I recently read an article by one of my classmates regarding a recent speech made by President Bush on the topic of federal funding for faith-based education (it would be a safe assumption that Bush is specifically refering to Christian education, without him coming right out and saying it). Frankly, I had to take a few minutes to regroup and pick my jaw up off the floor before I could think clearly enough to formulate complete sentences.
I absolutely agree with the author - in no way, shape, or form should federal monies be used to fund faith-based schools. And while we are at it, federal grant money should not be used for religious insitutions of higher learning, nor should federal money be used to help support organizations such as the Salvation Army. There is clear terminology in the Constitution that effectively builds a wall between religion and government. Here again, it seems that our elected leaders have the impression they are allowed to pick and choose which laws they uphold. And as I wrote recently in another forum, when you give a person an inch, they often take a mile - as my classmate noted that President Bush referenced the above practices as a precedent for further momentum of Congressional support of faith-based education. So, it seems that the lines are becoming blurrier by the minute of where religion stops and government starts.
Like the author said, absolutely, any and all money any member of Congress would even think about spending on faith-based education should go to our nation's public schools. And since Bush brought up corporate sponsorship, then let's let them collectively match federal funds to educate all our children in a secular environment. And while we are requesting money from people, every overpaid celebrity and athlete can chip in something too, instead of buying that 3rd Bentley, or vacationing in a $50,000/night resort. Remember, it takes a village.....
Both President Bush and my classmate addressed the No Child Left Behind Act. I am completely baffled that our President is so delusional regarding the complaints regarding this Act. The vast majority of our country's teachers are screaming for change. Having recently perfomed extensive research regarding this topic, I can comfortably say that most educators embrace the idea of NCLB, but are absolutely critical of the implementation. Our teachers are not saying they don't want to be measured, they disagree with how we measure. They are frustrated with the amount of paper shuffling the Act requires and the lack of standards from state to state. And they are offended by the punitive measures levied on them for 'non-compliance' rather than the support, help, and money they need.
Faith-based education is great for those like-minded parents that can afford to send their children to such institutions. Bush cites a large number of inner city faith-based schools that have closed in recent years with dismay - actually calling it a crisis (I can think of several much more pressing 'crises' in our country). I would venture to say that many closed due to our economy starting to fall and many parents no longer being able to afford the luxury. Yet, Bush seems to speak as if they just up and vanished ala Harry Potter. I would like President Bush to also look at why private school students tend to perform better. Two things come to mind, smaller class sizes and higher teacher morale. If we put money into our public school system, we may be able to attain lower teacher-to-student ratios as well as pay our teachers better - which would start the process of raising educator's spirits in regards to their profession and classrooms. President Bush failed to point out that faith-based schools not requesting federal money for secular programs are not subject to NCLB compliance. How dare he compare the two when many private schools are not undergoing the same testing our public schools are - and private school staff are not under the hefty NCLB stressors.
Truth be told, we are already giving federal money to faith-based schools if they comply with NCLB and use the money for secular materials and activities, which seems to be "respecting an establishment of religion" to me. There are already so many instances of absolute assaults on the First Amendment of our Constitution regarding government endorsement of mainly Christianity, and President Bush would like to take the ball a little further down the field. If we don't collectively DO something soon, history will repeat itself and that is utterly frightening. Our forefathers didn't just dream up a list of things they wanted into law, they had reasonable basis on which to write legislation to protect America's citizens from the persecution they had fled. Where did we lose respect for them?
Friday, May 9, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Slowdown? Try Screeching Halt!
While I am actually sick to death of hearing and reading about the war in Iraq, what is really bugging me this week is our awful economy and where it is headed. Unfortunately, I can not discuss our economy without addressing the substantial effects the war has had on our country and economy. Sadly, a good deal of the blame - directly and indirectly - can be placed on the staggering amount of money our government has spent and will spend in the future on the war, as well as the fear factory the administration likes to keep churning, which dominoes into so many areas such as consumer confidence and Wall Street.
