I thought public school was supposed to be cheap? As a high school senior at a private school hoping to attend UC Berkeley next year, I was under the impression that public schools were affordable, not like those bourgeoisie-infested, impossibly expensive private schools like Stanford or Harvard, right? Well, thanks to a plan to raise tuition at UCs by upwards of 30% along with Stanford offering me free tuition because of my family’s financial status, it is actually cheaper for me to go to Stanford than it is for me to go to a public UC. With the rate hikes, UC tuition will go past $10,000 a year. Add this to the cost of room and board, and the cost of going to a UC comes out to about $24,000 a year. That doesn’t really seem like public education to me.
What are we going to get with all of this tuition money? I’m going to get an amazing education right? Well, I’m sure I will, but it doesn’t seem like I’m going to see much of that $10,000. In addition to tuition hikes, UCs are also mandating teacher furloughs in an effort to cut funds. Won’t this just cut students’ opportunities to learn and receive the opportunities they are paying $10,000 a year to receive? Not only is this unfair to the students, it is unfair to faculty and staff. In addition to the unpaid furloughs, faculty and staff will also face pay cuts of up to 10% as well as layoffs. How can the UC system claim to be top-notch if it is comprised of students who pay too much to be taught by underpaid professors who are required to not go to work?
But, there is an even more heinous crime underlying this affront to our education. The very man who proposed the tuition hikes, furloughs, lay-offs and pay-cuts, Mark Yudof, will earn $828,000 this year, including salary and benefits. I think I may have just spotted an area where cuts can be made that won’t affect my education in the slightest. I wholeheartedly agree with the 5000 Berkeley students who demonstrated against furloughs and tuition hikes on Thursday, and I believe the true solution to the UCs budget problems is to reduce inefficient and overpaid bureaucracy and chop from the top.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Legalize It
That’s right. I think weed should not only be decriminalized, it should be legalized as well as taxed and regulated by the government. Now don’t get me wrong. I don’t smoke. I think smoking weed (smoking anything actually) is stupid, dangerous and disgusting. I don’t want to legalize weed because I personally want to get high and avoid punishment. I believe it makes sense, socially and economically, to legalize cannabis and that legalization would be beneficial to the nation.
Let’s start with arguments against legalizing weed. The most widely-used argument against legalization is the claim that marijuana is a “stepping-stone” or “gateway” drug, that marijuana often leads to more harmful drugs such as cocaine. I think this is absolutely true. However, I believe this is partially because it is criminalized. Another valid point is that legalization would increase high driving incidents. This is also valid, but I believe regulation on par with drunk driving regulation would greatly reduce this risk. Another argument is that marijuana is simply dangerous. This point in indubitable, but I would like to point out that alcohol, tobacco, guns, fireworks, cars, and even pizza are all dangerous if used irresponsibly or in excess, yet all of these are perfectly legal. I believe that if a person wishes to slowly commit suicide, he should be able to choose weed as a viable option along with the aforementioned, very legal methods.
How about the arguments for legalizing weed? There are quite a few from a social standpoint, including the fact that legalizing marijuana will lead to a decline in crime, a decline in the number of prison inmates and a decline in overall arrests. For example, in 2008, 847,863 people in the U.S. were arrested on marijuana charges, most of them for simple possession. Thus, legalization would eliminate the need to waste time and money on these meaningless arrests. Furthermore, just as mob violence was all but wiped out after the end of prohibition, legalization of marijuana would greatly reduce gang and cartel-related violence in the U.S. There are also substantial economic arguments for the legalization of weed. For instance, alcohol and tobacco, two undeniably dangerous, legal drugs, account for a combined $20 billion dollars in tax revenue each year. Thus, if marijuana were legalized, regulated and taxed like these two drugs, America could find a significant new revenue stream. In addition, the U.S. spends about $7.6 billion a year attempting to combat and control marijuana use in this country. Therefore, I believe that although marijuana does indeed have certain dangers and drawbacks, it makes social and fiscal sense to simply legalize, regulate, and tax the hell out of it.
Let’s start with arguments against legalizing weed. The most widely-used argument against legalization is the claim that marijuana is a “stepping-stone” or “gateway” drug, that marijuana often leads to more harmful drugs such as cocaine. I think this is absolutely true. However, I believe this is partially because it is criminalized. Another valid point is that legalization would increase high driving incidents. This is also valid, but I believe regulation on par with drunk driving regulation would greatly reduce this risk. Another argument is that marijuana is simply dangerous. This point in indubitable, but I would like to point out that alcohol, tobacco, guns, fireworks, cars, and even pizza are all dangerous if used irresponsibly or in excess, yet all of these are perfectly legal. I believe that if a person wishes to slowly commit suicide, he should be able to choose weed as a viable option along with the aforementioned, very legal methods.
