t until 2006 when you could say your grandmother plays video games without people wanting to put you in an institution. Now, it’s is not necessarily escapism that games are focused with; it is an extension of what we can do. This is digital play. It’s putting real life into a virtual form. We don’t need a masters to enjoy sometime, something videogames have had a problem breaking out of. No need to buy an instrument when Wii Music has sixty. They become an extension of what we can do. It gives you a opportunity one could not have without this kind of technology. It becomes mainstream, and can do things that would be outside the sphere of our normal lives.

Let me paint a picture for you.
http://www.irwebcasting.com/081002/52/5232b47438/lijasf39ho8w_hi.html
I don’t think you all will sit though a 30 minutes video (and you’ll probably get sick of "My Grandfather Clock"). At about 25:33, Miyamoto (the game’s creator) says something disturbing (to me at least). He says, “What if I had this game as a child. How much would my interest in music have changed if I had such an experience with music during music class in my kindergarten or elementary school days.” This hits the nail on the head. Can “digital play” model people? Can our lives be altered to access to this kind of resources? In the same vein, can we solve the weight problem in this country if we introduce children to fitness (via a game like Wii Fit)? Could video games be like the internet and give use access to a whole plethora of resources?


CAN DIGITAL PLAY SHAPE OUR LIVES? CAN IT GIVE US THINGS NOT THOUGHT POSSIBLE? CAN OTHER CONSUMER ELECTRONICS DO THIS?

The Obligation of Unwanted Fatherhood

The following is an excerpt from an article from the Boston news on-line at http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/23/the_obligation_of_unwanted_fatherhood/





A 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, Dubay wants to know why it is only women who have "reproductive rights." He is upset about having to pay child support for a baby he never wanted. Not only did his former girlfriend know he didn't want children, says Dubay, she had told him she was infertile. When she got pregnant nonetheless, he asked her to get an abortion or place the baby for adoption. She decided instead to keep her child and secured a court order requiring him to pay $500 a month in support.


Not fair, Dubay complains. His ex-girlfriend chose to become a mother. It was her choice not to have an abortion, her choice to carry the baby to term, her choice not to have the child adopted. She even had the option, under the "baby safe haven" laws most states have enacted, to simply leave her newborn at a hospital or police station. Roe v. Wade gives her and all women the right - the constitutional right! - to avoid parenthood and its responsibilities. Dubay argues that he should have the same right, and has filed a federal lawsuit that his supporters are calling "Roe v. Wade for men." Drafted by the National Center for Men, it contends that as a matter of equal rights, men who don't want a child should be permitted, early in pregnancy, to get "a financial abortion" releasing them from any future responsibility to the baby.


Does Dubay have a point? Of course. Contemporary American society does send very mixed messages about sex and the sexes. For women, the decision to have sex is the first of a series of choices, including the choice to abort a pregnancy - or, if she prefers, to give birth and collect child support from the father. For men, legal choices end with the decision to have sex. If conception takes place, he can be forced to accept the abortion of a baby he wants - or to spend at least the next 18 years turning over a chunk of his income to support a child he didn't want.


Do you feel that a man should be responsible for parenthood of a child no matter what? Even if he was told by the woman she was sterile?

California Law: Allow men into shelters

An article I recently found brought up something that has bothered me for a long time, but has finally started to make some ground work to equality when a Californian judge ruled that California's exclusion of men from domestic violence violates men's constitutional equal protection rights. In 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly dismissed the case of four male victims of domestic violence, ruling that men are not entitled to equal protection regarding domestic violence because they statistically are not similarly situated with women. Today the Court of Appeal reversed that decision.

The story was brought more to light with the tale of young Maegan and her father David. David was disabled, and could not make money, and Maegan was 11 years old. Many times they had called shelters and programs for help, and were told that they do not help men. This might be part of the rule that boys 12 and older are not allowed in shelters with their mothers, while the daughters of any age are. If a mother goes to a shelter, her choice is to send the boy to an orphanage, or to go home to the abuse. We have a crisis in our country, and this is case is a fine step in paving the road to repairing it.

