Link to Article
"My Brother's Keeper" is a new initiative that President Obama has unveiled. This program focuses on helping young Black and Latino men with the challenges they face and to get them out of what Obama calls the "school-to-prison pipeline". In addition the intentions of this new program are to help put boys and young men of color on the path to opportunity and success. Obama will establish a "My Brother's Keeper Task Force" which will identify the best practices and how to expand upon them. Some of the areas that "My Brother's Keeper" will focus on is early childhood development, school readiness, literacy by third grade, and school discipline reform. Businesses have also pledged to aid in "My Brother's Keeper" by offering internships and designing school curricula to prepare these kids for jobs. In fact businesses have planned to invest around $200 million over five years in order to help men of color. Furthermore, this is not a program Obama intends on spending much if any government money on. He will not be putting any line items called "My Brother's Keeper" on 2015's fiscal budget. This relates to AP GoPo because it goes along with our political culture and the idea of "equal opportunity". As we've read in Chapter four, a majority of American's believe in equal opportunities. This is a perfect example; Obama believes that these young men of color need a 'boost' in order to have an equal opportunity. In this case that 'boost' is the My Brother's Keeper program.
Personally I have mixed feelings about this program. I understand wanting everyone to have equal opportunities, but there's a fine line between an equal opportunity and defeating the greater purpose. I think it is a wonderful concept and I also think its awesome that Obama has been able to get businesses to invest money into this program rather than spending government money. However, I do not really agree with the idea of focusing this program on young Black and Latino men. I feel like the "school-to-prison pipeline" is becoming an increasing problem for a variety of many adolescents; not just Blacks and Latinos. This to me seems similar to affirmative action. Which in essence seems like a good idea, but when you take a further look into it, it does more harm than good. In my opinion, aiming My Brother's Keeper exclusively at Black and Latino boys deviates from the bigger picture. In this case the bigger picture could be one of two things; becoming more competitive in the race for education or eliminating racial discrimination. In order to compete globally in the race for education and advancing technologies we have to progress as a whole society. This is why it seems more logical to have the program's intended audience to be America's youth as a whole rather then just a section of it. Additionally, we have had a long battle with racial discrimination in America. To me aiming My Brother's Keeper at young Black and Latino men specifically, draws more of a separation between the races than it would if the program was aimed at helping all of America's youth. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea but I wish it would have had a broader spectrum of possible participants.
Friday, February 28, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Discrimination Bill passed in Arizona
Link to Article
Recently on Thursday February 20, 2014 Arizona's Legislature passed a bill that gives people the right to discriminate. The bill was constructed by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom. They are a christian legal organization who were inspired by an incident that happened where a New Mexico wedding photographer was taken to court because he refused to shoot a same sex wedding. The bill protects businesses and religious institutions from discriminatory lawsuits if they can prove their actions were motivated by religious convictions. However, the issue is that this bill allows businesses to possibly discriminate against anyone. Not just Jews, Muslims, Atheists, homosexuals, but potentially anyone. The bill now sits on Governor Jan Brewer's has five days to either sign or reject the bill.
To me this bill is insane. I understand that businesses have the right to conduct business with who they please. However, I'd like to think these businesses would use this right in cases where the customer was clearly detrimental to the business. Now if the only reason a business wasn't going to accommodate someone was because of who they are that's when it becomes completely outrages. Its obvious that people are going to have differing opinions, views, and religions. However, to not associate with someone based on the sole fact that they have a different religion or opinion than you is close-minded and quite frankly selfish. I don't understand why people have tolerance issues. Why can't we all just recognize that we have different views, and move on? Why are these different views constantly the determining the dynamics of the relationships we have with other people? Furthermore, this bill seems eerily similar to the beginnings of other human oppression incidents such as Jim Crow laws, Japanese-American Internment, and even the Holocaust. Absolutely ridiculous.
Recently on Thursday February 20, 2014 Arizona's Legislature passed a bill that gives people the right to discriminate. The bill was constructed by a group called the Alliance Defending Freedom. They are a christian legal organization who were inspired by an incident that happened where a New Mexico wedding photographer was taken to court because he refused to shoot a same sex wedding. The bill protects businesses and religious institutions from discriminatory lawsuits if they can prove their actions were motivated by religious convictions. However, the issue is that this bill allows businesses to possibly discriminate against anyone. Not just Jews, Muslims, Atheists, homosexuals, but potentially anyone. The bill now sits on Governor Jan Brewer's has five days to either sign or reject the bill.