Really, all I want from a financial position, is basic necessities met - adequate housing, steady flow of utilities, food and household items comfortably aquired, a few extracurricular activites for my children, and access to medical care when needed. We are not extravagant people, and have no need for flat screen televisions big enough to teleport all 6 of us, $50,000 cars, a 3000 sq ft home with a view, or vacations in the Bahamas. We have lived reasonably comfortable for several years now (albeit with very little savings), but for the first time in a long time I am genuinely worried about our finances. With gas prices quickly approaching $4/gallon, I am finding myself having to cut out certain activities - particularly ones that involve driving. Also for the first time in a long time, I am reevaluating my cooking and food preparation tactics to see where I can cut costs. This week I could not find a decent - meaning with nutritional value, not the $.79 loaf of filler materials loosely resembling an edible substance - loaf of bread for under $2.25. I recall not so long ago my favorite choice being somewhere around $1.49. The bananas I used to buy for $.33/lb are now $.50/lb. It all adds up, especially when feeding a family of 6, to a 3 figure increase in our food expenditures. Utilities are also on the rise, further necessitating a reevaluation of the family budget - and I am getting scared.
Back to the topic of war, right now the seemingly accepted cost of the war is about $3 TRILLION dollars - and of course much of that is not real-time expenses, but borrowed money so my children, grand-children and probably great grand-children will likely continue to experience the financial effects of Bush's war on Iraq. Regardless, instead of using that money to research, develop, and implement renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil (and help our environment), we have blown it on a useless war. By showing investors that there is a greater return in military industries, we have hurt other industries and our economic stability. Being almost obsessed with attacking Third World countries and causing oil producers anxiety about future oil production, has helped drive up the cost of oil - again, hurting our economy. And all of this damage to our economy coupled with no end in sight to the war, typically causes people to not invest and not make major purchases - doing even more harm to our bottom line.
To add insult to injury, President Bush continues to refer to this sad economic situation as a "slowdown", applying a monetary band-aid he calls an economic stimulus package. Why not call a spade a spade? Personally, I have more respect for someone who readily admits a mistake and then works to rectify it - I'd even pitch in to help. But no, let's just spend even more money our country doesn't have on over-priced gasoline and food. I have a hard time even enjoying that fact that I am getting a nice chunk of money direct-deposited this week, when I know that there is no real sign of a let-up in our financial troubles anytime soon.
I naively believed that once we navigated the early adult/new family financial growing pains, and settled into careers, most things would be ok. I never expected to live a lifestyle of a celebrity, but really didn't think at my age I would be adjusting, evaluating, and sacrificing to assure that our basic needs were met. But to my defense, when I started actually paying attention to our society and government, President Clinton was in office and things were going pretty well. I looked to people 10 and 15 years older and reasonably expected to be in their stable shoes. But that was before the 1-2 punch of George W. Bush and The Iraq War. While, I don't know that it's totally fair to blame Bush for everything, he certainly hasn't done much to help us out. For me, the light at the end of the tunnel is our new President, whoever he or she may be. I would love to see a quick end to the nonsense in Iraq, subsidized health care for everyone, and government support of research and implementation (in the forms of grants, tax incentives, and basic cheerleading) of alternative energy sources. But I am thinking maybe I need to check my expectations at the polling booth and just hope for the best.
On a related note, for grins check this out to see how you would spend $3 trillion.
Really, all I want from a financial position, is basic necessities met - adequate housing, steady flow of utilities, food and household items comfortably aquired, a few extracurricular activites for my children, and access to medical care when needed. We are not extravagant people, and have no need for flat screen televisions big enough to teleport all 6 of us, $50,000 cars, a 3000 sq ft home with a view, or vacations in the Bahamas. We have lived reasonably comfortable for several years now (albeit with very little savings), but for the first time in a long time I am genuinely worried about our finances. With gas prices quickly approaching $4/gallon, I am finding myself having to cut out certain activities - particularly ones that involve driving. Also for the first time in a long time, I am reevaluating my cooking and food preparation tactics to see where I can cut costs. This week I could not find a decent - meaning with nutritional value, not the $.79 loaf of filler materials loosely resembling an edible substance - loaf of bread for under $2.25. I recall not so long ago my favorite choice being somewhere around $1.49. The bananas I used to buy for $.33/lb are now $.50/lb. It all adds up, especially when feeding a family of 6, to a 3 figure increase in our food expenditures. Utilities are also on the rise, further necessitating a reevaluation of the family budget - and I am getting scared.
Back to the topic of war, right now the seemingly accepted cost of the war is about $3 TRILLION dollars - and of course much of that is not real-time expenses, but borrowed money so my children, grand-children and probably great grand-children will likely continue to experience the financial effects of Bush's war on Iraq. Regardless, instead of using that money to research, develop, and implement renewable energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil (and help our environment), we have blown it on a useless war. By showing investors that there is a greater return in military industries, we have hurt other industries and our economic stability. Being almost obsessed with attacking Third World countries and causing oil producers anxiety about future oil production, has helped drive up the cost of oil - again, hurting our economy. And all of this damage to our economy coupled with no end in sight to the war, typically causes people to not invest and not make major purchases - doing even more harm to our bottom line.