In the case of Maegan and her father, the case proved even more of what the actual problem is, as stated by the article, “During the 1995 shotgun incident, Ruth called the police after David wrestled the shotgun away from her. Maegan yelled to her mom, "Tell the truth!" and Ruth told the police she wanted them to come because she wanted to kill her husband. Nevertheless, when the police arrived and David opened the door to let them in, the officers immediately grabbed him by the wrist, wrestled him to the ground, and handcuffed him. They only un-cuffed him after Maegan told them that it was her mother who had the gun.” If the police decided to not listen to the daughter, his wife would, at that point, now have been free to go to one of the shelters because he now had a record of abuse; however, that wasn’t the case, and even after the police arrested her David still was not able to use any of the services. He often was told, “"we don't help men.” Even when his daughter called, desperate to get help, WEAVE said they do not help men, and that men are the perpetrators of domestic violence, not the victims.

This is just one example, while almost nobody would ever say that shelters do not do good work for women, they seem to cut the line at the other half of taxpayers who might need to use their services. This lawsuit, and case, may just be the inroads that our country needs to take a big bite out of the domestic abuse problem. Next would be the rest of the states allowing men to use their facilities, and this would even allow boys not to be sent to a foster home and being split up, again, after his mother and sisters run from an abusive situation. Imagine what this would do to the poor child, and family altogether. He just was taken from abuse, needs his family more than ever, and is told because he is a boy he has to go somewhere else because he is too dangerous to his mother and sisters. The very system that is setup to protect people is hurting them and destroying young boys. Now, with this, we have precedent that might allow some inroads in such laws as V.A.W.A. to maybe realize that men can be hurt as well, and sometimes need protection. It is truly a great step to real equality.

To read more on this article, go here.
Also: The actual court documents

I tried to find a spiffy picture, but alas none that would be appropriate.

Question: What do you think about the current state of our nations domestic violence support shelters, and ways to improve it?

Where there's smoke there's fire.

Pasco County looks at changing hiring
polices that would effectively ban hiring people
who smoke in attempts to create a smoke free
work force.

The Suncoast Pasco News ran an article stating the following: Dade City, among others is looking into the idea of banning the hiring of those who smoke cigarettes and creating a program for those who are currently on their payroll to kick the habit.

This has been presented as an attempt to lower their health insurance cost which it certainly will accomplish. It will also clean up the county vehicles; anyone who does not smoke and who has gotten into a vehicle of a smoker knows what I am talking about. But there are other benefits as well including less missed time due to health reasons. The article went on to say smokers use medical insurance benefits 50% more often than non-smokers.

Two sheriff offices in Pasco and Pinellas counties have already implemented such bans and seem to have been successful. Many other places of employment are looking at ways to reduce their health insurance cost as well. Given the state of the economy, more and more companies and governmental employers are looking at ways to reduce costs and one can not blame them.

There may be, however, an underlying problem with this type of policy. The EEOC states that an employer can not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, gender, religious belief, sexual orientation, creed, disability, age, appearance, etc. etc. but cigarette smoking is not listed. However, neither is the consumption of alcohol. Though many companies can and do drug test their employees or potential employees and utilize the information gained as criteria for employment, cigarettes and alcohol are not included. They are only testing for drugs and we must remember that drugs are illegal. Although testing of cigarette usage is very new, it seems to be on the rise and one of the latest attempt to save a dollar, yet it remains a legal substance.

If the goal is saving money, why stop at cigarette smokers. Why not include those who consume alcohol. I think everyone can agree that those who drink are more apt to miss work from a hangover than those who don’t. They are more likely to develop liver problems. Not to mention, if they happen to be driving a company vehicle and have a drink. You would not run that risk with someone who never drinks alcohol. And then there those that are overweight. Recent information has suggested that people who are morbidly obese are actually at a higher risk of health problems than those who smoke. Should employers have the right to demand that people lose weight? Remember this is about saving money, but at what cost.




