Help America: Stop the Partisanship!

I have recently heard so much about the healthcare reform bill and the financial problems of the United States that I finally broke down and contacted my senators and congresswoman. I don't know if they will read or respond to my concerns but here is what I wrote to Senators Burr and Hagen of NC and Congresswoman Foxx of the NC 5th district:

Over the past several months its seems that I have heard nothing besides the controversy surrounding this new healthcare innitiative. Unfortunately, even with the bill being available for public viewing I find that I am still frustrated with the vague details surrounding such a venture. However I am troubled by the lack of communication between the democratic and republican parties over this bill. It seems to me and others I have talked to that everyone is busy fighting over little details rather than work together towards the common goal: better and more affordable healthcare.

Now I realize that with the superior healthcare you and the rest of the government recieve allows you to believe that there is time to piddle over miniscule details, however, the simple fact of the matter is that middle- and lower-class America can no longer wait for you people on capital hill to drag your feet. We NEED Healthcare coverage that EVERYONE can afford.

Now I am not saying that the healthcare bill that President Obama has presented is the best option (as I said, it is so indepth and confusing that it seems the typical american cannot follow the political jargon saturated within its pages), however, I would like to make a few points known that you may not have thought about in terms of healthcare reform and the national budget:

1. Litigation: Simply put, the easier it is for people to sue the hospitals and doctors over trivial problems, the higher malpractice insurance becomes leading to increased costs for hospital stays. Some cases I am sure are sustantial but many others are taken on by law office only out to earn a dollar? Legal sure, but I ask you, is it ethical?

2. Pharmaceutical expences: The sky-rocketing costs of medication in our society warrents the abolute necessity for health insurance. What does it say to you when an elderly man or women has dedicated some 50 years of employment to society yet has to go on medicare and medicaid and hoping to cover at least most of their medical expenses? Interestingly enough, you all work several terms and are covered for the duration of your lives. Is that fair?

3. Health insurance premiums: Obviously this new bill is meant to fix this problem but why start a whole new insurance fix when the answer is simple: better regulation on healthcare premiums. It seems to me that the government would have more luck regulating how much the insurance companies can charge for healthcare coverage rather than include new insurance choices and a government option. Isn't that what medicaid is for? Besides, what good is offering an insurance policy to employees when they forced to refuse it due to the high cost of getting coverage? For example two years ago, I worked for a company that offered benefits but I had to refuse because the high cost would have eaten two-thirds of my paycheck every payperiod. How can I live off of one-third of my income?

Also if you want to improve the national budget why not add a limit on how long a person can receive welfare and medicaid while without a job. Surely two years can be long enough to find something in the way of a job. They could still recieve medicaid and government support after they start working (lets face it, even a single independant person can barely survive on minimum wage, even at full time) but you should not enable them but supporting them completely.

Another way to save money and help balance the budget: BRING THE JOBS BACK HOME! That would increase domestic revenue and help decrease the job problem within the United States. Or, levy a sustancial tax on those businesses that continue to send american jobs overseas. Big businesses send jobs overseas so they can save money at the cost of the common man who can't find a job and consequently is living off the government (thus draining the economy).

I must apologize for my frank words but I, much like many of my peers, have become so frustrated by the apathy of the government towards the American people. If politicians cared so much for us they would stop fighting amongst themselves and their political parties and come together to find a NON-PARTISAN solution. Thank you for your time and attention.

Being an independant I want it to be known that I understand that I have some democratic ideas but If we want this democracy to succeed then we must focus our attentions on demestic problems rather than try to fix the problems of countries that don't want our help.

How I Would Solve The Economic Crisis?

I cannot understand why it is so difficult for the powers in America to fix the economic crisis. I can barely watch the news today without wanting to scream. After all it took me all of 5 minutes to figure out the economic solution: Bring the jobs home. That's it folks. Simple and obvious. What is the biggest problem facing americans today? Jobs are becoming sparce because people are losing their jobs due to foreign employment.



