Vote Smart: Comprehensive Immigration Only In Moderation

Securing our border is essential to securing the homeland. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, more than half a million illegal immigrants enter the country each year. For the most part, these illegal immigrants toil diligently at housekeeping, agricultural, janitorial and construction jobs. By undercutting market-distorting minimum wage and employment laws, they contribute to our economic growth and keep prices low. In fact, one could say that illegal immigrants epitomize the laissez-faire economy.

Just as opponents of illegal immigration must confess its economic benefits, its apologists must also acknowledge its costs. Illegal immigrants undermine the rule of law by cutting ahead of everyone patiently waiting in the immigration queue. Given that roughly half a million immigrants, according to the Pew Center, enter the country legally each year -- many of whom wait several years for the privilege -- it is fundamentally unfair that a slightly greater number openly flouts the law to get in.

Illegal immigration cannot continue unabated without undermining American law and order, burdening border-state property owners, and compromising the safety of the immigrants.
However, we cannot neglect to overlook what many anti-immigrant organizations in the west don't seem to realize is that there are huge number of legal intelligent immigrants entering the country everyday. And their home country’s loss is our gain. For every engineer, doctor, nurse or researcher that India loses to the States, America becomes that much more competitive in technology, medicine and science. Additionally, data released by the Census Bureau shows that immigrants who arrived over the past several years are better educated than those who arrived in the late nineties. Likewise, children of immigrants are more financially successful than their parents and they have higher professional skills.

The immigration system should be reformed and a comprehensive immigration policy must be reached. So, that all those who enter the United States are required to have a legitimate offer of employment from an American employer, and all those who have one should have entry expedited. Nevertheless, there is no question that we need to strengthen Homeland security and our borders must be secured. The government should expend massive resources guarding our borders against potential lurking terrorist.

Center for Immigration Studies Director of Research, Steven Camarota explains that:

“Because every part of our immigration system has been exploited by terrorists, we cannot reform just one area, but must address the problems that exist throughout. The solution is not to single out Middle Easterners for exclusion or selective enforcement. Instead we need to more carefully check the backgrounds of all visa applicants, better police the borders, strictly enforce the law within the country, and, most importantly, reduce the level of immigration to give government agencies the breathing space necessary to implement fundamental reforms.”

Our strategy for comprehensive immigration reforms begins by securing the border. Nevertheless, we also believe that Government must employ innovative solutions such as taxing employment of immigrants if they want to discourage new immigrants, or create tax incentives for employing them if they want more. Yet, we have listed below what we believe like President Bush a Comprehensive Immigration policy should include:

1. Putting Border Security and Enforcement First


2. Providing Tools For Employers To Verify The Eligibility Of The Workers They Hire


3. Creating A Temporary Worker Program


4. No Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants


5. Z Card Holders Will Have An Opportunity To Apply For A Green Card


6. Strengthening The Assimilation Of New Immigrants


7. Ending Chain Migration


8. Clearing The Family Backlog Within Eight Years

For More Details visit (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070517-7.html)

Ashley Gay's: To Die For Blueberry Muffins

INGREDIENTS
1 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
3/4 cup white sugar
1/2 teaspoon salt
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/3 cup vegetable oil
1 egg
1/3 cup milk
1 cup fresh blueberries
1/2 cup white sugar
1/3 cup all-purpose flour
1/4 cup butter, cubed
1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon

DIRECTIONS

1. Preheat oven to 400 degrees F (200 degrees C). Grease muffin cups or line with muffin liners.
   


2. Combine 1 1/2 cups flour, 3/4 cup sugar, salt and baking powder. Place vegetable oil into a 1 cup measuring cup; add the egg and enough milk to fill the cup. Mix this with flour mixture. Fold in blueberries. Fill muffin cups right to the top, and sprinkle with crumb topping mixture.
   


3. To Make Crumb Topping: Mix together 1/2 cup sugar, 1/3 cup flour, 1/4 cup butter, and 1 1/2 teaspoons cinnamon. Mix with fork, and sprinkle over muffins before baking.
   


4. Bake for 20 to 25 minutes in the preheated oven, or until done.

Don’t “Cut and Run,” but Please “Don’t Stay the Course” Either

Does the death of at least 250 Iraqi civilians, the deadliest single incident of the war, coming four years into the fighting and seven months after the surge was announced, actually signal progress for the U.S. strategy in Iraq?

It does.

Listen to the military commanders, spokesmen, and academics and you’ll learn that the attack is intended to distract Congress and the American public from the progress being made in Baghdad and elsewhere, and that it is a kind of "last gasp" for al-Qaeda in Iraq.

And they’re right!

Here’s the story, on Tuesday August 14, 2007 multiple car and truck bombs were detonated in two remote northwestern villages in Iraq, killing at least 250 civilians and obliterating blocks of houses. The attacks had all of the signatures of al-Qaeda and of the Sunni dominated al-Qaeda in Iraq affiliate, which evidently selected the isolated villages of Qataniyah and Jazeera near the Syrian border because they were the home to ethnic Kurd Yazidis, a pre-Islamic people who have lived in this region since ancient times.

Here’s the back story, Despite such isolation, tensions among the Yazidis, Muslim Kurds and Arab groups in northern Iraq have led to increasingly violent incidents. In April, a 17-year-old Yazidi girl was stoned to death after she eloped with a Sunni Muslim man and converted to Islam. Cellphone video footage of her death, called an "honor killing" by other Yazidis, was broadcast widely on the Internet, setting off a wave of attacks against the group. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/)

While, the attacks Tuesday and Wednesday appear to be part of a larger pattern of increasing violence in regions with relatively little military protection; the U.S. military has cited major successes, such as increased cooperation with tribal sheiks in Anbar province and a drop in the number of sectarian killings in Baghdad, following the addition of 30,000 troops this year. But the number of civilian deaths from mass-casualty bombings was nearly three times higher in July than in June, mostly as a result of incidents in the north.

Could this instance be a microcosm of what would happen if the US had a successive troop withdraw? And what then about a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawals?

Nevertheless, setting a rigid, Washington-driven timetable is an option, but a bad one. A precipitous troop reduction could have far-reaching effects: emboldening Iran, weakening U.S. security promises to friendly states, and even sparking military initiatives by other powers — Turkey or Iran — to deal with the resulting security vacuum. Our weakened position in Iraq also could undercut our leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

What about imposing a tripartite division of Iraq? That would merely feed ethnic cleansing and likely lead to a wider, more intense conflict.

The right approach is a coordinated diplomatic, legal, economic and security campaign drawing upon broader dialogue in the region and intensified political work inside Iraq.

A permanent Gulf regional security dialogue could emerge that includes Syria and Iran, and the United States could undertake a role as regional security guarantor. Preliminary discussions should lead to a more intensive dialogue with Iran in which security assurances and nuclear programs are discussed.

In terms of diplomacy, our team would engage each state and party, solicit its views and challenge it to participate in moving forward, just as U.S. diplomat Richard Holbrooke did in the Balkans a decade ago. Next steps might include confidence-building measures, hosted discussions between factions, and perhaps one or more larger meetings to conclude firm commitments, timetables or sequence of events.

Of course there are no guarantees, but from such a dialogue should emerge a prescription for U.S. troop levels and activities consistent with our larger interests. Carrots and sticks could be employed. For instance, the factions could vow certain actions in return for U.S. assistance or troop deployments, or redeployments, and possible assistance from neighboring states.

Reaching an understanding on Iraq need not be a lengthy process, but the dialogue must be broadened in scope and participation to be effective. The aim would be a consensual solution underwritten by outside guarantors, not an imposed solution. And finally, military power would have a subordinated and supporting role.

Simultaneously, the United States would set about transforming its applied military power in Iraq into the useful diplomatic influence essential to addressing broader security concerns.

Ultimately, security in the Gulf and winning against al-Qaeda will require that we work with regional powers, promote stability and gradual transformation, and regain "strategic consent" for long-term U.S. assistance in the region. We must use the situation in Iraq to propel us toward this larger goal, and in doing so, we will also find the right way to wind down our deployment there.

The outline of what needs to be done is clear. But does the administration have the courage and foresight to do it, or will it continue to march into profound failure?

This is a geopolitical development of the first importance. It is a clear statement that, the United States is firmly intends to maintain help stabilize control of Iraq. Now is the time for the United States to researt its authority in a new global age. The US needs to refocus is military might from a Cold War mentality to a geo-regional political defense. The US already has 890 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major Air Force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. A base in Iraq would enable the Pentagon to close a few of those facilities and focus on new geographical spheres of influence. As part of a post-cold-war shift in its global posture, the Defense Department should close several (but not all) of it installations in Europe and reopen new military installations in the Asia, Southeast Asia (specifically India), Asia Minor, and the Middle East.

I believe that there is a bridge between us that can be built towards a better future, and we shouldn't think that this bridge will be built by violence. It must be built with dialogue and mutual respect. I have great respect for the Arab culture, and almost every Arab I know has great respect for the United States in many different forms. Sometimes it's not necessarily positive politically, but it's positive in other ways —in our educational system, for example. But this gap that exists between us-- if we are to defeat the people that will do things like Osama Bin Laden, crashing the airplanes into the World Trade Center, or Zarqawi, who would have killed thousands of Jordanians-- thousands of Jordanians, if his plan had been pulled off. We must move together. It can't be America versus the Arabs. It must be Americans and Arabs, Muslims and Christians working against the people that have no vision for the future other than hate. And if we can't do that, then we will suffer just like the people of Abu Ghreib and just like the poor American who was beheaded at the hands of the terrorists.

The New Black Nativism

To the surprise of many whites and dismay of his supporters, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton among black Americans by a 40-point margin in a recent Washington Post-ABC poll. It is possible to read this as a positive development: black Americans have transcended racial politics and may now vote for the person they consider the better candidate, regardless of race. The sad truth, however, is that Obama is being rejected because many black Americans don't consider him one of their own and may even feel threatened by what he embodies.

So just what is the nature of black American identity today? Historically, the defining characteristic has been any person born in America who is of African ancestry, however remote. This is the infamous one-drop rule, invented and imposed by white racists until the middle of the 20th century. As with so many other areas of ethno-racial relations, African Americans turned this racist doctrine to their own ends. What to racist whites was a stain of impurity became a badge of pride. More significantly, what for whites was a means of exclusion was transformed by blacks into a glorious principle of inclusion. The absurdity of defining someone as black who to all appearances was white was turned on its head by blacks who used the one-drop rule to enlarge both the black group and its leadership with light-skinned persons who, elsewhere in the Americas, would never dream of identifying with blacks.

Black identity was historically progressive in another important respect: from very early in the 19th century through the civil rights movement, it was strikingly cosmopolitan. Black leaders took a deep interest in oppressed peoples throughout the world. The Pan-African movement and early black nationalism were part of emerging notions of black solidarity. Blacks took deep pride in the Haitian revolution, and black American missionaries played an important role in the Christianization of Jamaican and other West Indian blacks. Black Americans were also open to the inspiration of black immigrants: W.E.B. DuBois's father was Haitian; James Weldon Johnson's mother, Bahamian. One of the first mass movements of African Americans was led by a Jamaican, Marcus Garvey, in the '20s. An impressive number of black leaders and civil rights icons--Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Shirley Chisholm, Louis Farrakhan, Harry Belafonte, Sidney Poitier, to list a few--were all first- or second-generation immigrants. Before them, West Indian leaders paved the way toward involvement with city politics, especially in New York. And this cosmopolitanism extended also to non-African peoples; Martin Luther King's engagement with Mahatma Gandhi is the most famous example. Like so many other West Indians, I have personally experienced this remarkable inclusiveness in the traditional practice of black identity. Becoming a black American meant simply declaring oneself to be one and engaging in their public and private life, into which I was always welcomed.

In recent years, however, this tradition has been eroded by a thickened form of black identity that, sadly, mirrors some of the worst aspects of American white identity and racism. A streak of nativism rears its ugly head. To be black American, in this view, one's ancestors must have been not simply slaves but American slaves. Furthermore, directly mirroring the traditional definition of whiteness as not being black is the growing tendency to define blackness in negative terms--it is to be not white in upbringing, kinship or manner, to be too not at ease in the intimate ways of white Americans.

Barack is married to a black woman, has spent years doing community work in the ghettos and is by lineage certainly more African than most African Americans. But black America's view of him is clouded by the facts that he is the son of an immigrant and that he was brought up mainly by middle-class whites whose culture is second nature to him. Although the Congressional Black Caucus, still strongly influenced by the civil rights generation, remains surprisingly liberal on immigration issues, the black middle class appears to harbor a hardening anti-immigrant sentiment--a Pew poll last year found that 54% of blacks see immigrants as a burden. More disturbing, however, is what that sentiment reveals about a growing pattern of self-segregation among the black middle class, many of whom, like the residents of Prince George's County, Md., seem to have largely given up on school and social integration.

This is tragic, for like all other once excluded groups before them, black Americans are in need of the social and cultural capital that comes from living with and in the white majority, the value of which is nowhere more powerfully demonstrated than in the enormous achievement and potential of Barack Obama.

By Orlando Patterson
www.times.com

Is Obama Black Enough?

Ever since Barack Obama first ascended the national stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, pundits have been tripping over themselves to point out the difference between him and the average Joe from the South Side. Obama is biracial, and has a direct connection with Africa. He is articulate, young and handsome. He does not feel the need to yell "Reparations now!" into any available microphone.

But this is a double-edged sword. As much as his biracial identity has helped Obama build a sizable following in middle America, it's also opened a gap for others to question his authenticity as a black man. In calling Obama the "first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," the implication was that the black people who are regularly seen by whites — or at least those who aspire to the highest office in the land — are none of these things. But give Biden credit — at least he acknowledged Obama's identity.

The same can't be said for others. "Obama's mother is of white U.S. stock. His father is a black Kenyan," Stanley Crouch recently sniffed in a New York Daily News column entitled "What Obama Isn't: Black Like Me." "Black, in our political and social vocabulary, means those descended from West African slaves," wrote Debra Dickerson on the liberal website Salon. Writers like TIME and New Republic columnist Peter Beinart have argued that Obama is seen as a "good black," and thus has less of following among black people.

(Read Dickerson’s article at http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/01/22/obama/)

Meanwhile, agitators like Al Sharpton are seen as the authentic "bad blacks." Obama's trouble, asserted Beinart, is that he will have to prove his loyalty to The People in a way that "bad blacks" never have to. Obama, for his part, settled this debate some time ago. "If I'm outside your building trying to catch a cab," he told Charlie Rose, "they're not saying, 'Oh, there's a mixed race guy.'" Obama understands what all blacks, including myself, know all too well — that Amadou Diallo's foreign ancestry could not prevent his wallet from morphing into a gun in the eyes of the police.

For years pundits excoriated young black kids for attacking other smart successful black kids by questioning their blackness. But this is suddenly permissible for presidential candidates. Beinart's good black/bad black dynamic is the sort of armchair logic that comes from not spending much time around actual black people. As the New Republic points out, Sharpton has an overstated following among black people. In 2004, when Sharpton ran for President, his traction among his alleged base was underwhelming. In South Carolina, where almost half of all registered Dems were black, both John Kerry and John Edwards received twice as many black votes as Sharpton. But this hasn't stopped media outlets from phoning Sharpton whenever something even remotely racial goes down. And it hasn't stopped writers from touting Sharpton's presumed popularity among black people, as opposed to "palatable" black people like Obama.

The black-on-black argument seemed to be bolstered by recent polls showing Obama significantly trailing Hillary Clinton among black voters. But reading into poll numbers that way is a clever device, hatched by mainstream (primarily white) journalists who are shocked — shocked! — to discover that black people aren't as dumbstruck by Obama as they are.

What they fail to understand is that African-Americans meet other intelligent, articulate African-Americans all the time. In almost every cycle since 1984, at least one of these brave chaps has run for President. Forgive us if we don't automatically pledge our votes to Obama and instead make judgments based on things besides skin color — like, heaven forbid, issues. Joe Biden may have misspoken — and in the process probably destroyed any remote hopes of winning the nomination — but he spoke truthfully for a lot of his ilk; Obamania is rooted in the belief that 50 Cent, not Barack Obama, represents the real black America.

Back in the real world, Obama is married to a black woman. He goes to a black church. He's worked with poor people on the South Side of Chicago, and still lives there. That someone given the escape valve of biraciality would choose to be black, would see some beauty in his darker self and still care more about health care and public education than reparations and Confederate flags is just too much for many small-minded racists, both black and white, to comprehend.

Barack Obama's real problem isn't that he's too white — it's that he's too black.

By Tanehisi Paul Coates
http://www.time.com

Michael Vick: A Dog Gone Shame

Updated Aug. 23, 2007 (CNN) -- Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick is waiting to hear if he'll ever play professional football again after agreeing to plead guilty and face prison in his federal dogfighting case.

On Wednesday, July 18, a federal grand jury in Richmond indicted Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick and three other men yesterday on charges related to their alleged operation of a dog fighting ring based at a property Vick owns in southeastern Virginia.

This indictment comes as a result of the April 25 raid on Vick’s house in Surry County, Va. Authorities reportedly found, 66 dogs (most of which were pit bulls), a dog-fighting pit, bloodstained carpets and equipment commonly associated with dog fighting. Vick, who was not at the scene and has repeatedly denied knowledge of dog fighting at the property; has increasingly come under fire from animal rights groups.

Vick, one of the NFL's most exciting players, was charged with competitive dog fighting and conducting the venture across state lines. The 19-page indictment alleged Vick was highly involved in the operation, alleging that he attended fights and paid off bets when his dogs lost. It said he also was involved in the executions of dogs that did not perform well. If convicted, Vick could face a total of up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines. He could face additional discipline by the NFL, even if he is not convicted.

According to the indictment, Vick decided in his rookie season of 2001, with Phillips and Taylor, to start a dog fighting operation. Vick, who grew up in Newport News, paid $34,000 in June 2001 for a property at 1915 Moonlight Rd. and, according to the indictment, "used this property as the main staging area for housing and training the pit bulls involved in the dog fighting venture and hosting dog fights."

The NFL said the matter would be reviewed under the league’s toughened personal conduct policy. “We are disappointed that Michael Vick has put himself in a position where a federal grand jury has returned an indictment against him,” the NFL said in a written statement. “We will continue to closely monitor developments in this case, and to cooperate with law enforcement authorities. The activities alleged are cruel, degrading and illegal. Michael Vick’s guilt has not yet been proven, and we believe that all concerned should allow the legal process to determine the facts."

However, sources close to Vick say, “He's a pit bull fighter.” An ESPN source said that Vick is“one of the ones that they call 'the big boys': that's who bets a large dollar. And they have the money to bet large money. As I'm talking about large money -- $30,000 to $40,000 -- even higher. He's one of the heavyweights."

Vick's associates, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips and Tony Taylor, were indicted on the same charges. The men, who named their enterprise the “Bad Newz Kennels,” developed the property for their dog fighting operation, building a house, "a fence to shield the rear portion of the compound from public view [and] multiple sheds used at various times to house training equipment, injured dogs and organized fights," the indictment said.

The indictment said that in April 2007, Peace, Phillips and Vick "executed approximately eight dogs that did not perform well in 'testing' sessions by various methods, including hanging, drowning and/or slamming at least one dog's body to the ground." Vick also is alleged to have consulted with Peace before Peace killed a losing dog by electrocution in 2003.

In the U.S., dog fighting is considered a felony in every state except Wyoming and Idaho. Additionally, transporting dogs over state lines for dog fighting is a federal crime.

Despite that fact, according to The Humane Society, it's estimated that somewhere between 20,000-40,000 people in this country take part in this multibillion-dollar industry.

American pit bull terriers account for 99 percent of the species involved in dogfighting, and a pit bull puppy can cost as much as $5,000. An average dog fight carries a $10,000 purse.

Obviously dog fighting is wrong. Dog fighting’s violent nature and appeal to gamblers has made the blood sport a brutal, malicious exploitation of “man’s best friend.” Dog fighting is severely cruel. Most fighting dog breeds, especially pit bulls are intensely loyal dogs and dogfighters exploit their positive characteristics to create violent animals.

The dogs aren't the only ones who suffer. It's impossible to estimate how many other animals and humans have been harmed by violent people who are desensitized to brutality, in part as a result of watching or participating in dog fighting and other forms of animal cruelty. Everyone is familiar with the cliché “Violence begets violence.” Laura Maloney, executive director of the Louisiana Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says, “Research proves that people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse people. In addition, fighting enthusiasts often bring young children to the fights, desensitizing them to violence and teaching them that violence is accepted by society.”

References:

1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
2. http://www.espn.com/
3. http://www.la-spca.org/
4. http://www.hsus.org/

Congress Accepts Paternity Results

Three cheers for congress. Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray! Hip-Hip Hooray! Finally, we have a Congress by the people for the people, or at least… for the little people. The Democratic Party in all its glory and might was able to pass health care aid to millions of uninsured children. Now Congress like Sexual Chocolate in “Coming to America” can sing about how children are the future.

Congress, not only following Sexual Chocolate’s mandate but the majority of the American public took a step towards fixing the gaping hole that is healthcare. A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

The Senate passed CHIP reauthorization by a veto-proof 68-31 vote, and the House passed an even better bill by 225-204.

Ponder this, when it comes to health insurance, what happens to a family that makes too much money to qualify for Medical Assistance, but doesn’t make enough to afford health insurance? Step in State Children's Health Insurance Program or SCHIP.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), created by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted Title XXI of the Social Security Act and allocated about $20 billion over five years to help states insure more children. SCHIP continues to receive considerable attention as states implement or continue to expand and refine their initial SCHIP plans. SCHIP plans have been approved in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and 5 territories.

How Does SCHIP Work?

The program covers kids in families with incomes too high for Medicaid but too low to afford private or employer-sponsored insurance. With funding both from the federal government and from their own treasuries, states can decide whether to create a separate SCHIP program, expand Medicaid, or both. States have the flexibility to set income eligibility limits, and most states cover children in families with incomes of up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Any money that states don’t use can be redistributed to other states that face shortfalls.

How Is SCHIP Helping Children?

A look at the numbers shows just how successful SCHIP has been in the past 10 years...

• 6 million children enrolled over the course of a year.

• 4.1 million children enrolled in June 2007.

...but also how far we still must go to achieve affordable coverage for all:

• 9 million children are still uninsured.

• The White House estimates that 1.1 million currently uninsured children are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid

• ...But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that 5 million to 6 million currently uninsured children are eligible for SCHIP or Medicaid.

Well the House bill which is more generous would set aside nearly $11 billion for incentive payments to states that do a good job boosting these enrollments; it focuses on getting states to sign up the poorest, Medicaid-eligible kids. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that, under the House bill, in 2012, about 5 million children who would not otherwise have insurance would be covered; of those, 3 million would be on Medicaid. This would represent an impressive reduction in the more than 4 million children currently eligible for Medicaid but not enrolled.

The House health-care bill unveiled this month has two noteworthy innovations. It would focus additional federal health-care spending on ensuring that poor children eligible for coverage actually receive it. And it would end expensive and unnecessary subsidies for managed-care programs for seniors while making new efforts to help the poorest seniors -- an approach that will be the subject of a separate editorial. The measure faces a daunting political path, both because of its high price tag and because of the financing mechanism, a combination of higher tobacco taxes and lower payments to managed-care plans. But the priorities it reflects are those that lawmakers -- and the Bush administration -- should keep in mind as the debate progresses.

What’s the Big Deal?

The controversy over renewing SCHIP has largely centered on authorizing or expanding coverage for children higher up the income scale, above 200 percent of the poverty level. The administration argues that providing coverage above this level -- $34,340 for a family of three -- would simply shift children from private coverage onto the government dole. Certainly, this is a risk, but so is the threat of children without insurance because of rising premiums and dropped coverage. The poverty level is set nationwide, so that a family at 200 percent of poverty in a high-cost state could easily be unable to afford insurance.

The launching point for the House effort is the need to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), a joint federal-state program that provides coverage to children in low-income families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. The 10-year-old program expires in September. The House would spend an additional $50 billion over five years, while a bipartisan Senate measure mandates $35 billion. President Bush has threatened to veto even the smaller Senate measure. Instead, he has proposed just $4.8 billion in extra spending above the $25 billion that straight reauthorization would cost -- an amount that would fail even to retain the number of children already covered.

What Do We Think?

Chris Satullo a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer writes, "Health care is a classic public good that should be supported by a social compact: The healthy should pay into the system to underwrite care for those who need it now, both as a matter of civic morality and self-interest."

It is the opinion of this blog that good healthcare during childhood is extremely important. If a child is healthy he (or she) is much more likely to be healthy, happy, and productive throughout his (or her) life. So CHIP is an investment in today’s children that will pay dividends over the long term in the form of more productive citizens and lower health costs.

Empowering A Responsible America

The gun control dispute has long been a topic of debate. It divides the political platforms of Democrats and Republicans, questions constitutional limits and sets extreme stereotypes of those abiding by their respective stances.

A recent new article caught my eye, when it mentioned that college students are pushing for their schools to allow them to carry guns on campus, saying they should have the right to protect themselves in a situation like the one in which 32 Virginia Tech students and faculty were fatally shot.

The article specifically mentioned, Andrew Dysart, a George Mason University senior who organized a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which hopes to persuade legislators to overturn a Virginia law that allows universities to prohibit students, faculty and staff members with gun permits from carrying their weapons onto campus.

Nationwide, 38 states ban weapons at schools, and 16 of those specifically ban guns on college campuses, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states allow schools to adopt their own gun policies.

However, Virginia law lets schools decide whether to allow students with concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns on campus. More states should allow academic institutions to decide for themselves whether or not concealed weapons should be permitted on campus.

Nevertheless, many colleges generally oppose allowing guns on campus for safety reasons. Opponents such as, the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, which represents campus public-safety officials, said the presence of students carrying concealed weapons “has the potential to dramatically increase violence on our college and university campuses.” There is no denying that allowing concealed weapons brings the potential for accidental gun discharge or misuse of firearms at parties, including those where alcohol or drugs are used.

But aren’t there beneficial potentials, as well?

According to the Office of Post Secondary Education (www.ope.ed.gov) on campus arrest for 4-Year Public Institutions rise every year. Additionally, illegal weapons possession crimes have risen almost a staggering 65%! The Center for Problem- Orienting Policing (www.popcenter.org) believes (and this blog agrees) that rape is the most common violent crime on American college campuses today. It goes on to say that:

“Researchers believe that college rape prevention programs, including the most widely used ones, are insufficient. Most rapes are unreported, perhaps giving campus administrators and police the false impression that current efforts are adequate. In addition, campus police may be influenced by college administrators who fear that too strong an emphasis on the problem may lead potential students and their parents to believe that rape occurs more often at their college than at others.”

The “Sexual Victimization of College Women,” a research report conducted by the National Institute of Justice wrote an estimated 25% of college women are raped.

In addition, it found that women ages 16 to 24 experience rape at rates four times higher than the assault rate of all women, making the college (and high school) years the most vulnerable for women. College women are more at risk for rape and other forms of sexual assault than women the same age but not in college.

Important to note, is that rape rates vary to some extent by school type of school and region, suggesting that certain schools and certain places within schools are more rape-prone than others. Some features of the college environment–frequent unsupervised parties, easy access to alcohol, single students living on their own, and the availability of private rooms– may contribute to high rape rates of women college students.

So, why allow students to carry guns?

Gun free school zones have proven to be a dangerous delusion that has resulted in people being forced to be victims.

The solution is to empower the most responsible people in America to be intermixed with potential victims so that they might have the opportunity to be the first responders to head off such attacks such as the one at Virginia Tech. Students who have gun permits should be allowed to have their guns on campus, but must register with their campus police, local authorities, state and federal officials.

We have seen that armed civilians, students and staff alike, have been able to get their guns and stop campus killers in the past -- such as in Pearl, Mississippi (1997) and Grundy, Virginia (2002). But in those cases, the heroes had to run to their cars and get their guns and run back to the scene of the crime to stop the killer, losing valuable time.