Week 8 - Advocacy and Arts & Culture

This week contain two topics, advocacy and arts. I find both topics interesting especially advocacy. Advocacy for rights and progress has been an important part of American history. I didn't know that some nonprofits specialize in protect civil rights and individual liberties. It is interesting that some nonprofit wants to achieve political agendas and advocate issues. Arts and culture produce some of the best musicians, artists, and actors in this country. I think the issue today is that the arts are underfunding in schools. Educators thinks schools should focus on core subjects and skills that colleges look for and value such as history, science, math, and english.

The NonProfit Nation shows how powerful movement groups were form from nonprofit advocacy and that really change the way government dealt with public policies. These groups such as League of Women Voters, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and National Rifle Association all advocate their cause to the government. I feel that more and more groups like these influence our government and thus create lobbies.  A question I have for everyone is "Are these groups / movement going to be the voice of the American people?  Because it seems that everyone is joining and forming their own interest group to advocate their agenda in government. So how can the government get anything done when everyone wants best for themselves and that there is no bipartisan.

In the "Power of Nonprofit" article, I find it interesting that the abolition movement, woman suffrage, Social Security, and racial equality came from nonprofit associations that help start these things out. These groups produce environmental protection, pass labor laws, food safety laws, and voting rights. All these progressive reforms came from the power of the community and the people who wanted change. I feel that government won't change unless people act and rally together for a cause that they deeply care about.

The book really truthful explains how the arts are separated into entertainment which is for profit compare to art which is nonprofit. Movies, music, radio are closely connected to the business sector and serious art such as theater and museums are focus on the nonprofit sector.  These two worlds divides what art really is and how we separate art and entertainment. I think art and music is a powerful tool for youth people to express themselves. Music and poetry give teens voices to talk about social issues such poverty and family relationships. I think the arts help people share their own personal experiences that is unique to them and bring positive self-esteem for teens. I find it is common that schools often cut music programs or reduce art classes in favor of math and science. The core classes such as math, english, and science are important for a successful education but so are the arts. Art and music classes gives empowerment to those who want to learn and voice their values. On the other hand, I find that the reason why arts programs are being cut is because of money and jobs. Being a painter, artist, musician, and actor are often hard to find success because not many painters get paid a lot, only once they get famous and recognize due they start making money. The same goes for dancers, actors, and singers, who all have talent but the industry they want to get in are difficult and not many make it big.

Should art programs be cut from schools entirely? It would save money and have more spaces for other important classes. Schools should be focus on educating students to be the best and to achieve the highest test scores so that we can compete against other countries. It all comes down to the schools's first and foremost responsibility to make sure children are graduating with the skills necessary to survive in the workforce and get a job. Without these skills, you can be a Picasso and still not have a job.

Here are some links that related to why art programs are being cut that can help you answer the question.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/arts/10cuts.html?_r=1

http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/fine_arts_programs_being_cut_a.html

Week 7-Education

  This week's topic is about education. I feel that education system in America is one of the best in the world even though it is not as effective. We have the best schools, universities, and institutions that provide outstanding education. Schools such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Columbia produce the world's best doctors, teachers, lawyers, engineers, and other specialists. Even though we have such prestigious universities and great schools, not everyone can attend because of financial strains or social problems. The irony behind this is that our education standard is below other countries and how our K-12 schools are failing. I think teenagers and young adults don't understand the value of free education for the public schools in America. Going to schools in other countries are consider privileges where you have to pay to attend and how parents sacrifice so much so that their kids can attend. I think American culture needs to change so that people view education differently. Money should not be a issue if people have the determination to succeed and want to learn. An issue I would like talk about is the price of education. I feel like today's education is over value and that tuition prices are too expensive. If want you're learning is not worth that much and how some classes are not useful for a career, then why learn it?

Should there be laws to regulate college tuition, so that it is not over price? I feel that what you learn in a community college class could be worth the same in a university class?

Also in class, we discuss whether some classes should not be required because it would not be helpful. So is it better to take your own classes versus having a well round education that the university choose for you?

In the book, Nonprofit Nation, it really focuses on the difference between public and private school. Most private schools are religious and the biggest religious affiliated school is Catholics. They stated that private schools tend to be college oriented and most graduate attend college, which shows the success of private schools to public ones. Another important stat, why private schools are more effective is how much money they spent compare to public schools, average private school per student was $4,783 versus public schools of $7,703 (O'Neil). Obviously money is not the issue that effects our education system. I attend a private school for 3 years and it was a huge difference for me in terms of learning. My parents saw how ineffective the public education system was and decided to send me to private school to improve my education. I thought I was smart in my 5^th grade class but I was just average like everyone else, and going to private school gave me a huge lead in my education. When I went to public high school, I was ahead of everyone and saw how it was disappointing that kids were just learning basic algebra during their freshmen year.

Here is a video about education reform and how Obama wants to raise the standard of education.

In the article, “Fed Up at the University of Phoenix” that I read, it clearly shows that for-profit schools such as the University of Phoenix takes advantage of student's money and provide a poor quality education. I have seen many of their ads online and I can tell this school is a joke/scam because it seems more like a business, then a learning institution. It's true that by running colleges like business, it could promote growth, which would benefit students through better resources but the idea concern is not for students but for the college's profit. These online colleges need to be regulation since they are run like a business and Wall Street needs to get out of this industry. Education shouldn't be profit off.

