Be Grateful...

I was reading through some of my classmates’ blogs the other day, and one of the titles read “Government not so bad.” This caught my attention, because I feel that many people would disagree with this statement considering the state that we are currently in. Within this blog, my classmate made some very good points. The fact that this year is an election year has placed even more criticism on the government, along with rising gas prices. President Bush’s administration has taken a chunk of the criticism, but is he the one to blame? My classmate points out that the nation is in a time of war, we are victims of raising gas prices, and the economy is headed south, but we have more things working in our favor than we realize. The blog also highlights the fact that compared to other nations in this world, we enjoy many liberties and freedoms that others would be fortunate to have. I think at times we take for granted our government and the things they do for us, we concentrate more on the negatives. I feel that my classmate did a very good job of bringing awareness to the public that we need to think before we criticize. We are lucky to have what we have, and it is important to remind us. I think this was a good blog to write, especially in this time of need. We turn to the government when we are weak, and they should be someone we can rely on. The government can be good, and we should be grateful.

War, War, War

I was reading an article the other day on CNN.com regarding the House of Representatives voting on a war funding bill. The title interested me, so I read on further. My first reaction to this article was: do we really need to sponsor the war with more money? I thought we were trying to make peace and slowly retreat? My second thought was: What all is the government devising behind our backs?

Here is a brief synopsis of the article: The main purpose of the bill is to provide for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as address important domestic needs. Okay, so they saved themselves by adding the “domestic needs” part in order to lighten the adverse effect of more war funding. People see the word war and they start to protest. The editorial also mentions that the bill places no restrictions on the war funding, but it does provide for unemployment assistance for 13 weeks and an expanded GI bill for four-year scholarships. Here we see that the Democrats and Republicans have come to a compromise, which seems promising. The concludes with a wordy paragraph that basically says that this bill will prove to be a victory for Americans by allowing the military the resources it needs to purchase tools to accelerate the end of the war. According to the House Minority Leader John Boehner, “we could have had this agreement long ago if the Democratic leadership had not chosen to play political games with our troops.” Well, that is a loaded statement.

I feel that the introduction of this bill into law will come with some controversy. After almost 7 years of fighting, the American people, myself included, felt that the end was near. However, this bill will permit the purchase of more tools, which could further drag on the war. Peace may very, very far in the future. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the type of countries to give up just because the enemy Country purchased bigger and tougher toys. They will fight back just as strong. I agree with the “domestic needs” part, but I’m not sure that more war funding is what the world needs right now. We need a government focused on us at home and improving the economy, namely the oil crisis! This bill was a good effort, but I’m afraid it missed the mark.

Here is the link to the article mentioned

Universal Healthcare and You

In response to my classmate’s blog, I count too!, I agree the universal health insurance is an issue that needs to be decided with a great sense of urgency. One statistic quoted within the blog is that 45.8 million Americans are without health insurance, and indeed, this is a staggering rate that should be intolerable. However, the issue is more complex than what it seen on the surface. My classmate seems to think that universal health coverage is what is best for Americans and getting involved is necessary. Sure, the words, “Every American is now insured” sounds great to the ear, but what are the consequences? Has anyone ever thought who is going to pay for all this? Yes, the insured are currently paying for the uninsured peoples’ abuse of the emergency room for a quick-fix, and hopes are that with universal coverage everyone will share a portion of the price. However, lower-income families may not be able to provide these funds, so the government will be forced to turn to the wealthy for help to keep the program running. Is this truly an ethical practice? Or the government doesn’t turn to the people, and we find ourselves in further in debt. I also agree that an uninsured person is more likely to have chronic health problems because they cannot afford to receive routine medical treatment. But there has to be some other solution to the problem. As part of my commentary to the said blog, I have the same opinion that it was beneficial for Barack Obama to bring the issue to national attention. High-officials should be made aware of what is going on with the “common” people. A final thought, my classmate is correct, this problem will not go away unless everyone can come together and do their part to help those around us.

Picking favorites...

I was on CNN.com this morning and noticed a story that jumped out at me. It was titled, “Senator tries to keep valedictorian from deportation.” My first thought was, “hmm…is that ethical?” Can you really keep someone, against their will, from leaving the country? Before I input any more of my thoughts, I will give you a brief synopsis of the article, which can also be found at http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/11/armenian.valedictorian/index.html.

A high school valedictorian, Arthur Mkoyan, originally from Armenia, may be deported if a Senate bill, introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, isn’t passed. The family arrived in the United States in 1995 on a six-month tourist visa. After the visa expired, the family tried to apply for U.S. residency, however they were turned down. A judge ruled that they have no legal right to remain in America. According to the article, “the family tried again (for U.S. residency status) by applying to the Board of Immigration Appeals; that was rejected, also. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year denied their petition for a hearing.” The family wants to do everything they can to ensure that they remain in America. The father believes that if they return to Armenia, “his family would be subject to reprisals because of his attempts to expose corruption at the government agency where he worked.” It will take time for the bill to pass, if it does, so the family can enjoy America a little while longer because, “as a matter of policy, we (Congress) won’t proceed with a deportation as long as a private bill is pending.” Only time will tell the end of this story.

