Sure, why don't we help people that don't deserve it?

As an assistant professor of political science, Tehama Lopez Bunyasi surprises me with her article in the New York Times, arguing that we should release more people from prison so that there is less income inequality.  The very idea that people should be released from prison and offered more assistance to rebuild their life is absurd.  Those people are in jail because of the fact that they have proven that they cannot be productive members of society.  Agreed, too much of taxpayers’ money is spent on prisons but, I do not agree with her in her views.  Why should people be released from prison? They have to pay for their crimes just the way the American public has decided they should.  If she was trying to reach out to the minorities in America, by pointing out that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 affected black and brown communities more than white communities she utterly failed I believe.  Anyone who does not want to violate this law, stay away from drugs! Its as easy as that. 

As a member of a minority group, I have no trouble following the law and staying away from drugs.  If these people were found guilty of their crimes they should pay.  Her idea is that by letting these people out of prison will help them contribute to society well I believe that it is in the nature of people to continue in things they are accustomed to.  If they are let out of prison, there is no guarantee that they will not fall right back into their old habits, which is something I believe they will do given the chance.  Especially if they are not forced to serve the time that they were sentenced for their crimes.  How about we focus on helping people, so that they don’t have to turn to a lifestyle that is harmful to the community, and to ultimately to themselves.  

Nicholas D. Kristof of the New York Times states that the top 1 percent of America has more collective wealth than the bottom 90 percent.  As if we didn’t already know that.  I have to say that his article was well written and persuasive, comparing America to a kindergarten classroom.  He implies that one could look at a student in kindergarten who has all the toys, and who does not want to share with the rest of the class, and one would come to the conclusion that this is what America has basically boiled down too.  One little kid who believes that all the toys are his to play with, and that he has no need to share with the rest to the class.  He writes this for and as a part of the middle class.  Obviously when oneself is not the one little kid who has all the toys to play with, we cry and wine when we cannot play with all the toys, seeing him with so many.  He supports his argument with figures that the public could easily verify as true, such as information on the six heirs of Sam Walton (the founder of Walmart). I think his article would defiantly support most of middle class America’s views on the distribution of wealth in this country.   

He also doesn’t just complain and nag like one would expect with someone who is unhappy with the system, he offers his views on how the government could possible make things better for the distribution of wealth. This is another plus point in his article.  I know that I defiantly don’t want to sit and read something that nags and wines all the time never coming up with a possible solution.  He believes that focusing on education would help solve this.  Doesn’t that just make the most sense? When a person has the opportunity to be educated and productive in the community at an early age, it is easier to be successful, and do more to get ahead if that is what we want. 

As a part of the bottom part of the classroom, I agree with his analysis on distribution of wealth.  That little kid has got to learn to share his toys!