An question I like to bring up is should online and for-profit colleges be monitor by the Department of Education? They would be regulating that students are given a fair education and the tuition money be properly used.

Week 6-Environment

 
 This week's focus is about the environment within the nonprofit sector. I think the whole environmental movement is relatively new, to me as least, and there are many nonprofit that specializes in protecting Earth and its natural resources. Organizations such as Greenpeace, Wildlife Conservation International, and World Wide Fun for Nature (WWF) are all environmental groups who help conserve the planet in someways and protect endanger wildlife. These groups form to address issues of pollution, wildlife endangerment, and the losing of natural resources. In the 21st Century, we have seen much more activism than the past decades, mostly due to our population increasing at a big rate and the consumption of resources, that we must address if we are to be sustainable.
    In the "Saving the Environment" reading, it addresses the idea of profiting off environment policies. I think the whole green technology industry is expanding and it would be wise for businesses to invest in these. Even though business would need to spent much more money right now to acquire these technologies, it would save money in the long run. I think a important concept for nonprofit in  is to preserve wildlife and watershed in their local communities. Like how social services, nonprofit serve people and improve their lives, environmental groups should focus on the same.
   In our nonprofit class, we talk about whether environment groups should accept money from business, something along those lines. I think if they both gain something positive then they should form a partnership. An example is business taking measures to be green friendly by installing solar panels on their buildings and how the environmental groups would support them in return. Business need to be more eco-friendly and conserve resources in the future. I took a international politics about world economics and we mention environment concerns. The concern for business is lost of profits due to regulations and higher costs. An example is the United States have lots of regulations for business such as clean air laws versus business in China with not much environmental law. Businesses in China have a higher advantage where business can pollute as much they can and gain higher profits then those in America. There is no international law to regulate environmental policies such as pollution, clean water, or waste because in reality there is no one to enforce these. The Kyoto Protocol is a example that countries will try to lower their CO2 emission but they are not obligated to and the funny thing is the United States is the only country that has not ratify, meaning they are not agreeing to anything. I think this shows how business in America would be effected and the disadvantages it would have for them, having to follow these new policies and regulations. The link showing this is below.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Kyoto_Protocol_and_the_United_States

The question I would like to discuss is "Should business be obligated to follow these environment laws or should they do whatever they want to gain profit?"

Obviously a business' goal is to gain profit and get ahead of the competition but if government around the world are making these new eco policies then how will they compete?

Week 5-Healthcare

   This week's topic is about healthcare. Healthcare is the largest part of the nonprofit sector and this is reflected in the millions of healthcare cost each year in our society. Americans spent so much money in healthcare, from buying prescription drugs to paying for medical bills, that it seems
I think our healthcare system isn't as great as it should be and we are behind compare to European countries especially Sweden. There are ups and downs to the healthcare system in America but I think certain improvements can be made. I found it interesting that for profit hospitals spend most of their money on doctors and medical labs, where as nonprofit spend it on patient care. I feel that regardless of for profit or nonprofit, a patient's health should come first.
    Something I found interesting from reading in NonProfit Nation, was that hospitals account for a third of the health economy and how much revenue they receive is incredible. Nonprofit hospitals are often seen as for profit because of the way they operate and I always though of hospitals as for profits because of the medicine fees. I think having nonprofit and for profit hospitals can be complicate for health insurance simply because the cost of coverage would be funded differently. I think nonprofit hospitals would be strain by the financial burdens compare to for profits. A solution to this is a national government hospital statewide. I feel a national hospital run by the government would be effective implying a healthcare plan that would cover anyone and would compete with private hospital. This national hospital would provide basic services for the poor people and middle class, such as check ups, flu shots, teeth examination, and treatment for infection. The private hospital would be more upper class and have more expensive services such as  heart surgery, bone marrow transplant, or cancer treatment.

Question: Do you think there should be a national government hospital? Would it work or will it be a burden the government to start one?


   A interesting issue I want to bring up is about pharmaceutical companies and the medicine drugs prescribe by doctors. I feel that most drugs companies run a monopoly type of empire and there are lots of controversy stuff that I see revolved around them. First off, they promote so many TV ads about new drugs that can cure this or prevent that while listing so many side effects. I think some of our healthcare problems comes from this. New health problems are created because of new drugs created and I see the elderly needing more and more drugs. An article I read this week, was about ADD and how it effects adults. I feel this issue is somewhat over exaggerated and when there is a new disease or disorder, it seems people will want to get a examination right away to determine if they are fine. I think new founding like this adult ADD is just a hype and gets people worried so that they will visit a doctor.

 A problem I find about doctors and medical care is how doctors try to give you preventive treatment or medicine to prevent problems. I believe in the saying, “If it ain't broken, don't fix it”. This apply to healthcare because I experience times, where doctors tells me to take this or do that even though its not necessary. I find Western medicine sometime causes more problems than cure them. The Eastern/Oriental approach is diet, exercise, and acupuncture but rarely medicine or drugs. Obviously this is very similar to Western thought but the difference is traditional technique versus advance scientific medicine. An example is how my grandpa has good health and hasn't seen a doctor in a long time. I believe good health comes from health lifestyle and stress free life.