Why are jobs going overseas? After NAFTA was passed the corperations moved many jobs overseas to save money. People in Mexico work 10 times cheaper and just as well as US citizens. So how to we get jobs back into the US? Tax the companies who send work overseas. Companies are looking to save money where they can to please the top executives while the average employee and patron suffer. Its as though they feel they can charge the same or more for their products while paying substancially less for exployees to process their products. Thus, the only people to win are the top executives who make the big bucks.

Taxing the big businesses would produce two possible outcomes. Number one, it would imput more tax dollars into the economy and boost the country out of the recession. Number 2, it would discourage businesses to send their job opportunities elsewhere, thus creating more jobs in the US and boosting the economy with the increase in job opportunity.

The Epic War between the Elephants and Donkeys

As I have been watching the recent events since the 2009 elections I've been fascinated with the continual onslaught against the democratic party. It seems to be that the republicans are finding any and all reason to fight against the changes proposed by President Obama.

I suppose the most pressing thought on my mind is the republican reaction to the new stimulus package. Before the bill was put into motion the instant rejection of this plan was evident. The biggest question I have is why can they not propose contructive critisism and ways to improve this bill (WITHOUT the use of pork barrel spending) rather that the continuous "It's not going to work" summation. The republican party had their chance when they supported President Bush's stimulus package the prevous year. Sadly it did not yield positive results and it seems the republicans are worried about looking bad. I say give the bill a chance to work before being so pessimistic. Then, if it does not work, then you can say what you want. Meanwhile, if the stimulus package does work then the repubicans will really look like fools in the public's eye.

Ellen Degeneres vs. Mutts & Moms

After watching the latest on the Ellen Degeneres vs. Mutts & Moms case on television I felt I needed to speak out about how I felt.

First of all I am a dog lover. I love animals in general. I firmly believe that Ellen Degeneres is a kind, wondedrful person who had no ill intentions about her dog. I also believe that this situation could have been avoided had Mutts and Mom's had handled the situation differently. Threatening to call the police and inform the press? Even if this was an empty threat it was a bad move on their part. I probably would have done the same thing had I been in Ellen's shoes and told the american people. She is reaching out for support and compassion and I applaud her for that. Similarly, how they retrieved Iggy was also a bad move. To barge into their home and not rationally and calmly explained the situation I'm, sure everything could have been sorted out much more smoothly. I think the organization was trying to maky a statement and it backfired.

However, I am shocked by how some of the people in this world are reacting to this story. Death threats, arson threats? People, have we not learned anything from our past? All you people are doing is adding fuel to the fire. I realize you think you are helping and are enraged by the situation but think about it. All you are doing is reenforcing the idea that Ellen Degeneres is bullying this group and, well, making the situation worse. We should be supportive of the family and seee if we can help in a much more peaceful way. History has showed us that violence and anger has only aided the "enemy."

I am also shocked at how some evening newscasters and thier guests have reacted. MS NBC's Dan Abrams said he didn't understand why people were so worked up over this story (to paraphrase) and Keith Oberman's guest (10-17-2007) seemed to have little interest in this story other than to imply (as I interepreted it) that there was much more "important" stuff in the world to talk about.

I understand that not all people care about animals the way I do so they see the situation differently and I accept that, however, I do believe that this is a story of which more people can relate. Lets think about it. It is happening in the US, it involves a celebrity (how isn't getting a divorce or acting like the fools these shows love to plaster over TV), and involved the love of a pet (an idea of which most of the american public can somehow relate- I know many people who regard thier animals as their "child"). This is a story that appeals to everyone and judge the american public about this issue is not a good idea. We want to support a fellow american who is taking full responsibilityfor her actions and is only asking for the shelter to reconsider the family for adoption.

In conclusion, I am only asking people to be supportive and caring but don't stoop to their level. Remember- What goes around, comes around. Karma is a alive and well.

Is Chirstmas too Commercial?

