Responding to "Too Little Cash for Too Many Cars"

In the PLOG's post, Too Little Cash for Too Many Cars, author Ultima addresses the issue of the new government plan, CARS, otherwise known as "Cash for Clunkers", in which citizens turn in their older inefficient vehicles at their car dealerships for newer and more gas efficient vehicles. I must agree that many questions about this plan remain a mystery, especially when it has to do with money. Was $1 billion enough of an investment, or was it too much?
In theory, this plan seems pretty good, however like most plans the outcome is unknown until the plan is put in action. Thus far, CARS has proven to be quite popular as thousands applied to the system, before the plan was even put into effect. Yes, Ultima is correct in saying that only a minimal amount has been made out of this, but yet again the plan is still in its beginning stages. The program officially started on July 1st BUT the claims did not begin until July 24th, making the results worthy of only a few weeks. The program will need more than a week and a half to determine whether it is really beneficial or not.
It is true that our country has a lot more issues going on presently, however one of our heavier problems is our economy. This program, CARS, not only is it benefitting our environment, but by purchasing newer vehicles, it is bringing in more money into the automobile industry, and thus into our economy. It was mentioned that even those that did not fit into the requirements to trade in their cars, bought new vehicles regardless. At this point, the system has exhausted their funds, and therfore suspended the plan, but they are waiting on Senate approval to provide $2 billion more to continue the plan.
CARS is still a relatively new system, and many including myself are only starting to hear about it in commercials and other sources recently. If the system gains more popularity and Senate approves the additional financing, then possibly both citizens and our nation as a whole will benefit out of such plan. The final results, however, are yet to be seen.

Racist Boston Police Officer

If you have not heard of the latest controversy sweeping the nation, regarding a racist comment by a Boston police officer, then you have been hiding under a rock. CNN and other media sources have been covering the story step by step. Justin Barrett, a Boston police officer and former member of the National Guard, sent a mass email to his fellow Guard members and to the Boston Globe in which he referred to African American Harvard Professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., as a "banana-eating jungle monkey." Such comment immediately raised shock throughout the nation.
Being that Mr. Gates is a "top African American scholar", it was no surprise that there was media coverage behind this story. It is reported that Gates was arrested for disorderly conduct after the police showed up after a report near his Boston home. Soon after an email appeared in which Barret stated that if he had "been the officer he verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC [oleoresin capsicum, or pepper spray] deserving of his belligerent noncompliance." After numerous expressed their anger toward such racial slurs, Barret's attorney is trying to diffuse the anger and explain Barret's side of things. His attorney, Peter T. Marano, states "Justin Barrett ... has made a mistake -- his poor choice in words is that mistake. His lack of thought into the possible outcome of using such words has caused this debate. Justin never intended for these words to bear such a racial connotation."
However, how can such strong words not been intended with a racial connotation? If Barrets was discontent with Mr. Gates actions, there are plenty of other words or names that, although not correct, could have been said, but the fact that he went the racist way, raises a lot of questions. Citizens now wonder if perhaps he's commited other racist punishments, or if Boston is even safe in the hands of racist officers. Not only does it effect Barret directly, but it also decreases the morality and trust of the Boston Police Department.
Morano states that, "Officer Barrett did not call professor Gates a jungle monkey or malign him racially... he said his behavior was like that of one. It was a characterization of the actions of that man." Whether his behavior was that of one or not, to compare Gates to a "jungle monkey" is completly offensive and does immediately offer the suggestion that Barret is a racist. In the hands of a racist police officer, Boston cannot possibly be in good hands. However, the issue continues and Barret has now been put on administrative. Whatever the outcome is, the comment was inappropriate and Barrett deseveres a punishment.

Increase in minimum wage to stimulate economy?