How about the arguments for legalizing weed? There are quite a few from a social standpoint, including the fact that legalizing marijuana will lead to a decline in crime, a decline in the number of prison inmates and a decline in overall arrests. For example, in 2008, 847,863 people in the U.S. were arrested on marijuana charges, most of them for simple possession. Thus, legalization would eliminate the need to waste time and money on these meaningless arrests. Furthermore, just as mob violence was all but wiped out after the end of prohibition, legalization of marijuana would greatly reduce gang and cartel-related violence in the U.S. There are also substantial economic arguments for the legalization of weed. For instance, alcohol and tobacco, two undeniably dangerous, legal drugs, account for a combined $20 billion dollars in tax revenue each year. Thus, if marijuana were legalized, regulated and taxed like these two drugs, America could find a significant new revenue stream. In addition, the U.S. spends about $7.6 billion a year attempting to combat and control marijuana use in this country. Therefore, I believe that although marijuana does indeed have certain dangers and drawbacks, it makes social and fiscal sense to simply legalize, regulate, and tax the hell out of it.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
My Government is Trying to Kill Me
I used to think even though our government is pretty corrupt and rarely makes decisions based on public opinion or public good, it at least actively tries to keep us from dying by doing things like ensuring clean water for its citizens. I mean, that’s pretty basic. I figured the politicians who represent us in our government wouldn’t possibly trade our well-being and even our lives for campaign contributions and lobbyists’ dollars, right? Looks like I was wrong.
Today I found a New York Times article about tap water in Appalachia being contaminated by coal mining. The article tells the tale of the Massey family’s ordeal as they try to deal with a contaminated water supply. Their tap water contains dangerous amounts of lead, arsenic, barium, manganese, and other toxins and heavy metals that lead to cancer, birth defects and other health issues. The entire family has rashes and lesions from bathing, while their teeth are being eaten away from brushing their teeth with the contaminated water. The Massey’s have resorted to having fresh water delivered to their house and brushing their teeth with bottled water.
Somebody’s doing something about this, right? Well, not exactly. The Environmental Protection agency should be regulating this kind of contamination under the Clean Water Act of 1972. Yet, during the presidency of George W. Bush, regulation has declined sharply. Indeed, over the last five years, factories, plants, refineries, and other businesses and corporations have violated EPA standards 500,000 times, but only about 3% of these violations led to punishment. Although the EPA boasts that it collected $14.7 million in fines from more than 70 mining companies since 2006, $14.7 million is how much those businesses’ parent companies make every 10 hours. So, thanks to loose or even completely lacking regulation, it pays to put peoples’ lives at risk. As it is, about 10% of Americans live with tap water that falls below EPA standards.
According to The New York Times, “Enforcement lapses were particularly bad under the administration of President George W. Bush, employees say. ‘For the last eight years, my hands have been tied,’ said one E.P.A. official who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. ‘We were told to take our clean water and clean air cases, put them in a box, and lock it shut. Everyone knew polluters were getting away with murder. But these polluters are some of the biggest campaign contributors in town, so no one really cared if they were dumping poisons into streams.’” In fact, over the last twenty years, coal mining corporations have donated $22,235,623 to political campaigns, with $3,446,336 of that in 2008 alone. And is it any surprise that we saw the sharpest decline in regulations during a Republican presidency when 80% of coal-funded contribution dollars have gone to the Republican Party? Indeed, in 2004, Bush’s reelection year, a full 90% of coal-funded contributions went to the Republican Party? We need to radically change how our greed-fueled political system operates. It’s becoming a matter of life and death.
Today I found a New York Times article about tap water in Appalachia being contaminated by coal mining. The article tells the tale of the Massey family’s ordeal as they try to deal with a contaminated water supply. Their tap water contains dangerous amounts of lead, arsenic, barium, manganese, and other toxins and heavy metals that lead to cancer, birth defects and other health issues. The entire family has rashes and lesions from bathing, while their teeth are being eaten away from brushing their teeth with the contaminated water. The Massey’s have resorted to having fresh water delivered to their house and brushing their teeth with bottled water.