This time of year there really is a buzz in the air. It's a time for Christians to celebrate the birth of thier savior, Jews to celebrate the festival of lights and the miracles of God, and/or a time to spread feelings of love and joy to our family, friends, and others- right? Well, working in retail I'm afraid I have a slighted jaded view of the holidays.

I mean, yeah, I love Christmas. I love being with my family, being off from work and living life to the fullest, especially this year when I get most of my family home for the holidays. However, I've found that most people act totally different when Christmas shopping. These same sweet, merry individuals can suddenly grow claws and horns when the shopping experiance gets stressful. All Christmas spirit is gone when they can't get thier item, have to wait in long lines, or can't get a sale. They become grouchy, rude, needy, and just plain outright mean to others. So where is this growing energy directed? Right to the sales person they interact with. That's right, these poor associates who work long, gruelling hours for nearly minimum wage must now suffer through the customer's frustratoin while trying to soothe them so they can have a better day, all the while adhering to "the cusomer is always right" policy.

Well I am here to tell you that this situation is completely rediculous. First of all, My job entails that I help you find what you are looking for and let you pay for your purchase. If we don't have your item, well I am sorry that you are too late and should have been here sooner. All I can do is suggest another store or go online. Yelling and Fussing at me is not going to improve your odds of getting that item. I am not a manager nor does my measily salary include playing therapist to your problems. You should be thankful you have money to shop, a car to drive, and family to shop for.

Is Abortion Wrong Because Men Say It Is?

Recently HBO played a segment called "Soldiers in the Army of God." Among other things, this documentary discussed abortion laws in the United States and how pro-life America is willing to do what it takes to end legalized abortion. However, as I was watching this I began to notice a common pattern of male extremists working to promote extreme measures of violence to promote the pro-life cause. Upon discovering this, the wheels in my brain started turning and I began thinking about who in power decides the fate of abortion laws. Its simple: men. The majority of people serving in our democratic governement are men. Highly paid men who generallyhave no clue about the "real" problems in America today because most of them "are too busy trying to keep their jobs, they forgot how to do their jobs." Pardon the "American President" movie pun. Therefore, this begs the question: is abortion wrong because men say it is?

Laws regarding abortion today have become highly complex however it is important to fully understand them if you are to understand my point of view. As of 1973, during the imfamous case of Roe Vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Fourteenth Ammendment of the US constitution allows women the right to abortion within the first 22 weeks of the pregnancy, unless the government feels it is in their best intrerest to inerfere. However, each state is able to regulate abortion laws accoringly. Partial-birth abortion is "is performed in the second and third trimesters and entails (1) inducing a breech delivery with forceps, (2) delivering the legs, arms and torso only, (3) puncturing the back of the skull with scissors or a trochar, (4) inserting a suction curette into the skull, (4) suctioning the contents of the skull so as to collapse it, (5) completing the delivery. A partial breech delivery is not considered a "birth" at common law, where it is the passage of the head that is essential" (http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/pbal.htm). This kind of abortion is illegal in over 30 states. To learn more about Abortion laws visit http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/index.htm.

Before I dealve deeper into this topic I feel I should explain my personal views of abortion. I personally am anti-abortion. I believe this is wrong and would personally would never have one done UNLESS I was at risk of death. I like to think we all have a small fear of death, espeically at my tender age of 22. I know there are many couples who want children and would be happy to adopt so if I were to get in trouble I know my baby would go to a loving and supportive family. However, I say "personally" because I am also pro-choice. I believe I have no right to tell another woman what to do with her body. It is her choice and I have no right to judge her. Plus, I also believe what there are alot of gray areas for the "right/wrong" arguament. For example, a rape victem. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant should we withhold the right for her to abort? Is it fair for a 14 year-old girl who did nothing wrong to be saddled with a child (who also did nothing wrong) because we denied her right to abortion?