To add insult to injury, President Bush continues to refer to this sad economic situation as a "slowdown", applying a monetary band-aid he calls an economic stimulus package. Why not call a spade a spade? Personally, I have more respect for someone who readily admits a mistake and then works to rectify it - I'd even pitch in to help. But no, let's just spend even more money our country doesn't have on over-priced gasoline and food. I have a hard time even enjoying that fact that I am getting a nice chunk of money direct-deposited this week, when I know that there is no real sign of a let-up in our financial troubles anytime soon.
I naively believed that once we navigated the early adult/new family financial growing pains, and settled into careers, most things would be ok. I never expected to live a lifestyle of a celebrity, but really didn't think at my age I would be adjusting, evaluating, and sacrificing to assure that our basic needs were met. But to my defense, when I started actually paying attention to our society and government, President Clinton was in office and things were going pretty well. I looked to people 10 and 15 years older and reasonably expected to be in their stable shoes. But that was before the 1-2 punch of George W. Bush and The Iraq War. While, I don't know that it's totally fair to blame Bush for everything, he certainly hasn't done much to help us out. For me, the light at the end of the tunnel is our new President, whoever he or she may be. I would love to see a quick end to the nonsense in Iraq, subsidized health care for everyone, and government support of research and implementation (in the forms of grants, tax incentives, and basic cheerleading) of alternative energy sources. But I am thinking maybe I need to check my expectations at the polling booth and just hope for the best.
On a related note, for grins check this out to see how you would spend $3 trillion.
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Middle Class Definitely Can Be Rough
In a recent article written by one of my peers, the topic of the middle class population falling through the cracks was discussed. The author states that many middle class families can not afford insurance nor out-of-pocket medical costs, but also earn too much for social services, leaving them in a tough spot. Yet, many people receiving government aid feel they can not afford to work because they would then lose their government benefits. I can certainly relate to this! We are a family of six, and by the authors numbers are just above middle class income "limits". While we are able to live fairly comfortably, we can not afford the $420 a month to insure me. My husbands employer pays his premium, and our children are insured, but since I only work part-time and can not get insurance through my employer, we are going on a wing and a prayer that nothing medically bad happens to me. Unfortunately that's just not realistic. A year and a half ago I broke my hand, and the emergency room visit alone cost $600! Therefore, I was unable to see an orthopedic specialist as recommended and consequently live with sporadic pain in my right hand. It is hard for me to not get emotional regarding this topic because I feel I work very hard to be a responsible and productive member of society, yet health insurance is a luxury for me. From my investigating, I have determined it is pretty difficult to get government health insurance for a rather healthy adult, although it would be easier if I had a chronic illness. Even if I could quit working and definitely get government health care, I would still essentially be paying a premium because of the loss of income from my job - I just wouldn't have the copays, I suppose. Either way, it's definitely a catch-22. I am truly hopeful we see some government reform of the health care crisis in our country when we get our new President.
The author also addressed education costs and payment among the poor and middle class. Again, there is a large gap where those that earn a little too much but not quite enough fall. I believe it is great there is such a thing as a Pell Grant and other subsidies for our citizens that qualify (luckily I got this one since we have a large family and are not anyone's dependents!), but agree we could allocate more funds to help those families that can't afford to save for their children's education and subsequently are unable to afford to pay the tuition bill when it comes around. Agreeing with the author, not having a college education is almost not an option these days - but it also doesn't automatically secure employment. It is sad and scary to think of a young person in their early twenties aquiring such large sums of debt with no idea what their future income will be. I have taken out a loan for school as well since the Pell Grant didn't come close to covering my expenses and tuition, but at least I know what my husband earns every month and will likely continue to earn and can decide whether this is a debt I can afford to acquire. My children were blessed with large sums of stock when they were born, but with inflation I still worry about paying for college. In the meantime, I encourage my children to practice and be successful in their chosen extra-curricular activities beacuse Plan B consists of a recording contract or NFL draft pick!
Kidding aside, I, as well as a most of the middle class population, work hard to pay our taxes, support ourselves and our families and generally not be a burden on society. While I do these things because I want to and they are the right things to do, I would like to see our tax dollars going somewhere other than what seems to be a never-ending war amongst other frivolous expenditures our sometimes disconnected government has deemed necessary. On the other hand, we are not victims - we must at least bring these issues to our politcians to make our voice heard and then vote for those who might have a chance of making some of these changes. Being a fairly optimistic person, I am thrilled that these topics are be discussed - even if my faith in Washington is waning.