The liberal side blog-site, Media Matters, recently posted a blog regarding the latest minimum wage increase and the effects it will have on our economy. As many sites reported differently and numerous individuals gave their opinion of what is gonna happen with this sudden increase in wage, the blog was very forward about supporting that the newest law will stimulate money into our economy. Authors of the blog, I must say, were right in supporting the wage increase and they not only justified it but were also very careful to express both sides of the issue. It was evident that Media Matters condones the newest attempt to save our economy, when it clearly stated that Robach, NBC's national correspondent, "ignores evidence that minimum wage increase will stimulate economy". The word ignore carries a very negative connotation with it, therefore hinting that Robach was wrong in not providing evidence that the increase will benefit the country. With a national audience to view and comment on the blog, Media Matters wisely presented opposing views of the issue and quoted them as saying that "Some small business owners criticized the timing of the increase, saying it's a burden in a weak economy". Yes, its true, that might be one of the small problems with the new law, but by acknowledging the possible flaws, the author always provided the advantages of it as well. The author provides a statement from the Business for a Fair Minimum Wage that declared, "we expect an increased minimum wage to provide a boost to local economies. Businesses and communities will benefit as low-wage workers spend their much-needed pay raises at businesses in the neighborhoods where they live and work." His side on this issue became even more credible as he provided not only statement but sources such as the Economy Policy Institute. It is logical to think that an increase in wage can affect businesses by having to spend money they dont have in this recession and therefore cutting jobs, but it is also logical that by giving millions of low wage workers a higher pay, it will stimulate them to spend more money and therefore add more to one of our GDP's component, Expenditure, to increase our economy. I do believe and hope that this strategy will work.

Born in Chains

Chilbirth in Chains, an article in The New York Times, brings to light the issue of shackling female prisoners while giving birth. According to the article, for years and years it was a rule that women incarcerated in prison must be tied in chains from both arms in legs during labor in order to prevent them from either causing danger to themselves, the doctors or the even the newborn child. Recent debated has sparked over an anti-shackling bill in the state of New York that would stop such practice in this state. However, the author strongly states he is completely for the idea of imposing this new bill and I must say I agree. Intended for a national audience, but more specifically for the citizens of New York, the author makes a convincing argument. Not only is this treatment "barbaric and medically hazardous" but it also puts both mother and child in greater risk for any sort of injury. It is a frightening and dangerous practice. The author also improves her credibility in proving that this bill is definitely worth passing by making references to other five states that have "similar policies" of an anti-shackling bill. Although these other states have approved of similar policies, the state of New York is still arguing about how many women are actually shackled during labor, and according to recent interviews of female prisoners in the state of New York, the practice is more common than what individuals actually know. Therefore, the author provides definite evidence to show that this malicious practice is still occuring and harming female inmates today. Additionally the author provides the reader with the obvious, and more logical statement that, "it seems highly unlikely that a woman doubled over in labor pains would be able to attempt an escape or overcome corrections officers". If we really think about it, it makes almost no sense to tie up a women who is already in pain, just to prevent taking extra strength to harm others. The author puts it plain and simple, Governor Paterson should sign the bill into law and allow New York to do as other states and the federal government have done, which is to "have wisely acted to protect pregnant inmates and their children during labor".

Sotomayor likely to win the vote

As diverse as our nation is becoming, it is imperative that we are informed of the changes taking place in our country. Not only do we have the first African American President , but we may soon have a new Hispanic in the Supreme Court.
As a new nominee for a seat in the Supreme Court, democrat Sonia Sotomayor's position lies in the decision of the Senate. During the last week, Sotomayor has had to endure questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, to prove herself worthy of a seat in the Supreme Court. It is her previous comments that "a wise latina could decide a case better than a white man" that have caused much turmoil, especially from the Republican view. This comment and past speeches regarding the idea that "personal experiences might influence a judge's behavior" have worked against her credibility to be the next appointed chair in the Supreme Court. However, during her testimonial Sotomayer not only expressed regret for her comments, but she also sided with Republic views opposing the idea of having empathy for those before the court, making Republicans much more pleased with her. By correcting her controversial comments, and by replying with such wise answers during her questioning, many now seemed pleased to have Sotomayor come on board. Some even said to be "mighty impressed" with Sotomayor after her testimonial. It is very possible that most Democrats and several Republicans will vote to approve Sotomayor's nomination and send her to Senate. The decision will be made on July 28, 2009.