Currently it is legal to drink and smoke cigarettes and there are those who over indulge when it comes to food. However, it would seem that in the name of saving a few dollars, people may have to change their lives in order to retain employment. While this seems like a win-win, I am not so sure it is.

Some time ago, perhaps twenty to thirty years, the anit-smoking movement began and now we all can safely belittle and look down at smokers. I think that’s fine but what happens when it becomes one of your vices. What if an anti-alcohol movement comes along. You may be forced into a position of having to gives up one of your vices so that you may retain your job or be eligible for employment. It may seem that your particular vice is safe but think again. Less than thirty years ago, cigarette smoking was the in thing.
Today one is ostracized for such behavior. Will alcohol be next?

Should employers be allowed to utilize smoking as criteria for employment? Furthermore, would you be okay with employers or potential employers utilizing alcohol as a criteria for employment and using the same argument? How far into our personal lives should employers be allowed to delve?

Thoughts on the status of the black male

The following posting was based on the article "The black man... an endangered species" by Tiffany Chiles, published in DONDIVA, 2008.

There are so many areas that we, the black men are referred to as “unknown.” Society has been discounting the black man for hundreds of years and he has literally become unknown. We’ve lost a generation of black males to the streets, gangs, drugs, unemployment, violence, crime and broken homes. The question that we need to ask ourselves is will we allow the next generation to be lost or taken from us as well.

A quarter of black Americans live below the federal poverty level, a rate about twice the national rate. More than a third of all black children live in poverty, and almost two thirds grow up in homes without both parents. In some cities, more than half of all black boys do not finish high school, and by the time they are in their 30’s almost 6 in10 black high school drop outs will have spent time in prison. Half of all black men in their 20’s are jobless. The typical black household earns only about 60% of the earning of white households and has a net worth only about 10% of that of whites. The HIV/AIDS rate is highest for black Americans and blacks are more often the victims of inadequate healthcare. In 2008 the government has been enforcing drug laws that put young poor black men and women at a higher risk of incarceration. Two generations ago, you could go through a phase, get in trouble with the law, get involved with drugs for a minute, hustle a little dope until something happened to scare you straight. Today, you no longer have the opportunity to learn from your mistakes or be scared straight. Due to harsh Federal and State drug laws you mess up the first time and it could men a lengthy prison sentence. And that one prison sentence could affect the rest of your life and the rest of your family. You are the unknown. You can’t vote, you can’t get a job, you can’t get a grant or financial aid for school, you can’t live in public housing (not even with your momma), and you can’t get health care. You can’t support yourself or your family. The only thing you can do is exactly what the system knows you will do, commit more crimes to survive. This is why the recidivism rate amongst blacks is so high. For first time offenders, the rate of re-incarceration can be as high as 15%, for individuals with prior criminal history it can be almost 40%. These individuals don’t want to commit any crimes and be at risk of going back to jail but they feel they have no choice, it’s do what you do best or starve. The choice thereafter becomes instinctive. They are trying to survive in a society that wants to keep them unknown.

While we do believe that people in prison are a danger in society, there is something gravely wrong when there is a 2.2 million people in jail and almost 1 million of them are black, when the fact is that black people make up only 13 percent of societies makeup on a whole. If you as a parent have been incarcerated, your children are 6 times more likely to go to jail because you did. Most minorities know someone who knows someone that is in jail, that’s been to jail, or that’s been to jail themselves. Conversations about inmates in prison seem normal to us. Prison in the black community has lost its negative stigma. In 2007 the Bureau of Justice reported that the leading cause of death among black males ages 16 to 34 was black on black homicide. Today’s youth are disrespectful and wreckless as many participate in criminal activities for some feeling of acceptance and family. It is probable that their fathers aren’t in the home because he has either purposely disappeared, been violently killed or incarcerated. In 2008 it’s a sad truth but one in three is likely.

