@mareenaalexusCA Politics California’s long-standing felony murder rule has imprisoned hundreds of individuals throughout the state for a murder they essentially did not commit. The rule states that those of whom had participated in any part of the crime even if they played a small part such as the driver or lookout and had no intention or knowledge that a murder was even being committed will be treated as if they were the person directly responsible for that person’s death. Which begs the question of, why should we care? The simple fact of the matter comes down to the issue at hand which is that the felony murder rule is known as archaic as it was presented in an era of over-justice, and will only bring tax payers to house inmates who really shouldn’t be serving life sentences.
In an era of over-justice, “get tough on crime” is often viewed as one that has left Americans and Californians alike to flood our prison systems with prisoners serving punitive sentences for low level offenses and in this case, murders they didn’t commit. According to Los Angeles Times author Jazmine Ulloa, local California man, Bobby Garcia served 21 years in prison for the murder of a man whose life he didn’t personally take. When Garcia was in ninth grade he and four teenage friends robbed a man for gas money on their way to a party and not long after the incident Garcia learned that the man was also stabbed and inevitably died from his wounds. Garcia believed the incident occurred while he was in the car waiting for his friends and insisted that he never planned to murder someone and that it was only his intent to rob the man (Ulloa, 2018). He later took a plea deal and served 25 years in prison rather than withholding his innocence and face the possibility of lifetime incarceration by jury. Years after his release Garcia lobbied aside Democratic State Senator Nancy Skinner as they awaited Senate Bill 1437’s approval. The new bill would prevent prosecutors from utilizing the felony murder rule so hastily in order to get longer and harsher sentences put forth on an individual who wasn’t directly responsible for the death of another. The bill didn’t pass through the initiative but instead landed on former California Governor, Jerry Brown’s desk through a proposal that would limit prosecutors from its usage and allow those currently serving time under the rule to be eligible for resentencing. Although that’s not to say that voters never played a big part in its creation. It seems as though the era of “get tough on crime” remains in the rear-view mirror of Californians and Americans alike. According to the Northern California ACLU (2017) 71 percent of people say it’s important to reduce the prison population in America, 72 percent of Americans would be more likely to vote for an elected official who supports eliminating mandatory minimum laws, and 71 percent of Americans agree that incarceration is often counterproductive to public safety due to its lack of rehabilitating programs that often end in prisoners recidivating. In the previous 2016 presidential election, then candidate Trump was a strong advocate on his platform of the nation’s failed “get tough on crime” policy that has led Americans in a shamble of prisoner debt. According to Udi Ofer (2017), a political director for the ACLU’s Campaign for Smart Justice, “Americans reject President Trump’s 1990s-era tough-on-crime approach and overwhelmingly believe in a different and smarter approach.” Although California has come a long way prior to the passage of bill 1437, it doesn’t guarantee the inmates currently serving these harsh sentences full clemency or a one-way ticket out of prison. These inmates have been sentenced to lengthy sentences due to the language in which they were sentenced, felony murder rule. Leading inmates serving prison terms of 25 years to life and even life without possibility of parole for a murder they themselves did not commit. Of the worst of the worst criminals here in California, the sexual abusers, rapists, murderers, mutilators, etc. are those serving time for the felony murder rule, those who weren’t responsible for anyones death. California tops the charts at being the leader of housing life and virtual life (those ineligible for parole until serving 50 years of their sentence of longer) prisoners at a whooping 40,691 inmates making one inmate serving a life sentence for every three incarcerated inmates in prison. Additionally, among those 40,691 inmates currently 34, 607 are serving life sentences and of those, are inmates more than likely those sentenced under California’s felony murder rule (Sentencing Project, 2017). Not only should it be concerning that Californians sent those of whom weren’t directly responsible for the murder to life imprisonment, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office (2019), we’re cashing out $81,203 per inmate as 2018-2019 statistics indicate. Over three-quarters of these costs are for security and inmate health care which shouldn’t be surprising considering the fact that California incarcerated these felony murder inmates back in the 90’s and many of whom are now considered geriatric or elderly inmates (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2019). According to Joan Petersilia (2017), co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, “We released all the low-risk, low-need and we kept in the high-risk, high-need.” By keeping those sentenced under the felony murder rule for a murder they didn’t commit, California is spending essentially billions of dollars for prisoners whose time has most likely already been spent.
0 Comments
Senior Ecology StudentAmerican Governments Since 1980, regulations placed on the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR) in Alaska have protected ecologically important plants, animals and natural resources from becoming exploited or otherwise damaged by human development [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, N.D.]. These regulations have been opposed by oil companies, Republican politicians, and most Alaskan citizens, who argue that harvesting oil and gas resources from protected territories is crucial for meeting the growing energy demands of the United States. However, as global climate change continues to stress delicate tundra ecosystems, conservationists and environmental organizations warn that development could cause irreparable damage to habitats and the species that utilize them.
Shortly after President Trump took office, his administration passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which included legislation permitting the leasing of land for drilling projects in Arctic reserves [Congressional Research Service, 2017]. In December of 2018, the Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a statement that of the 19.3 million acres in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve today, 1.5 million acres of Alaskan coastline are planned to be sold to bidders like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP [Muffson, 2018]. The BLM is also responsible for conducting environmental risk assessments to determine if drilling is safe; however, there is evidence that these efforts are being illegally rushed such that drilling can begin before President Trump exits office in 2020. If these drilling projects are to proceed, organizations like the Wilderness Society urge that biodiversity, aboriginal peoples, and arctic habitats will be placed at risk [The Wilderness Society, 2019]. Before the first drops of crude oil are ever harvested, natural landscapes must be cleared and then developed to accommodate the demands of drilling projects. For instance, trees, grasslands and coastal habitats may be destroyed to make way for airports, roads, and shelters used in transporting the supplies and heavy machinery required for drilling. The noise pollution from construction work alone can kill fishes and other aquatic animals, disrupt seasonal migration in birds and mammals, and alter the behaviors and mating habits of many animals. Construction may also demolish key foraging, nesting and mating habitats, decreasing resource availability for many species. Among the 270 plant and animal species that would be impacted by oil drilling projects in the Arctic Wildlife Reserve, the Porcupine Caribou may be one of the most susceptible. This large, bulky relative of the reindeer undergoes seasonal migration directly through coastal habitats, where it feeds on grasses mushrooms and pine needles. During the Summer months, it rears its young in these regions; if the Trump Administration leases this land off to oil companies, it is likely that there would not be enough quality food to support a robust population. Regulations that would limit land development, exploration and drilling during the Summer months are currently being considered, but it is unclear if there exists sufficient support for them in Congress. While purchasing plots of land from the Arctic Wildlife Reserve may seem unambiguously advantageous for oil companies, it may pose serious risks. The resources required to purchase land, search for potential drilling locations, and develop plots are not insignificant financial investments—especially when considering that the land may not be as fruitful as expected or as advertised. Oil companies will have to weigh the risks of drilling, including: the costs of development, the costs of shipping equipment to and from remote locations in Alaska, the possibility of unproductive sites, and the consequences of irreversible ecosystem damage with the potential economic benefits. Furthermore, the enthusiasm and sense of urgency displayed by the Trump Administration and potential buyers in seems misplaced when considering another risk—global energy trends. In particular, the United States’ energy demands are projected to move away from fossil fuels like coal and oil, and instead move toward renewable, sustainable sources like wind and solar energy. Because of this, the future rewards that can be expected of oil drilling operations may begin to diminish while the risks remain the same. I argue that the long-term risks and consequences of the Trump Administration leasing territory from National Arctic Wildlife Reserves to oil companies far exceeds any short-term economic benefits from oil harvests. Tags: Donald Trump, David Bernhardt, Brian Steed, Bureau of Land Management "Mad Hatter"American Governments Over one-third of people in the United States have experienced pain in the last three months. Of those, 25.3 million experience pain daily. Many of these people turn to opioids as a fast and effective way to relieve their pain. And with doctors readily prescribing opioids, more and more Americans have become addicted to their effects. The United States is facing an opioid epidemic due to the negligence of big pharmaco in the late 1990s. Pharmaceutical companies assured doctors and patients that they wouldn’t become addicted to opioid pain relievers. This caused a sharp increase in their rate of prescription, in fact, rates have quadrupled. In 2017 an estimated 47,600 people died from opioid overdose, 11.4 million misused prescription opioids. Of those prescribed, 21-29% of people misuse their prescription and 8-12% will develop opioid disorder (Public Affairs). The majority of the 11.4 million that misused opioids report doing so to relieve physical pain. However, a large portion report using them to get high (11.7%) or to relax and relieve tension (10.9%) (Lipari, R., 2017). Recently, a lawsuit against a large manufacturer of opioids was settled for $270 million for the deaths and societal damage this misinformation has caused (Hoffman, J., 2019 ). In 2016 the CDC released prescribing guidelines to prevent the overprescribing from doctors. Included in their guidelines is to turn to use physical therapy as a means to prevent and treat pain symptoms especially for musculoskeletal pain such as low back pain and osteoarthritis (MoveForwardPT, 2018). This is a call for doctors to recognize the role of physical therapists in the opioid epidemic.
Additionally, the opioid crisis is merely a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed: the apparent lack of holistic and preventative care due to the holes in access to affordable healthcare. In the United States, health coverage is attained through your employer, purchasing it yourself, or government programs. There are typically three different categories of insurance that vary cost and in freedom to choose your healthcare provider. In general, from highest cost and most freedom, to least expensive but least freedom to choose, the three plans are: fee-for-service plans, health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and preferred provider organizations (PPOs). For people with disabilities, government aid is an option in the form of Medicaid and Medicare. Each type of insurance will cover either a certain dollar amount or percentage of specified medical expenses. Not all doctors, medications, treatments, therapies, or medical equipment are covered. Furthermore, to obtain physical therapy sessions, many insurance policies require a provider to confirm that physical therapy is medically necessary. This places the responsibility on the doctor, rather than the physical therapist, to judge when physical therapy is necessary or not. This highlights the importance of educating prescribers when opioids versus physical therapy are warranted. It also signifies the priority of educating patients of their options when faced with injuries. Election Impact: There are two levels of government we must look at to observe how recent elections have impacted this issue: the federal level and the state level. The federal government has the power to give funding and grants whereas the states can regulate who prescribes it and pass legislations. The midterm elections in November 2018 passed multiple bills in hopes to have an effect on the opioid epidemic. To help current addicts, funding for new treatment programs, new recovery centers, and different payment options for patients were all addressed in the bills. Additionally, Congress guided the National Institute of Health to develop alternative non addictive painkillers. (Walden, & Greg., 2018.) The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 and came into effect in 2014. It aimed to address the overarching problem of accessible and affordable healthcare. It roughly halved the amount of uninsured individuals due to the expansion of Medicaid eligibility. However, not much has been done to expand this act any further and, in fact, Medicare access has been declining. (Healthcare.gov) In California, Jerry Brown passed Senate Bill No. 1109 in September 2018. This bill focused on prevention via educating the public about precautions and dangers of opioid use. Additionally, it requires prescribers to participate in continuing medical education in order to maintain updated information regarding risks and alternatives to opioid prescription. (Caiola, S.) Conclusion: The overarching problem of the opioid crisis appears to be rooted in American’s access to healthcare. If healthcare were more readily available and affordable, patients would likely be able to receive the care they need, when they need it. This would prevent injuries from getting too severe and likely needing opioid prescriptions as chronic injuries increase the risk of long term opioid usage. Additionally, the quality of healthcare needs to be improved. This is being addressed by government by requiring providers to receive continuing education of the dangers of opioids and the addiction crisis and the encouragement to use physical therapy as a means of long term pain relief and injury prevention. @VotingMattersCA Politics California has positioned itself as a global leader in environmental protections and policies. In the past, the State has implemented stringent rules including vehicle pollution control devices and tough vehicle fuel efficiency standards that the rest of the U.S. would come to adopt as well. However, approximately 39% of carbon dioxide emissions within California are currently being generated from gasoline or diesel fueled vehicles (mercurynews.com, 2018).