The author also addressed education costs and payment among the poor and middle class. Again, there is a large gap where those that earn a little too much but not quite enough fall. I believe it is great there is such a thing as a Pell Grant and other subsidies for our citizens that qualify (luckily I got this one since we have a large family and are not anyone's dependents!), but agree we could allocate more funds to help those families that can't afford to save for their children's education and subsequently are unable to afford to pay the tuition bill when it comes around. Agreeing with the author, not having a college education is almost not an option these days - but it also doesn't automatically secure employment. It is sad and scary to think of a young person in their early twenties aquiring such large sums of debt with no idea what their future income will be. I have taken out a loan for school as well since the Pell Grant didn't come close to covering my expenses and tuition, but at least I know what my husband earns every month and will likely continue to earn and can decide whether this is a debt I can afford to acquire. My children were blessed with large sums of stock when they were born, but with inflation I still worry about paying for college. In the meantime, I encourage my children to practice and be successful in their chosen extra-curricular activities beacuse Plan B consists of a recording contract or NFL draft pick!
Kidding aside, I, as well as a most of the middle class population, work hard to pay our taxes, support ourselves and our families and generally not be a burden on society. While I do these things because I want to and they are the right things to do, I would like to see our tax dollars going somewhere other than what seems to be a never-ending war amongst other frivolous expenditures our sometimes disconnected government has deemed necessary. On the other hand, we are not victims - we must at least bring these issues to our politcians to make our voice heard and then vote for those who might have a chance of making some of these changes. Being a fairly optimistic person, I am thrilled that these topics are be discussed - even if my faith in Washington is waning.
Friday, March 28, 2008
As The Machine Turns
To follow the hypocrisy - under the guise of government "protection" - theme I seem to be following, it is high time we decriminalize marijuana. If we could at least legalize the use of marijuana for medical purposes, it would be a baby step in the right direction.
First of all, I would like to convey that I am not a stoner kicked back on the couch proclaiming "legalize it!" in the hopes of avoiding prosecution. To the contrary, I am a 30-something, mini-van driving, suburban mom of several kids. I work outside the home, hold down duties within my home, cart my children to their various extra-curricular activities, and take 9-12 hours a semester working toward teacher certification. According to Gallup Polls, I am in the least likely category of American to favor legalization of marijuana. But interestingly, once I receive a 4 year degree, I will statisically move up in likeliness to support removal of marijuana laws. Degree or no degree, I have an open mind, and have read many facts and statistics and have come to the realization recently that we have here yet another lie perpetuated by the United States government to further realize a politicians "ends" - money.
A 2003 Gallup Poll says that 75 % of Americans support medical marijuana. A government study shows that 80 million Americans admit having used marijuana, with 20 million having used it in the past year. So why so many opponents to, at the very least, medical marijuana or decriminalization across the board? Because we have been fed a heaping plate of lies courtesy of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, going all the way back to the Iran-Contra fiasco under the Reagan administration.
The Government has labeled marijuana as an equivalent to devastating heroin. This is a blatant, yet successful, lie to further spread the fear virus in our youth and society. In doing so, they have actually driven more Americans to violence, hard drug use, and confinement. Marijuana itself is not a gateway to cocaine, methamphetamines, etc, but the act of marijuana being on the black market where the harder drugs are sold as well, is the gateway to experimenting with the drugs that can and will ruin lives and kill people.
The issue of medical marijuana is a no-brainer - people suffering from a wide-range of maladies from cancer to glaucoma to post-traumatic stress disorder can receive relief from the mental and physical pain with a remarkably low incidence of addiction and harmful side effects not found in our country's legal drug market, pharmaceuticals. How poor are our human rights policies that we would even bat an eye at denying our fellow citizens the relief they crave in their final hours or the ability to function "normally" in society? Yet, we have no problem hooking up a cancer patient to a morphine drip, which causes most to be unable to eat and in a semi-unconscious state under it's effects. There is no harm levied on us collectively for these citizens to consume marijuana. Currently, 12 states have laws allowing the use of medical marijuana in some form, yet it is still illegal on the national level, therefore many dispensaries and farms are being raided by the DEA, despite being properly registered according to their state's law.