The black man is disappearing from existence in record numbers. They are being lost to poverty, HIV, violence, death, and incarceration. We cannot continue to treat these problems like many of us do our personal problems- we ignore them. We have already lost our fathers, brothers and men, we don’t want our children to be lost as well.

How do you perceive the black man of today? What can be done to bridge the gap between the races?

Cutting funds from FARC budget

(Note: Child in this article is a term meaning to range from kids to adults)

In 2007 state legislators voted to slice millions of dollars from FARC’s (Florida Association for Retarded Citizens) budget. The money that was given to FARC was distributed to families that had children with disabilities. The legislators devised a plan to divide the 31,000 people that are registered in FARC’s homes and community care programs into 4 groups (or tiers) and cap the amount of money that is given to them. The group that they are placed into is depending on the level of need they have and their previous payment records. As it stands right now the tiers are as follow. Tier 1: with no benefit limit has 3,261 people; tier 2: with a cap of $55,000 limit has 4,643 people; tier 3: with a cap of $35,000 has 7,053 people; and finally tier 4: with a cap of $35,000 has 14,460 people.

Before legislators decided to place them into groups, payments to families were based on what each mentally disabled child needed, as determined by medical assessments; there was no cap on the amount that was given to the families, it was all dependent on the child’s needs. Under the new system, only those with serious disabilities will continue to receive unlimited benefits. The others will be limited to between $15,000 and $55,000 per year. It depends on which group the child is put in.

One example of this is that according to the Tampa Tribune’s article on October 2, 2008, a family was receiving $60,000 a year to pay for services, medical, and other necessities that their daughter needed. However due to the new system, the amount of financial help that they were receiving is being cut in half.

Many parents can no longer support their child with disabilities. The article states that if a parent feels that they can no longer take care of their child then they can ask the state to put them in a group home. But when the state does that the taxpayers ultimately pay more. At home they were learning to live on their own through a program called “One step closer to Independence.” Through this program they were learning to do things on their own. Examples would be cooking, cleaning, and other necessities. One of the other programs that they can do is a day program through PARC (Pinellas association for retarded people) which shows people with mental disabilities how to work. They do jobs like putting together small boxes for medical companies. As a result of this program less money is needed to take care of them in the long run because they learn how to work and thrive on their own. This program is a tremendous success, however when they are placed in these group homes, the program is terminated for them and they become reliant on the people around them.

What are your thought on cutting funds from the Florida Association for Retarded Citizens budget?

Reparations

Reparations, or compensation in different forms, mainly monetarily, are often used in our society to appease a certain entity. Whether it be one nation to another such as Germany to the Allies after World War I, forcing them to pay a total of 132 billion marks in war reparations or The Reparations Agreement between Israel and West Germany, forcing Germany to pay out a total of three billion marks to Israel over 14 years. Or even one nation to an individual or group of people such as Germany and German corporations being made responsible for paying out reparations to Jewish individuals in other countries via certain programs, which some sources say will have reached roughly 50 billion dollars by the year 2020. In 1988 the U.S. government approved the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 which provided reparations to Japanese-Americans held in interment camps during World War II of which totaled $1.6 billion, roughly 20,000 per person. Reparations date as far back as Rome, and remain a popular trend of compensation for many. 

In Christopher Phillips Six Questions of Socrates he delves into the subject of reparations on a more present event. The September 11^th attacks and the way the donation funds were divvied up to the families of the survivors. One of the participants in his dialogue goes on to say 

       “It said that they’re calculating who gets how much based on how much their future earnings would have been. That means the family of a man or woman who died, and who’d been making lots of money, is going to get a lot more from the funds than families of poor people who were victims.” 

Phillips further points out that The New Yorker reported “High end families-those who stand to get the most from the fund-were particularly ‘infuriated’ by the formula, because it limits how much they could get from the fund.” At what point did these families have the right to complain about the donations they were receiving? Did they have the right at all?

            Descendents of slaves have also been asking for reparations for some time to compensate for the free and forced labor during those times, in which many argue has helped make America what it is today. A powerful argument indeed, and a just one at that. Should this generation be forced to pay for another’s mistakes? Especially seeing how far society has come since those times?

            Does war reparations imposed on countries hurt them in the long run? Take Iraq for example, after 1991 a total of $53 billion in war reparations was to be paid out to various countries and individuals. The website, VCNC.org brings up an interesting point, “The war reparations being paid are for damage inflicted by Suddam Hussein’s regime, which no longer exists.” Which will ultimately “prevent the Iraqi people from rebuilding their country,” and ultimately increasing (as we have witnessed) the presence of coalition forces and entities in helping to rebuild Iraq. At what point should a simple forgiveness be issued in order to give a nation the chance to right its wrongs and rebuild?

How do you feel about reparations? Should Germany or other countries/organizations continue to pay out these reparations? Should people be given money or other forms of reparation?

 

 

 

Legalization of Marijuana

Next month the state of Michigan is going to vote on a proposal to allow doctors to recommend marijuana for patients with cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS and other conditions. Such patients would register with the state and then will be able to legally buy, grow and use small amounts of marijuana to relieve pain, nausea, appetite loss and other symptoms. Although polls show a 67% approval rate for the proposal, the measure is opposed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and Attorney General Mike Cox, a Republican.

Michigan is not the first state to opt for legalization. In 1996 California and Arizona approved using marijuana for medical purposes as well while the court system had to deal with the reactions to the measure. Californian law allowed doctors to prescribe marijuana for almost any pain or ailment while it also legalized its cultivation, not just the possession. However, after the measure passed, America's “drug czar” of the time, retired four-star general Barry McCaffrey, warned physicians not to violate federal law by prescribing marijuana. His warning was rejected by a group of California physicians who filed suit claiming that their rights to advise their patients were being violated. In the case of Arizona, voters even approved of the medical use of heroin and LSD. The unprecedented referendum results fuelled a debate over who should be controlling our drug laws. The federal government or the state voters?

The legalization of marijuana raises other broad questions for both supporters and opponents. Will legalization for medical use undermine the seemingly endless federal war on drugs by cultivating greater tolerance of marijuana and other drugs? Could it be the back door to an all-out legalization of marijuana and probably other drugs as well? Finally, some doctors wonder “Is it really good medicine?”

The issue became a complicated one in various states that had adopted the measure. In Massachusetts, the Department of Public Health issued new rules allowing people with doctor-certified conditions to avoid state prosecution. Similar steps were taken in other states that had legalized marijuana use, such as Louisiana, Virginia and Ohio. At the same time a new debate sprang across the country, focusing on our policy regarding drug use with many supporting legalization for any use, many opposing it, and others wondering as to the criteria that dictated legalization of alcohol and nicotine on one hand, and criminalization of marijuana and other narcotics on the other. If you click on this NYT article you will see the addictiveness ratings of nicotine, heroin,cocaine, alcohol, caffeine and marijuana.

Who do you think should control the drug laws? The federal government or the state voters?
How do you feel towards legalizing cannabis for medical or recreational use?

Amendment 8

A year ago, budget shortfalls hit higher education particularly hard, and the public universities had to fight with the Legislature over the power to raise tuition and freeze freshman enrollment. Community colleges were also affected as Gov. Charlie Crist, proposed to reduce their state funding by at least 4%, or about $43.5 million, at a time when enrollments increased 7.2% across 28 campuses last fall. The cuts — a direct result of the housing downturn—also collided with counter-cyclical enrollment cycles of community colleges. During good times, people work and enrollment is down. During bad times, enrollment rates increase. And this is when the state comes in and says “sorry… but …”

Community Colleges expect the problem to get worse after the Board of Governors’ vote to freeze freshman enrollment at four-year universities at last fall’s level. With the number of new high school graduates increasing, community colleges are the only solution to many students as the university system had a total enrollment of 282,134 in 2005.

