]]>
The landmark settlement, negotiated with the Justice Department and all 50 state attorneys general, includes $17 billion in relief for home owners who were either foreclosed on or whose houses are "under water," worth less than their mortgages.
Although only 2 million Americans are likely to benefit initially, the plan includes incentives for the banks to reduce mortgage balances or refinance loans and to clear their backlog of foreclosed homes, which are a drag on the market.
The deal is the culmination of state probes into mortgage servicing prompted by the "robo-signing" scandal, disclosures in the fall of 2010 that banks had foreclosed on people based on false or incomplete documentation.
The agreement requires loan servicers to attest to the accuracy of their filings and to issue itemized statements to borrowers in default before filing for foreclosure.
Authorities are also free to delve into questionable practices in making loans and the packaging of mortgages into securities the banks sold to investors.
Although the deal includes Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial, the settlement figure could grow to $45 billion if all 14 major mortgage services decide to participate.
President Obama, whose previous efforts to address the mortgage crisis have been found wanting, hailed the deal as beginning "to turn the page on an era of recklessness."
With one in five homeowners "under water" -- negative equity totals $700 billion -- the deal will encourage banks to offer new mortgages while removing the uncertainty of litigation over foreclosure practices.
While helping those who were hurt the most, the settlement should accelerate the recovery of the housing market.
]]>Sir:
Every two seconds someone in our country needs a blood transfusion.
Like the emergency room of a hospital, the American Red Cross needs to be prepared to respond to patient emergencies 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.
Right here in the Greater Alleghenies Blood Services Region, the Red Cross must collect approximately 5,000 blood and platelet donations each week to meet the everyday needs of patients at area hospitals.
Who receives the blood products so generously donated by Red Cross blood donors?
About 18 percent of blood products are transfused to patients undergoing care for cancer, including leukemia and lymphoma. Patients experiencing gastrointestinal blood loss unrelated to cancer receive approximately 15 percent of blood products. Those undergoing orthopedic or urological surgery receive about 14 percent of blood products. Two groups -- those undergoing other surgeries and those with anemia other than cancer-related -- each receive 13 percent of transfusions. Trauma patients receive approximately 12 percent of blood products and cardiac care patients 11 percent.
Each day approximately 44,000 units of blood must be donated to meet such needs experienced by patients in the United States.
For additional information about blood donation or to make a donor appointment, call 1-800-RED CROSS (1-800-733-2767) or visit redcrossblood.org.
Dr. John B. Nobiletti
Medical Director
American Red Cross
Blood Services
Greater Alleghenies
Blood Services Region
250 Jari Drive
Johnstown
Feb. 1, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
There is not one individual reading this letter who has not been touched by cancer, either personally, a loved one, friend or family member.
2012 celebrates the 17th year for Relay For Life in Shenandoah County and there will be a new team this year.
An organizational meeting to form a community Relay For Life team will be held Monday, Feb. 13, at 7 p.m. in the Community Center room at Queen Street Station, next door to the Strasburg Diner.
A team of individuals experienced in leading the St. Paul Relay For Life Team, who will be joining in the community team, will be on hand to offer guidance. Information on "where our dollars go" will be available, as well as information about services provided by funding in our own Shenandoah County.
Please come. Join us in our fight against this dreaded disease. If you have questions, feel free to contact me at kjmm@shentel.net or call me at 465-8459.
We are all in this together, and we all have our personal reasons of why I relay. Ask me my reasons.
Kitty Miller
Co-chair
Shenandoah County Relay For Life
234 S. Massanutten St.
Strasburg
Feb. 7, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
Mr. VanDeGriek (letter, Jan. 6 issue): Dictionary: "hoax -- intention to deceive, a trick or serious fraud"; "fraud -- deliberate deception, trickery, or serious deception for personal gain."
Piltdown Man was claimed to be the missing link until proven a hoax. You place blame and motive without proof. Peking Man (Wikepedia): skull fragments, lower jawbones, many teeth, few bones; touted to be missing link. Not even a whole man. Dated by systems currently proven wrong. All of which, conveniently, disappeared. It cannot now be subjected to "carefully designed experiments." See "Evolution: Fact or Belief" available on YouTube.
Dictionary: "miracle -- an event that appears unexplainable by laws of nature and is held to be supernatural in nature or an act of God." Nowhere does it say "myth." Both Juan Diego's tilma in Mexico City and the shroud of Christ in Turin, Italy, have been subjected to "carefully defined experiments." They are publicly displayed. Tilma reflects Juan Diego in the Virgin Mary's eyes. The shroud is a negative picture. Even today, there is no technology to reproduce these.
You call me ignorant and arrogant for accepting miracles and questioning Darwin's evolution theory. What are you for accepting Peking Man with no scientific proof?
Darwin traveled five years around the world, finding different flora, fauna, animals, in different places. The people all stood erect, talked, used available materials to provide homes and food for themselves. Nothing proved life started in the sea, crawled on land, stood like apes, then stood erect. His book is a theory with no "carefully designed experiments" behind it.
Because evolutionists control academia they fire scientists who mention intelligent design. George Mason fired a tenured professor for this. I urge you to get Ben Stein's "Expelled" DVD and Illustrated Media's "Intelligent Design Trilogy" showing current experiments disproving evolution. Doug Aux of the Discovery Institute in Seattle says one cell needs 260 proteins, which has one in a trillion, trillion, trillion chances of coming together in a primordial pool.
So if you believe your ancestors came from apes, that's your right. I know my ancestors stood erect in the garden of Eden and that's my right.
ILLEEN RENINGER
20 Gloucester Road
Front Royal
Jan. 26, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
In response to Gene Rigelon's letter (Feb. 1 issue):
Mr. Rigelon, you may have found that "happier way" when you "rejected the "theistic conception of God," but it was not by rejecting the God of the Bible, or his son.
They are not responsible for the evils that you write about in your letters. Those who perpetrate these evils do so in disobedience to them. Those who obey them do "respect the dignity of all people, even those whose lifestyle they disagree with." We are taught in God's word to "do good unto all men" (Galatians 6:10).
Humanists sometimes do bad things, too (humanists are humans, after all). So it is illogical and hypocritical for them to reject God because those who follow (or at least claim to follow) him often do bad things.
We do not reject "gay marriage" solely because we find homosexuality "an abomination, and disagree with what others do in their bedrooms." We reject the redefinition of "family" being perpetrated by the homosexual movement. We reject the attempts to abandon the historic and biblical definition of marriage acknowledged almost universally throughout world history. We realize that such redefinition will undermine the very foundations of human civilization and has already begun to do so.
You are right. We have no right to force our religion on others. Neither do humanists have the right to force their religion on others. Charles Francis Potter, signer of the Humanist Manifesto and author of "Humanism: A New Religion," wrote, "Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism. What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?"
Humanistic teachings permeate public schools. Christian teachings are banned. The "refusal clause in the 'Affordable Health Care Act,'" forces religious organizations to do things that violate their religious teachings and conscience. These are two of many examples of humanism forcing its religion on others.
L. John Bost
367 Lee St.
Strasburg
Feb. 6, 2012
Editor's note: The following letter is a shortened version of an essay by a student in a junior AP English class at Handley High School. The complete essay is posted at www.nvdaily.com/opinion.
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
Distracted driving was the cause of almost 5,500 deaths and half a million injuries in 2009. While texting is not the only type of distracted driving, it is an important component of it. But with proper law enforcement, texting would solely be a way to keep in touch with friends, instead of doubling as one of the leading causes of death and injuries from automobile crashes.
To decrease distracted driving deaths, texting while driving should be a primary offense in all 50 states. Currently, 35 states ban texting while driving, and in 32 of those states it is a primary offense. Yet eight states are left with no type of restriction on texting behind the wheel and in three states, including Virginia, texting while driving is only a secondary enforcement. This means that police cannot pull over drivers for texting while driving unless they are also violating a primary enforcement law.
Many underestimate how greatly a driver's ability is impaired when texting behind the wheel. A University of Utah study found that using a cell phone delays a driver's reactions so much that it is equivalent to a blood alcohol level content of .08 percent, the legal limit.
While many question the success of harsher laws for texting while driving, both historical evidence and new studies prove the benefits provided by stricter laws.
Historical evidence is provided by the seat-belt campaign, which became effective when the slogan was changed from "Buckle Up for Safety" to "Click it or Ticket." Also, two pilot studies conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in Syracuse, N.Y., and Hartford, Conn., which combined stricter laws, high-visibility enforcement by police and public education campaigns, showed drastic reductions in distracted driving.
In conclusion, making texting a primary offense in all 50 states would be beneficial to all. Accidents that result in expensive repairs, injuries and even death could be easily prevented.
A 120-character text is not worth a life. It is time to make texting while driving a primary offense in all 50 states.
Anna Mueller
945 Meadow Court
Winchester
Jan. 12, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
I am a retired Army NCO and, as such, the letter by a retired Army officer (Robert Thomas, Feb. 3 issue) had a special meaning to me.
During my years of service I met many officers, all created by an act of Congress. Most of them knew the meaning of true leadership, but there were a few whose style of leadership depended solely on that act of Congress and nothing more.
Unfortunately, a few carry this trait over into civilian life when they retire. They confuse their Army experience, where they led only by an act of Congress, and the civilian political life where we, the electorate, decide who will serve in Congress and make known to them through our votes and other means what we wish for them to do while in office. If this is contrary to what the president and other members of Congress want, so be it. That's the way our democracy works.
Bob Goodlatte has served in Congress for a good many years and has won many re-elections. The reason why is simple. He understands the desires and needs of the majority of us, his constituents, and leads and votes in Congress to support us, not politicians whose policies are diametrically opposed to our best interests.
What the middle class -- and the whole country for that matter -- needs is more people like Bob Goodlatte in Congress and a president who will lead this country back to prosperity and away from the present deficit socialist agenda.
Howard Fenton
435 Indian Spring Road
Woodstock
Feb. 3, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
I agree with retired Cuban leader Fidel Castro when he offered his views on the U.S.'s Republican presidential primaries and I quote, "The greatest competition of idiocy and ignorance that has ever been."
I hope you Republicans who think it's big to say "I voted for the party," instead of what is better for your country, will have the good sense not to vote for one of these idiots.
JUNE CULLERS
346 W. 11th St.
Front Royal
Feb. 6, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
Several leading citizens of Mt. Jackson have asked me to run for re-election to a seat on the Town Council. Following up their requests, I've discussed re-election with many trusted and knowledgeable folks in town. Each and every one has told me to "stay on council."
Today I've submitted my declaration of candidacy to the Shenandoah County general registrar to be on the May 1 ballot.
In the past four years Mt. Jackson has seen:
• Completion of the community park north of our town hall. Didn't the Christmas decorations look especially lovely this year?
• Completion and dedication of the Veterans Memorial Park. Each and every day, I see another family stopping by to pay their respects.
• Installation of new, safer sidewalks in the historic district. (No, we are not finished. More work is to be done, but we have a good start.)
• Installation of a new and safer kids' playground at Lyon's Park. (This project received generous civic donations.)
• Completion of a $6 million wastewater treatment plant. Having a state-of-the-art plant facilitated the Bowman-Andoros expansion and their new projects.
• Recognition in a cover story in Virginia Town and City Magazine, featuring the town's decade of renovation and progress.
Now that we have completed so many renovations, we can start looking to future Mt. Jackson projects and issues.
In my mind the biggest opportunity is the southern I-81 interchange. This remains one of the last undeveloped interchanges in the Northern Shenandoah Valley. We have a real opportunity to turn this into a landmark tourist welcoming area.
No immediate big development plans are under way, but this site has great possibilities and needs encouragement, coupled with careful guidance.
What you have not seen in Mt. Jackson in the past four years is the hateful, vengeful, partisan bickering that contaminates the Washington and Richmond elected environment. Our council conducts the town's business in a quiet, positive, professional atmosphere. I want to keep it that way.
Rod Shepherd
117 Bridge St.
Mt. Jackson
Feb. 9, 2012
Editor
Northern Virginia Daily
Sir:
We have a shortage of specialized health care in Shenandoah County. My wife and I, for example, have to travel about 60 miles round trip between Woodstock and Winchester.
We are being treated by specialist doctors as follows: dermatologists, eye retina specialist, breast cancer specialist, lung specialist and aneurysm surgeon.
Further, this area needs a gastroenterologist, neurologist and an endocrinologist.
We need a medical building to house doctor offices, too.