Now please don't get me wrong. I do believe that there are plenty of women who abuse the system. I know there are women out there getting 6 to 10 abortions because they do not use propor protection. Believe me, I've heard the arguaments. "Condoms take away the sensation," "He pulls out before he ejaculates," "Birth control is too expensive," "My mate and I are embarressed to buy condoms," " I don't want my parents to find out," "My mate is to big for a condom/ is allergic to latex," etc, etc. Trust me ladies, abortion is the most expensive form of birth control out there. Anyone who pays attention in Sex Ed knows about pre-ejacuation which can get you pregnant. Plus you can go to a health clinic for protection with total privacy. If you feel you must have sex, please be smart. Swallow your pride, use protection! I also believe that abortion should not covered by insurance unless for medical purposes (i.e. health risks).

Now then, back to there original topic. While watching this documentary, I noticed that most of the pro-life extremists and law-makers are men. I'm sorry, have you ever seen a man have a baby---no. Therefore, I believe thay have no right to discuss this issue. This is another way for men to exert their pateral authority. Women today are growing to higher poistions and staus which I believe is frightening the men. Therefore, I believe men are trying to find ways of staying in control. What better way to stay superior to women then to control what we can do to our own bodies. I also believe that theses pro-life extremeists should receieve extreme judicial sentences. I finding it interesting that these same extremist people who are trying to save lifes are the ones killing people in abortion clinic bombings. (On a side note, I also find it interesting that those people who are against abortion are are mainly those who are for war and visa versa. Where is the consistancy?)

Men have no place in this kind of debate. If you feel you do, please keep your opinion to yourself. I don't want to hear you telling me that I am a baby killer when, I am sorry, I takes two to tango, buddy! You want to stop abortion, you go to your sex catagory and start educating men one how to control your hormones. Half the time, women have sex because men push them. I'm sorry guys. You have no control over your hormones and once you are turned on it takes one hell of a lot more to turn you off then it takes women. Thats why there is only 1 out of 100 male rape victems. I truly believe that if you feel you must be involved in the abortion debate then Why don't you figure out a way to punish the man for getting a women pregnant. Like if the women gets an abortion. Why not castrate the male? It's fair. Then you won't have to worry about him getting her pregnant again.

Now, I am not trying to judge anyone here because I feel that all will be judged by God one day. However, I certainly don't think women should have to feel judged my the men of America, rather we should use our own moral judgement, which we are all certainly very well capable of using, to decide whether abortion is right or wrong.

Aiding Victims: Sincere or Political?

Tsunami. Although most of us understand the meaning of this word, most of us don't hear in normal conversation. However, in recent days this word has taken on new meaning. News braodcasts have brought the natural disaster in the Indian Ocean to the fore front of national coverage. Over the past couple of weeks we have been witness to the distruction caused by a tsunami in southern Asia which cost the lives of hundreds of thousands, ranging from India to Australia. Country upon Country hs been beding over backwards to help these poor people with what would seem to be pure concern for the severe hardship of those coping with loss. However, I find it interesting that hidden underneath the good intentions of each country is a political game of one-upmenship. As one country pledges a certain sum of money to aid the relief effort another country meets and incerases their pledged amount, thus continuing an increasing wealth of funds.

Please do not misunderstand my thoughts. As long as money is collected to help these people I have no real poblem with this political game. Yet, as I watched I was amazed at how these countries could so subtly interweave thier political poker game into such a horrific tragady. I see this political venture as a game of celebrity poker with the tsunami relief aid as the cause. Each country hold a hand in which they bet, each vying for the prize of most giving in world view. Each country pledging depending on how the prizewill hlp them . then the next country will accept and up the last country's bid. Now it is only a matter of time before the final bid . I think it will be interesting to see which of the pledged country will in the hand and come out on top.

Thankfuly there are other les political bodies out there helping these poor people such as the Red Cross, Doctors without Borders, and the World Bank, to name a few. If you would like to help the victims of the Tsunami please visit: www.worldvision.org.