And this is how Amendment 8 was introduced. On Nov. 4, when –hopefully- all of you exercise your right to vote, you will see Amendment 8, placed on the ballot by the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission. Its title is “Local Option Community College Funding.” Amendment 8 will allow counties to raise their sales tax in order to increase community college funding. Allan Bense, chairman of that committee, has explained the amendment. "“What Amendment 8 does, it basically provides another way for community colleges to raise money. If this amendment passes, then every community college will have the option of having a local referendum to increase the sales tax by up to a half cent. Now, if a community college is located in more than one county, all of those counties would have to participate and it would have to pass in all three counties.”

If the voters approve of the local option sales tax, it would have to be reauthorized every five years. Bense said that among his 24 colleagues on the Taxation and Budget Reform Commission, support for putting Amendment 8 on the ballot was very strong.

“I think it was unanimous. Frankly, I think it was about the only unanimous vote that we had. The members of the commission were of many conservatives, many liberals, from South Florida, from North Florida, but clearly I think all 25 agreed that the needs that our community college system has and the great job it does in educating students is important and we felt this would help that mission.”

However, not everyone is happy with it. It has been criticized as “regressive.” A regressive tax rate decreases as the amount subject to taxation increases, and therefore it imposes a greater burden on lower-income families. Also, if passed in certain counties and not in others, certain colleges would get extra funding, and others would not. The Board of Trustees of Manatee Community College has voted to oppose it while St Petersburg College supports it.

What are your thoughts on Amendment 8? Do you believe we need it or not?

Abstinence vs. Contraceptives

Abstinence vs. Contraceptives
Is pregnancy a gift from God?
Teen promiscuity is a serious issue and it is a known fact that most religious groups have always deemed it as an act that lacked moral direction. They have asserted that the children who become pregnant out of wedlock have had no moral compass from their parents to prevent such behavior. The issue proposed is that the notion of abstinence is somehow the best way for parents and their children to deal with sexual urges. They not only forego the use of contraceptives but some actively campaign against it. When Jamie Spears, the notable 16-year old became pregnant, some were probably thinking because of the Hollywood lifestyle and being raised by a single mom fit into this low or no moral pattern of behavior for her pregnancy. But not only is there no whispering campaign amongst the religious groups about no moral compass with Bristol Palin but they are coming to her defense in droves and are in praise of the family values they can defend in such a case that she has chosen to keep the baby.
If the best moral compass established by parents has less influence on the active hormones of the young teens than does the oft uncontrollable emotion of "love" and the innate sexual drive that their Creator built into every living species, then the real question is what we can do to prepare our children of the future.
In the United States, teen pregnancy is a growing concern. In 2001 UNICEF reported that the United States teenage birthrate was higher than any other country involved. The U.S. tied Hungary for the most abortions. This was in spite of the fact that girls in the U.S. were not the most sexually active. Denmark held that title. But, its teenage birthrate was one-sixth of ours, and its teenage abortion rate was half of ours.
Abstinence-only education seems to be winding down with a study finding that it didn’t work. States are opting out of it. Parents don’t like it either. According to one, 65 percent of parents of high school students said that federal money “should be used to fund more comprehensive sex education programs that include information on how to obtain and use condoms and other contraceptives.”
Which do you support abstinence or contraceptives?
Who should be responsible to enforce this choice?
Labels: Abstinence vs. Contraceptives

Childhood Cancer

There are many children in this world who are faced with fighting cancer. I am one of those children. My name is Amanda Hingson and at the age of seventeen I was diagnosed with osteosarcoma. This is a type of bone cancer common is teenage boys in their joints. I had a golf ball size tumor growing from my spine to my ribs. It is highly uncommon for this type of cancer to be in the spine; my doctors were extremely shocked to find this out. Cancer has taken a lot of lives in this world but it knew it would not take mine. There are many ways to treat cancers; I was treated by having two back surgeries and chemotherapy treatments.

