Scholarships should not discriminate

My opinion

In the United States there are about 101 all black colleges and probably a lot more black only scholarships. I don’t understand, so many people are stomping their feet and complaining about how unfair, and racist we are but then we create more dividers like only black colleges and only certain minority scholarships.

I don’t think it is fair to have a scholarship that discriminates against anyone. And that includes white people. I don’t know how many minority scholarships v.s. only white scholarships there are but it seems to me that every time I hear about a white only scholarship they get a lot of complaints. Why is it not the same for black only scholarships? or Hispanic only scholarships?

I don’t think there should be scholarships available to only those of a certain race. I think that is ridiculous and racist. Don’t discriminate against minorities, likewise, don’t discriminate against white people.

Opinion 2

By Anne- Marie Dorning

Boston, Nov. 22, 2006

All the media attention is focused on a $250 Caucasian Achievement and Recognition Scholarship offered by Mroszczyk and the BU chapter of the College Republicans. Applicants must have a cumulative grade point average of 3.2 or higher; they must write two essays; and, here's the kicker, they must be at least one-quarter Caucasian.

The application itself offers an explanation: "We believe that racial preferences in all their forms are perhaps the worst form of bigotry confronting America today."

According to Mroszczyk, his group is offering the scholarship to point out "how ridiculous it is to have any sort of racially based scholarship."

At BU, for example, students who are at least one-quarter Hispanic can apply for a National Hispanic Recognition Scholarship.

"There are plenty of poor, white, academically gifted students who need that money just as much," Mroszczyk said.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2674267&page=1

Arabs are ready for freedom, no question

My Opinion

Who are we to judge whether or not a group of people are ready for freedom or not? If we have the audacity to ask that kind of question then we are opening ourselves to the judgment of those who would ask “is America worthy and responsible enough to keep the freedoms they have?”

Of course, not every individual in America is as responsible as they should be, likewise, not every Arab may be ready for freedom. But people deserve freedom… all people.

Opinion 2

In Egypt and Bahrain in recent weeks, I’ve been humbled by the lionhearted men and women I’ve seen defying tear gas or bullets for freedom that we take for granted. How can we say that these people are unready for a democracy that they are prepared to die for?

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/27/opinion/27kristof.html?ref=opinion

All college students should have the right to vote, even in their college towns

My Opinion

According to the website www.realclearpolitics.com the New Hampshire House of Representatives introduced a bill that would bar students from voting in their college towns unless they lived there before enrolling in that school.

Thomas Gounley, the executive editor of New Hampshire, said, “The bill would require that ‘the domicile for voting purposes’ of a college student would be the town or city ‘in which such person had his or her domicile immediately prior to matriculation … even though his or her intent to return thereto
is uncertain.’”

This means that college students will only be able to vote in the town or city in which they have their domicile, or their legal residence, and they will not have the choice to have their domicile in their college town.

Right now students are able to choose their hometown or their college town as their domicile. I for one do not care about what is going on in my hometown as much as I care about what is going on in my college town.

Whatever is going on in my college town is what directly affects me, my friends and my neighbors.

The students in New Hampshire should have the choice of having, or not having, a say in what happens in their college towns.

The reasons for this bill, according to UNH sophomore Michael Weeden, are that the issues are different in each state and that “college students are more knowledgeable of the issues where they are domicile, rather than where they attend college.”

Though it may be true that some college students do not know or care about what is going on in the town or city they attend college, I find this proposal limiting to those students who do care and want to exercise their right to vote.

The New Hampshire Speaker of the House, William O’Brien, said that students are mostly interested in voting only during the federal elections.

“There is hardly any involvement in the local elections,” said UNH College Republicans President Robert Johnson.

If the United States wants people who care to vote and create this country for themselves, then they should not be restricting the rights of college students to vote in their college towns. I don’t think the solution for uncaring students is to take more of their choices away.

The students who do not care about what happens in the town or city in which they reside for a semester or two will not care about this bill.

However, students should always have the choice to care or not to care, to vote or not to vote.

Opinion 2

Republican William O’Brien, the New Hampshire Speaker of the House and a noted critic of student voting.
While he has not publicly commented on this bill in particular, he has famously said in the past that students are “basically doing what I did when I was a kid and foolish, and voting as a liberal.’’ http://www.headcount.org/new-hampshire-bill-would-bar-student-voting/

Opinion 3

Durham resident Rep. Timothy Horrigan (D-Strafford) said that the bill was an attempt by House Republicans to make it harder for people to vote.