VINCENT DECERBO
203B Southridge Court
Woodstock
Feb. 8, 2012
Those who run the Komen foundation, and make a mighty good thing of it, too, sound confused in the worst way: morally confused.
Formally dedicated to finding a cure for breast cancer, Susan G. Komen for the Cure ™ has also been funding -- of all unrelated things -- the nation's largest provider, merchandiser and defender of abortions: Planned Parenthood.
The pink-ribbon people finally decided to cut off Planned Parenthood when that well-financed outfit came under congressional scrutiny for the way it handles its money.
The result was an outcry from Planned Parenthood and well-heeled company. A rhetorical donnybrook ensued. The social media went into a tizzy, as they regularly do. Pro-lifers upped their contributions to the Race for the Cure, while anti-lifers (excuse me, pro-choicers) threatened to stop theirs and finance Planned Parenthood instead. Money changed hands, or at least pledges to one nonprofit or the other did.
Then came the course correction. The Komen foundation announced it wouldn't be cutting off Planned Parenthood's water after all. Although just what it would be doing in the future wasn't entirely clear.
What a mess. And it's still unresolved. It's not easy trying to stay neutral between right and wrong. No wonder Dante gave those who manage to bring it off their own special circle in hell or vicinity thereof.
Come to think, the execs at the Komen foundation aren't confused at all. They know what they're after: the money. And whichever side of this raucous debate can provide more of it, or withhold more of it, can be assured of the Komen foundation's undying support. For the moment. Until a higher bid is made.
The succession of awkwardnesses in the Komen foundation's changing public stances and shifting explanations for them was only to be expected. It happens with organizations that have never really thought through first questions, like whether to cooperate with evil, to what extent, and at what cost, at least in dollars and cents. (The value of an organization's soul, if it has one, has yet to be calculated.)
The same phenomenon can be observed in the kind of people who wind up either ignoring moral questions or trying to minimize them. Hey, abortion is only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood's total activities, even if it represents a lot of the organization's income. And only a small percentage of the Komen foundation's funds goes to Planned Parenthood, even if it's a lot of money.
. . .
Nonprofits can be highly profitable in this country. Talk about doing well by doing good: Komen's CEO, Nancy Brinker, draws maybe half a million a year out of the charity's pot -- $459,406 in 2010, to be exact. Charity pays, at least for those who run one.
No question about it, Ms. Brinker directs a highly successful enterprise. And she may be worth every penny, even if she really screwed up this little matter and 24-hour sensation. But who cares about a moral scruple or two if the money keeps rolling in?
. . .
In a different era, when the infamous Supreme Court decision that divided the nation wasn't Roe v. Wade but Dred Scott, there were also those who thought the moral issue could be ignored, maybe indefinitely with any luck.
The Komen foundation's successive rationales bring to mind those genteel antebellum types who would say that of course they were opposed to human slavery but, then again, the Peculiar Institution was essential to the Southern economy and the nation's. And, really, it was all a peripheral issue that should not distract from the important things. Like keeping things as comfortable and accepted as they are. Why make trouble? Conscience is so inconvenient.
. . .
Now we're told that destroying the most innocent and vulnerable, the least of these, shouldn't be cause for such concern. How many babies in total does Planned Parenthood do away with every year anyway -- a few hundred thousand? Big deal.
It does so year in, year out, with the generous help of outfits like the Komen foundation and the federal government. Why make a fuss about it? Abortions are only a sideline at Planned Parenthood anyway, except maybe when it comes to its bottom line. Nine out of 10 pregnant women who enter a Planned Parenthood clinic get an abortion, according to its annual report for 2010. So what? Couldn't we all just look the other way?
This is the morally confused point any collective endeavor, public or private, may reach when, far from being concerned about doing the right thing, the overriding concern becomes how to keep the cash flowing in, the payroll met, the wheels grinding, the staff filled.
The best guide to what's going on here, confusing as it may seem to the poor observer who has to keep watching the Komen foundation change its mind, is the same principle that's so useful when it comes to figuring out politics: Follow the money.
The important consideration becomes not right and wrong, but ... Public Relations! And here we have a textbook example of Dale Carnegie in reverse: a lesson in how to lose friends and alienate people.
Right now, the Komen foundation and Planned Parenthood deserve the kind of PR problem both have so richly earned. For just a moment the frilly curtains have parted, the pretty pink ribbon untied, and we the people can see just where our money is going. It's not a pretty sight. Indeed, it's about as wholesome and uplifting as what goes on at your average abortion mill.
(Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer prize-winning editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His e-mail address is pgreenberg@arkansasonline.com.)
(c) 2012 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
]]>Five seconds. It does not seem like much time, but it is all the time needed to change a life forever. "The average time they [drivers] take their eyes off the road [to text] is five seconds. And you know how much damage you can do with two tons of metal in 5 seconds. You can travel the length of a football field in that time," said Jim O'Donnell, President and CEO of BMW North America, in Driving Home Texting Perils. Distracted driving was the cause of almost 5,500 deaths and a half million injuries in 2009, and that number only continues to grow ("New" 1). While texting is not the only type of distracted driving, it is an important component of it. But with proper law enforcement texting would solely be a way to keep in touch with friends instead of doubling as one of the leading causes of death and injuries from automobile crashes. The resolution to this problem is clear: to decrease distracted driving deaths, texting while driving should be a primary offense in all 50 states.
Currently 35 states along with the District of Columbia ban texting while driving for all drivers. In eight states and the District of Columbia, using a cell phone in any way while operating a car is a first offense for all drivers, regardless of age or experience ("New" 1). Texting while driving is considered a primary offense in 32 states as well as the District of Columbia, and in seven states text messaging is prohibited for novice drivers ("Cellphone" 1). Yet Arizona, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, and South Dakota are still left with no type of restriction on the dangerous practice of texting behind the wheel, and in Iowa, Nebraska, Virginia, texting while driving is only a secondary enforcement. For those unfamiliar with law enforcement terminology, primary enforcement means that the police can pull over someone they see violating the law in regards to texting while driving. On the other hand, secondary enforcement means that the law can only be enforced if a primary enforcement law is also observed being violated, like speeding or failing to stop at a stop sign ("Primary" 1). In "Push Is on to Make Messaging While Driving a Primary Offense", auto safety consultant and former director of highway traffic safety in New Jersey, Pam Fisher, said "secondary laws are just impossible to enforce."