My first back surgery was in January of 2005. The doctor removed all the visible parts of the tumor and that back side of four of my ribs. The surgery took about two hours. I recovered well with the help of my loving family and friends. The surgery left a large L shape scar down my back. I was released from the hospital about a week and a half after surgery. At the time I did not know this surgery would be the easiest part of my treatment.

Two weeks later I was told I had cancer. My life changed completely. I met with my oncology doctors at All Children’s Cancer center. It is an amazing hospital. The Doctors told me they had made up a protocol of my chemo treatments and I would be starting next week. By this time I was extremely scared. I went through my treatments like a champ. I was the oldest child in my wing. Every other cancer patient was no older than fifteen and most were under ten. Seeing this broke my heart; however, it changed my look on life. I received different treatments for about two months. I did lose my hair and continually was sick but nothing compared for what was to come.

After those two months of chemo I went to Moffit to have my second back surgery. During this surgery I had the T-8, T-9, and T-10 of my spine removed. I now have a medal rod and six screws in my back. The surgeries did not scare me. I knew I was strong and was not going to let a disease take anything away from me. Three days after my surgery I was up and walking around. About a week and a half after my surgery I was sent home. I was out of chemo treatments for about a month and a half. In that month I did as much as I could with my friends.

Last I went back into chemotherapy treatments. I had received treatments for six months. The treatments got worse as I proceeded with them. I continued to lose weight, not eat, and just stay in my bed. The nurses were always caring and understanding though. At the end of October of 2005 I received a three day treatment. This means I have drugs pumped into me for three days straight. After the treatment I was feeling okay. I was sent home for two days then brought back to the hospital because my blood count was zero, my kidneys were shutting down, and I had a soar throat tat kept me from talking. I was put in an isolation room. I was in the hospital from November first until November twenty-eighth. That whole time I did not eat anything. The doctors had me on a nutrients IV but I just vomited it back up. I did not get out of bed but to use the bathroom. Yes I did spend my worst Thanksgiving in the hospital. I dropped down to ninety pounds. When my blood count finally went back up I was sent home on homecare upon my request. After that treatment I was supposed to get the exact same treatment two weeks later. There were 5 more treatments in my protocol but I decided that I would rather let cancer kill me than chemo. My mother left the choice in my hands to quit chemo or not. At this time all the cancer was removed from my body and the treatments were a precaution to make sure the cancer would not come back. After two weeks of home care I told my doctors I would not be returning to finish out my treatment.

I am now twenty years only and going to college. I am following my heart now. When I chose to stop treatments I have no regrets. I did have a reoccurrence in my lung but it posed no threat. It was easily removed. I am going to school to become a child life therapist. Once I graduate I will work at a hospital with cancer patients helping them cope with their illness. I now volunteer at the hospital that treated me. There is nothing in this world that makes me happier than seeing the smiling faces of the young kids fighting cancer.

What are your thoughts on health issues? How can we promote better health for all Americans?

Lawmaker Hopes to End Ban on Gay Adooption in Florida

A Florida state senator has introduced a bill that would reverse a 30-year law that bars gay and lesbian couples from adopting children. Sen. Nan Rich's proposed measure would instruct judges to consider the child's best interest when placing them in a permanent home, according to WFOR, a South Florida CBS TV affiliate. A gay friend or relative would be considered as an adoptive parent if they were the child's legal guardian when the parents died.
Please read the rest at http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid52818.asp

Do you agree with the proposed legislation to allow gay and lesbian couples to adopt children? Or do you agree to maintain the current prohibition against gay couples?