Money, Money, Money!!!

Burnett, Linsay Rousseau. “Is the GI Bill just an IOU.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 25 October 2009. Web. 29 October 2009 < http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burnett25-2009oct25,0,2605535.story >.

Read this article

The article I chose to write a response about this week is titled Is the GI Bill Just an IOU. The article was written by Linsay Rousseau Burnett and published in the Los Angeles Times. Burnett writes about her experience she is having with the Veterans Affairs (VA) and the promised helped for school she is entitled to for serving in the United States Army. She talks about joining the Army in 2004 so that she would have money to go to college after she serves her time in the US Army. The article informs the reader about how she, and many others, have applied for the GI Bill benefits back in May and still have not received as much as a penny from the VA. She also talks about how VA has offered the Veterans an emergency check for up to three thousand dollars until they received their benefits; however, Burnett states in the article that people who have receive such checks are having trouble cashing the checks because they are hand written. The problem is the VA is taking a long time to process all the claims in which they have received for the GI Bill education benefits. Burnett says in her column that the VA still has 200,000 Veterans waiting for checks after only sending 27,000 payments out to Veterans. Burnett, like many others, has had to resort to taking out student loans to pay for college so that she will not be kicked out of college for non-payment of tuition. The GI Bill money covers the tuition payment but will not cover the interest on the student loans in which she has had to borrow due to fact that she has not received the VA check in a timely fashion.


This article hits home for me. I am currently in the same position as the author of the article. I am eligible to receive the GI Bill education benefits from the VA because my father served in the United States Army during the Vietnam War and result of the war is a total disable Veteran. In the spring semester of 2009, I applied for the first time for my benefits. I applied in January and was supposed to receive my first check at the end of January; however, I did not receive my first check until March of 2009. I thought that the reason why it took the VA so long to process my claim was because I was a first time applicant of the benefits. This semester I applied for my benefits in August and once again was supposed to receive my first check at the end of August. It is now October and was told from the VA that I will not be getting a check until the middle of November. The VA will pay me back pay for the months that I did not receive the checks. I feel very sorry for the Veterans and the dependent of Veterans such as myself that have not received their benefits yet. I am very lucky that I have not had to take out student loans to pay for my tuition. My mother and father are gracious and financially able to pay my tuition for school until I receive my checks. I do not know what I would do if I had to take out student loans. I have finally got my budget and expenses under control and would hate to have student loans to pay when I finish college. I want to graduate college, buy a home, and start my professional life with no major debts in my life.

Working the System

“Driving: It Shouldn’t Pay to Hit and Run.” The Boston Globe. The Boston Globe, 13 October 2009. Web. 15 October 2009 <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/10/13/driving_it_shouldnt_pay_to_hit_and_run/ >.

Read this article

In the editorial, Driving: It Shouldn’t Pay to Hit and Run, written in The Boston Globe, the authors writes about Senator Anthony Galluccio and his latest run-in with law enforcement. He was involved in a car accident that occurred on October 4, 2009 and fled from the scene of the accident. Senator Anthony Galluccio turned himself in the very next day and released the following statement as to why he left the scene of the accident, “because of my driving history.” Senator Anthony Galluccio has received two DUI’s (Driving Under the Influence) in 1984 and 1997. The authors then writes about the laws of DUI’s and hit and runs. The penalty for fleeing the scene of a car accident that involves little or no damage is up to sixty day loss of the driver’s license, twenty to two-hundred dollars fine and possible jail time of 2 weeks. The penalty for a second DUI is a heavier fine. The penalty is one year loss of driver’s license, at least sixty days in jail but could be up to two and half years of jail time. The author of this editorial is trying to make the point that the penalty for leaving the scene of an accident needs to be harsher. The author mentions the point that a drunk driver can go home to sober up and return the next day and receive a lesser penalty than a DUI penalty. The author ends the editorial by saying, “Galluccio deserves a tough sentence. Whether he was drinking or not, he shouldn’t be driving now.”