More than 700,000 non-violent Americans were arrested last year for marijuana offenses, with about 90% of these being simple possession charges - not sale or trafficking. Many of the methods used to incarcerate these individuals are unconstitutional under the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights. However, arrest, prosecution, and incarceration are far too profitable to bother with those silly Bill of Rights. Prisons in our country are private corporations - and the more inmates they have, the higher their stock is traded on Wall Street. And a successful Wall Street parlays into a successful presidency. Not to mention all the free slave labor by pot smokers working side by side with robbers, wife beaters, and other violent offenders. Pot smokers aren't usually violent, but the longer they spend locked up, the likelihood of displaying violence increases.
Not only are we repeatedly abusing fundamental human rights in the name of a phantom drug war on marijuana, but revealing more hypocrisy in the process. The Partnership for a Drug Free America is largely funded by pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol companies. Hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year from tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol, yet there has never been 1 single death EVER from consuming marijuana.
While I am not advocating passing out pot brownies at the next PTA function; honestly, if my kids decide to participate in consuming substances, I would rather they smoke a joint than drink a bunch a of beer and risk death on many fronts. And while we are on the topic of kids, didn't the Government learn a long time ago that prohibition doesn't work? If the Partnership for Drug Free America actually talked to real kids in our society, they would learn it is far easier to purchase illegal drugs than alcohol. If we were able to regulate and tax it, not only would it be tax revenue but help protect our children. But that involves true legalization, and a mere decriminalization would be suitable for now. It is really past time to reform marijuana laws in our country and put our actions where our human rights' mouths are.
First of all, I would like to convey that I am not a stoner kicked back on the couch proclaiming "legalize it!" in the hopes of avoiding prosecution. To the contrary, I am a 30-something, mini-van driving, suburban mom of several kids. I work outside the home, hold down duties within my home, cart my children to their various extra-curricular activities, and take 9-12 hours a semester working toward teacher certification. According to Gallup Polls, I am in the least likely category of American to favor legalization of marijuana. But interestingly, once I receive a 4 year degree, I will statisically move up in likeliness to support removal of marijuana laws. Degree or no degree, I have an open mind, and have read many facts and statistics and have come to the realization recently that we have here yet another lie perpetuated by the United States government to further realize a politicians "ends" - money.
A 2003 Gallup Poll says that 75 % of Americans support medical marijuana. A government study shows that 80 million Americans admit having used marijuana, with 20 million having used it in the past year. So why so many opponents to, at the very least, medical marijuana or decriminalization across the board? Because we have been fed a heaping plate of lies courtesy of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, going all the way back to the Iran-Contra fiasco under the Reagan administration.
The Government has labeled marijuana as an equivalent to devastating heroin. This is a blatant, yet successful, lie to further spread the fear virus in our youth and society. In doing so, they have actually driven more Americans to violence, hard drug use, and confinement. Marijuana itself is not a gateway to cocaine, methamphetamines, etc, but the act of marijuana being on the black market where the harder drugs are sold as well, is the gateway to experimenting with the drugs that can and will ruin lives and kill people.
The issue of medical marijuana is a no-brainer - people suffering from a wide-range of maladies from cancer to glaucoma to post-traumatic stress disorder can receive relief from the mental and physical pain with a remarkably low incidence of addiction and harmful side effects not found in our country's legal drug market, pharmaceuticals. How poor are our human rights policies that we would even bat an eye at denying our fellow citizens the relief they crave in their final hours or the ability to function "normally" in society? Yet, we have no problem hooking up a cancer patient to a morphine drip, which causes most to be unable to eat and in a semi-unconscious state under it's effects. There is no harm levied on us collectively for these citizens to consume marijuana. Currently, 12 states have laws allowing the use of medical marijuana in some form, yet it is still illegal on the national level, therefore many dispensaries and farms are being raided by the DEA, despite being properly registered according to their state's law.
More than 700,000 non-violent Americans were arrested last year for marijuana offenses, with about 90% of these being simple possession charges - not sale or trafficking. Many of the methods used to incarcerate these individuals are unconstitutional under the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights. However, arrest, prosecution, and incarceration are far too profitable to bother with those silly Bill of Rights. Prisons in our country are private corporations - and the more inmates they have, the higher their stock is traded on Wall Street. And a successful Wall Street parlays into a successful presidency. Not to mention all the free slave labor by pot smokers working side by side with robbers, wife beaters, and other violent offenders. Pot smokers aren't usually violent, but the longer they spend locked up, the likelihood of displaying violence increases.