Ok, like I mentioned before, my first thoughts upon reading this article were concerning the ethical implications. First of all, in my opinion, I believe that Sen. Feinstein is showing favoritism to one person, which could have negative consequences. This story will be broadcast and people will start to wonder, “why didn’t see do that for me?” She will be labeled as being biased and “cherry picking” those she wants to help. Now how can that be fair? I think Sen. Feinstein should be very careful in choosing her path because everyone is watching her next move. I would still like to know her motive behind the bill, and why she singled out a valedictorian from a California high school. Sure, he may be smart and have things going for him, but a lot of other citizens do also and we don’t have special favors done for us. This is only the beginning of this issue, and I am interested to see how it unfolds. Will the Armenian family be forced to return home?

The ever-popular oil issue...

Word travels fast, so I am sure that everyone knows that oil prices rose close to $11 more a barrel! What is the world coming to? At this rate, experts predict that a barrel of oil will cost $150 by the fourth of July. I don't know if our expressed opinions are heard or not, but it's worth a try, right? In an article posted on the website The Huffington Post, author Raymond Learsy, tries, and I think succeeds, in publicizing his thoughts on the issue.

Mr. Learsy's article is titled, Oil's Largest One-Day Gain On Record: Thank You Bernanke, in which he purposefully calls out Ben S. Bernanke a Federal Reserve Chairman and shareholder in Bernanke Oil. His rant is filled with sarcasm regarding Bernanke's attitude toward oil and his obvious lack of care toward the common people and their struggle to afford gas. Mr. Learsy mentions that "Bernanke signaled to the markets and the world at large that high prices were not an issue for this government nor would they be as oil prices moved higher still." This comment shows an apparent disregard for anyone below high-class status, such as Mr. Bernanke himself. After reading this article, it occurs to me that Mr. Bernanke may not have very many friends.

I have nothing but praise for the author of this article. I do not feel that he did any wrong or showed any bias. The subject of oil has been an ongoing concern, and the government has not done much to help relieve the stress. There are options out there that would somewhat lessen the price of oil, but they seem to have been left on the back burner. What about the little people? The article was truthful in its facts, stating that "homes freezing in Maine and Dakota winters, truckers losing their rigs, airlines cutting their workforces by the thousands and severely cutting back their service, family budgets being ripped apart by the price of gas, small businessesunable to meet their payrolls." This is the reality of our situation, but the government fails to take notice. No one is going to boycott buying gas, and I think the government is aware of this, therefore, there are no controls placed on the price of gasoline. It is something the economy needs, so we will continue to use it. However, households shouldn't have to sacrifice buying food, in order to make sure they have enough funds left to cover for gas. It is an evil circle that we are in now. And Mr. Learsy's article was another act of someone voicing their opinion, hoping it would be heard.

The above mentioned article can be found at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/oils-largest-one-day-gain_b_105594.html?view=screen

Clinton is not giving up...

Okay, I know it is after the fact and Obama has clinched the spot, but let's rewind to a couple of days ago. I was reading a blog in The New York Times titled "She's Still Here" by Maureen Dowd who emphasizes that Clinton is sticking around until they kick her off her podium. In her article, she writes that Clinton is going to be around for the long haul whether or not anyone likes it. Clinton is always trying to be "one-up" on Obama. Throughout her article, she mentions numerous times when the Clinton group states that they won this state or that state and putting down Obama, all the while, Obama is getting the recognition he deserves. For example, Dowd writes, "Hilary has been trying to emasculate Obama with the sort of words and themes she has chosen, stirring up feminist anger by promoting the idea that the men were unfairly taking it away from women, and covering up her own campaign mistakes with cries of sexism." Clinton is doing everything she can to try and keep the dream alive.

The previsouly mentioned article is very harsh towards Clinton, but I feel it is almost the shock that Clintion needs. I am going to criticize the author and say that I don't think it is right of the media to vilify Clinton like they do. We all have differences that should be embraced not criticized for all the public to read. She is doing the best she can in her situation; it's not easy to crawl up from a fall. I don't feel that Clinton is in Lala land and in denial of everything going on around her. She understands that her time in the spotlight is almost up, she just isn't saying it yet. Give her time to soak it all in, and she will be out of the way. Like the title of the article says, "she's still here, " but not for long. So all you pessimists be quiet and let time take its' course.

The article mentioned throughout this post can be found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04dowd.html?bl&ex=1212897600&en=da02c25e6d56b662&ei=5087%0A . Enjoy!

And the battle goes on...

The debate over universal health insurance has been the talk of the town recently, thanks to the elections. Should we adopt this type of plan or not? Everyone is at odds over the situation.

Massachusetts is a prime example used by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama to encourage the idea of universal health care. According to an article in The New York Times, written by Kevin Sack, "Massachusetts reduced its proportion of uninsured adults by nearly half in the first year of manadatory health coverage and made gains in the share of people recieving routine preventive care." Employers are offering employers more benefits, and everyone is realizing that health care is important.

Now this all sounds fine and dandy, but it does come with some negative effects. The most obvious one being cost. How can the U.S. afford to support a program that covers the costs of health care for the low-income and poverty-stricken families? The government always turns to taxes. Sure, tax the wealthy people that can afford to pay, but is that really an ethical solution? Okay, now everyone has insurance, but what about the supply of doctors? There are currently not enough doctors to see all these patients in a timely manner, which forces some patients to resort to the emergency room. And once again, health care costs rise.

Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of giving all Americans equal access to healthcare, but I feel at this point in time, the U.S. is not stable enough for this. We need to rethink our strategy before jumping in and starting a domino effect.