I agree with the author of the editorial. Hit and run accidents are becoming more and more common. I cannot tell you how many times I have turned on Fox 5 News at night and heard a story about someone getting hit while walking or driving and the offender left the scene. No one can really tell from another car if someone is hurt or not. Even a small fender bender can hurt a small child or an elderly person in a car. I believe people who leave the scene of a car accident are leaving because they have something to hide, whether it is drinking, drugs, or anything else. I agree that the laws for fleeing the scene of a car accident need to be harsher than the current laws. I also do not believe that laws for DUI are harsh enough. I believe someone who has had two DUI’s or more should lose their license for longer than a year. I also believe they need to go to mandatory rehab for their alcoholism and community service. I believe the community service should be at a hospital or rehab center where people who have been hit by drunk drivers are recovering. This way the habitual offender can see what can happen to an innocent person. I also agree that the way they law is set-up now is allowing drunk drivers to flee from the scene to sober up and face the lesser of penalty the next day. The way the laws are right now, it does pay the offender to leave instead of staying. I always say, “Professional criminals know how to work the system.” The system needs to look at how the criminals are working the system and fix it.

Facebook Polls

“Facebook’s Online Poll Crosses a Line .” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 30 September 2009. Web. 1 October 2009 < http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-facebook30-2009sep30,0,3586130.story >.

Read this article

In the Facebook’s Online Poll Crosses a Line editorial in the Los Angeles Times, the author is writing about the controversial online user poll that was available on the networking website called Facebook. The online poll asked the question “Should Obama be killed?” The online poll, which was created by one of Facebook’s users, gave four answers that the poll taker could choose from: Yes, maybe, if he cuts my healthcare, and no. This author then states that Facebook removed the online poll after users of Facebook reported the shocking poll. The author then goes into how many death threats President Obama receives a day and how many more threats he gets compared to President George W. Bush. The author also points out how Facebook has the necessary tools on the networking site to allow users to protest such disturbing online polls like the one mentioned in this editorial. Facebook detached the online poll from the site before the Secret Service called to report the online poll. At the end of this editorial, the author writes about how users of the popular site, Facebook, should protect themselves by using the privacy options that Facebook allows their users to utilize. These privacy options allow the users who make online polls such as this one about Obama, not be able to see the answers other users give. The author is quoted in this editorial saying, “Those disclosures and connections could prove a gold mine to investigators, exposing people to scrutiny simply because a friend gave the wrong answer on the wrong Facebook poll.”


This editorial and story is very fascinating to me. I am on Facebook daily. I take many online polls on Facebook and some have to do with politics; however, I never saw this online poll and if I did I would have reported the online poll to Facebook as well. The online poll about whether or not Obama should be killed is a very alarming. It does not matter if someone is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. No one should be joking about the United States President’s life. Whether we agree with Obama’s plan for our nation or not, there are other ways to protest, i.e. tea parties and such events. When I read this editorial, I was very bothered because I feel like people in this country are not taking matters about our President and our nation seriously. I do not agree with everything Obama is trying to do as President, but like I said, there are other ways to protest and I would never think about the question “Should Obama be killed?” As far as what the author of the editorial says about the privacy options that Facebook offers its users, I have already taken those options and applied the options to my Facebook page. I took advantages of privacy options when I first set up my page. I use my page to communicate with old friends and currents friends. I think people make online polls like the one mentioned in this editorial to stir up drama. In today’s society, many people crave drama and will do just about anything to make drama around them for the attention.

Bad Manners in Society

“Manners: Shouting is the New Opining.” The Boston Globe. The Boston Globe, 15 September 2009. Web. 17 September 2009) <http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/09/15/manners_shouting_is_the_new_opining/>.

Read this article

In this editorial article by the Boston Globe, the author is summarizing some of the controversial events that have happened over the weekend. First, the author mentions the Kanye West incident that happen on the 2009 VMA Awards aired on MTV and VHI Sunday night. The author states that “West insisted loudly that his friend Beyonce had the better video.” Another unpleasant incident that the authors speaks tennis star, Serena Williams, makes a very uncalled for comment to one of the sideline judges during one of her matches at the US Open. According to the article, Williams threatens the judge by saying she wanted to “shove a tennis ball down the judge’s throat.” The final occurrence that author mentions is when Joe Wilson blurted out during President Obama’s speech, calling President Obama a liar. The author in this article seems to be making a point that as times change through the years and more things become accepted to society, manners have never changed.