Not only are we repeatedly abusing fundamental human rights in the name of a phantom drug war on marijuana, but revealing more hypocrisy in the process. The Partnership for a Drug Free America is largely funded by pharmaceutical, tobacco, and alcohol companies. Hundreds of thousands of Americans die every year from tobacco, prescription drugs, and alcohol, yet there has never been 1 single death EVER from consuming marijuana.
While I am not advocating passing out pot brownies at the next PTA function; honestly, if my kids decide to participate in consuming substances, I would rather they smoke a joint than drink a bunch a of beer and risk death on many fronts. And while we are on the topic of kids, didn't the Government learn a long time ago that prohibition doesn't work? If the Partnership for Drug Free America actually talked to real kids in our society, they would learn it is far easier to purchase illegal drugs than alcohol. If we were able to regulate and tax it, not only would it be tax revenue but help protect our children. But that involves true legalization, and a mere decriminalization would be suitable for now. It is really past time to reform marijuana laws in our country and put our actions where our human rights' mouths are.
Friday, March 7, 2008
So Many Layers of Hypocrisy, So Little Time
Last weekend Robert Weissman wrote an article on Counterpunch, a left-leaning political blog, about President Bush's hypocrisy regarding human rights. In the article, the author referenced a recent news conference where President Bush forcefully proclaimed that he could not meet with Cuba’s new President, Raul Castro, because of Cuba’s human rights record. Yet, eight minutes later in the news conference, he conveys that he is excited to attend the summer Olympics in China, where he will visit with Chinese Hu Jintao. The author also relates that this (Bush) is also the same guy that enjoyed a visit with Saudi King Abdullah on his extravagant ranch just a month ago.
A recent report by the US State Department on human rights states that the People’s Republic of China human rights’ record remains poor, and they are an authoritarian state. Another State Department report on Saudi Arabia lists various significant human rights’ problems, with corporal punishment and arbitrary interference with privacy being just a couple issues that caught my eye.
Robert Weissman questions that the hypocrisy that Bush is perpetuating used to at least be acknowledged; now it seems to be just taken for granted as a course of business. Our society and more importantly, government has become controlled so closely by corporations and money, that we don’t even seem to notice these things anymore.
While the situations with Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia are blatant double standards; let’s not forget one of the biggest hypocrisies of Bush even uttering the words 'human rights' – THE UNITED STATES’ lack of human rights’ standards. No other developed country – especially with the money the US has – would let such vast numbers of it’s citizens remain uninsured and underinsured when medical crisis strikes. A conservative estimate I read stated that three times more people die from a lack of proper medical insurance in this country than died on Sept 11, 2001. About 6,000 people lost their lives on 9-11-01 – so we are looking at, conservatively, 18,000 preventable deaths a year. This is because the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have profits in the tens of billions per year. And they number one: contribute large sums of money to election and re-election campaigns and political parties; and number two: boost Wall Street, which certainly effects our government and President. I might also add that this practice would be considered illegal and highly corrupt in other developed countries, but remains status quo for the United States.
Really, I could go on with more human rights’ problems our country has, but I believe I will save it for the next blog entry. And no, we aren’t getting beaten as a government sanctioned punishment for publicly opposing our leader, but that doesn’t mean our government has true human rights’ on its' agenda. To analogize, stealing is stealing - whether it is a $1 soda or a $1000 television. It truly disgusts me to hear President Bush refusing to talk to another country's leader, much less, admonishing the country for their human rights' policies. Pot, meet kettle.
A recent report by the US State Department on human rights states that the People’s Republic of China human rights’ record remains poor, and they are an authoritarian state. Another State Department report on Saudi Arabia lists various significant human rights’ problems, with corporal punishment and arbitrary interference with privacy being just a couple issues that caught my eye.
Robert Weissman questions that the hypocrisy that Bush is perpetuating used to at least be acknowledged; now it seems to be just taken for granted as a course of business. Our society and more importantly, government has become controlled so closely by corporations and money, that we don’t even seem to notice these things anymore.
While the situations with Cuba, China, and Saudi Arabia are blatant double standards; let’s not forget one of the biggest hypocrisies of Bush even uttering the words 'human rights' – THE UNITED STATES’ lack of human rights’ standards. No other developed country – especially with the money the US has – would let such vast numbers of it’s citizens remain uninsured and underinsured when medical crisis strikes. A conservative estimate I read stated that three times more people die from a lack of proper medical insurance in this country than died on Sept 11, 2001. About 6,000 people lost their lives on 9-11-01 – so we are looking at, conservatively, 18,000 preventable deaths a year. This is because the insurance and pharmaceutical companies have profits in the tens of billions per year. And they number one: contribute large sums of money to election and re-election campaigns and political parties; and number two: boost Wall Street, which certainly effects our government and President. I might also add that this practice would be considered illegal and highly corrupt in other developed countries, but remains status quo for the United States.