Politics is a Dirty Game

Yes, Throughout history politics has had a reputation for being deceitful, evasive, and destructive. Incidents such as the Watergate Scandal, multiple assassinations, character scandals, and unfulfilled promises have created cynicism towards politics. Even today I find myself watching the 2004 presidential and vice presidential debates and questioning each candidate's motive and character.

To be honest, before now I have been interested in politics for several reasons. First of all, I have never been old enough to vote so I never felt it was necessary for me to pay attention. Second, the very few times I have watched or listened to candidates in the past they have have followed the typical campaign trend of aggressively attacking the other candidates views and defacing their opponent's ideas rather than emphasizing how their own ideas will make America a better place.

However, now that I will be voting in my first presidential election I have begun to follow each campaign and have been very interested in the debates. I am neither Democratic nor Republican because I feel that assigning myself to a party only would create a sense of loyalty which in turn could potentially impair my judgment when I vote. Therefore, I am officially registered as Independent.
During the September 30 presidential debate the candidates focused mainly on the War in Iraq. President George W. Bush began by discussing the current conditions in Iraq, potential difficulties, and their hopes for the future. Senator John Kerry then went on the offensive, declaring that President Bush had wrongly begun this war and did not have a plan for bringing our troops home or for setting up a successful democratic Iraqi government. Kerry continued by claiming that Bush wrongly began this war without the support of the United Nations on Saddam Hussein, a man who had no clear connection to Osama Bin Laden, AL Quida and the September 11 Terrorist attack. He also claimed that Bush began the war telling the American people that Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq which was a threat to America when in fact there were no weapons found. All the while Kerry accused Bush of being to sure of himself and not being truthful with the American people.

Bush seemed to spend the entire debate defending his decisions. He explained that they did have support from other nations and they were fighting terror. He explained that the troops have fought bravely and the Iraqi people have come a long way. He explains that in order to keep our country safe we must be strong in our resolve to fight terror and show the world we are not afraid. He continuously attacked Kerry inconsistency about the war, explaining that American troops and American people would not want their president to think of Iraq as "the wrong war at the wrong time."

Here, I would like to interject my feelings about the War on Terror. After September 11, 2001, America became unified in its resolve to bring justice to those terrorists. For a long time political, social, religious, and economic ideas and status were forgotten while people from around the world came together to help us in our time of need. I felt this was an incredible time for the America and the world because for a time, hatred and anger was set aside so they we could help those who had lost so much. However, when Bush first declared war on Iraq, I found myself wondering "Why Iraq? What happened to Afghanistan and Bin Ladin?" Today I still find myself wondering how the actual connection was made. I still don't agree with the many facets about the war though I am thankful that a madman like Hussein could be brought to justice so my family will not have to fear him in the future. However, misguided I believe that this war has done some good to the world and I am thankful to the men and women who are willing to give their lives for our safety and freedom.

However interesting and "entertaining" as these debates may be both candidates were very interested in attacking character and political views. I was impressed by Kerry's debate style and his aggressive style, although I later became frustrated because I felt I could not get a strong idea about Bush's campaign ideas because he had to spend so much time defending himself. I believe Bush was strong in his resolve not to give in to Kerry's character or political attacks although I did agree with Kerry that too much confidence can blind a person to the facts.

Over the past two years I have not been a supporter of Bush and believed many of his actions to be hasty and misguided. However, I am not at all convinced that Kerry would do a better job. He is an impressive debater and speaks for the people's interests; however, many past presidents have had unfulfilled promises. At the moment Kerry has been able to tell his audience exactly what they wanted to hear which has probably caused his inconsistent nature. He talks the talk but can he walk the walk? America does not need a weak president at this point and Bush has proven his strength as a leader, but can Kerry have the same resolve?

I am still uncertain of who is the better candidate but I believe further debates and information will help me decide before November 2, 2004. I am hoping that future debates will included topics of domestic affairs including healthcare costs, educational issues, problems in the employment market, poverty in America, taxes, same-sex marriages, abortion, etc. I look forward to understanding more about each candidates view on all of the above.