Recent Posts
Laws requiring voters to bring a government issued photo id to the polls have got both the country and the courts taking sides. While many say that such legislation is unconstitutional because of the burden it poses to lower income voters federal judge Harold L. Murphy would beg to differ. He recently changed his decision on the topic allowing the law to go into effect in Georgia when he had previously blocked it. Judge Richard A. Posner of the federal court of appeals also finds the request of identification not only legitimate but inconsequential. In writing the opinion for the decision to uphold Indianana's 2005 law requiring such measures Posner posits, “it is exceedingly difficult to maneuver in today’s America without a photo id.”
However between 13 million and 22 million Americans who are voting aged do manage to “maneuver in today’s America” without photo identification. Most of them are from the lowest income groups and they do not need driver’s licenses because they cannot afford to drive or passports because they have never been outside of the United States. While Judge Posner says it would not be hard for them to go and get such identifications, many say this is both an elitist view and perhaps a way of keeping conservatives in power.
Because the majority of possible voters without identification are from the lower income brackets if they were allowed to vote polls, past trends, and experts agree they would be more likely to vote for a Democrat than a Republican.
Laws requiring identification a popping up in several states and being considered in more than a dozen states. These laws are being justified the idea that with an id check voter fraud will be stopped, but even Posner says there is little evidence and no conviction of voter fraud. We cannot know how many people who would usually vote will be deterred by these laws, but many agree that the number of legitimate voters who simply forget their id’s at home will far outnumber the fraudulent voters.
In a world where we often suspect the government of keeping us from voting versus specific people from manipulating the election process this story seems to be another story of the legislative and judicial branch trying to maintain the status quo. We have heard stories of racial profiling in voter registration and redistricting and by forcing a photo identification as a requirement it would appear to be a way of making it harder for lower income voters. It would also make it more difficult, if not impossible, for absentee ballots to be. Voting is a good thing – right not a privilege and should be treated as such by the judges who have vowed to uphold the constitution.
Last many women felt triumphant when reading the New York Times article, “It Seems the Fertility Clock Ticks for Men, Too” by Roni Rabin, which states that men – as well as women – have increased difficulties when it comes to having children later in life. Recent scientific studies have begun to raise questions on the correlation between older fathers and their children’s abnormalities. The studies have found that babies with fathers over the age of forty are 5.75 times as likely to be diagnosed with autism as babies fathered by men under the age of thirty. The risk of schizophrenia also increases as the father’s age does. The likeliness of schizophrenia in a father under twenty five is 1 in 141, in a father between the ages of thirty and thirty five the risk goes up to 1 chance in 99, and increases dramatically in fathers over the age of fifty to 1 in 47.
Some skeptics of these findings argue that distinct parenting methods could be responsibility for this change. Others say that a man’s mental illness or autistic tendencies could be both the cause of his marrying late and of his children’s disabilities. Combating beliefs that men can easily have children throughout their entire lives, findings have also confirmed that men’s sperm count decreases with age. In addition to a lower sperm count, trouble conceiving is also caused by sperms’ loss of mobility and trouble swimming in a straight line. Though these studies are not definite or conclusive, they are raising questions within the health community and as a result doctors are advising both men and women to have children sooner rather than later.
What really interests me is why is this information is so comforting to large groups of college women who are more pre-occupied with avoiding pregnancy than conceiving. The answer is simple, at least for me; these findings equalize the dating process and show a shift in medicine, which seems to always blaming the mother for their children’s problems. For years young women have been receiving two completely different messages. One is that we can have both the perfect job and children later in life. Good advice when it works, but often tragic when mothers get to their late thirties, early forties (and beyond) and find out they cannot conceive. The other message is that our fertility is declining rapidly- that we are losing our best eggs as we speak. These two messages have put enormous pressures on women to be one the responsible for having children by a certain age but not before a certain age – neither age given to women. In the media we see both the baby-obsessed single woman and the older mother mocked repeatedly. Now that men may also have pressure to mate earlier, it may reduce women’s stress over the issue.
These studies also show science exploring men’s roles in fertility and children’s disabilities, which have traditionally been blamed on the mother. This is not only beneficial because it makes conceiving more equal between genders, but also because it brings our society closer to a scientific truth that may help prevent infertility and children’s disabilities. With findings such as these, a man giving birth, and a growth of trans-sexuals, pan-sexuals, and acceptance the old biological gender lines are blurring every day.
Of course, until a man has to ask himself how he is going to combine a family and a career, parenting roles will never be truly equal, but science took a step to close the gender gap, and I, for one, am pretty happy about it.