Really, I could go on with more human rights’ problems our country has, but I believe I will save it for the next blog entry. And no, we aren’t getting beaten as a government sanctioned punishment for publicly opposing our leader, but that doesn’t mean our government has true human rights’ on its' agenda. To analogize, stealing is stealing - whether it is a $1 soda or a $1000 television. It truly disgusts me to hear President Bush refusing to talk to another country's leader, much less, admonishing the country for their human rights' policies. Pot, meet kettle.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Bush Is Apparently Above the Law - and the Supreme Court Agrees??!!
The Austin American-Statesman printed an article this week, originally from the LA Times, stating a recent Supreme Court decision to not hear a challenge to a Bush order authorizing wire-tapping.
Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to secret surveillance program
The issue was not really over whether Bush could order electronic eavesdropping on phone calls and emails, but whether he could do it without the approval of a judge. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 says 'the president may order secret wiretapping within the United States to catch foreign agents or terrorists but only with the approval of a special court'. Our egotistical President Bush apparently felt that this act did not pertain to him and shortly after 9-11, ordered The National Security Agency to eavesdrop on conversations or messages if they were "reasonably believed" to be affiliated with terrorism - without that approval from a judge as specified in the above act. In an even sadder turn of events, our Supreme Court apparently agrees that Bush is exempt from obeying our laws.
Oh, where to even start! This is so wrong on so many levels; let's just jump right in. What kind of a precedent is this setting for our country and it's Constitution? If our Commander-in-Chief can invoke any kind of privileges he deems necessary, where does it stop? Because our country experienced a national crisis (9-11-01), doesn't give Bush carte blanche to make up new rules as he goes. Are we going to go back to being forced to allow our country's military to hole up in private homes again should we be attacked by foreign military forces on our on land? I seem to remember that didn't go over so well historically. While that is a rather extreme reference, it is an example of what can happen when leaders are given too much power without any checks or balances. The entire fabric of our country is based on checks and balances - no one person or group having complete control all the time - and this was done for a reason!
For the second issue I have with this, let's reference the old adage 'practice what you preach'. If our President can pick and choose which laws are convenient for him, then why can't the rest of us? I am not talking about extreme examples, such as murder, but let's say maybe I don't feel that I should pay taxes this year because I was laid off from a j0b - creating a crisis in my household. Our Commander-in-Chief has a big responsibility to protect our country, I'll give him that, but that also means he is to uphold a squeaky clean record. He is supposed to follow all the rules. As a parent, if I tell my children not to take things that don't belong to them, but then steal from Wal-mart every week when I see something I can't afford - even if I am still in that household crisis referenced above - how are they ever going to take me seriously? My words then mean nothing.
Lastly, and perhaps the most insignificant of them all, why is it that Bush gets to pick and choose what laws he obeys and gets the Supreme Court's blessing? But former President Clinton gets some shady funds for a real estate development that failed, or gets some adulterous action in the Oval Office, and he is all but crucified! Why the double standard?
President George W. Bush has failed us freedom-loving Amercians during these last 8 years and this is just one more example. What's even scarier, is the White House is currently working up some new legislation to make this all legal before he leaves office at the end of this year. While the Supreme Court doesn't help pass legislation, I'm guessing it sure doesn't hurt to have them on your side. The good news is that we have less than a year left of this guy.
Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to secret surveillance program
The issue was not really over whether Bush could order electronic eavesdropping on phone calls and emails, but whether he could do it without the approval of a judge. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 says 'the president may order secret wiretapping within the United States to catch foreign agents or terrorists but only with the approval of a special court'. Our egotistical President Bush apparently felt that this act did not pertain to him and shortly after 9-11, ordered The National Security Agency to eavesdrop on conversations or messages if they were "reasonably believed" to be affiliated with terrorism - without that approval from a judge as specified in the above act. In an even sadder turn of events, our Supreme Court apparently agrees that Bush is exempt from obeying our laws.