To me this bill is insane. I understand that businesses have the right to conduct business with who they please. However, I'd like to think these businesses would use this right in cases where the customer was clearly detrimental to the business. Now if the only reason a business wasn't going to accommodate someone was because of who they are that's when it becomes completely outrages. Its obvious that people are going to have differing opinions, views, and religions. However, to not associate with someone based on the sole fact that they have a different religion or opinion than you is close-minded and quite frankly selfish. I don't understand why people have tolerance issues. Why can't we all just recognize that we have different views, and move on? Why are these different views constantly the determining the dynamics of the relationships we have with other people? Furthermore, this bill seems eerily similar to the beginnings of other human oppression incidents such as Jim Crow laws, Japanese-American Internment, and even the Holocaust. Absolutely ridiculous.
Friday, February 14, 2014
Government Issues Rules to Bankers about Marijuana
Article Link
Marijuana has been quite the hot topic recently, especially since twenty states and the District of Columbia have now legalized the medical and/or recreational use of it. This news article is about the government issued rules for banks interested in serving legal marijuana businesses. Previously, banks have declined to work with legal marijuana businesses mainly because it is still illegal. While some states may have legalized its use, the production, sale, and possession of marijuana remain illegal under federal law. Coincidentally, we were recently talking about this in our AP Gov class; the supremacy clause and federal preemption. When federal and state laws conflict, federal laws reign supreme. For this reason, banks who conduct business with these marijuana dispensaries could suffer money penalties, withdrawal of FDIC insurance, and could even suffer being banned from working in the banking industry for life. As a result there are slim to no banks that want to do business with marijuana dealers. Consequently, this leaves those dispensaries to conduct an all-cash business which creates a tempting target for thieves. As a solution to this problem, the Treasury and Justice department have issued regulations geared at bringing the hidden marijuana business operations out from the shadows. These rules advise bankers to file a "marijuana limited" or a "marijuana priority" report based on whether the marijuana dealers are reputable or are conducting suspicious activity. In order for a dispensary to be reputable, they must be able to verify that they have a legal licence to sell marijuana. In addition, they must inform the bankers of the nature of their clientele and the types of products they sell. While this may seem like a step in the right direction, many bankers are still reluctant to dive into the marijuana business. Even so, they fear penalties and do not have full confidence considering this is just advise and not law. Bankers say they would feel more comfortable conducting business with legal marijuana dealers if congress passed a law that okay-ed it rather than the Justice and Treasury Departments giving them advise and rules.
In my opinion I agree with the bankers and believe it would be beneficial if congress passed a law that federally legalized the production, sale, and use (either medical or recreational or both) of marijuana. My belief is that there are many more good sides to marijuana than bad. To name a few, studies have shown that the use of marijuana has caused the rate at which tumorous cancer cells divide to slow down. In addition it is a pain reliever that can aid in taking away pain from many chronic diseases, as well as the nausea from chemotherapy. Furthermore marijuana has been shown to have potential therapeutic uses of many diseases ranging from Osteoporosis to Epilepsy, Alzheimer's and even Huntington's Disease. Not only does marijuana have medical benefits it also has the potential to bring in some big money. The government could put excise taxes on marijuana and tax the heck out of it, but also statistics show that marijuana if legalized could generate an estimated total of $12-$18 billion a year. As for the rules that the Justice and Treasury Departments put out for bankers, I think was a good attempt. However, I believe it will be an extremely slow process for bankers to become comfortable with doing business with these marijuana dispensaries if it isn't federally legalized. I think this is one of those things where you tired and made an effort but it didn't really have the intended results you would have like.
