New Jersey Offers a Lesson about Racial Profiling

I read this editorial, in which the author discussed the racial profiling that has existed in New Jersey. For years, African Americans and Latinos who reside in New Jersey have been aware that they are more likely to be pulled over by the police on a highway than a Caucasian individual. In 1998, the racial profiling was called to the attention of the state when state troopers fired 11 shots into a van carrying black and Latino men. New Jersey’s state police were placed under federal oversight. Now, a special advisory committee to Governor. Jon Corzine has concluded that the State Police have changed their ways and the governor has asked for an end to this kind of federal monitoring. I think that New Jersey’s experience is an important lesson for police departments across the United States. The committee that worked on the New Jersey case found conclusions that demonstrate that “vigilance and resources” in our system is responsible for racism in law enforcement. This conclusion was partly based on testimony gathered during 18 public hearings over the last year and a half. Since the incident, the State Police have improved training and revised their procedures. They have tightened the supervision of troopers video cameras have been installed in patrol cars that record highway stops. In my opinion, continued investment of time and resources will be needed to ensure that these reforms become a part of law enforcement around the United States. Proper protocol for traffic stops should be highly valued.

Republican Debate Sponsored by Univision

Last Sunday, the Republican candidates were involved in a debate held at the University of Miami, in front of a very pro-immigration audience. This was always going to be a difficult debate for these candidates because it is being broadcast on Univision. Their goal then had to be not to offend the Hispanic audience, but also not offend the Republicans whose support they have been trying to get by taking this hard line on this issue. For the most part, the seven candidates toned it down a little, even though they certainly talked about working to close the borders to illegal immigrants. Some spoke of trying to send some of the 12 million people who are thought to be here illegally back to their native countries. Their strategy seemed to be to sneakily weave comments about the value of immigrants and legal immigration into the debate amid the “send them home” talk. The debate comes less than a month before Iowa and New Hampshire cast the first ballots. The Republican presidential candidate drama is getting more intense due to the surge of support for Huckabee, the former governor of Arkansas. Candidates’ records were being attacked and they were forced to defend themselves. I believe that this debate is very indicative of what the candidates are willing to do to gain support. This debate in particular is really a great concept because the idea is that questions of Spanish-speaking viewers can have their questions translated to the candidates. But it is obvious that the candidates were trying to “tweak” their stance on this particular issue because they recognized the audience. This worries me. Language is already a barrier, but when it becomes a way for the candidates to alter their views I believe it becomes dangerous.

Oprah and Obama

It has become common for the famous to get involved in politics (remember that Dixie Chick who really did not like Bush). The most recent endorsement has been Oprah Winfrey's involvement in the Obama campaign. In fact, on Sunday, Oprah winfrey will appear in South Carolina in the Colonial Center with Barack Obama. The Colonial Center is the biggest arena in the state, seating 18,000 people. As of now, all the seats are filled and the lines were so busy that they had to shut down ticket distribution and start a waiting list. This demand for tickets must be a good sign for the Obama campaign. We must realize that here we have Oprah, surely a well-known individual, really impacting the political future of this country. She is using her name to bring new volunteers to Obama's campaign. Her mere presence is exciting thousands of voters and thus giving them the opportunity to learn about this candidate and what he represents. On the ticket for the event, the bottom reads, "With your signature, you pledge to vote for Mr. Obama in the South Carolina primary". This is surely no random "star-citing" anymore; this is an event that is being taken very seriously. Is this a positive aspect of this year's campaign? Is it wise to give so much power to the famous, to allow them to be a reason why the average American citizen is voting for a particular candidate? Whether or not you think so, it is certainly an issue at present and I think it will play a key role in the 2008 election.