Many underestimate how greatly a driver's ability is impaired when texting behind the wheel. A recent University of Utah study found that a driver using a cell phone delays their reactions so much that it is equivalent to a blood alcohol level content of .08 percent, or in other words, the limit wherein a person is considered legally intoxicated (Hageman 3). Despite this shocking information, texting and driving is shrugged off as an acceptable part of living a busy lifestyle whereas drunk driving is considered to be taboo and immoral (as it should be) in today's society. If this is not enough confirmation of danger, a simulator study performed by Clemson University in 2007 revealed that drivers exit their lanes ten percent more frequently when using iPods or texting (Magrid 1). On a main road, this essentially means that there is a ten percent greater chance of sideswiping, or even colliding head on with another vehicle. In a neighborhood, where many find it safe to text their friends or change the song on their iPods, this means that there is a ten percent greater chance of hitting a parked car or a small child not paying attention.
There is a multitude of reasons why teenagers text and drive more often than their adult counterparts. One of them is simply because often overconfident teens are not aware of how easy it is to make careless mistakes while paying attention to their phone instead of the road. In a Vermont program where teens were asked to navigate a course in a golf cart while texting, most of the teens were surprised by how easily they made errors (Rathke 2). This program put teens in a safe, controlled situation where they could understand how hazardous texting while driving really is. Even so, many teens remain unaware of the risk and large percentages of them continue this dangerous practice. An Allstate Foundation survey revealed that 82 percent of teens surveyed said they had used a cell phone while driving, to either text or call (Hageman 1). These results are shocking to many and demonstrate how little danger some see in using a cell phone while driving. However, it was discovered that many young adults receive a wake-up call in the form of a close call. In a survey of more than 2,000 students in 28 high schools done by Liberty Mutual Insurance and Students Against Destructive Decisions, 68 percent said they had narrowly avoided a crash, and of those teens, 21 percent said they were texting at the time (Shorman 1).
Unfortunately, sometimes statistics are just not enough to convince people of the danger present when texting while driving. Innocent lives have been lost, like that of Heather Hurd, who died two years ago in Alabama at the age of 26. She was on her way to see her wedding planner when a truck driver who was texting lost control and hit her car, killing her instantly (CBSNews 1). "I'll never be the mother of a bride. I'll never have grandchildren from Heather. It destroyed me." said her mother, Kim Hurd, in Teens Learn Dangers of Texting-while-Driving.
There are some people who think texting bans yield negative consequences. Studies have surfaced asserting that crash rates go up in states with texting bans - these studies claim that drivers simply lower their devices to hide them better, thus making roads more dangerous (Precious 3). Also, some statistics have shown that drivers text just as much in states with the ban as those without the ban (Precious 3). However, statistics can most definitely be circumstantial. Also, there are many more studies proving the benefits of bans on texting while driving as opposed to the negative effects. A set of reliable evidence is in the previous safety campaign involving seat belts. The seat belt campaign became effective when the slogan was changed from "Buckle Up for Safety" to "Click it or Ticket" (Hasley III 2). Also, two pilot studies conducted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in Syracuse, New York and Hartford, Connecticut, which combined stricter laws, high-visibility enforcement by police, and public education campaigns showed drastic reductions in distracted driving. Paralelling with the seat belt campaign, the NHTSA came up with the slogan "Phone in One Hand, Ticket in the Other" to advertise their new program. In Hartford there was a 57 percent decrease in handheld use and texting behind the wheel, while in Syracuse there was a one-third decline in cell phone use and texting while driving ("New" 1). A program like this, if enacted everywhere, could save lives and make the roads safer for everyone. Therefore, it is easily concluded from the seat belt campaign and pilot studies that drivers are more likely to obey a rule that has stricter legal consequences.
In conclusion, making texting a primary offense in all 50 states would be beneficial to all. Accidents that result in deaths, injuries, and expensive repairs could be easily prevented. Countless research shows that increased enforcement and consequences result in lower texting while driving rates, which would create a safer community for everyone. "We have lost lives, tragically, because of those individuals who feel it is necessary to send a friend a text message while driving in a car," said Senator Thomas Libous. A 120 character text is not worth a life. It is time to make texting while driving a primary offense in all 50 states.
Works Cited
Santorum, relying on the assiduous campaigning that won him -- albeit belatedly -- the Iowa caucuses, focused on the three states that have strong blocs on evangelical Christians and Tea Party backers, GOP elements Romney has had trouble wooing.
While Romney downplayed the outcomes -- his campaign even noted that Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee, lost 19 contests -- the former Massachusetts governor was counting on his victories in Florida and Nevada to continue his momentum toward the nomination. But Romney did worse than he had four years ago in the caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado and, although the Missouri primary was a "beauty contest" with no delegates at stake, it attracted more voters than the Nevada primary on Saturday.
With former House Speaker Newt Gingrich trailing badly -- he wasn't on the ballot in Missouri -- Santorum claimed that his trifecta Tuesday made him the true "conservative alternative" to Romney. Yet while Gingrich carries considerable baggage, he shows no signs of folding, which means the Romney opposition will continue to be diluted.
But Tuesday's results emphasized Romney's deep problems in appealing to the Republican base, which is dominated by highly conservative voters adamantly opposed to abortion, contraception and gay marriage, issues that Santorum champions and that have recently resurfaced.
Santorum is hoping to capitalize on the burst of attention and an influx of money to gird himself for Super Tuesday, March 6, which features 11 contests. Romney undoubtedly will use the respite to try to retool his message to court the GOP base.
]]>The Americans are members of the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which receive some funding from the U.S. government and whose mandate is to promote democracy abroad with nonpartisan training and election monitoring.
After Egyptian authorities raided the groups' offices, some of their members, including Sam LaHood, the son of Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood, sought refuge in the U.S. Embassy.
The prosecution puts the Egyptian government on a collision course with congressional legislation that ties $1.55 billion in aid to Egypt's transition to democracy.
The move is believed to be orchestrated by Fayza Abul Naga, a holdover from the regime of Hosni Mubarak who has been averse to foreign-based groups since her appointment in 2004. She has tried to force American aid to flow through a government endowment, but after Mubarak's ouster USAID began giving funds to nonregistered non-government organizations. That has played into the Egyptian public's long-held suspicion of foreign entities and especially the United States.
After decades of covert Central Intelligence Agency activities overseas, Congress in the 1980s founded the pro-democracy groups to openly espouse American values.
That sentiment is still widely shared on Capitol Hill. Rep. Frank Wolf, R-10th, was one of 28 congressmen who condemned the crackdown. "The longer that this issue remains unresolved," he said, "the more difficult it will be to defend current levels of assistance to Egypt."
A year after Mubarak's fall the Egyptian government is mired in an unfulfilled transition to parliamentary rule, but making Americans scapegoats is an unproductive diversion.
]]>WASHINGTON -- One of Mitt Romney's favorite pitches on the campaign trail is recalling Barack Obama's comment early in his presidency that if the county, mired in recession, didn't recover by the next election, he would be a one-term president. The Republican frontrunner is still using the line, but without as much resonance as it has had until recently.
The latest news from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that 243,000 jobs were added in January, dropping the national unemployment rate from 9 percent in September 2011 to 8.3 percent, has taken some of the wind out of Romney's gloom-and-doom sails. The slow recovery has been the basic premise of his claim that the country needs him and his business acumen to get back on its feet.
The former Massachusetts governor has been regularly trotting out Obama's statement in 2009 that if he could not turn the economy around in three years, he would be "looking at a one-term proposition." But in a return appearance on NBC's "Today" show Monday, the president cited the recent employment gains as grounds for deserving a second term.
In Colorado Monday, however, Romney disagreed. "No, Mr. President, you do not deserve a second term," he said. He reminded the crowd on the eve of the Colorado Republican caucuses that Obama "said if we let him borrow nearly a trillion dollars, he'd keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent. ... So he does not deserve it based upon that."
It's much too early, to be sure, to contend that the weak economy is out of the woods yet. Most economists are predicting there may well be more ups and downs on the jobless rate between now and the November election. But the upward trend line over the last several months has been clear, and Obama is making the most of it politically.
The peril for Romney in joining Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's unrelenting harping on the one-term president battle cry is that he risks appearing to root for a continuation of the economic doldrums. While Republicans generally may yearn for Obama's departure, their deep hostility toward him is not reflected in most public-opinion polls. The latest Gallup daily tracking survey has the president running even at 46 percent in its approval-disapproval ratings, and other polls are more favorable.
Any appearance by Romney of running against the nation's economic recovery in the hope of getting rid of Obama also invites another risk. It can add fuel to Democratic arguments that the former venture capital multimillionaire lacks the life experience, if not the empathy, to feel the pain being endured by working-class Americans.
His gaffes in saying first that he likes "to fire people" and then that "I'm not concerned about the very poor," in his intense focus on the middle class, may have been little more than careless or lazy verbalizing. However, unfortunately for Romney, his whole being often evokes upper-class insensitivity. Politically, the last thing he needs is to leave an impression of detachment from the plight of the poor and unemployed.
From all other visible indications, Romney seems a carbon copy of his very likeable and decent father, the late George Romney, former Michigan governor and Republican presidential candidate of the late 1960s, who became a very successful businessman by building and promoting one of the first small cars for everyman, the AMC Rambler.
But in one sense, Mitt Romney also brings to mind another late Massachusetts politician, Elliot Richardson, a dapper patrician who ran and lost for governor but went on to hold four cabinet posts in the Ford and Nixon administrations. During one of Richardson's campaigns, Boston journalist Mike Barnicle facetiously proposed a campaign slogan for him: "Vote for Elliot. He's better than you are."
In any event, whether or not Romney is seen as disconnected from the hoi polloi, he cannot afford to be perceived as taking uncommon political advantage of the country's economic woes to drive Obama from the White House. At the same time, his worse political nightmare right now might be a more rapid recovery than now seems in store.
(Jules Witcover's latest book is "Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption" (William Morrow). You can respond to this column at juleswitcover@comcast.net.)
(c) 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
]]>The Russian and Chinese vetoes scuttled a mediation plan, advanced by the Arab League, that called for Assad to cede power to his vice president and a unity government to lead to democratic elections.
In an effort to mollify Russia and China, Arab and Western diplomats had dropped specific references to Assad's ouster and for an arms embargo and sanctions, but the two nations complained that the resolution unfairly blamed the Syrian government for the violence.
Ban Ki-moon, the U.N. secretary general, called the vote "a great disappointment."
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton went further, calling it a "travesty" that "neutered" the Security Council. President Obama angrily compared Assad with his father, Hafez, who ruled Syria with an iron fist for 30 years.
The son seems determined to crush the protests, which began 11 months ago, but the opposition, which is concentrated in a few areas, seems likely to escalate the fight, which is verging on civil war, albeit one of attrition.
Assad can rely on the support of China, Russia and Iran while the opposition looks to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey for support.
Washington's options are limited. Sanctions and other penalties have limited impact on the recalcitrant Assad regime. The United States has ruled out military intervention but may wind up approving arms for the opposition.
The collapse of diplomatic efforts to mediate the uprising portends more violence that risks destabilizing Syria with troubling regional implications.
]]>WASHINGTON -- As Mitt Romney labors to clear away the political fallout from his declared concerns about the well-being of the middle class as opposed to the very poor, none other than Donald Trump has come to his rescue.
Trump, who has made himself more of a celebrity than ever by firing people on television, surprised the political world by endorsing Romney, who recently proclaimed that he, too, likes to fire people. Not on a television show but in real life, if they don't deliver the services he has paid them for, such as good health insurance.
As comedian Jack Benny used to say, Romney needs Trump's endorsement like a moose needs a hatrack. One megabucks fat cat coming to the aid of another megabucks fat cat isn't likely to help Romney combat his image as a country-club financial whiz out of touch with the needs of the rest of us.
In Trump, Romney has a guy who might well take him up on that offer of a $10,000 bet, it also being chump change to his new friend. Or maybe the infamous self-aggrandizement of The Donald might rub off on Mitt, diminishing the latter's awkward self-effacement that fails to turn him into a regular guy.
Part of the surprise over Trump's endorsement was the expectation in many quarters that he would embrace his narcissistic twin and soul mate, Newt Gingrich. It was not long ago when Trump, an earlier dropout in the Republican race, had mused publicly that he might re-enter it. One must conclude that he now considers Romney the sure nominee.
For all that, the notion that Trump's endorsement will persuade many Republicans to climb aboard the bandwagon of the man Gingrich calls the Massachusetts moderate requires a suspension of disbelief about the judgment and seriousness of the average voter. For that reason, don't look for many of what politicians call the "armpit shot" of Mitt and Donald clutching hands over their head in a victory pose.
A Washington Post-Pew Center poll in January reported that Trump's endorsement of any candidate would make only 8 percent of those surveyed more likely to vote for that candidate. Another 26 percent said it would make them less likely to do so.
Right now, Romney is in recovery mode from his latest tin-ear affliction, wherein he blurted out, "I'm not concerned about the very poor" because they have a safety net, adding he was focused "on middle-class Americans," who happen to be President Obama's political target of choice these days.
Romney's sweeping victory in the Florida primary, in which he and his well-heeled "independent" super PAC threw millions in negative ads at Gingrich, seems to have convinced his strategists that he can now afford to return to his earlier concentration on Obama. But zeroing in on the middle class, while explicitly giving the poor the back of his hand, may only accentuate that he doesn't have much demonstrable affinity with the just-getting-along segment of the electorate either.
More and more, it is becoming evident that the class warfare that the Republicans endlessly accuse the Democrats of waging is being spotlighted by Romney's wealth and revelations of his low tax rate and use of notorious overseas tax havens.
Romney, in the wake of the battering he took from Gingrich and friends in Florida, insisted that the fight only made him stronger. He managed in the Sunshine State to find and unleash his tougher, more combative Mitt.
Even so, the more contentious climate also forced him to defend how he got so rich as CEO of Bain Capital in what departed foe Gov. Rick Perry pointedly labeled as "vulture capitalism." It's a notion also embraced by Gingrich -- and one that, if Romney is the GOP nominee, is certain to be echoed by the Democrats in the fall.
Romney half-whines that he shouldn't be castigated for being a very successful businessman, and that his success is a legitimate argument for his bid to turn the economy around. It remains a valid contention, and he can make it better without the help of the likes of Donald Trump.
(Jules Witcover's latest book is Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption" (William Morrow). You can respond to this column at juleswitcover@comcast.net.)
(c) 2012 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
This was for us.
And that was a new thing, so we gathered faithfully to the television as that hard-working cartoon engine chugged across the screen, rainbow smoke pouring from its stack, the announcer calling us to order once upon a Saturday. This was "Sooooooul Train," he said, darn near yodeling the name, "the hippest trip in America, 60 nonstop minutes across the tracks of your mind, with guest stars ..."
And oh, the guest stars ... Gladys Knight, slinky and gorgeous lip syncing "Friendship Train" as the Pips whirled behind her; the Jackson 5 rocking "Dancing Machine," Michael gliding as if to make a liar out of Newton; Marvin Gaye, so besotted by some nubile young dancer he forgot to lip sync "Let's Get It On." Or maybe the guest was someone little remembered now, someone who flashed and faded -- Jean Knight, Enchantment or the Honey Cone -- but who owned a moment and marked it indelibly.
"Soul Train" host Don Cornelius died Wednesday at his home in Los Angeles, apparently a suicide at the age of 75. If you are black and of a certain age that news likely stunned you back to a time when the only things wider than your Afro were your lapels, your favorite movie was "Shaft" or "Cooley High" and there was a stack of 45s next to the turntable on your dresser. "Soul Train," which Cornelius created in 1970, was essentially a black "American Bandstand," but to leave it at that is to miss its truest import.
This was for us, those of us who were young and black and coming of age in the post-civil rights years.
Don't take that wrong. "Soul Train" was not exclusionary. White kids joined the "Soul Train gang," that crew of dancers whose angular athleticism was like nothing you'd ever seen on television. White artists -- Elton John, David Bowie, Gino Vannelli -- played its stage. Young whites like Wolf Isaac Blitzer from Buffalo were among its many fans.
And yet, this was something especially for us. We knew it from the Afro Sheen commercials (where else on television did they advertise Afro Sheen?), from the fashions the dancers wore and from the way Cornelius took our slang and gave it back to us, stylized and made somehow profound by his cool announcer's baritone. "Here's a big'un we're sho'nuff diggin'," he would say, announcing some new tune by James Brown or the Dramatics. Dick Clark didn't talk like that.
And then, there was his signature sign off: "Join us next week on most of these same stations, and you can bet your last money, it's all gonna be a stone gas, honey. I'm Don Cornelius and as always in parting, we wish you love, peace ... and soul!"
Soul being that beat, that authenticity, that depth of spirit, that hip swagger we felt made us unique. We were something new, the promise of the civil rights years made manifest in polyester pants and towering Afros -- and here, for the first time on television, was something for us.
If you are white and television has always been for you, if you are black and cannot recall a time before BET, Centric and TV One, you likely cannot appreciate what a revelation that was. If you are black and of a certain age, you cannot forget it. And you understand why there is really only one fitting farewell for Donald Cortez Cornelius.
May he rest in love, peace ... and soul.
(Leonard Pitts is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla., 33132. Readers may contact him via e-mail at lpitts@miamiherald.com.)
(c) 2012 The Miami Herald Distributed by Tribune Media Services, Inc.
]]>Arise, ye disgruntled! We have nothing to lose but whatever we were taught in Economics 101.
. . .
It's been happening at least since Andrew Jackson declared war on the Second Bank of the United States, the last vestige of Alexander Hamilton's vision of a fiscal system worthy of a great and growing nation. With the bank's demise by executive order, it was replaced by wildcat banks and their worthless banknotes. A general malaise settled in; the Panic of 1837 would go on a lot longer than 1837. America itself became a bad risk.
Old Hickory proved more of an Indian fighter than economist, though he was equally fierce in both endeavors. His war against the national bank killed any hope of stability, let alone prosperity. But he'd brought down all those evil bankers, investors and speculators. Along with the rest of the American economy. Ah well, every war has its collateral damage.
. . .
Now those wicked capitalists are at it again. This time the villain is "private equity" -- a short name for high-stakes troubleshooters who buy companies in trouble, reorganize them, and hope they turn into great successes. Then those once troubled companies can be resold at a handsome profit. That's the objective of firms like Bain Capital -- Mitt Romney's highly successful private-equity firm. Which tends to place its bets on especially troubled companies, where the risk is great and the profit can be even greater.
And the taxes can be lower. For the income from these general partnerships is taxed at a lower rate for good reason: to give investors an incentive to put their money at risk to save and create American jobs. The administration says it's all for that goal -- till election time arrives and the temptation to badmouth those who do just that may prove irresistible. Call it election fever; it hits every four years, and its first symptom is demagoguery.
Another reason for lower taxes on income derived from capital investment, as opposed to the wages and salaries so many of us depend on, is that such income has already been taxed once -- as part of the 35-percent corporate tax rate -- before it's distributed as dividend income.
Add that 35-percent tax to the 15 percent paid on such dividend income, and the Mitt Romneys are paying closer to a 45-percent tax on this income. But you seldom if ever hear about double taxation in the television commercials designed to raise our ire. It would spoil a good story.
Private equity may be the upscale name on the door of such enterprises, but the business itself is a crapshoot. Jobs may be lost, jobs may be created, fortunes lost and won before the hurlyburly's done. An economist with an eye for reality and a flair for vivid phrases, Joseph Schumpeter described capitalism itself as "creative destruction."
. . .
It's easy to make the whole process seem an evil plot, which is what Newt Gingrich's allies did in a campaign film ("King of Bain"), a piece of agitrop worthy of Michael Moore. It's what Barack Obama's better-financed campaign will do on a much bigger scale as November approaches.
Never mind that the film isn't very factual. Workers depicted as having lost their jobs at one company were actually promoted, and did well later by using their experience to jump-start a company of their own. Call it creative destruction.
Despite all the conflicting claims, there's no way to tell with any degree of precision how many jobs are lost or created, how many companies are saved or sacrificed, when private capital is deployed to save failing companies.
Every reputable study indicates that in a dynamic economy such investments produce net gains in employment, at least in good times. But beyond that, all that economic activity puts a premium on productivity, on making the economy more efficient and innovative over the years. Some of these companies don't just survive the process; they thrive. And the economy as a whole grows bigger and better.
But change is hard. The same prophecies of doom being retailed this year were heard as the Rust Belt gave way to the Sun Belt, and mom-and-pops with high prices and limited selections gave way to discount giants like Wal-Mart.
Good results mixed with bad. The country's textile industry pretty much moved offshore, but Silicon Valley made America a leader in IT. The Japan that was going to dominate the world's economy stagnated under the weight of keeping things as they were. Jobs were saved, even guaranteed, but the economy stalled, and couldn't break out of the Lost Decade that now has become lost decades.
Yes, change is hard -- at the time. But it can be change for the better if enough capital can be found to finance it. If, if, if ... and here is the key if:
If only enough Waltons and Tysons and J.B. Hunts -- to mention three entrepreneurs out of Arkansas alone -- keep coming along to revolutionize American business and the American economy in general.
. . .
In the midst of all this creativity and destruction, today's villain can become tomorrow's hero. Back in 1997, when Apple was a sad case instead of an economic model, it chose to bring back a meddlesome, nettlesome type to take the helm. A supposedly discredited Steve Jobs was chosen to whip the company back into shape. The immediate result was chaos, another name for creativity:
The man went at the company with an ax. He fired more than 3,000 workers. He slashed the number of products it offered cutomers. He shut down pretty much its whole manufacturing operation, and outsourced almost all production.
Imagine what a Michael Moore could have done with a plot line like that. Maybe produce a film about Wall Street with an anti-hero named Gordon Gekko. In 1997, a chief executive like Steve Jobs could easily have been depicted as a real-life Mr. Burns of "The Simpsons," the very caricature of evil capitalist.
But the real-life result was that Apple went from losing more than a billion dollars a year to making a $309 million profit by 1998, the first harvest of many. Over the next decade, Apple and the world were transformed. It would create far more jobs than it had destroyed, only this time its work force consisted largely of engineers, their support staff and a vast retail network.
It was the kind of turnaround that investors like Bain Capital hope for but don't always achieve. When one of its founders runs for president, you can be sure he'll be painted in dark colors. No matter how bright the results might have been -- for his company or the American economy in general.
. . .
Every four years, the great American public is invited to find someone to blame for all its troubles, to use as a focal point for all its resentments. And this year's prime candidate for that role has been one Mitt Romney of Bain Capital.
Mr. Romney has been curiously hesitant to defend his success and the wealth it brought him. There were times when he seemed almost ashamed of it; he was certainly late in revealing his tax returns.
Instead of avoiding this touchy subject, Mitt Romney needs to give what in presidential campaigns is known as The Speech, the kind of tour de force that John F. Kennedy delivered in 1960 when he spoke about the relationship between church and state to an assemblage of Protestant ministers concerned about his Roman Catholicism. The kind of speech Barack Obama gave in 2008 when he broke with the fanatical minister he'd faithfully followed for decades in Chicago.
Now it's Mitt Romney's turn to make his guiding philosophy clear. He needs to explain some great ideas simply and clearly. He needs to take his stand in favor of free markets in a free country, and explain why you can't have one without the other. He needs to point out that a command economy commands people most of all.
Despite his recent electoral successes, we the people don't really know him. He needs to tell us who he is, what he believes, and why his goals should be America's. And he needs to do so soon. Before the real Mitt Romney is replaced by some caricature drawn by his rivals, some 19th-century cartoon version of a capitalist, the awful Money Power personified and vilified.
A presidential campaign should be more than a grand show, however elevating or downgrading, appealing or dismaying. It should be an education. Like the campaign speeches of Adlai Stevenson, or the fireside chats of Franklin D. Roosevelt, or the moving perorations of Ronald Reagan. We grow tired of being flattered, lectured, hectored, demagogued. We want to be educated. And in Mitt Romney's case we're still waiting.
(Paul Greenberg is the Pulitzer prize-winning editorial page editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. His e-mail address is pgreenberg@arkansasonline.com.)
(c) 2012 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
]]>]]>
A young girl took a deep breath as she opened the door to the place that would be her home for the next four years: high school. She marveled at all the new people, but was even more interested in one person. He was a senior, the captain of the football team, and she quickly became infatuated with him. When he spoke to her for the first time, she felt like she would faint. When he touched her for the first time, she lost all control of her senses, and when they were alone for the first time, she was so wrapped up that she didn't stop to think of the consequences. She lost her virginity to a boy who she thought she was in love with, but who stopped speaking to her once he got what he wanted. Her heart was broken, but the real pain came not long after, when her constant morning sickness prompted her over-protective mother to make her an appointment to get checked out, where she discovered that her 14 year old daughter was pregnant. The teenager's life fell apart in every way, having to leave her friends at school and become home schooled, quit sports, and face the judgment of every person she passed. On top of that, she had disappointed her friends and her family. If this girl had the proper protection, she could have possibly continued her high school experience like every teenager should. There is no stereotypical type of teen who will engage in premarital sex; there is no requirement. The point is, if a teenager wants to have sex, they are going to have sex, regardless of what their mothers and teachers tell them. This is why I propose that, in order to further prevent teen pregnancy, contraceptives should be available in all public high schools.
With the rate of teen pregnancy rising, the issue has become more and more of an issue. According to a study by Guttmacher Institute, the almost 750,000 teenagers between the ages of 15 and 19 become pregnant each year (Birth 2). This extremely high percentage has become the center of fear for mothers of teenagers across the country. , one can walk the halls of a public high school, picking out at least 5 girls who are, or have been pregnant. This should not be the case; these girls should not become mothers until they have a steady job and are old and mature enough to handle the physical and emotional pains that come along with raising a child. Although some of these girls may have been raped and were unable to take control of the situation and ensure the male used protection, many of them engaged in consensual premarital sex, fully aware of the risks, but not taking the time to ensure the use of protection. It may be that they are too wrapped up in the situation to take the proper precautions, but it may also be that there were no contraceptives available at the time, and they thought "I'll be fine, just this once." Obviously, they were wrong, and their lives surely changed for the worse, although they may not show it to all who see them. These girls are forced to miss school and fall behind due to their pregnancies, which, in turn, causes their grade point average to plummet, making college and other possible opportunities they would once have, disappear. Teen pregnancy has become a more widespread and "common" issue, which is why an effort must be made to prevent this from happening. If these girls had been provided with the proper protection, they could have prevented the devastating consequences they must now face.
It is commonly known that males, in their teenage years, tend to be very hormonal and underdeveloped in the brain, which is not a compatible mixture. Due to the fact that the male does not have to "endure" the pregnancy physically, they are rarely as concerned as the girl may be in the situation. Therefore, they typically do not take the time to prevent such a consequence. In addition to this, teenage girls can also be quite emotional and become infatuated with certain men easily. If this infatuation becomes strong enough, particularly with an older male, they will become convinced that, in order to keep him around, they must engage in sexual intercourse with him. They are easily persuaded, and once they are alone with the boy, they may not be thinking about the consequences. The male is mostly likely going to engage in sexual activity whether or not there is protection involved. Therefore, teenage girls are the target of this proposition, because we need to prepare them in case they find themselves in a similar situation.
The idea of handing out contraceptives to teenagers horrifies some parents, who believe that such an act will actually promote the teens to engage in premarital sex. This controversy is virtually balanced on both the pro and con sides, with studies showing that 49 percent say providing teens with birth control would not encourage sexual intercourse and an almost mirror 46 percent say it will (Most 2). However, what most parents fail to take into consideration is that children do not always respect their parents wishes and may stray from any set rules. Sally Cockburn, chair of Family Planning Victoria, Canada says "I think it's time we all grew up and realized that we need to protect our young people, not shove this sort of stuff under the carpet" (Simmons 1). Additionally, Danielle Kessenger, a mother of three says "Kids are kids, I was a teenager once and parents don't know everything, though we think we do" (Birth 2). The fact is, no matter what steps a parent may take to ensure their children do not engage in premarital sex, there is no certainty that these techniques will be successful, the consequences of which are detrimental. Would we rather keep the issue under cover, and hope for the best, or ensure that today's teenagers have the proper protection available to keep them safe?
For many parents, another thing that is irksome about this proposal is the secrecy involved. Not knowing whether their child is sexually active and receiving contraceptives from their own school raises huge concerns from many. However, there is a solution to this. If a parent gives the school permission to distribute contraceptives to their child, they can set up a system where a child must go to the counselor, who will in turn make the decision on whether they should take precautionary measures. Many children are actually more comfortable sharing their personal thoughts and actions with an adult outside of their family, and the counselors, who have surely studied situations like these, can decide whether parents should become involved. Either way, we should at least make the option available.
Many parents have their concept of an "ideal' family in which their children can talk to them about anything, but this is not always the case. There are children everywhere whose family and living conditions are less than ideal. They could have parents who are violent, drug abusing, or completely uninvolved in their children's lives. When a child is put in this type of situation at home, they are more likely to take after their parents, who have set an example that these atrocious behaviors are okay. If they do take part in sexual activities, they will most likely feel uncomfortable or be unable to go to their parents about their mistakes. Parents must take this into consideration, because the amount of teens with this type of home life is commonplace. These teenagers need somewhere to go to receive the protection they need, and this can be easily solved by making contraceptives available to them either openly at school or through a guidance counselor. There is no way to sort out these children from the rest of the high school students, so it is necessary to make this option available to all who may need it.
Due to the high cost of distributing contraceptives, roughly $1.5 million, many teachers and faculty are against this distribution. However, the cost of a new baby, especially at such a young age is significantly higher. "It's lives. Safe sex. This is important" says Cristian Leon, a high school student (Graham 2).
When one weighs the positive and negative results, the positives clearly outweigh the negative. When looking at all the pregnant teenage girls today, it is clear that the "trust your child" is rarely effective. Even after taking the high cost into consideration, is it really more important than keeping America's teenage girls safe? Surely any mother who truly cares about the welfare of her daughter would agree.
Work Cited
Fish, Greg. "Schools Should Give Kids Free Contraceptives - Business Week." Business week - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/07/schools_should.html.
Graham, Kristen A. "Groups: Schools Should Provide Free Condoms." Philadelphia Inquirer (Philadelphia, PA). 11 Jun 2008: B.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 27 Oct. 2011.
Simmons, Amy. "Schools Urged to Install Free Condom Machines." ABC Premium News (Sydney, Australia). 06 Aug 2010: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web.27 Oct . 2011.
"Birth Control At School? Most Say It's OK - CBS News." Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News - CBS News. Web. 09 Nov. 2011. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/health/main3439598.shtml>.
"Most OK with Birth Control at School, Poll Finds." Msnbc.com - Breaking News, Science and Tech News, World News, US News, Local News- Msnbc.com. Web.09.Nov. 2011. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com>.