I was disappointed to see a recent headline “1 shot, 1 killed in Chesco domestic dispute.” (Feb. 1) Not only because the violence epidemic in our region has become all too commonplace, but because this particular headline incorrectly framed a lethal case of intimate partner violence as merely a “dispute.”
Credit, however, goes to Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan who underscored the dangerous dynamics of domestic violence later in the article.
Like so many others, Mark Zandi’s column “Maximum impacts and minimum wages” (Jan. 26) leaves out the broader ramifications of increasing the minimum wage.
First, any discussions of the economic impact of raising the minimum wage have to be based on a much larger proportion of the population than just those who make the minimum. You cannot tell someone whose skills and quality of work justified making $4 or $5 an hour above minimum that their work is no longer as valuable, so their wages have to increase also. Therefore, when the minimum is increased, all wages up to a certain point have to increase.
I read "Back home, at least for now," (Feb. 2) with a troubled heart.
Brigido, Jose, and Elvin all have dreams -- not unlike the dreams of our ancestors. Each of these fathers has a dream so compelling he is willing to risk the impending dangers of multiple border crossings simply to offer his family a better way of life in the United States. While this article emphasizes "U.S. efforts to stem the flow of migrants" and the benefits of increased border security and "programs to prosecute illegal migrants" as deterrents to unauthorized immigration, our faith emphasizes the welcoming of strangers and being in solidarity with those who are marginalized by society.
As Sisters of Saint Joseph of Chestnut Hill we will continue to advocate for an immigration policy that addresses the root causes of unauthorized migration - poverty and lack of economic opportunity - as well as one that ensures family unity, protects the rights of immigrant workers, and provides a clear path to citizenship. With the U.S. Catholic Bishops (2003) we state unequivocally that "We stand in solidarity with you, our migrant brothers and sisters, and we will continue to advocate on your behalf for just and fair migration policies."
Gov. Corbett is an amiable fellow with reasonably admirable intentions. But is he worthy of reelection? No.
Corbett has not one highly significant accomplishment in his time in office. One of the few major proposals that I totally agree with — privatizing the State Stores — remains mired in the state legislature.
The governor appears to e a man of limited vision who has not articulated even a dream of how to make Pennsylvania a better place.
So when the Olympic team with 200-plus members marched in with those outlandish costumes, I thought they were from Polo — a new country that pulled off a Chechnya move from Poland.
When I later learned that the athletes wearing the Polo logo were ours, I was horrified, then embarrassed, and now, just sad.
Think of it: In four years, the highest United States clothing bidder could be Toyota.
As a CPA, former Temple University adjunct professor (math, health administration), and doctoral student (health care law and economics), I can certainly understand the controversy about funding university sports, in general, and Temple University’s sports programs, in particular, which was eloquently expressed recently by attorney Susan Borchel, mother of a Temple University athlete.
Borchel quotes Russell Conwell, noting that officeholders should not be greater than the people they serve.
Temple University is a quasi-public large, inner city university. The University accepts public funding, state and federal. The University’s primary mission is academic, including delivery of an affordable education, especially to those, who otherwise might never see the inside of a university classroom.
Our most valuable resource is human. A public institution’s failure to provide a quality education, delivered with honesty and integrity, is a catastrophic waste of human potential and lives.
The thought of the tea party controlling who crosses the border into and out of the USA is scary.
It is reminiscent of border closings in Europe at various times, and of the control of where Russian citizens could travel during the Soviet period in Russia.
The “illegal immigrants” that the right wing of the Republican Party are so concerned about, were invited here by people who needed their services; most are obviously hardworking and enterprising people who have contributed to our economy, and we should be happy to have them.
A knowledgeable Republican, former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, said last week while in Philadelphia for a Bipartisan Policy Center forum on immigration that the likelihood of federal legislation passing was beginning to look grim. It looks like he’s right. Speaker John Boehner is the latest among the top House Republicans to back away from reform, saying they don’t trust president Obama to enforce tougher border control measures. That’s ludicrous when you consider that Obama has been tough. He even risked losing Hispanic votes by deporting more illegal immigrants in five years than George W. Bush did in eight.
Barbour said House Republicans don’t care about Hispanic votes because they are in safe districts where anti-immigration reform voters have been the key to their reelection. The only thing that may move the Republicans is outrage by the many corporate leaders who support immigration reform but contribute heavily to Republican political campaigns.
Many of these business people are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which also supports immigration reform. It’s time for the chamber and other business organizations to raise their voices and close their pocketbooks.