Mingling in the MIddle East

One of the currently most-talked-about stories in the Middle East comes from Saudi Arabia. Recently, their government supported the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19 year old Shiite girl. She had been sitting in a car with a male friend last year when they were gang-raped by seven men. The Saudi Justice Ministry says that this girl deserved the 200 lashes and six months in prison because she was guilty of “illegal mingling”. In other words, she was being punished for sitting in a car with a man who was not part of her family. Something seems wrong here to me: the government is punishing this girl…when she was raped. How could sitting in a car with a guy be of any concern when you have a situation as terrible as this? I do not understand this phrase “illegal mingling”. It seems to him that if the Middle East had a bit more mingling in their country, between the sexes and the sects, they would be a much more peaceful area. All over this area, there is a current struggle between the Muslim sects and it centers on who can mingle with whom. In Iraq, the question is can the Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis mingle anymore, after all the blood that has been shed? If so, can this country be stable enough that we can get our troops out of there? In my opinion, this is really an issue that affects our country directly. “Mingling” seems like kind of a trivial verb, but on the contrary it is everything; it is the basis of all citizen relations in the Middle East. It never occurred to me that some more interaction could mean the end of war. One of the currently most-talked-about stories in the Middle East comes from Saudi Arabia. Recently, their government affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19 year old Shiite girl. She had been sitting in a car with a male friend last year when they were gang-raped by seven men. The Saudi Justice Ministry says that this girl deserved the 200 lashes and six months in prison because she was guilty of “illegal mingling”. In other words, she was being punished for sitting in a car with a man who was not part of her family. Something seems wrong here to me: the government is punishing this girl…when she was raped. How could sitting in a car with a guy be of any concern when you have a situation as terrible as this? I do not understand this phrase “illegal mingling”. It seems to him that if the Middle East had a bit more mingling in their country, between the sexes and the sects, they would be a much more peaceful area. All over this area, there is a current struggle between the Muslim sects and it centers on who can mingle with whom. In Iraq, the question is “Can Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis mingle anymore, after all the blood that has been spilled”. If so, can this country be stable enough that we can reduce our troops there? In my opinion, this is really an issue that affects our country directly. “Mingling” seems like kind of a trivial verb, but on the contrary it is everything; it is the basis of all citizen relations in the Middle East. It never occurred to me that some more interaction could mean the end of war.

America's big Drug Deal

I read this editorial that talked about Mexico’s and the United States’ efforts to battle huge amounts of illegal drugs that make it into the hands of American consumers every year. More specifically, the author felt that the Bush administration’s proposed $1.4 billion aid package is not enough to confront the problem. He feels that if Washington was serious about stamping out the northward-flowing cocaine, heroin and other drugs, its campaign must first stop the money and weapons coming from the south. This is what is financing and arming the cartels. Likewise, the author feels that the problem of American’s use of illicit drugs is not taken seriously. Federal financing for drug prevention and treatment programs has been steadily declining since 2005. In my opinion, the narcotics wouldn’t even be getting here if the demand didn’t already exist. The National Drug Intelligence Center estimates that Andean cocaine coming to the United States jumped from 220 tons in 2000 to 380 tons in 2006. I am putting the proposed aid package itself aside for a second, as well as its prospective effectiveness for this problem. In my opinion, it is a big deal that Mexico is coming to the United States for help for the first time. It marks a great transition in the relationship between the two countries and Washington wants to respond to it.

Veterans and their Short End of the Stick

I read this editorial that focused on the life of a veteran. Horribly enough, I had never really thought about this concept very much before. Turns out, not a lot of people do. Especially with the current war in Iraq, it is a terrible time to be a veteran. It is not that there is outright hostility toward returning military personnel today. In fact, both Congress and the White House praised the war as we approached Veteran’s day. However, it is not rare that soldiers who return from Iraq or Afghanistan or those who served in Vietnam or Korea are left to fend for themselves. They do not get much help from the government. Recent surveys shows an astonishing amount of our veterans were homeless at some point during 2006. Not many from Iraq or Afghanistan have turned up homeless so far, but aid groups expect a huge upsurge in coming years. Tens of thousands of reservists and National Guard troops were told that their jobs were protected and returned to be denied prompt re-employment or lost seniority or pay. In my opinion, we have to do all that we can to show these Veterans that they are appreciated. We do not have a mandatory draft in this country. Instead today’s wars have to be fought by a voluntary military. The larger public makes no larger sacrifice so the least we should do is support the troops when they return.

