Saturday, November 17, 2007

Newspaper

On Friday afternoon I picked up a New York Times and started reading through it. On the front page there were two articles that touched on a lot of the issues that we've been discussing in class recently. The first article was about the clean-up and rebuilding that's going on after Hurricane Katrina. The article focused on how the funds that the states have received are being divided up and used. It centered around Mississippi and the portion of the money that's going to low-income/impoverished people and communities. The federal government created a law saying that fifty-percent of the money for rebuilding was required to be spent on low-income areas. While all the money has not been spent yet, Mississippi has only spent a small portion of it on these areas. They are also the only state that has petitioned, and won, an appeal to get rid of that rule. There is a lot of criticism from the communities on the state about how and where they've spent their money; claiming that the majority of it has gone to help businesses and people in the more affluent areas. The leaders of Mississippi deny that there is anything of the sort going on and say that they are focused on helping all of their citizens and making sure that people get the help that they need. Yet some of the programs specifically made to help those low-income families, come with regulations and stipulations that make it harder to get money to rebuild and repair homes. To be eligible families had to have had regular homeowner's insurance so that, according to the governor, "we're not bailing out irresponsible people." I could not believe it when I read this quote. People not having homeowner's insurance doesn't necessarily mean that they were irresponsible. It's absurd to think that someone who was living pay check to pay check and having to worry about how they will get food would be able to afford any kind of insurance. This struck me as an article that fit perfectly with all the aspects we have been discussing about race and even hurricane Katrina in particular. Its hard to believe that there are still so many problems that stem directly from Katrina as immediate as people not having homes.
The second article on the front page was entitled, "Court rejects fuel standards for some trucks." It discussed how a number of cities and states had appealed the recent laws proposed by President Bush and his administration that regulate light truck emissions saying that they were not strict enough. There have been efforts to create stricter rules about the emissions policies to take into account the greenhouse gases and the issues with the environment. I get so frustrated when I read about the government not taking advantage of an opportunity to do something positive. Why wouldn't the government what to create stricter laws when it comes to emissions and pollution of the environment. What's the harm in protecting the environment? Maybe this is a simplified view but environmental issues are a big deal. These are decisions that we're not going to just have to deal with in the next four years, ten years or even fifty years before they go away; these are issues that are going to effect us for the rest of our lives, for the rest of the lives of our children and grandchildren, this is something that's never going to go away. Unless something is done, and soon, the world is going to run out of resources far before the sun runs out. There is not an endless supply of resources in the world, it's possible to run out of water; and more than simply a possibility this will become a reality if we continue to consume and dispose of resources as we are currently.
The issues that we discuss in class are relevant and important. They can be found on the news, in popular culture, on the platforms of presidential candidates, on the front page of the New York Times. By participating in class, we're doing on of the most important things, we're getting informed. While simply being informed won't lead to any change, it's the first step and something that everyone is responsible for doing, and capable of doing.

No comments: