Your Thoughts and Feedback Are Appreciated!

Well another quarter has come and gone!  I have enjoyed getting to know all of you and hearing your opinions in class!  When we started together it was dark and cold, and now Spring is just around the corner. I wish all of you blessings and success in the future, and hope that you stay in touch.

So for our last blog post, I would like to get your thoughts and feedback on the class.  "What did you like or dislike about the class?  What could I do to make it better?"  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, March, 23rd 2016.  After that, the blog will be down until class resumes next quarter. For those of you who celebrate - have a Happy Easter! I hope all of you enjoy the break!

Just Say No!

This week, former First Lade Nancy Reagan passed away at the age of 94.  If you're a child of the 80's like me (yes, I am really that old!) you remember Nancy Reagan as an anti-drug crusader who encouraged kids all around the country to "Just Say No!" Critics viewed the slogan as an over-simplistic and unrealistic approach to lower drug usage in our country.  In fact, there's no denying that drug use actually soared in the U.S. throughout the 80's and has continued to plague our country.  Consider the following:

• According to a 2012 National Survey on Drug Use& Health, 23.9 million people reported they had used illicit drugs within 1 month of the survey.
• Emergency room visits for non-medical usage of prescription drugs rose 98.4% from 2004 – 2009.
• From 1998 – 2008, drug overdoses increased 56%.
• According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, there are 23 million addicts in the United States and only 2.6 million ever seek help or treatment.
• 8.4 million people who abuse substances also suffer from at least one mental illness.

I’ve blogged before about my personal experiences with mental health issues, and the shortage of mental health beds in this country.  You can read my personal journey and your fellow students’ comments here:  http://historicalandpoliticalissues.blogspot.com/2014/08/oh-captain-my-captain.html

Drug addiction is a complex disorder, with mental health issues being just one aspect of the disease.  Since treatment for abuse and addiction is delivered using a variety of behavioral and pharmacological approaches, it can be hard to quantify the number of treatment facilities and space available, but the estimate that I could find was that there are 14,500 specialized drug treatment facilities in the United States.  14, 500 may seem like an adequate number until you realize that there are 23 million addicts!  Even you are one of the few who seek treatment; you may not be able to afford it.  Health coverage doesn’t always adequately cover treatment, which results in shorter stays for many addicts who needs months and maybe even years to fully recover.  The Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as ObamaCare), includes parity of coverage for both mental health and substance abuse problems, which only means the demand for these services could grow even higher, resulting in a continued shortage of treatment facilities.

It’s a tough problem, and one America hasn’t done a great job of solving.  We have either taken too harsh of stance – in the case of marijuana, which is still classified as a Schedule I narcotic, along with cocaine and heroin, or we have taken too passive of a stance – as in the case of the “Just Say No!” campaign. 

 I’m interested in knowing your thoughts.  So my question to you this week is, “What do you think can be done to curb America’s drug problem?  Do legalizing “lighter” drugs, like marijuana help or hurt the problem?  Should health insurance companies be mandated to cover drug rehabilitation stays, or is the individual responsible for their own addiction?”  You must answer all questions for full credit.  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, March 16, 2016.

 

  

How Do You Like Them Apples?

You may have heard recently that the FBI has requested that Apple help the FBI unlock the iPhone of the San Bernardino terrorists.  If you’re like me, you may be wondering why the FBI needs Apple to unlock the phone.  (Seriously – the FBI can’t hack into an IPhone?!) Apparently, the phone’s security measures have prevented the FBI from being able to access what may or may not be critical evidence in the San Bernardino case.

Apple has refused to help create any software that would circumvent the phone’s security measures, stating in part that, “helping the FBI unlock this phone will be setting a dangerous precedent for everyone’s cybersecurity.”  Apple feels the new software could possibly leak, and entice hackers to modify and/or breach the system on their own, thus weakening the security of all its products.

For their part, the FBI has stated that if Apple isn’t compelled to help it will be the equivalent of creating “evidence-free” zones, thus empowering terrorists even further.  Both sides have taken their case to Congress this week.

Since we will be studying 1^st Amendment Freedoms this week in class, which includes freedom of speech, I thought this seemed like a good case to blog about.  In this age of “terrorism,” it seems we must often choose between our own security versus our civil liberties.  So my question to you this week is, “Do you think Apple should be forced to develop software that could help the FBI access iPhone data?  Are you willing to give up some of your freedoms if it means making our country safer?”  You must answer both questions for full credit.  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, March 9^th, 2016.

 

When the Past Catches Up to You

I was surprised to learn while reading last week’s blog that several of you wanted to issue rulings on our criminal justice system, and how felons are treated in terms of employment.  As a person who has spent my entire career working on inner-city poverty issues, including those affecting people with criminal history, I knew this would be a good issue to blog about.  Consider the following statistics according the Bureau of Justice:

• There are currently roughly 2.3 million people in prison or jail.
• There are currently roughly 5.1 million additional people on parole or probation.
• 9.7% of males ages 30-34 have been in prison – the highest rate since the data became available in the early 70’s.
• 11.3% of males born in 2001 will be imprisoned at some point in their life, compared to only 3.6% in 1974.

I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that people with misdemeanors or felonies on their record have a much harder time finding employment.  With no job, they often can’t pay the staggering fees that come with being on probation, which means there’s a much higher chance they’ll recidivate. Fortunately, in 2012, Indiana changed its laws related to the expungement and sealing of criminal history records.  Individuals can now have their records expunged if the charges were never filed, dropped, or the individual was found not guilty.  It may not seem like much, but it’s actually a pretty big deal.  I’ve seen people with 4 pages of criminal history – yet they’ve never been convicted of anything.  Have the opportunity to remove all of the charges from their record, give them a clean slate.  Frankly, if they haven’t been convicted, I think clearing their record is only right.

Indiana law also allows people to “restrict access” to the criminal history.  Individuals who have misdemeanors or non-violent, class D felonies can “restrict access” to their record, meaning only law enforcement and the criminal justice system can actually see the convictions.  Employers and others that pull criminal history records will not be able to see these convictions.  Individuals can also legally state they’ve never been convicted of a crime on a job application.  It’s considered to be a game changer in terms of individuals with convictions on their records finding gainful employment.

So my question to you this week is, “Do you think people who were convicted of crimes should be able to restrict access to their criminal records – or do you think employers have the right to know if you committed a felony?”  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, March 2^nd, 2016.

Now Hiring!

You may have seen on the news this week that Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia died Saturday, February 13^th.  He was 79 years old, and the longest serving member of the current court, having been nominated by President Reagan in 1986.  Immediately (like, literally within seconds) of his death the focus became focused not on his legacy, but on who would be nominated to serve in his place.  I’ve never been a big fan of most of Justice Scalia’s opinions on the Court, but even I thought the immediate politicization of his death was kind of distasteful.

Nevertheless, since we will be studying the Supreme Court next week, I’ve decided to go ahead and blog about what it sure to be a hotly contested debate in the upcoming weeks.  Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution states, “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”  The President has always nominated an individual for the Court, and the Senate rejects or confirms them after going through a lengthy confirmation hearing in which they interview the candidate about their background, choices, and legal opinions.  This process is designed to provide the “checks and balances” we have discussed in class.  Both the President and the Senate have important roles in choosing our next Supreme Court Justice.

So what’s causing all the controversy?  There are 9 Supreme Court Justices – currently 4 of them are considered to be more liberal on issues, and the other 5 (before Scalia’s passing) are more moderate and conservative. Justice Scalia was by all accounts a more conservative justice – perhaps one of the most conservative on the bench.  With his passing, President Obama has the potential to nominate a more liberal justice, which will effectively shift the political leanings of the Court – giving the liberal justices a majority for the first time in years.

Many outspoken conservatives are calling on President Obama to withhold his nomination, and allow the incoming President to nominate someone after the election.  Some Republican Senators have said they will take no action on confirming anyone President Obama nominates.  For his part, President Obama has said the Constitution is clear, it’s his responsibility to nominate someone, and he plans to do so.   

So my question to you this week is twofold, First, “Do you think President Obama should nominate someone for the Supreme Court, or should we wait until after the election for the incoming President to do so?”  Second, “If you sat on the Supreme Court, what is one issue that you would like to issue a ruling on – and what would be your opinion?”  You must answer both questions for full credit.  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, February 24^th, 2016. 

Health vs. Wealth

My family never had health insurance growing up. In fact, I never had health insurance until I graduated from college, and got my first professional job. We only saw a doctor if we were really, really sick and even then we just went to a clinic. Now I work at a place that pays 100% of my health insurance costs, and I try never to forget just how fortunate I am.  Medical debt is one of the top causes of bankruptcy in America. People can work their entire lives, and then just like that – one medical crisis can put them into staggering debt.

So because of my experience, I supported the Affordable Care Act (commonly referred to as ObamaCare).  The Affordable Care Act prevents those with pre-existing medical conditions from being denied health insurance, eliminates co-pays for preventative care, and allows young adults to stay on their parents’ coverage until 26 years of age. 

The Affordable Care Act also mandates that people who don’t have insurance pay a fee called the individual shared responsibility payment.  When non-insured people get sick, they often visit the emergency room, and that drives up costs for the rest of us who DO have insurance.  The fee is a way to offset those costs – it makes people who don’t have insurance “share responsibility” for higher costs. Individuals who have health insurance will no longer have to indirectly pay for emergency visits from individuals who aren’t insured.

I never thought too much about this fee until I did my taxes last week.  That’s when I discovered that if I didn’t have health insurance for any month throughout the year, I would need to pay the fee.  The fee is determined either by person - $695/per person, or by income – 2.5% of your income.  The kicker is that you pay whichever fee is higher.  So a person making $50,000/year would pay $1,250 for not having health insurance for the entire year.  I don’t know about you, but 2.5% of my income seemed kind of high to me – until I saw that my health insurance costs for the year were over three times that amount!  All of a sudden, the fee didn’t seem that bad.

Still, the Affordable Care Act has not been without controversy. Republicans feel it hurts employers because it requires companies with over 50 employees to provide health insurance to their employees.  Opponents to the new law also feel it amounts to over-reaching by the federal government – essentially saying it is not the federal government’s job to mandate healthcare for all citizens - hence, the "socialist" label we discussed in class last week.

So my question to you this week is, “What do you think of the Affordable Care Act?  Do you support or oppose it and why?”  You must answer both questions for full credit.  Whether you like it or not, this issue directly affects you – and one way or another you will soon be paying for healthcare costs, if you’re not already.  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, February 17, 2016. 

Just for fun, check out this Jimmy Kimble video in which he goes to the street to find out if people support the Affordable Care Act or Obamacare (hint: they’re the same thing). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

 

 

 

 

 

Who Runs the World?

Next month, we will celebrate International Women's Day on March 8th.  It's a day set aside to celebrate the economic, political and social achievements of women.  Those of you who know me, know that I am a big supporter of my fellow sisters.  It's disappointing to me when women hate on other women.  How can we ever expect better treatment from our male counterparts, if we constantly try and bring each other down?

Despite all of our achievements, women still lag behind men in several key areas:

• In 2012, women working full-time made an average of $37,791 annually, compared to $49,398 for men.
• Although women are now earning more Bachelor degree's than men, women with a four-year degree make an average of $930/week, while men with the same degree make an average of $1,199.
• only 4.6% of Fortune 500 companies have a female CEO.

We are also bombarded with society's expectations of how a woman should look, think and act.  Beauty advertisements tell us we are too wrinkly, our hair is too dull and lifeless, and our bodies are just too fat.  Television commercials say we should be focused on what detergent gets our whites cleaner, what diapers keep our kids cleaner, and what we should make for dinner tonight.  We are taught from a young age that we need to aspire to be someone else.  To hear more on this topic, stated in a better way than I could ever say it, check out this speech by activist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg3umXU_qWc

So my question to you this week is two-fold.  First, ladies - I would like to know "How were you affected by society's standards for women growing up"  Guys - This isn't just a female issue.  You all have mothers, some have sisters, and many of you will have daughters one day.  So for the men, I would like to know "How you think men contribute to these standards for women?"  Second, it's possible that Hillary Clinton is running for President again in 2016.  In fact, we have two female candidates running for President in the next election.  So for everyone, I would like to know, "Do you think America can handle a female President?"  Answers are due no later than Wednesday, February 10, 2016.