Girls Just Wanna...Vote

It seems that there has never been a time when women voters have had a greater opportunity to affect America’s future. The U.S. is in this war and there is an election coming up and to top it all off, we’ve got Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. She has totally heightened the interest of women voters. That is not to say that Hilary is why women are paying attention to the election. They would have been paying attention to this election anyways because of the war in Iraq, the instability we are facing regarding the economy as well as the changes in the Supreme Court and what that means for abortion and civil liberties. A national poll conducted for the Lifetime television network showed that nearly 40 percent of women feel that voting in the 2008 election will be more important than in previous years. The overwhelming majority of registered women say they plan to vote. Most aren’t committed to a particular candidate. Those potential votes are worth so much at this point. Most of the candidates don’t want to look at issues like pay equity or child care, or in other words anything that might be of particular interest to women. The Lifetime poll was part of the “Every Woman Counts” campaign, which encourages women to vote and speak out on important issues. The poll and an extensive series of interviews indicate that among women, Senator Clinton is not the clear choice just yet. I think it is safe to say that there is a great amount of variance when it comes to women’s opinion regarding Clinton. Some women are in love with her, others can’t stand her. I think this creates an internal conflict for those women who want a woman in the white house, but are not sure that Hilary is the one. Will they seem like they are not supporting their gender if they don’t support Hilary? Bottom line: You Go Girls!!!!!

Obama: Will Use Force if Necessary?

Last Saturday, Senator Obama announced that he would start confronting Hilary Clinton more directly and forcefully than he has in the past. Obama is trying to address the increasing concern among supporters that he lacks assertiveness and that this is the reason he has not been able to dominate Clinton in the presidential race so far. He feels that she has not been candid in describing her views on critical policy issues. Obama’s statement comes two months before the votes are cast for the Democratic nomination and after a long period in which his campaign has had to deny the perception that he does not have the forcefulness necessary for the presidency. In an interview, Mr. Obama said “now is the time” for him to set himself apart from Mrs. Clinton specifically. And its not that Obama wants to get in Hilary’s face, he said he wants to address how she has been obscuring her positions for political gain. Obama has been known to change the speeches written for him if he does not know for sure that he can live up to what he is saying. He feels he is more likely to win back the White House for the Democrats. When asked in the interview if Mrs. Clinton had been fully truthful with voters about what she would do as president, Mr. Obama answered no. He specifically mentioned her position on Social Security, Iraq and Iran.
Obama is very right to pinpoint proving his “forcefulness” as his priority. This will help him draw a distinction between his candidacy and his ideas about change and those of other candidates. In my opinion, he has only started to do that so far. His senior aides say that they have to spend a lot of their time taking calls from concerned supporters regarding Obama not challenging Mrs. Clinton more forcefully. If he doesn’t start to do so, he could lose the position of main opponent of Clinton to John Edwards and with that position gone, people will just stop paying attention to this candidate that has been able to hold on in this race for president. Do we think Obama has got that “big bad wolf” potential in him? Let me know your thoughts…..

Spitzer has got a plan...

Governor Spitzer has this plan; I read about it in an editorial. Spitzer wanted to try to make New York’s highways safer by issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. However, there has been great opposition to this plan from New York legislators and presidential candidates. But the bottom line is that the nation has to deal with immigration, but the reform is going to have to come from Washington and its not going to happen overnight. In the meantime, governors can make the best of the current system. In this case, Mr. Spitzer is trying to make certain there are safe drivers behind the wheel of every car. More than 40,000 people die in car crashes in the United States every year and more than 3,000 of them from New York State. Mr. Spitzer had recently announced that New York would join eight other states that do not require licensed drivers to prove that they are in the country legally. Instead, these people will need to prove exactly who they are, that they can drive safely, that they have car insurance, and that they live in New York State. Critics think that the plan is a threat to national security. But as the governor outlined in a speech on Friday, the plan would give faces and addresses to many of the one million people who are not here legally. It would also make it way more difficult to get more than one license.

In my opinion, the critics of this plan cannot be frustrated with this plan in particular as much as they are simply frustrated with Washington and their failure to deal with the issue of immigration in general. This is understandable. However, I do not think that there great concern over immigration in general should keep this plan from being implemented. This plan would bring so much needed safety to the streets. I say that we look at this plan on its own, recognize its potential and say yay to Spitzer!

Nepotism: Getting Hilary Clinton into the White House?

I read an editorial a few weeks back in the New York Times that introduced to me the idea of the Clinton “dynasty”. It maintained that America is currently divided into two groups: those who think that after 16 years of Hilary pushing herself onto America, its time to reject her, and those who think that after those 16 years, the public will finally just give in to her. In his new book, “The Evangelical President,” Bill Sammon interviewed President Bush about the 2008 election. Mr. Bush said that Hillary Clinton would beat Barack Obama, because she is more well-known and therefore can raise more money, implying that it is her connections from her husband that will get her the presidency in the end. This is how our current president thinks that our future president will be chosen, by their connections, by the amount of money their name warrants? This is not promising. This would be the second time that the "Clinton dynasty" succeeds the Bush one. The author compared the current Clinton dynasty to an earlier generation, which had the Roosevelt and Kennedy dynasties. Now, 116 million Americans, nearly 40 percent of the nation, have never lived when there wasn’t a Bush or a Clinton in the White House. That is weird. The Clintons have tried to combat this idea of the “dynasty”. Hilary is constantly making the statement that she is running on her own, that she is going to the people on her own.

Personally, I think that to attempt to fight nepotism would be to fight a battle that cannot ever be won. Maybe it is true that without the connections that she has made, Hilary would not be running for president. But then, nepotism exists in every area of America. Think about the entertainment industry and school acceptance, just to name two. Ultimately, I was not convinced by this editorial's argument against Hilary Clinton. Discussing nepotism is not what will help us to determine her competency, in fact I think it is a disservice to Hilary and shows a total disregard for a lot of the hard work that she has done to get herself where she is and so the goal has to be to look to other areas to judge her competency.

Odyssey: The Prolonged Adolescence

I read this editorial this week that I thought was quite interesting for us especially as seniors. In all actuality, when next year rolls around, this will be the first time in our lives that we really have some options about how to spend our time and what direction we will take. We are legally adults and yah the chaminade kids will all go to college because we are preconditioned for this fate. But we don't have to. If we wanted to, we could just sort of float...in limbo.

In this editorial, the author claims that there is an emerging "limbo", a new life phase that has emerged in the United States. There used to be four common life phases: childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age. This emerging life phase is in this article referred to as the "Odyssey", a decade of wandering between adolescence and adulthood. People in their twenties are taking breaks from school, living with friends, going from relationship to relationship. They are in a sense trying different lifestyles on for size. But parents get anxious, they see this transitioning phase getting longer. Where is these kids’ direction? They are marrying later, having kids later, finding permanent employment later. This editorial in the New York Times reported that "In 1960, roughly 70 percent of 30 year olds had moved away from home, were financially independent, were married and had started a family. By 2000, fewer than 40 percent have done these things"...

It is no coincidence that this new phase is emerging now, it has everything do with modern conditions. The best social scientists have been trying to understand this new life phase. Their work concluded that this period revolves around the “spirit of fluidity”. Kids are trying to get away from the tightly structured childhoods that they have forever known up to this point.

How is this at all political? Well, this "spirit of fluidity" has reached the job market as well as social life. These people are not just slacking off. There is such intense competitive pressure currently in our nation and not enough opportunities; these people are discouraged.

Let's look into the future. What will this phase mean in 20 years? People are living progressively longe thanks to technology, which means that they will be staying in the job market longer. The population will continue to grow. This means that job opportunities will continue to be scarce and if there is a job available, it will not be paying well. There is no way that the government's priorities and policies will not be affected by this trend which is why I felt that it was so important to share this theory with you. When it is presented in this way, it really does seem that teenagers are the future.

What Happened to America's Piggybanks.

Let's just say I wouldn't want to be that kid who was supposed to inherit his family's piggybank manufacturing company. Yep folks, piggybank-making has become a dying art in this country today, where the idea of saving money has become foreign. And just like that kid, you know that same one who will be shutting down his family's piggybank business any day now, Hilary Clinton is not pleased about the whole piggy-bank thing.

On September 28, 2007, Hilary Clinton, who is increasingly being referred to as the leading democratic presidential candidate for the 2008 election, spoke at a forum sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus. At this forum, Hilary Clinton made a particularly intriguing suggestion that every child born in the United States should receive a $5,000 “baby bond” from the government. She liked the idea of being able to give every baby of America a little something that can grow over time. Hold on now...she is suggesting we...save money...you mean...let that cash spend enough time in the bank that it will...gasp...increase!!! This kind of a bond could then be used to help a young person who has finished high school at eighteen to help pay for their college education. They could even use this money to put a down payment on their first home... the way things are going they will be able to put a down payment on a lovely doorknob.

To be honest, the program did sound extremely appealing, but then again I have a soft spot for cute little babies. However, I could not help but notice that Mrs. Clinton did not estimate the cost of this program or give any information on how the program would be financed. There are four million babies born in the United States each year; we are talking a lot of money. Not to mention that this would be a long-term deal. Even if that money was given to the next batch of babies, the turn-around time is going to be no less than 18 years. How is that kind of money gonna get to the millions of cute little babies and what issue is going to suffer because of such a long-term endeavor?

Through this proposition, Hilary Clinton was also making a statement about the clear distinction that exists in our country between those wealthy people, who are given all kind of tax incentives to save and the average person, who can’t afford to do that. I believe that in past decades, there has been a tradition in America of savings. But today, this becomes harder and harder to maintain as college tuition skyrockets and houses become more expensive. Forget about having more than enough, people just hope to have enough in the moment. This to me is sad and for this reason I welcome Hilary Clinton's proposal and simply ask: How are we gonna make it happen Hil?

That Crud in the Streets...Could cost you a fortune

Now to be honest, I am not the kind of girl who is usually whipped into a verbal frenzy by topics like storm-water runoff. That was before I read the article that informed me that storm-water runoff is ....kind of a big deal. Each of Ventura County's 330,000 households could potentially be paying $400 dollars a year to reduce the trash and pollution flowing through storm drains into our rivers, lakes and ocean. For 35 years, Americans have concentrated on making waterways and oceans cleaner through the federal 1972 Clean Water Act. But the law primarily targeted only traditional sources of pollution from factories and sewage facilities and so in 1987, Congress started focusing on municipal storm-water runoff. Just recently, Ventura County’s storm-water permit has expired. This is my county, guys and this fact puts this issue in perspective for me. It will be the first lucky county in California to face strict new regulations on keeping pollutants out of storm drains. Get ready for this: Cost estimates for 75 new or additional proposed requirements range from 60 million a year to 140 million a year. Who knew that all that crud in the streets could be worth that much?!! The icing on the cake: there is no additional government revenue to pay for them. Local government officials are freaking out about this price tag.

Nevertheless, they assured the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board that they are committed to reducing storm-water pollution locally and to spending a reasonable amount of money to accomplish that goal. One of their major concerns was the generic nature of the permit, which has standards based on high-density areas like Los Angeles. This kind of a permit surely would not be able to take into consideration Ventura County’s agriculture and topography.

The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control board is certainly not wrong for wanting to make waterways healthier, in fact, I am quite proud to say that our government is paying attention to this particular environmental issue. However, tthe government must take practical steps to achieve that aim, in cooperation with local governments, if they plan to have any real success. There will be consequences of these unaffordable requirements that they are currently demanding, unintended as they may be, and these need to be looked at carefully. When the money isn’t there…it just isn’t there. There is no way around that. The focus of the storm-water issue is thus misdirected and a shift must take place very soon. The focus should not be on spending millions of dollars into treating the effects of storm-water runoff; it should be on reducing the sources of the pollution in the first place.

Bottom line: that crap did not get there by itself. It had help from that small group we fondly call Americans. You know when your parents’ insistence that you clean your room takes on new meaning as soon as they threaten to take away some important privilege. I’m gonna be your parent for just a second: I've asked you to clean up your trash and you have completely ignored me and so the problem has reached an al-time high level of disgusting. Now I'm gonna have to play the mean-mom card: Clean up your trash or give me $400 of your hard-earned money a year. The choice is up to you as always, but I'd think about this one carefully. I think the inner conflict with this particular issue is that you cannot blame the people who are trying to get this issue fixed, because who wants nasty water all around them. That being said, these measures just seem terribly expensive. A middle ground must be found regarding the Storm-water runoff issue.

And May All Children Forever Have the Right to Suck on their Toys...

Where have the days gone when a little kid could get some saliva on their Barbie and not have to worry about their health? What fun is a toxic toy train? They certainly seem far, far away and somewhere over the rainbow when I think about the current controversy regarding the lead paint contamination in Chinese-made toys. There was recently an article in the Daily News that focused on "Toy Giant" Mattel and the congressional scrutiny that they are now under in light of the recent recalls that they were forced to have due to lack of safety. From what I can gather from the article, Mattel Inc. took a beating from congressional leaders on Wednesday for their failure to detect the contamination in their toys, such as their Barbies and Thomas and Friends train sets, just to name a few. There was a two-day hearing regarding this case and legislators accused Mattel of negligence and obstructing a congressional investigation into how these toys ended up getting to kids.