Everyone complains about how much college costs today. Parents, students, even people who seemingly have nothing to do with the process feel the need to put their two sense in on the outrageous price tag it takes to receive higher education. It is easy to naysay these complaints and counter that college just cost this much now and people should just get used to it, but recent statistics from the College Board that tuition fees at both public and private institutions have risen this past year at twice the rate of inflation make these complaints seem not only legitimate but tame.
The average tuition, not including room and board, rose to $6,185 at public universities up 6.6% from last year. The average increase at private universities was 6.3% making the tuition $23,712. While at 2 year schools the price rose to $2,361, which is a 4.2 % increase from the year before. These prices rose more than the prices of any other good or service and significantly more than the average family income making it hard to for families to deal with the economic burden having a child in college and to understand why these steep tuition raises are necessary.
For state and local colleges as government support for their institutions has declined there has been a direct correlation to a faster raise of tuition and fees. This explains the increases at public colleges, and should inspire the public to demand a change in policy toward such institutions. However it does not illuminate the tuition increases at private universities.
Universities and Colleges tell students not to worry over the rising prices. They insist the high fees will not be a problem due to their institution’s grants and scholarships. And it is true the average student does not pay the whole tuition any more. At public universities students on average receive $3,600. At a private university the average grant size is $9,300.
Still several students, or their families, are turning towards private non Federal Insured loans to finance college. In fact private loans are the fastest growing form of borrowing. More than $17 billion dollars were borrowed for college in such loans in the 2006-2007 academic year, and that is not counting the $59.6 billion borrowed in federally guaranteed loans. Some accounts even show that debt is up by a greater margin than the tuition is up by. If what the college representatives were saying was true and college grants were covering their tuition increases this massive debt would not be occurring.
The problem with the issue of tuition increases is we as students all enjoy the fruits of our colleges and universities having more money. We like having local food in the dining hall, having top professors, which means having top paid professors, and large amounts of money doled out to our clubs and houses so we can plan events and make up fun activities. All of these things take money. Still when across the board, across the country people are going in to serious debt to send themselves or their children to college we as a country have to ask ourselves if our education system is working.
I have discovered that most states have laws against flag burning on the books. Although the Supreme Court ruled these laws unconstitutional in Texas vs. Johnson, several of these laws are still on the record. Congress also outlawed flag burning in the Flag Protection Act of 1989, and while the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in US vs. Eichman, it still is technically a law. What this means, to the best of my understanding, is that burning the flag is illegal although almost no prosecuting attorneys will enforce the law, so police generally do not arrest people for burning flags.
The legality of an unconstitutional law can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment ? something attempted by Congress several times, but which was detected by the Senate by just one vote last summer. This amendment is something supported by large groups of Americans and President Bush, and if passed, would severely weaken the First Amendment. What’s even more surprising is that 13 Senate Democrats voted for the proposed amendment, and several influential democrats, including Hillary Clinton, declared they do not support the constitutional amendment but would vote for a law to make flag burning illegal. I am glad to know they are taking their responsibility to uphold constitution seriously
[ Click here to read more ]
Female students across the country are returning to college this fall to find the discount birth control they’ve come to count on taken away from them. Although campus health centers have provided birth control at reduced prices for decades a law passed last year aimed curbing the national deficit ended this practice. While the law was passed over twelve months ago many institutions had already purchased large supplies of birth control and continued to distribute it at discount prices. These intuitions are running out of stock and now must switch from paying from 3 to 5 dollars to about 30 to 50 dollars for various kinds of birth control, causing the few that have heard of this under publicized law to worry about the affect on the pocket book and the sexual health of the 40 percent of college women who relied on this service the total number equaling more than 3 million students.
How the law works is that it makes pharmaceutical companies pay more to be a part of Medicaid. While the companies used to sell medicines at incredibly low prices to college campuses, usually in order to grab customers while they were young and create brand loyalty, now with the added costs they have to cut such programs.
The consequences of students no longer having access to cheap and easy birth control are serious. One is of course that they will have less money to spend on other commodities. Students express they will have to cut back on going out, on what kind of school supplies they get, and more in order to cover their birth control costs. Everyone knows that most college students do not have huge amounts of money to spare, let alone 40 dollars a month. And many do not see calling home and asking Mom and Dad for the extra money for birth control as an appealing option (also the reason why students rarely use their private health insurance – if they have it – to cover such expenses). The second and in my opinion more serious consequence is that young women will opt to stop taking birth control. This could lead to unplanned pregnancies, higher drop out rates, and difficult decisions that could have been prevented by birth control. What is interesting is several colleges are still offering Plan B for free.
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
Recent Comments
I've not commented on anything yet :(
|
Add Comments
Comments (1)
Read More