I believe the same as the author of this editorial. These remarks made by all three of the examples the author explains about are just downright rude. Kanye West had no business going up onto the stage and telling the VMA Awards’ viewers that Beyonce had the better video. All the nominees had good music videos or they would not have been nominated. I believe everyone has their own opinion about who should have won or should not have won the “moon man,” However, manners tells us when someone is receiving such a huge award, as Taylor Swift did Sunday night, we should get keep our opinions to ourselves at that time. As far as the alleged Williams threat. That is bad manners but it is also bad sportsmanship. There are bad calls in every sport and sometimes the player just has to take the call and move on. Williams has been in sports for a while now and should know this information. Finally, I was watching the President speak last week and heard the shout out made by Representative Joe Wilson. Many people have their opinions about the healthcare reform; nonetheless there is a time and place where political debates need to take place. During the time the President of the United States is making a speech to the country is not the time. I believe we as a society need to pay attention to these things that are happening and ask ourselves why we have become such a rude society and how we can change it. Agreeing with this author, “Times change, but good manners never go out of style.”

Parole Reform

“The Case for Parole Reform.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 1 September 2009. Web. 8 September 2009 <http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-parole1-2009sep01,0,481912.story>.

Read this article

In this editorial called The Case for Parole Reform, the author is unknown. The author talks about how some people in the state of California are trying to get the parole reform bill off the table because of the recent developments in the Jaycee Lee Dugards story. Dugards was recently found by law enforcement officials after being held captive for eighteen years. She was allegedly kidnapped, raped, and held captive with two girls allegedly fathered by Phillip Garrido and his wife Nancy Garrido. The Garridos have been charged with twenty-nine counts of kidnapping and rape. The author then tells us the history Phillip Garrido has with law enforcement. Garrido was sentenced in 1988 to fifty years in prison. He only served eleven years and was put on federal parole and served an additional eleven years. The parole officer visited the home regularly during each month and never saw anything in the back yard where Jaycee Lee Dugards was held captive. Senator Tom Harman of Huntington Beach was quoted saying, “This demonstrates the problem that we’re going to have if we release thousands of prisoners into our local communities,” to the Sacramento Bee. The author then states that he/she feels the opposite of Senator Tom Harman. The author states the parole reform will help with the budget and also would reduce the ratio between parole officers and parolees. The parole reform would change how California will oversee the parolees. The less violent crimes parolees, such as drug addicts, would not be getting as much supervision as high violent crimes parolees, such as kidnappers, murderers, and rapists. The author tells us that we should not let this case of Jaycee Lee Dugards influence the state of California not to go with the parole reform and that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should sign the bill.

I partially, agree with the author of this editorial. There is definitely over-crowding in our jails across the country. By releasing inmates after serving half their sentence and put on parole is just how things have to be in today’s time. If this were a “perfect world” inmates would have to spend their entire sentence in prison, but with the over-crowding in prisons I understand why we have to release inmates to go on federal parole after serving half their time with good behavior. However, just like social workers, parole officers have way too much on their hands and something has to be done about it. Drug addicts, which is what the author of this editorial views as less violent parolees, do not need as much supervision as a rapists, murderers, and kidnappers. In my opinion, I feel if someone can rape, murder, or kidnap, there are psychological problems with that person and they are likely to commit the same crime again. On the other hand, I believe that drug addicts need to go into a mandatory rehabilitation center for their drug problem or they might commit a more vicious crime to get the drugs that they think they need in order to survive. There should be something done so that parolees are more supervised than they are now. The parole officer absolutely should have realized that Phillip Garrido was holding someone captive in his back yard. The picture of the house and the tents and shacks where Jaycee Lee Dugards was being held was very disturbing, and the alleged criminals should be prosecuted to the fullest for what they have done to those girls. I think that the editorial should have said more about what the actual stipulations to the parole reform so I can say that I fully agree with the parole reform. However, this article is opening the eyes of people in California and letting it be known that something needs to change. It is making people think about how the parole reform will or will not help the state of California.