And I am certainly glad that the government is taking this issue so seriously...after the damage has been done. But why did it take them this long? Why did it take until this time for the government to find out that safety was not a priority to Chinese manufacturers and huge companies like Mattel? It is a pretty big deal, isn't it? I believe that this should be the main issue: not how we are going to punish Mattel for their wrongdoing, but how the government is going to be proactive about getting involved in ensuring the safety of these Chinese products. 86% of all toys manufactured in the United States come from China. And toys are not the only products that make up the economy obviously; plenty of other industries and their products could just as well have been exposed to lead paint. And when you look at the issue with all of these statements in mind, it becomes much more huge than the Barbie-doll manufacturer's slip-up. It becomes a problem on a national scale and Mattel simply represents one of many companies who seems to be compromising safety for a few extra bucks. What kind of sick economy does the United States have?

So where does the government's position fall regarding the safety of these products. Lawmakers mentioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its current state of disrepair: both underfunded and understaffed. Thirty years ago, this Commission had 800 people working to ensure product safety. Currently, half that number is employed for this job. Outdated labs and tools make it difficult to regulate these products that could contain lead. And although the agency has already negotiated an agreement with China that includes new, strict safety requirements, the agency has no way of enforcing these rules.

As consumers, I believe that we need to stay on top of the government and make sure that they follow through with this issue of safety. How can we do this? It is quite simple; we have more power than we think. They will soon see that consumers will not buy products when they have any doubt that they are safe. Economics are very powerful in the United States and they will speak for themselves. We will, in this way, demand the safety we want to see and thus demand the government's involvement and follow-through.

Who knows where the Time Goes?

It seems hard to believe that the 6th anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks has just passed. It continues to seem impossible that it could have been so long ago, until I remember that I was sitting in Mrs. Krahl's sixth grade homeroom at Chaminade Middle School on the morning of the attacks. And the reason that sixth grade seems like forever ago but September 11th does not is because the country is surely still dealing with the events on so many levels. It was never going to be something that was just going to go away. And yet, I read an article recently that makes it clear that there is one aspect of the event that the government would like to pretend has *poof* disappeared over these years. I am referring to the medical needs of the people exposed to the harmful dust in Lower Manhattan following 9/11.

Last friday, hundreds of union workers and elected officials attended a rally near ground zero. The rally was held in support of federal legislation that would force the federal government to assume more of the financial responsibility for the long-term treatment for the people that were exposed to the dust in Lower Manhattan during the cleanup of September 11th. On Tuesday of this week, which was also the official sixth anniversary of the attacks, the legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives. If it is passed, the federal government will finally be forced to collect the data that would be completely essential to a full understanding of the situation. They could not at this point have any idea of the extent of the ground-zero illnesses. So many people were exposed to asbestos and other contaminated dust. This does not just include the rescue workers, but also the office workers, students and even tourists who were in Lower Manhattan. This could finally provide compensation for these people.

Very significantly, Hilary Clinton took time away from her campaign to attend the rally. Mrs. Clinton proceeded to personally vow to make it her first priority to get each and every person the health care that they deserve. Clinton is thus taking a similar stand as Rudolph Giuliani, Mayor of New York City. I think it is certainly indicative that Hilary Clinton made a point to attend this rally. Her statement certainly seems to be a kind of territorial claim on what has previously seemed to be Rudolph Giuliani’s September 11th territory. My anger regarding the lack of attention that this issue has thus far been given goes far beyond my recognition of the fact that America is the wealthiest country in the world. For me, it is the realization of how many people willingingly risked their lives when our country was most in need. How would we have handled that terrible day without all of these individuals' support? It is unimaginable. It is disgraceful that this is how the government feels these people deserve to be repayed: by refusing to care about their medical needs. In fact, our government has tried to find ways of getting around meeting their needs. In an article published in the New York Times regarding this issue, the director of the World Trade Center monitoring and treatment program said that 4 in 10 of its patients have had breathing problems like asthma. Many are suffering mental health problems like post-traumatic stress disorder. With these kinds of statements, there should be no kind of denial of the problem anymore. It is real and horribly upsetting. It has been six years of suffering for these people. It is well time that our government examined this problem with the energy that it surely deserves.