Other articles used:
link 1
link 2
Marijuana has been quite the hot topic recently, especially since twenty states and the District of Columbia have now legalized the medical and/or recreational use of it. This news article is about the government issued rules for banks interested in serving legal marijuana businesses. Previously, banks have declined to work with legal marijuana businesses mainly because it is still illegal. While some states may have legalized its use, the production, sale, and possession of marijuana remain illegal under federal law. Coincidentally, we were recently talking about this in our AP Gov class; the supremacy clause and federal preemption. When federal and state laws conflict, federal laws reign supreme. For this reason, banks who conduct business with these marijuana dispensaries could suffer money penalties, withdrawal of FDIC insurance, and could even suffer being banned from working in the banking industry for life. As a result there are slim to no banks that want to do business with marijuana dealers. Consequently, this leaves those dispensaries to conduct an all-cash business which creates a tempting target for thieves. As a solution to this problem, the Treasury and Justice department have issued regulations geared at bringing the hidden marijuana business operations out from the shadows. These rules advise bankers to file a "marijuana limited" or a "marijuana priority" report based on whether the marijuana dealers are reputable or are conducting suspicious activity. In order for a dispensary to be reputable, they must be able to verify that they have a legal licence to sell marijuana. In addition, they must inform the bankers of the nature of their clientele and the types of products they sell. While this may seem like a step in the right direction, many bankers are still reluctant to dive into the marijuana business. Even so, they fear penalties and do not have full confidence considering this is just advise and not law. Bankers say they would feel more comfortable conducting business with legal marijuana dealers if congress passed a law that okay-ed it rather than the Justice and Treasury Departments giving them advise and rules.
In my opinion I agree with the bankers and believe it would be beneficial if congress passed a law that federally legalized the production, sale, and use (either medical or recreational or both) of marijuana. My belief is that there are many more good sides to marijuana than bad. To name a few, studies have shown that the use of marijuana has caused the rate at which tumorous cancer cells divide to slow down. In addition it is a pain reliever that can aid in taking away pain from many chronic diseases, as well as the nausea from chemotherapy. Furthermore marijuana has been shown to have potential therapeutic uses of many diseases ranging from Osteoporosis to Epilepsy, Alzheimer's and even Huntington's Disease. Not only does marijuana have medical benefits it also has the potential to bring in some big money. The government could put excise taxes on marijuana and tax the heck out of it, but also statistics show that marijuana if legalized could generate an estimated total of $12-$18 billion a year. As for the rules that the Justice and Treasury Departments put out for bankers, I think was a good attempt. However, I believe it will be an extremely slow process for bankers to become comfortable with doing business with these marijuana dispensaries if it isn't federally legalized. I think this is one of those things where you tired and made an effort but it didn't really have the intended results you would have like.
Other articles used:
link 1
link 2
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Farm Bill passed by Senate
Both of these news articles were written about the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 or most commonly known as the Farm Bill. Every five years the Farm Bill is renewed with new provisions and policies. On Tuesday the Senate passed the bill with a 68-32 bipartisan vote. Major criteria listed in the Farm Bill include new regulations for subsidies farmers receive, cuts in food stamp programs, and a new office in the Agriculture Department. Previously, most farmers were given subsidies regardless of whether or not they grew crops. Although the House pushed for a five percent cut in food stamp programs, the final bill passed by the Senate compromised to lower the cuts to just one percent. Another new implication the bill proposed is the creation of a new office in the Agriculture Department. Cat fish would no longer be inspected by the FDA but rather by this new office due to the lack of resources needed to properly inspect the fish. Advocates for the bill said it will save us millions in the long run as well as the opportunity for big payoffs. However, opponents said the bill's saving plan could disappear if the weather or economy doesn't cooperate.
The passage of this bill by the Senate is directly related to the content we study in this class. It addresses political beliefs and the idea of political parties. In addition it gives insight into one of the institutions of the national government (Senate). Personally there are certain parts of the Farm Bill I enjoy and others that I don't. I agree with the subsidy regulation. If farmers are having a profitable year and making good money then there is no need to for the government to give the farmers more money. The aid that the government will give the farmers through the Farm Bill kicks in only when the farmers experience loss or a drop in prices. Furthermore, I agree with the cuts made to food stamp programs. Don't get me wrong I enjoy helping others but to a certain extent. The government has been helping people with low incomes through food stamps too much and it was a good decision to make those cuts. On the contrary, the new office in the Agriculture Department is a bit superfluous. Why spend $20 million on a whole new office instead of just equipping the FDA with the necessary resources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)