Upping the Minimum Wage

A Connecticut newspaper reports that the state has voted to increase the minimum wage in their state from $8.70 to $10.10 per hour by January 2017. That will be the highest minimum wage in the country; Washington is currently the highest with $9.32. 

“I am proud that Connecticut is once again a leader on an issue of national importance. Increasing the minimum wage is not just good for workers, it’s also good for business,” said Governor Malloy, a first-term Democrat facing re-election.

The white house stated that Connecticut is setting an example for other states that will hopefully follow. 

Because the minimum wage has taken so long to be changed, there is obviously reasons that support both sides of the argument. This story interests me personally because I work for minimum wage during the summer as a lifeguard. A change in Illinois's legislation could be extremely beneficial to me. However, I can see how it could be detrimental to the Wilmette park district, instead of the benefit to business that Governor Malloy anticipates. We have 32 lifeguards at the beach that make between 8-9 dollars an hour. Increasing our pay on an already tight budget would have effects on how many guards they can hire, how many hours we can work, the upkeep of the beach, training, ect. However, my situation is different than others because I don't live on the income from this job, like many people unfortunately do. An increase in minimum wage is necessary for them because $8.25 is not enough to live off of. 

Kindergarten teacher: too many tests

Washington Post reports that Susan Sluyter, who has taught as a kindergarten teacher for the past 20 years, resigned from her job due to the school system ramping up the academic pressure on her and her students.

In her resignation letter to Cambridge Public Schools, she cited that "her job required her to focus too much on teaching to standardized tests rather than to the needs of her students."

School officials have stated that they agree the tests may take time away from other learning, but they are a necessary step in studying learning patterns of the children.

How necessary are these tests? I was very surprised they have started giving them to kindergartners. I think this shows a very big flaw in our education system. We rely on a formulated equation that figures out what children need to learn, instead of the people that were trained to educate them. 

How do these tests benefit students learning? Can the teachers be better at diagnosing issues than the tests?

Louisiana restricts usage of welfare money

Fox News reports that Louisiana has approved legislation to ban the use of federal welfare money in lingerie shops, tattoo parlors, nail salons and jewelry stores. The welfare program was enacted to assist low-income families in acquiring food, clothing, and shelter. They are in the process of creating more restrictions on the debit cards to prevent them from being used on items that aren't considered "necessities."  

In my opinion, these laws are completely just and necessary. If they are in a position that warrants assistance from taxpayers, they most definitely should not be spending it on frivolous things. One might argue that people have the right to spend their money where they want and the government shouldn't intervene, but they have already invited them to intervene when they applied for welfare. 

However, this intervention could possibly lead to more controversial things. There are other things in the lives of low income families that could be restricted, such as the right to have children.

Do you think these welfare laws will lead to further restrictions? Do you disagree with them completely?

Coincidental Date for Obama NSA speech

Yahoo News reports that it's merely a coincidence that President Obama's speech on NSA reform was scheduled on the anniversary of Dwight Eisenhower's speech that warned American's of the threat of the military industrial complex.

This is quite the coincidence.

In his speech, Eisenhower is famously quoted by saying this in his farewell address:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

This was January 17th, 1961. Fifty-three years later, it is evident that this was true, based on the speech Obama is about to give.

The military industrial complex is the combined interests of the military establishment and industry that creates products used by the military. Eisenhower warned of the growing influence it exerted on US foreign and economic policy. As these corporations grow larger from the sales of their products, they gain more power over the US decisions in war that require them to purchase these products.

Edward Snowden exposed that there indeed was a "disastrous rise of misplaced power," although not quite in the way that was predicted. They claimed that all of the spying and wrongfully gathered information he exposed was for the war effort- to fight against terrorists. 

Obama's speech is tomorrow. How do you think the NSA will change? Do you agree that the NSA is part of the military industrial complex?

Assisted Suicide Legal in New Mexico

According to CNN, a New Mexico judge ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to ask a doctor to end their life. The patients must be mentally competent and fully able to come to the decision on their own.

New Mexico Second Judicial District Judge Nan Nash was asked the question of whether or not fatal prescription drugs should be administered to a terminally ill cancer patient who requested her life be ended. The Judge decided the patient had that right.

In 2010, a film crew in Switzerland was invited to record an assisted suicide. 
The video is the ideal scenario- the women peacefully passes away while talking with friends. If you would like to see it is, the video is here.