Oh, where to even start! This is so wrong on so many levels; let's just jump right in. What kind of a precedent is this setting for our country and it's Constitution? If our Commander-in-Chief can invoke any kind of privileges he deems necessary, where does it stop? Because our country experienced a national crisis (9-11-01), doesn't give Bush carte blanche to make up new rules as he goes. Are we going to go back to being forced to allow our country's military to hole up in private homes again should we be attacked by foreign military forces on our on land? I seem to remember that didn't go over so well historically. While that is a rather extreme reference, it is an example of what can happen when leaders are given too much power without any checks or balances. The entire fabric of our country is based on checks and balances - no one person or group having complete control all the time - and this was done for a reason!
For the second issue I have with this, let's reference the old adage 'practice what you preach'. If our President can pick and choose which laws are convenient for him, then why can't the rest of us? I am not talking about extreme examples, such as murder, but let's say maybe I don't feel that I should pay taxes this year because I was laid off from a j0b - creating a crisis in my household. Our Commander-in-Chief has a big responsibility to protect our country, I'll give him that, but that also means he is to uphold a squeaky clean record. He is supposed to follow all the rules. As a parent, if I tell my children not to take things that don't belong to them, but then steal from Wal-mart every week when I see something I can't afford - even if I am still in that household crisis referenced above - how are they ever going to take me seriously? My words then mean nothing.
Lastly, and perhaps the most insignificant of them all, why is it that Bush gets to pick and choose what laws he obeys and gets the Supreme Court's blessing? But former President Clinton gets some shady funds for a real estate development that failed, or gets some adulterous action in the Oval Office, and he is all but crucified! Why the double standard?
President George W. Bush has failed us freedom-loving Amercians during these last 8 years and this is just one more example. What's even scarier, is the White House is currently working up some new legislation to make this all legal before he leaves office at the end of this year. While the Supreme Court doesn't help pass legislation, I'm guessing it sure doesn't hurt to have them on your side. The good news is that we have less than a year left of this guy.
Friday, February 8, 2008
A Push For More Government Funding For Uninsured Kids
An article in The Austin American-Statesman on January 23, 2008, stated that the US House is going to try once again to override Bush's veto of a plan to increase funds, and thereby extend to more families, government subsidized health insurance for children.
House To Try New Override of Children's Health Bill
The bill has already passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin. It passed the House last year, but not with enough of a margin to disallow a veto by President Bush. However, we are not in a crisis situation, because Congress and the President agreed last December to extend funding for all current programs until March 2009.
Basically, this bill raises funding by $35 billion over the next 5 years, allowing for more uninsured children to enroll. Opponents of the bill (Republicans) say the bill is too broad and will drive families away from private insurance, while Congressional Democrats say Republicans want to leave too many children uninsured. Republicans want to increase funding by just $12 billion over the next 5 years.
This topic is one of the most heated debates on Capitol Hill lately. It is a topic I am quite interested in as a parent of four children, and a preschool teacher, working toward teacher certification. Although I have direct interest, it is also a topic all Americans should be concerned with. Is it really in our nation's best interest to have a bunch of sickly or poorly developing children - who will ultimately become the adults working and making decisions for our country - running around? Is it in our best economical interest to have these uninsured children clogging up hospital emergency rooms and racking up bills their parents can't pay? It is my opinion that our society is not prepared for the social burdens and ramifications of having masses of uninsured children now will bring the coming decades. I expect this issue to be raised many more times in the coming years!
House To Try New Override of Children's Health Bill
The bill has already passed the Senate with a veto-proof margin. It passed the House last year, but not with enough of a margin to disallow a veto by President Bush. However, we are not in a crisis situation, because Congress and the President agreed last December to extend funding for all current programs until March 2009.
Basically, this bill raises funding by $35 billion over the next 5 years, allowing for more uninsured children to enroll. Opponents of the bill (Republicans) say the bill is too broad and will drive families away from private insurance, while Congressional Democrats say Republicans want to leave too many children uninsured. Republicans want to increase funding by just $12 billion over the next 5 years.
This topic is one of the most heated debates on Capitol Hill lately. It is a topic I am quite interested in as a parent of four children, and a preschool teacher, working toward teacher certification. Although I have direct interest, it is also a topic all Americans should be concerned with. Is it really in our nation's best interest to have a bunch of sickly or poorly developing children - who will ultimately become the adults working and making decisions for our country - running around? Is it in our best economical interest to have these uninsured children clogging up hospital emergency rooms and racking up bills their parents can't pay? It is my opinion that our society is not prepared for the social burdens and ramifications of having masses of uninsured children now will bring the coming decades. I expect this issue to be raised many more times in the coming years!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)