Somebody’s doing something about this, right? Well, not exactly. The Environmental Protection agency should be regulating this kind of contamination under the Clean Water Act of 1972. Yet, during the presidency of George W. Bush, regulation has declined sharply. Indeed, over the last five years, factories, plants, refineries, and other businesses and corporations have violated EPA standards 500,000 times, but only about 3% of these violations led to punishment. Although the EPA boasts that it collected $14.7 million in fines from more than 70 mining companies since 2006, $14.7 million is how much those businesses’ parent companies make every 10 hours. So, thanks to loose or even completely lacking regulation, it pays to put peoples’ lives at risk. As it is, about 10% of Americans live with tap water that falls below EPA standards.
According to The New York Times, “Enforcement lapses were particularly bad under the administration of President George W. Bush, employees say. ‘For the last eight years, my hands have been tied,’ said one E.P.A. official who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. ‘We were told to take our clean water and clean air cases, put them in a box, and lock it shut. Everyone knew polluters were getting away with murder. But these polluters are some of the biggest campaign contributors in town, so no one really cared if they were dumping poisons into streams.’” In fact, over the last twenty years, coal mining corporations have donated $22,235,623 to political campaigns, with $3,446,336 of that in 2008 alone. And is it any surprise that we saw the sharpest decline in regulations during a Republican presidency when 80% of coal-funded contribution dollars have gone to the Republican Party? Indeed, in 2004, Bush’s reelection year, a full 90% of coal-funded contributions went to the Republican Party? We need to radically change how our greed-fueled political system operates. It’s becoming a matter of life and death.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Can't We All Just Get Along?
Banning gay marriage is simply unethical, unfair, unconstitutional, and wrong. Yet, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage. Why? Many cite a belief that gay marriage will degrade heterosexual marriage. How? Will it make heterosexual couples love each other less? Others claim allowing gay marriage would lead to the legalization of incest, bestiality, and polygamy. This very same argument was used to support a ban on interracial marriage in the ‘60s, and I haven’t noticed a legalization of bestiality over the past few decades. Still others claim that thousands of years of human history have taught us that homosexuality is unnatural and a sin, but there have been dozens of cases of societies accepting and even embracing homosexuality, societies from China to Greece to Native America. Some opponents claim that homosexual marriages are unstable environments not fit to raise children. However, Massachusetts, a state in which gay marriage is legal, has the lowest divorce rate among all states and research has been done that suggests children raised within homosexual relationships are just as psychologically stable as those raised in heterosexual families.
Thus, the real agenda of those opposed to gay marriage is revealed: bigotry, homophobia and religious beliefs. This is a slap in the face of the constitution, our government and civil rights. Our Constitution and Republican government were set up to prevent the tyranny of a malevolent majority and protect the rights of minorities. This was upheld in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the idea of “separate but equal” used to suppress African Americans. Yet this idea is being used today to prevent gay couples from marrying, which is a blatant example of separate but not equal. The controversy boils down to one thing, a deterioration of the separation of church and state. People are letting their religious affiliation affect their decision making, and letting their religion seep into our government. What happened to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
So, what repercussions would gay marriage have? It would lead to widespread happiness, contentment and equality. It would further the basic beliefs of liberty and egalitarianism written into our Constitution. Gay marriage would harm no one. It would not lead to the downfall of western civilization. It would not make straight couples love each other less. It would not trigger the apocalypse. It would merely bring happiness to thousands of people, an idea that I believe our society should embrace more often.
Thus, the real agenda of those opposed to gay marriage is revealed: bigotry, homophobia and religious beliefs. This is a slap in the face of the constitution, our government and civil rights. Our Constitution and Republican government were set up to prevent the tyranny of a malevolent majority and protect the rights of minorities. This was upheld in the Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education, which struck down the idea of “separate but equal” used to suppress African Americans. Yet this idea is being used today to prevent gay couples from marrying, which is a blatant example of separate but not equal. The controversy boils down to one thing, a deterioration of the separation of church and state. People are letting their religious affiliation affect their decision making, and letting their religion seep into our government. What happened to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”
So, what repercussions would gay marriage have? It would lead to widespread happiness, contentment and equality. It would further the basic beliefs of liberty and egalitarianism written into our Constitution. Gay marriage would harm no one. It would not lead to the downfall of western civilization. It would not make straight couples love each other less. It would not trigger the apocalypse. It would merely bring happiness to thousands of people, an idea that I believe our society should embrace more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)