As long as the ruling is not appealed, New Mexico will become the fifth state to allow assisted suicide, following Oregon, Washington, Montana and Vermont. Oregon was the first state to do so in 1997, and the topic has been widely debated since then, mainly due to stories more similar to this one.

After becoming paralyzed up to his head, Timothy Bowers woke up and told his family that this was not what he wanted. He didn't want to live the rest of his life in that state, and wanted them to remove his breathing tube (because his paralysis did not allow him to breathe on his own). They complied and he passed away. This case has been discussed by medical ethicists and lawmakers because many say that he did not have enough time to make a thoughtful decision and acted out of shock from his injury. Many people who are in this situation are given a month or two to adjust and then end up changing their mind.

Judge Nash gave this statement about the ruling: "This Court cannot envision a right more fundamental, more private or more integral to the liberty, safety and happiness of a New Mexican than the right of a competent, terminally ill patient to choose aid in dying." 

This topic really comes down to the question of how far our personal rights can go, and which are overridden for certain causes. In the past, supreme court (Washington v. Glucksberg, and Vacco v. Quill.) has ruled that the government's interest in preserving life and preventing intentional killing outweighed the patient's interest in the liberty to choose to die. I disagree with that. In the quote above, he says that assisted suicide is a fundamental and private right to the "liberty, safety, and happiness" of citizens. This is seemingly parallel to the unalienable rights listed in the declaration of independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (listed in all versions of the document!) I think that not giving people the choice of assisted suicide violates these rights.

How do our unalienable translate to modern circumstances? How do you interpret the quote from Judge Nash? 

Corvette Stingray is North American Car of the Year

This is the seventh generation Chevrolet Corvette. (With the other six in the background) It's was announced almost exactly a year ago, and appeared at dealerships this summer. Last night, it won the North American Car of the Year award at the Detroit Auto Show. According to this article by USA Today, General Motors also won the truck of the year award. 

These awards are extremely coveted in the auto industry, and represent General Motors climb back to the top, since the government bailout in 2009. 

The corvette especially showcases this. It's designed to compete in the class of the Porsche 911. Both the Corvette and 911 have been around for decades. 

Here are some specs of the Porsche:
350 HP, 0-60 in 4.6 seconds, 27mpg highway, and it retails with a starting price of $84,300.00

Now the Corvette:
460 HP, 0-60 in 3.8 seconds, 29mpg highway.

Oh yeah, and it starts at only $51,995.

That is the American way. We'll be more powerful, faster, and more fuel efficient than our German competitors, and do it for a fraction of the cost.

What I am even more excited about, is that the 2015 Z06 Corvette was leaked by Jalopnik yesterday. (My favorite auto blog, check it out if you are interested in cars!) The Z06 is essentially a beefed up, even faster version of the Corvette. It supposedly will come with 620hp, as opposed to the base models 460. That's really fast. A Ferrari 458 Italia has only 570! (And it costs $233,509). We are taking down the Germans and the Italians!

One last thing.... traditionally, the Corvette comes in three trims: The stingray, then the Z06, and finally the ZR1. Chevrolet has not said a word about the ZR1 yet, but it is supposed to be the fastest of them all. If the specs on the Z06 are correct...this car will be an absolute monster


Any other car enthusiasts in our American Studies class? Comment your thoughts on the cars of 2013!

Teen Sexting=Child Pornogrphy

This article states that a 17 year old girl was found guilty of distributing child pornography after being caught sending explicit images another girl her age. She was using the pictures to bully the girl, because she was her boyfriend's former girlfriend.

She was charged with distributing child pornography because the girl was also under 18.

The article suggests that she might have received the harshe sentence in response to recent suicides of Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd which have prompted nationwide cyberbullying awareness campaigns and calls for tougher laws to prevent Internet harassment.

Convicting sexting teens as child pornography is controversial. This girl is a criminal and deserves to be charged as such, but is "Child Pornography" the correct sentencing? I think it is unjust to say that teens sending naked pictures of themselves and actual pedophiles who enable the abuse of children have committed the same crime.

In this video that summarizes the case, the lawyer of the accused states that they will be taking the case back to court because "if adults can legally send naked pictures, it is unconstitutional to convict minors of doing so."

Although I disagree with the ruling, this is not why. There are many things that adults can do and kids can't. This should be of those things.

Do you think minors should be allowed to send explicit messages? And if not, should "child pornography" be what they are charged with?