In 2018 former California Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order calling for 5 million zero emissions vehicles (ZEVs) to be put into service and ordering construction of 250,000 charging stations statewide by 2030. The cost of Brown’s plan is estimated to cost $2.5 billion (mercurynews.com, 2018) and includes expansion of a current State program that provides tax credits for purchasers of ZEVs. As Brown’s gubernatorial term was coming to an end, Gavin Newsom campaigned for the Office of the Governor on a platform that included a plan to reduce green house gases primarily by an “overhaul of the transportation sector” (Newsom, 2017). Newsom was elected into office in November 2018, and immediately set an agenda that included implementing Brown’s executive order. Given the cost of Ex-Governor Brown’s plan, there is no shortage of critics that question whether Newsome should continue down the same road as Brown. Some critics question whether ZEV incentives really do spark ZEV sales or reduce greenhouse emissions. When Ex-Governor Brown issued his executive order, his plan was to raise an additional $1.6 billion of funds in support of ZEVs through the State’s carbon cap and trade auction, and another $900 million through a continuation of a clean air bill that assesses and collects a $2 vehicle registration fee. These fees would then flow into the budget for California’s Air Resources Board (ARB), among others. ARB revenues would be for clean air projects, including additional funding for rebates given to the purchasers of ZEVs through the California Vehicle Rebate Program (CVRP) administered by the ARB. The CVRP was created in 2009 with the mandate to provide financial subsidies for cleaner air vehicles including Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) that initially run on electricity only before consuming fossil fuels, and vehicles that can operate with out using any fossil fuels, primarily Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs). BEVs account for 59.6% of all rebates issued by the CVRP, while PHEVs purchases have accounted for 38.2% of rebates, and FCEVs receiving 1.7% of CVRP rebates (cleanvehiclerebate.org, 2019). The CVRP is primarily funded from income generated from the state’s carbon dioxide cap and trade auction program and deposited into the GGRF, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (Legislative Analyst Office, 2018). To date, the GGRF has accounted for approximately $497.7 million of the $639.3 million total subsidies handed out by the State. Additional funding for clean air vehicle subsidies is provided within Assembly Bill (AB) 118, California Alternative and Renewable Fuel, Vehicle Technology, Clean Air and Carbon Reduction Act of 2007.AB 118 created the Air Quality Improvement Program, called for its administration by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), and funded the program by mandating increased smog abatement and vehicle registration fees. CARB has contributed about $115.4 million in subsidies to date. Assembly Bill (AB) 118 also established the California Energy Commission's Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program. Both AB 109 in 2008 and AB 8 in 2013 legislatively modified AB 118. Collectively, the statutes appropriate $100 million to the California Energy Commission (CEC) for projects that aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions within the State. Most relevantly, the CEC has contributed $23.1 million for rebates of ZEVs and is partnering with manufacturers of ZEVs to create a comprehensive network of ZEV charging stations. The sales of ZEVs nationwide are increasing in proportion to cars consuming fossil fuels due to a combination of Federal, State, and local utilities rebates that have driven down the cost of clean air vehicles to the point where they are competitively priced with other vehicles that consume fossil fuels. California also partners with ZEV manufacturers to build charging stations, and has offered other incentives for ZEV owners such as access to High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and desirable parking spots. The rebates, along with these other incentives, have dramatically accelerated ZEV sales within California. ZEV purchases now account for approximately 5% of all new, light vehicle sales in the State, about four times higher than the national average of 1.2% A combination of Federal, State, and local utilities ZEV rebates can have a profound effect on reducing the cost of ZEVs and thereby increasing unit sales. Purchasers of BEVs in California can, for example, qualify for $2,500 rebates in the form of a tax credit if they earn no more than $150,000 in the tax year when the BEV was purchased. ($4,500 for individuals earning less than $36,420 with the income ceiling increasing based on household size.) A purchaser of a brand new BMW i3 BEV that is offered for sale for $40,000 will receive a Federal tax credit of $7,500, a State rebate between $2,500 or $4,500 (dependent on income thresholds), and an additional credit from their local utility company that typically is valued around $500 in bill credits or in free charging equipment. The combination of credits effectively reduces the price of the BMW i3 by $10,500 and by $12,500 for lower income individuals. There is plenty of opposition to the ZEV rebate program. Opponents view the rebates as a waste of the State’s treasury. They argue that the tax credits are unequally handed out in favor of the wealthy. Others believe that the rebates are not effectively reducing pollution because their electricity is substantially generated from coal-fired power plants. Those supporting ZEV rebates counter thatthe rebates were created to incentivize potential buyers to purchase clean air vehicles for the purpose of targeting green house gas emissions. Each clean air vehicle that is purchased replaces a vehicle that would be adding climate-changing CO2 gases into our atmosphere. Proponents argue that even though the distribution of rebates among income levels may not be equitable, at least something is being done to combat climate change. Revisions to the qualifying income schedule can be debated later. Additionally, the wealthiest citizens don’t qualify for a rebate, while those earning modest incomes receive an additional $2,000. Rebate supporters add that it is less important who receives the rebate as long as additional units of vehicles consuming fossil fuels are taken out of service. In response to the pollution created from fossil-fueled power plants that most ZEVs rely on, they point out that it is easier to regulate a few power plants than millions of gas and diesel powered vehicles and that renewable power is making up a greater proportion of our electrical consumption every year. The current ZEV rebate program has been remarkably effective. Approximately 48% of all ZEVs sold nationwide have been sold in California (EVadoption.com, 2018) and 285,000 rebates have been issued by the CVRP (cleanvehiclerebate.org, 2019). The estimated total of all ZEVs sold is California, including by individuals not qualifying for rebates, is estimated at between 315,000 (Newsom, 2017) to 512,000 (arstechnica.com, 2018). The total number of ZEVs sold is higher than the amount of rebates given out because many buyers were over the income ceiling. However, buyers over the income ceiling can still take advantage of other State incentive programs like the ability to travel in HOV lanes, a huge incentive in the traffic-choked State. Still, most ZEV purchasers are primarily motivated by the State rebate. According to an online survey available on the cleanvehiclerebate.org website, 74% of the 19,500 respondents cited the State rebate as an extremely important, or very important, factor in their decision to purchase their clean air vehicle. In particular, sales of BEVs are increasing at a faster rate than PHEVs due to advancements in battery technology that allows for them to travel at greater distances and new BEV models from manufacturers that are driving prices lower. But how effective have California’s rebates been in reducing climate-changing gases such as CO2? According to the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, the average automobile powered by fossil fuel ejects 4.6 metric tons of CO2annually into our atmosphere (EPA.gov, 2017). It’s not easy to measure the cumulative amount of CO2that has been prevented from entering our environment, but we can still try. Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles such as the Toyota Prius should not be used in our calculations because they consume gas after their batteries lose their charge. Though PHEVs still contribute to CO2reduction, it is impossible to know the extent of their contribution. Therefore, we will consider only BEVs, the fastest growing segment of ZEVs and accounting for approximately 60% of all ZEV sales. A total of 168,135 BEV purchasers applied for rebates beginning January 2011 until September 30, 2018. By multiplying the number of rebates applied for each month, then assuming that each BEV is still in service and being driven, roughly 6.24 million metric tons of CO2 have been prevented from polluting the air we breathe. Clearly, both California ZEV rebates and incentives are an effective tool to drive ZEV sales and ought to be continued towards the goal of accelerating sales of clean air vehicles. The State’s Air Resources Board is now currently reviewing a proposal that would increase the State’s base ZEV subsidy from $2,500 up to $4,500 and change the income eligibility requirements so that the subsidies are widely available to low-income individuals. It is imperative that the subsidy amount is increased in order to put 5 million BEVs into service in California for the goal of decreasing green house gasemissions. California has shown the rest of the U.S. that meaningful rebates and incentives effectually reduce greenhouse gases. In the past, other states and our Country have followed California’s example of environmental leadership. You can help slow climate change through political participation. Remember, @Voting_Matters wants to remind you that voting matters on all voting matters! Vote for candidates like Governor Gavin Newsom, who supports reducing green house gases through an expansion of ZEV rebates and other incentives. In addition to voting, get active! Speak with other people about the importance of zero emission vehicles and their role in reducing green house gases. Send emails to your political Representatives asking them to support ZEV rebates for everyone. If you don’t know who your Representatives are, reply to me and I will send you their contact information. Please look for my upcoming blog where I will compare the effect of California’s program of ZEV rebates to other states that offer modest, or no rebates, for zero emission vehicle buyers. "CSUS KD"American Governments Access to clean water is not a privilege but rather a necessity. Rural areas of the United States suffer from terrible water conditions. Especially in Martin County, Kentucky, where water is unhealthy and sometimes have illegal levels of contamination because of an environmental disaster in 2000. A local coal company spilled 300 million gallons of waste coal, and chemicals, which polluted the local water supply. The Martin County Water District is in charge of solving the problems about safe water distribution, but from 2006 to 2016 the Martin County Water District showed no improvements in infrastructure and water condition. The consequences of people using this water are “severe rashes, respiratory problems, nausea and headaches that they attributed to drinking or bathing in potentially contaminated water”(Babich, 2003). The root of the problem is the failure of local political leadership and a lack of good governance. If Martin County saved money of coal severance funds as well as the state slurry disaster settlement funds for the water system, Martin County would not have this pollution on water. Governor Matt Bevin should issue the issue so that the federal government provides funding to the community in order to have safe and clean water.
In the past presidential election, Martin County was already suffering from polluted water. Some of the candidates for the presidential election mentioned the problem of water in rural communities of the United States. Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders talked on his speech about contaminated water in thousands of homes in California and in other communities that aren’t able to drink clean water. Also, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton addresses the same issue with toxic water in Michigan and express concern about the situation. However, neither of these two candidates talked about the situation in Martin County, Kentucky. On the other hand, the elected president Donald Trump didn’t talk about the water problems in Martin County, but the president did express his concern about rural communities left aside and improve their living situations. The rest of the candidates of the last presidential election didn’t address this issue because it wasn’t in the public eye. Also, we need to know that Martin County is a small county with approximately 12,000 people, which means that none of the past election candidates addressed specifically Martin County water issues of such a small county. However on the state level, district state representative Chris Harris clearly asked the Republican governor Matt Bevin to declare a state of emergency in order to fix the water problem that Martin County is experiencing. We can see that mainly the Democratic Party officials want to fix Martin’s County water instead of hiding the issue. It is important to know that highest elected official in Martin County Judge-Executive Kelly Callaham, as well as governor Matt Bevin, have ignored the problem with Martin’s County water. However, the past elections, the new Judge-Executive Bill Davis understands that Martin County doesn’t have enough budget for solving their water issue. On the past month, governor Matt Bevin announced a $3.4 million project to address the water problem on Martin County, which will be helpful for installing a secondary water intake to make an improvement to the water treatment plan. Clean water is a basic need for families around the world and the United States is one of the most developed countries in the world. The problem that Martin County is experiencing is happening in other counties around the country, which makes the issue important and relevant for the 2020 election. There are several candidates for the next presidential elections that are addressing water issues. For example, Democratic Party U.S. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker is making a clear statement with respect to finding solutions for clean water for all states that do not have that resource. Also, the senator Booker addressed the problem with lead contamination of the Passaic River, which will affect New Jersey’s water. Another candidate is the U.S. New York Senate Kristen Gillibrand, who has fight for maintaining the Hudson River clean. On her presidential candidacy, Senator Gillibrand states that she believes clean air and clean water are essential rights all Americans deserve–and they should never be sacrificed (Gillibrand). Also, another candidate is the US Senator Kamala D. Harris, the senator talks about the cost of having clean water is a burden to low-income families, which the candidate want to solve. Also, we have, last presidential election candidate Bernie Sanders, who also wants to improve the water condition for the state of California. Even though we see a big turnout of candidates to address the issue of water contamination, none of the candidates talks about Martin County, which is one of the counties with the worst water condition. All candidates are trying to address water pollution issues but from bigger states, which have more press rather than less known counties like Martin County. "Erinna"American Governments. To tackle the issue of conversion therapy and its effects on its victims, one must first understand what exactly conversion therapy is and what its aims are. Conversion therapy is the supposedly corrective therapy that aims to change a person's sexual orientation. According to the LGBT Movement Advancement project, “Conversion therapy, also referred to as “Reparative Therapy” or “Ex-Gay Therapy,” is a widely discredited practice that attempts to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Practices to “cure” individuals of their same-sex sexual orientations and transgender identities include a number of techniques ranging from shaming to hypnosis to inducing vomiting to electric shocks.” Simply because it's widely discredited doesn't mean its not still practiced. People still firmly believe in it. Patients will willingly sign up for it, but almost more concerning is that parents will force their children, minors that have no say in it to be participants. Conversion therapy exists as a hope to parents and patients alike to forcibly turn the LGBT person away from their attraction and towards what they would consider normal. It exists because to these parents the idea of their child; or in the case of willing patients, themselves, as gay is worse than the thought of the great psychological damages the treatment does.
While leading experts know that even if that were so and the benefits outweigh the consequences, conversion therapy is largely ineffective. Its largely ineffective at actually “curing” gayness but it's highly effective in causing self hate. Conversion therapy most profoundly impacts the patients. The national center for lesbian Rights is a movement centered on advancing gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender rights through litigation and legislation. They compiled a document about the myths and corresponding truths of the horrors of Gay transitional therapy, in which they state: “All of the nation’s leading professional medical and mental health associations have rejected conversion therapy as unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerous. These groups have cautioned that the practices do not work and have warned patients that they may be harmful. For example, the American Psychological Association “advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”” (nlcrights.org). The damage done by conversion therapy on a person, especially a child’s sense of self is incredibly dangerous. “Conversion therapy can be extremely dangerous and, in some cases, fatal. In 2009, the APA issued a report concluding that the reported risks of the practices include: depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.” (nlcrights.org) The question then becomes, if leading experts agree that conversion therapy is not only damaging but also that doesn't work, and that the practice covers anything up to “electrotherapy”, then how is signing a child up for it any different than child abuse? And why is it still allowed? Conversion therapy is only outlawed for minors in 15 states and DC, leaving 35 states with no law banning the harmful practice, and an estimate of 60 percent of the LGBT population in states where it is still legal. The majority of LGBT youth are not protected from this so called treatment by law. The issue of gay rights was discussed and given a spotlight as a whole during the campaigns; however, very few people mention gay conversion laws specifically. And the fact that minors, who do not have a choice in the matter of their treatment are allowed under law to be sent to these facilities. During the presidential election more spotlight fell of gay conversion therapy due to the claim that Vice president Mike Pence supported gay conversion therapy due to the statement, “Congress should support the reauthorization of the Ryan White Care Act only after completion of an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus. Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior.” Pence’s team stated that this was taken out of context, but LGBT Rights leaders still believe the claim. To begin any improvement on these conditions for our children, we must first ask ourselves why being unable to condemn the torture of children for simply being born who they are is not enough to discount a man from the second highest office in our county. And when we’ve answered that question we will know how far we have left to go before all children can be safe. The fact that this wasn’t more of an issue is an insight to how little regard or understanding a vast majority of people have towards this issue. In addition to the implications of what his election meant, his office and the powers there in are an obstacle to any law banning conversion therapy at the federal level. Gay rights remains a divisive issue, and with any divisive issue you must look to who has the power of a swing vote in the event of a tie: The Vice President, Mike Pence. Not only is he a major influencer, he also has the swing vote power which means that his opinions and ties to programs that support conversion therapy are a major issue. However, while the presidential election called into question the gains we had made in the years prior, so too did the midterms reignite hope. Due to the midterm election results, and the subsequent introduction of more representatives supportive of gay rights, activists are hopeful that with enough hard work, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts and New York will join the ranks of those that have banned therapists from trying to change the sexual orientation of a minor through any means. But even more that that public opinion and attention is shifting to this issue thanks to movies highlighting its struggle in ways representatives are simply not, and that they are seeing an increase in volunteers since movies such as “Boy Erased” came out. There’s still much to do but activist such as the National Center for Lesbian Rights’ legal director Shannon Miller, are hopeful. “We’d be disappointed if we don’t get those this year — they’re overdue,” she states about the four states on the cusp of enacting bans statewide. Humzah AhmadCA Politics The need for renewable energy is growing around the world, yet the the United States sits in the backseat on research and development. This is legally due to the United States’ large relaunch on non-renewable energy resources such as fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas. As the years move forward, many are slowly realizing that our reliance on these sources of energy will soon be met with nothing, as sources of non-renewable energy are expected to run out in the next half-century and new attempts of creating resources is destroying the planet as we know it. Contrarily, renewable energy is an infinite resource that can be found using water, wind, geothermal energy, the sun, etc. Developing these resources of energy would not only save money in the long run, they will save the planet we know and love.
Renewable energy often falls under the topic of environmental protection in a political atmosphere. These topics were largely discussed by both sides during the previous election, with Bernie Sanders arguing for its development and Donald Trump wanting to return to a large reliance on coal. Trump’s idea of returning to coal would soon go into play as he would nominate and confirm Scott Pruitt as the new EPA director during his administration, a former coal lobbyist. This action was extremely damaging to the EPA’s mission as well as the progress made in the US when it comes to driving away from a non-renewable energy dependence. Other remarks that falsified the existence of global warming were also made by Trump during his campaign trail and once he assumed office. Despite these bitter facts, California has assumed its position on top in terms of capacity of solar energy within the state (Feldmen, 2018). Furthermore, California, alongside twenty eight other states, has developed a plan for renewable energy growth in the next few years. For California, the goal is to receive at least 33% of its power from renewable sources by 2020, 40% by 2024, 50% by 2030, and 100% by 2045 (Domonoske, 2018). This plan was signed off by our previous governor, Jerry Brown, at the Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco in 2018. Moving forward, California will also be looking to implement zero-emission resources such as geothermal energy and hydro power. Returning to the effects and desperate need for advancements in this field, in both California and the nation as a whole, our local and state elections during the Midterms of 2018 have provided much more promise to already established needs of zero-emission and renewable resources in California. During the Midterms, Democrats nationwide proposed the Green New Deal, something that hit on a number of issue including renewable energy. This deal received both praise and criticism but its plan for the United States to lead the world in net zero-emission resources in the next few decades was especially relieving for many. With the introduction of this plan, renewable energy and zero-emission resources will indeed be a front-running issue during the 2020 election and voters nationwide should be especially concerned with its direction in the future. Contrarily, the US can also be a textbook example of why renewable energy and zero emission resources have taken so long to adapt into the nation. There is no denying that the United States spending habits are the main reason for our struggles to change drastically when needed. Our current energy plan is highly centralized and developed into a few locations and redeveloping an entirely new form of energy dependence nationwide would call for this to be undone and then redone. Meaning for us to switch over to wind, solar, geothermal, etc, etc, we would have to find new sites, dissemble the non-renewable energy sites, and install the infrastructure required for the renewable/zero-emission sites to work. Following this, one would also have to concern themselves with what is going to happen to the jobs in the market of non-renewable resources. This is something the presidential election of 2016 saw Trump heavily arguing for and making the main reason for his support of the coal industry. In the few years, the nation has seen an increase of opportunity in the renewable energy industry, which is a step in a direction that removes our dependence on coal and natural gas. Despite all these logistical reasons for why renewable energy has been the apex of the nations issues, the largest reason for our lack of progress is the relation between industry and politics. Over 37.5 billion dollars of subsidies, money given to industries by the government, is provided to the fossil fuel industry every year by the United States (Oil Change International, 2018). This has been the case for nearly half a century now and truly goes to show the grasp of the fossil fuel industry over the political atmosphere in regards to the climate crisis and the only way to combat this is to stop giving them money and instead charging them for the damage they are causing to the environment and longevity of our planet, also known as emissions taxing. "Whirlybird"CA Politics For years, California Mountain Lions have been an issue for anyone who lives in the mountains and foothills of California, especially if they have any type of livestock; cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and other such animals. Recently, more and more of the big cats have been moving lower due to increases in their overall population and new deer migration trails. On February 24th 2019, a large cat was seen and later removed from a neighborhood in North Natomas, which is very unusual for the generally solitary and elusive animals. Such sightings are occurring with a lot more frequency.
The number of attacks in California alone are also rising, including those that are fatal. 1889 had the first reported human death caused by a mountain lion with the next one occurring in 1909. The information on confirmed attacks and deaths isn’t solid, but there is a large change starting in 1991. After that year, the number of attacks begins rising as does the frequency of deaths. From 1991-2001, a total of six people, mostly children, were killed by mountain lions. In 1990, Proposition 117 passed which required at least $30,000 be spent to protect wildlife habitats and prohibited the sport hunting of mountain lions. With the growing risk of being attacked by cougars, I believe there needs to be a short hunting season for cougars with a small number of license being available to apply for. This would help keep cougars from getting too close to areas like Sacramento and other large cities. Under the current laws, a mountain lion can only be hunted if they have attacked and killed livestock and the owners have applied for a permit to hunt and kill the cat. Fish and Wildlife services also has to send someone out to confirm that the animals have been killed by a cougar and not by coyotes or even a bobcat. A small number of mountain lions are killed in this way a year, but it’s less than a hundred a year and has no impact on their growing population numbers, which is estimated to be between 4,000 and 6,000 in California alone. These types of massacres on livestock are actually very common for mountain lions. Most of the times, a big cat simply jumps into a pen, they can jump about 20 feet from a stand still straight up, and kill whatever they can get ahold of. Many of these types of massacres end with slaughtered livestock that the cats never bothered to eat, just kill and scatter body parts around. Since 1990’s Prop. 117, nothing has been done in any elections to change the laws regarding mountain lions in California. However, the Department of Fish and Wildlife have issued a “Human/Wildlife Interactions in California: Mountain Lion Depredation, Public Safety, and Animal Welfare” bulletin, which has three Amendments attached to it; one in 2007, then in 2013, and finally 2017. The most recent amendment in 2017 added and focused on issues involving ‘depredation,” which is the destruction and/or loss of property, mostly referring to incidents involving mountain lions killing livestock. The new amendment also focused on issues of mountain lion depredation in the Santa Ana and Santa Monica mountains due to recent land development in the areas. One of the amendment’s main focus’ is on the small pockets of mountain lion populations in Southern California that have a severe lack of genetic diversity since they are trapped in isolated regions due to freeways. The Department wants to make sure in these regions that new cougars with different genes are able to survive and bred in the regions to help prevent inbreeding. While this is great to animal rights activists and for conserving and protecting the longevity of species, it also has a down side. If a new cougar in the area is responsible for killing livestock, the livestock owners can apply for a permit to hunt and kill the cat in return. This causes issues for the Department of Fish and Wildlife, since they are expected by law to allow wronged livestock owners the permits, but they are also expected to protect the mountain lion for the benefit of the other cats in the region. The 2017 Amendment seeks to find a middle ground between the two contradictory laws since each incident is unique. The only part of the most recent election, and likely in the 2020 election as well, that has to do with hunting mountain lions or even spreading awareness of the issues apex predators can cause is likely to be found in any proposition or Act that has to do with environmental and habitat protection. Most people don’t see it as an issue or believe the attacks are tragic and unpreventable, but having a short hunting season could go a long way to helping the issue and bringing awareness to it as well. "Future Educator of America"CA Politics Universal Preschool is imperative for California. Currently all early childhood education (ECE) and Pre-K is not mandatory and only available to individuals who can afford it. Because it is not required, many children do not get the opportunity to attend and are set up for failure upon entering Kindergarten. There are no standards for teacher quality within ECE programs. Teachers do not need a degree or a teaching credential. Because of this we have many ECE
teachers with little to no education in the field of child development. Since these programs do not require higher education they do not pay very well, thus attracting low quality teachers to fill these rolls. A reason why this is an issue is that infancy to age five, children experience the most dramatic cognitive development in their lives. Their experiences during that time affects them in a huge way and can pave the way for future success. If universal pre-k was instated, the state could increase the standards for these educators, improving teaching quality which would in turn provide children with a better educational experience. The education and experiences children receive within the first five years of life is crucial. According to First Five California’s program, “the brains primary foundations are constructed very early in life. While many factors influence brain development, the early interactions have the most impact – and they include talking, reading, and singing.” The programs we place children in should be of the highest quality to ensure that the child’s rapid brain development is being impacted in a positive way. There are many types of programs for young children and preschool. Some of these programs include, private, public, state funded, early intervention, child care, home-based, Montessori and more. To help keep all of these programs at standards there is the Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) which is the guidelines for programs to practice developmentally appropriate practices. The DRDP focuses more specifically on the child’s learning based on observation and assessment since young children do not take tests as in grade school. The purpose of the DRDP is to measure children’s learning within these programs. High quality programs provide rich learning environments for children to expand upon their existing knowledge and construct their own learning through experiences and interactions with adults and peers. The biggest quantifier of a high quality program is the teacher. Currently in California preschool teachers only need 12 units of child development to work in a classroom with students. They must also apply for a teaching permit through state which they receive after working the required 12 units. Preschool teachers are not required to have a bachelor’s degree or a teaching credential. This is a huge cause for alarm, because we are having underqualified teachers instructing our young children during the most crucial time of brain development. Preschool teachers make an average of $30,000 a year. Since this is a low paying career it attracts individuals with little to no education and experience. The field of Early Childhood Education affects everyone in one way or another. It affects parents whose children are going to school. It affects the individuals who are attending these programs. It affects educators, administrators, policy makers and the work force. Whether you are a parent or work in the field of education, the impact that high quality universal preschool would have is insurmountable as it would create a lasting positive change in our state by improving our education system and in turn our workforce. In the last election the Governor Gavin Newsom had a big statement on the focus of “cradle to career.” This is a focus on expanding education services for children before they enter kindergarten. He has pledged to introduce to California, Universal Preschool. He is very passionate about children’s early years and said, “beginning learning at 3 years old is already too late, we need to double down on the readiness gap by emphasizing prenatal care and the first three years of a child’s life when nearly 85 percent of brain development occurs,” to EdSource during his campaign. He is very excited to tackle the issues in early childhood education with the newly elected Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond who is focusing on prioritizing early childhood education to close the achievement gap. The achievement gap in California is the “persistent disparity in measures of educational performance among subgroups of students, especially groups defined by socioeconomic status,” (EdSource 2013). By providing universal preschool both Newsom and Thurmond believe it is the first step in closing that gap for students. Governor Gavin Newsom’s education budget focuses on a three-year phase plan to enact universal preschool. His goal is to provide full-day and full-year care programs to help working parents. There is a $500 million one-time fund to invest in the child-care workforce. This will work with educating new teachers as well as work alongside current teachers with the support of Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond along with First Five California and their Early Childhood Educators Competencies policies (2011.) Thurmond intends to revisit the California Preschool Program Guidelines (2015) which focuses on the role of the teacher and the integrated curriculum approach to learning to make sure it is aligned with increasing quality and standards to preschool programs. Thurmond also plans to update the California Learning Foundations (2008) which hasn’t been updated in over a decade to reflect the needs of the current population. The 2018 election only passed three education bills, none of which had to do with Early Childhood Education. Even with no current bills passed, the passion Governor Newsom has along with the support and belief of the Superintendent of Public Instruction Thurmond, Early Childhood Education quality and the need for Universal Preschool have become hot ticket items and I believe we are going to see some real change soon. "Rebekah A"CA Politics California is one of many states that have seen a statistically significant increase in deaths by drug overdose within the last three years (CDC). Nationwide, a staggering 200 people a day are dying of drug overdose. Prescription and non-prescription opioids are to blame for this high number. Opioids are a class of drugs that include prescription pills, heroin, and a synthetic opioid called Fentanyl. In prescription form, Opioid pills are prescribed to treat severe pain. The problem is that the pills are also made illegally and over-prescribed by doctors, sometimes intentionally. They are highly addictive. Authorities suspect that the surfacing of Fentanyl in California has caused an increase in Opioid-related drug overdoses. Fentanyl is an Opioid that is also treated for severe pain. What makes it different from others is that it is made synthetically in labs by drug traffickers who mix Fentanyl with other drugs such as Heroin, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, and MDMA, drugs that are commonly bought and sold on the streets of California cities. Fentanyl is drastically more lethal than heroin, at any dose and has been found in other drugs at alarming levels recently. Fentanyl primarily comes into California from Mexico via the San Diego border. Fentanyl seizures increased by 135 percent during 2017. Overall, drug seizures at the San Diego border increased from 8,900 pounds in 2010 to nearly 82,000 pounds in 2018, marking epidemic levels. In 2017, drug overdose became the leading cause of death in the United States, surpassing car accidents, HIV, and gun violence (DEA 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment).
Executive Action In 2017, President Trump declared the Opioid crisis a national emergency and vowed to grant funds and resources to states in order to effectively put the epidemic to an end. By executive order, he established the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis. The three parts of the commission focus on and allocate funds to prevention, treatment, and enforcement. To carry out this plan, the DOJ is requesting a budget of approximately 300 million dollars. The breakdown of the money would be 40 million dollars to increase DEA agents that target drug trafficking organizations, 7 million for research on Fentanyl seizures, 3 million for the enforcement of law and safety against drugs, and 254 million to set up High Intensity Drug Trafficking Programs in areas that need it the most such as Los Angeles. If this budget is passed, the federal government will make great strides in the efforts to stall the rising Opioid crisis in California’s inner cities and greater rural areas as well. President Trump has stated, numerous times, that illegal drugs enter the U.S. via open ports of entry that California shares with Mexico. The President posits this fact in support of his proposed border wall at the South West Border between San Diego and Mexico. It is true that cartels get drug shipments into California via ports of entry. However, it is highly debatable whether Mexican cartels ever circumvent legal ports of entry to get their drugs into California. According to the DEA, these shipments of drugs usually come directly through legal ports of entry in all types of vehicles, including personal vehicles. With that being said, at the executive level, the Opioid and drug epidemic has been erroneously linked to the Border Wall, another hot topic in California. Perhaps some of the drugs do enter the state via illegal ports of entry but most come straight through the legal ports. If this is definitely the case, then it would be helpful to invest in drug trafficking enforcement at the border’s legal ports of entry. State and Local Impacts In 2018, California Governor Brown vetoed a bill that would enable the City of San Francisco to offer safe drug consumption programs for adults. This bill would have decreased drug users in the streets of San Francisco by providing a particular space for them to safely and hygienically consume their own drugs. Moreover, the bill would have made opportunities for health and safety education available to drug abusers. The streets of San Francisco have become increasingly trashed with the needles of drug users that abuse heroin, creating a concern for public health and safety. The city has a few model safe-injection clinics set up and newly-elected SF Mayor Breed has made it her priority to get real clinics set up as soon as possible. Of course, the problem is that workers in these clinics could be federally prosecuted since the city doesn’t have the approval to operate safe injection sites. Ultimately, safe injection sites would provide San Franciscans with a more sanitary city and are projected to drastically decrease drug abuse, according to medical examiners in support of the bill. Mayor Breed says that the fight for safe injection sites is not over. In fact, in 2019, the bill has been re-authored by Senator Scott and Stockton Assemblywoman Eggman. If it clears the senate and assembly, newly-elected California Governor Newsom will have the final say in whether Mayor Breed can go forward with the operation of these safe injection sites. In areas such as Los Angeles and the Inland Empire, the Opioid epidemic is not a hot topic in its local elections. One possible reason why is because California has not been hit by the epidemic as badly as other states. However, according to the DEA, the epidemic is quickly spreading to California, attempting to make Cali its next victim. This could mean that the 2020 election may include the Opioid epidemic as a hot topic. The evidence of the spreading epidemic is the mass importation of Fentanyl into California (via the Mexico and SD border), the drug that has devastated other states and sparked increases in California’s death by drug overdose rates. The connection between Fentanyl and California cities (particularly L.A.) will be analyzed in the next blog post. Local and federal institutions have teamed up to ameliorate the crisis. The next post will focus on the specific local institutions that are involved in countering the crisis. These institutions include the DEA Fusion Task Force in L.A., Opioid crisis coalitions that aim to limit the prescriptions of Opioids in the Inland Empire, and several city attorney’s class action lawsuit with Big Pharma companies over the emergence and enablement of the crisis. |
AuthorUndergraduate student generated content. Blog posting and updating done by Kristina Flores Victor, Assistant Professor of Political Science at CSUS Archives
March 2020
Categories
All
|