"It's a bad idea to get people out of the habit of voting," Horrigan said. "People already think it's a difficult process."

http://www.tnhonline.com/proposed-bill-would-bar-students-from-voting-in-college-towns-1.1922731

No one should be exempt from laws

One view on Health Care bill Waivers

Jason Millman said,
There is “no basis” for the waiver investigation, Waxman said in the letter. More than 700 waivers have been granted to unions, businesses and other organizations, and Republicans are claiming the waivers are either a gift to Democratic allies or proof the reform law doesn’t work. Waxman took issue with the GOP’s request for the Department of Health and Human Services to disclose e-mails about waiver requests since the department has posted each granted request online.

“If you have evidence that one of these waivers was granted improperly, a request for the internal communications relating to the waiver would be appropriate,” Waxman said. “In the absence of any evidence of misconduct, asking for this much information for 222 waivers appears to be either another fishing expedition or an attempt to bog down the agency with excessive document requests.”
read more at
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/141949-house-dem-says-committee-abusing-oversight-powers

Second View

Fox Business' Elizabeth MacDonald contributed to this report.

Many unions had fought hard for health reform and were dismissive about fears that companies would simply dump their coverage if health reform passed. But unions are now demanding to be exempt from the new law.

Many of the nation’s biggest unions also had backed President Obama's campaign. Early in the health-reform debate, unions won exemptions to the tax on so-called Cadillac health-care plans -- those with the most generous benefits.

Workers affected by these exemptions are now left to wonder whether their low-cost health-insurance plans will continue to provide the coverage they need.

Companies who do not get waivers are left wondering whether it's fair that they must follow the health-reform rules and regulations that every other company in the United States must follow, while their competitors who got waivers do not.

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/08/big-companies-unions-win-health-care-waivers/#ixzz1DZjCpqbr

My View

Make a choice and deal with the consequences.
According to www.mediamatter.org, the list of cities, states, businesses or unions receiving health care bill waivers jumped from 200 to more than 700 in the past month. According to www.foxnews.com, 40 percent of those numbers are unions.
These waivers relieve companies of the obligation to provide health care to their employees for one year.
According to Fox News, the list of waivers includes dozens of unions which supported passing the health care bill.

One example is the United Federation of Teachers, which includes over 3,000 instructors. This union supported the health care bill, and now they are getting a waiver for it.
Also, the organizations that are getting the waivers have low-wage workers that need the health care bill. Examples of this include organizations like McDonald’s and Jack in the Box. According to www.usatoday.com, these two organizations will not “be required to raise the minimum annual benefit included in low-cost health plans, which are often used to cover part-time or low-wage employees.”
The low-wage employees are the ones Obama was trying to reach.

Why are these organizations getting waivers?
Though there are many unions receiving waivers that were not in favor of the health care bill, the ones that did are showing a horrifying example of “do as I say, not as I do” syndrome. These unions voted for this change; they supported the health care bill.
So why are they now being exempt from parts of the consequences of that choice?

Here it is in a nutshell: Some of the unions supported the health care bill. They are in support of the United States following the rules and regulations that go with the bill, and, now, they are turning around and getting waivers for it.

Making the rest of the U.S. pay for the system while granting a select few temporary waivers is wrong. If they supported it, why shouldn’t they be held accountable for every part of it? Why are some groups being exempt?

If you support it, you live by it. Those who chose to support the health care bill should be ready and willing to live by all of the rules and regulations of it, not just parts of it. It is just like getting your driver’s license.
When you receive your driver’s license, you agree to live by the laws and standards of the road. You agree to go the speed limit even when you are late for something and going the speed limit or being late is not in your best interest.

Similarly, if you agreed with and supported the health care bill, you should be held to all of the rules and regulations of that bill.
The president’s administration granting more and more waivers is a sign that this health care bill was not the best idea.
What better way to say “you’re right we messed up,” than by exempting the groups that would complain the most — without really saying so, of course.
Do your research before you vote for or support something. Do not support blindly. Do not vote for something then get a waiver so you do not have to deal with the consequences of your choice.

The unions that supported the health care bill and are now getting waivers need to stop living the ”do as I say, not as I do” law.
These unions need to deal with the consequences of their choices. Honestly, if they didn’t like the rules in the first place, why did they show support for the bill?

This issue is a matter of integrity. If you support something, stick with it, live by it and stand by it.
Or, admit that you were wrong in your decision of supporting it in the first place.