Ask Judge Mathis

According to the New York Times, the Environmental Protection Agency is proposing that oil and gas facilities that inject carbon dioxide into the ground’s greenhouse gas sources report their annual emissions to the government. Of course, the industries are not happy about this – few sectors welcome government monitoring. The public, however, should be in support of the proposal: greenhouse gases have a direct impact on the planet’s environment. If we do not understand how they are affected, we cannot begin to implement changes that can keep them under control.

 Greenhouse gases are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere.  Without them, the earth would be too cold to support life as we know it. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally, some are produced by human activity and some, like industrial gases, are exclusively manmade.   The levels of several key greenhouse gases have increased by about 40 percent since the country moved toward industrialization over a century ago.

 Over the last two decades, about we have seen a significant increase in the manmade greenhouse gases. Most experts agree that increasing greenhouse gas emissions warm the planet and that, overtime, the surface temperature of the earth will rise.  Increased temperatures will, in turn, create dramatic changes in weather, such as more severe storms – this phenomenon is known as climate change. And though some may debate that climate change and global warming don’t exist, we see evidence of it in news reports of devastating storms that take lives and destroy entire cities, causing billions in damage.

 Tracking carbon dioxide is just one part of the EPA’s proposed plan: the agency hopes to go on to track gases like methane which actually traps more than 20 times as much heat as carbon and speeds up climate change. Currently, the EPA requires 31 industries, representing 85 percent of the annual production of climate-altering gases that are released into the air, to track and report emissions. Collecting this data is important in finding ways to reduce emissions and in working toward developing systems to produce clean energy.

 Industrialization was critical to America’s – and the world’s – economic growth. But it has also taken a toll on our environment.  While the subject matter behind the EPA’s proposal may be complicated, the end result is pure and simple: we must understand what is being put into the environment so that we may save it. Despite the objections of the oil and gas industries, these sectors must be added to the list of industries required to report the gases they put into our atmosphere. Doing so is key to ensuring we keep the planet healthy enough to sustain the next generation of innovators.

The percentage of high school students who went on to college or trade school within a year of finishing high school climbed from 47 percent in 1973 to 97 percent in 2007. That’s good news; our students are falling behind other industrialized nations in terms of graduation rates and we must play catch up. The bad news is that many young people, gifted in their own ways, don’t feel college is for them simply because they don’t thrive in the classroom.  Higher education, more often than not, promises economic stability and career growth for those who go after it, more so than a high school diploma. But, with our nation’s focus on colleges and universities, we may be losing some very talented young people and damaging our future workforce.
It is understandable why there has been a great focus on directing students to college after graduation: over the course of their lifetime, will earn over $1 million dollars more than those who only complete high school. These additional earnings are pumped back into the economy via taxes, home purchases and more, benefitting society as a whole.  For students with talent and drive, a college education will only benefit them.
But what about those students who struggled in high school or even those who did well but showed little passion for their studies, students who don’t see themselves in a college classroom? Should they be left out of the American dream simply because they don’t want to take a traditional route to success?
The answer is ‘no’. While we should continue our collective efforts to encourage as many as possible to attend college, we should also begin to develop apprenticeship, trade programs and more that will empower and educate those who want other options. Years ago, America’s middle class was built in the automotive factories by workers committed to learning a trade. Though those days – and factories – are gone, opportunities still exist in a variety of industries, like healthcare and environmental sciences.
A program that promises to educate America and to put America to work should include a focus on trades. Funds should be set aside for trade and apprenticeship programs in the nation’s public schools and in community centers in underserved areas. These programs shouldn’t just be for students who struggle: all students should get a taste of what real work is like early on; these types of experiences will help them hone their post-college plans. Some students who study a trade may go on to work in that field and that’s great; they will become contributing members of society and will have a sense of pride in their work. Others may decide that, after working in the trade, they want to advance in their career and seek additional training or decide to go on a work toward their degree.
Whatever the ultimate outcome, we must present our students with sustainable choices for life beyond high school. Choices that will allow them to support both themselves and their families and that will keep this country competitive in the global marketplace.

Since the election of President Obama, we’ve seen a resurgence of racism in every sector of society.  From growing websites that allow users to spew anonymously to on-air personalities sharing their prejudiced views with others, the displays have been, to say the least, disturbing.  Many people believe these types of acts are carried out by lower class, uneducated people, not yet aligned with modern views of tolerance.  The most recent incident, which took place on a college campus, may change all of our views on that.
 
In February, students at the University of California at San Diego held an off-campus party where guests were encouraged to wear gold teeth, mocking rappers from Compton, California, and to dress in baggy clothing style that is popular among today’s urban youth and wannabes.  Adding insult to injury, the party’s hosts served up watermelon…repeating an age old – and overdone – slam on African Americans.  To compound the situation, a campus television show highlighted the party on air and used a racial slur to refer to black students.  As if things couldn’t get worse, a student hung a noose from a bookcase in the campus library.  Outraged students thought the administration was slow to react and kept too low a profile as the events unfolded. They responded to the perceived inaction by holding a sit-in the university Chancellor’s office.

 
Diversity is key in all aspects of life, especially in higher education settings. If students from homogenous communities are not exposed to a variety of cultures they may not be able to adjust and dispel the stereotypical images they may bring to the table. Additionally, interacting with and, possibly, befriending someone from a different culture may lead a student to think twice before saying or participating in something that is racially or culturally offensive. Unfortunately, there has been a lack of diversity in California colleges and universities since affirmative action was struck down in the state.
 
Currently, black students are disproportionately underrepresented in the state’s universities.  Those who do enroll are truly minorities within the school; they should not subject to racist acts or images. The University of California at San Diego – and universities and colleges nationwide – should begin to offer mandatory diversity training for first year students. Furthermore, racist and offensive behavior should carry with it a stiff penalty, not necessarily expulsion but perhaps extensive community service in an urban area.

 
Colleges can and should work to shift and ultimately change prejudiced behavior among students. If it is not nipped in the bud on the campus level, the racist ideals could grow and these young people, with their poisoned thoughts, could go on to wreak more havoc in society.

Americans are outraged at Wall Street and the country’s big banks for several reasons, the least of which is the latest report that bonuses for financial execs increased 25 percent in 2009. Millions of Americans are out of work, unemployment is at the highest it’s been in a decade and the country continues to suffer economically. Yet, an industry that had to be bailed out by taxpayers can afford to reward its top officials. Americans have a right to be outraged.

It wasn’t that long ago – just over a year – that the United States government offered up $700 billion of taxpayer money to prevent the financial industry from collapsing. Years of unregulated financial dealings and the purchase of faulty credit assets by the banks led to that moment and, without the bailout, our economy would have suffered tremendously.
Now, it seems the financial industry has not only “recovered”, it is benefiting from the loan.  The dollars use to save the industry were utilized to generate historic profits for the big banks…they in turn gave themselves both cash and non-cash bonuses.

To be fair, when a company does well it should reward it’s staff. But when a company is just coming off of one of the biggest financial disasters in history, profits should be reinvested to ensure future financial stability. They should not reward leaders for short-term success. Instead, long term stability should be their reward. Reinvesting in the business and industry includes hiring more staff. Most economists think the huge profits are a result of the banks laying off staff or terminating jobs and giving more work to the employees that remained. Less staff and overhead costs equal bigger profits.

We should all write legislators and advocate that the government tie financial sector pay to the long-term financial success of the firms. These short-term gains are great, but are not indicative of the overall health of the industry. Critics argue that government should not intervene and has no place mandating how banks pay staff. I disagree. When the taxpayers are responsible from saving the sector from collapse then the government, as our representative, does and should have a say.