Greed.

This blog post and attached article go hand in hand with my post on the payroll tax cuts for the middle class. It's an ideal depiction of what is wrong with our government and our economy and why the situation continues to get worse, rather than better. The ability to make such a law, excluding themselves from being included in the laws that prohibit insider trading is appalling and yet not all that shocking. It's just what I would expect from a greedy corporate company and it's the reason people have taken to the streets in protest of Wall Street. People are fed up with companies continuing to rob us of our prosperity. The ditch they keep digging is only making a more apparent line between the wealthy and the not wealthy and is all but eliminating the middle class. 

I'm so pleased to hear that people like Nakeisha are taking such an active role in voicing their opinions. We have the ability to be the change we want to see in the world but all too often people forget that or are easily discouraged. This next decade will truly prove to be an interesting one to say the least.

Not all tax payers are created equal.

I'll admit I'm not as informed as some on the battle of extending the payroll tax cuts but it seems to me that the party that was so adamantly fighting AGAINST the idea of raising taxes for the rich are the same people who believe the payroll tax cuts should not be extended, resulting in higher taxes for the working middle class. Typical. Don't reach into the pockets of the people who can afford higher taxes, do it to the ones who don't have enough as it is. I understand that you can't just expect the 1% to pay for the 99% but the incredible tax cuts and little amount they pay now is unbelievable in comparison to the amount they make. And that's when they do decide to pay their taxes. Did we just hear of Christie Brinkley not realizing she owed over 500k in taxes. Really?! But the GOP continues to be readily available to appease the people who put money into their pockets and fund their campaigns but not for the majority that they are representing. This is another fight I am proud Obama is taking on. I believe in the fight to extend the cuts to help out the middle class and hopefully continue to slowly but surely improve the economy. With the unemployment rate being at it's lowest since 2009, it seems we should attempt to continue to steer ourselves in that direction rather than making such a drastic change. Higher taxes for the people already making just enough is going to be just another blow to the economy. Though I have a feeling the GOP will care more about voting against Obama than they will about what is right and the consequences that will follow their decision, I hope that enough people have the common sense to see the trouble this will cause and do all they can to avoid such a situation.

Obama 2012?

After reading this blog, I can certainly understand where the writer is coming from and I'm not commenting to try and change anyone's mind. I do, however, feel it should be pointed that out that all too often Obama comes under fire for his "inability to do anything" without any consideration for the hardship he faces with his legislation.

Too much of a good thing can easily go bad, so it makes sense that Congress should be well balanced, but as we all know, Republicans have been the dominate party and it appears they'll continue to be so at least through another term. But people tend to forget that anything Obama has tried to do has been shot down. Our problems with the recession and war, healthcare and jobs are problems that have been there all along but are more apparent now that our Nation is in such economic turmoil. I don't care if Superman had been voted in as President, national problems of this magnitude can't just be cleaned up and fixed as easily as a garbage disposal. It took years for us to get here and so it only makes sense it's going to take longer to get out. I know the 4 year terms are set in place with the idea of being able to add or remove someone we don't feel is doing an adequate job, but when none of us have the full story are we really capable of placing blame on just that one person and removing him office before he's even had a fair shot at doing anything.

I'd like to see things more evenly divided, though just wishing it won't make it happen. At the rate we're going, it appears that unless Obama is re-elected, we'll most likely be looking at a Republican president and I don't feel like that would be the answer to our problems either. The GOP nominees all seem too eager to simply appease the Republican party by telling them what they want to hear and what they think will get them elected. It just doesn't seem all that different from what people say about Obama and his arguments.

However this next election goes, I do sincerely hope that our nation gets a President who is as passionate as Obama is to change things and hope that he/she is received in a more welcoming manner than our current President.

Undesirable No. 1

There was a buzz amongst the crowd and whispers in ears. That was, until August 13th, 2011. Now we all know with certainty that Rick Perry is going to attempt to run for President. My first thought was he'd be out of Texas. But then my conscience and empathy kicked in and I realized I just couldn't place that kind of burden on the good people of this nation.

For people who see through all the fluff, Texas is not in the grand economic standing Perry lead the nation to believe it was in. (Around about the time he was loosely throwing around the term of succession.) In fact, like many of the states in our nation, Texas has some major defects of our own. Just a couple of them being our poor education system and non-existent budget. The idea that his decisions will be on a national level is scary.

Amongst one of the many reasons I feel this way is his stance on Gardisil. For those who don't know or remember, this is the HPV vaccination he was fighting to make mandatory for all teenage girls in the public school system. A vaccination for a disease that is transmitted sexually for the teenage girls who aren't having sex because they're being educated properly on sexual activity in the sex ed classes that teach only abstinence. I feel this is a great invasion of personal rights and that the HP virus can not compete with the severity of a measles outbreak. Kids aren't having sex right? Cause it's wrong? So why make this mandatory?

Rick Perry's stance on immigration is also questionable. For the time being, he seems to be the most lenient of his components in the race for the GOP seat. It's not all that hard to believe considering that he comes from Texas. However, I can't help but doubt his diligence to the cause if elected. It's no secret the Republican party think immigration is a hot button topic and they certainly aren't the party that will be on the welcoming committee. Will he be able to go against the grain and fight for his true beliefs? If so, he may just find out what it feels like to be our current President and if he does, will he be able to stand his ground?

In another blow to women of his state, Perry made it priority to pass the Sonogram bill, requiring women who have chosen to have an abortion to first view the fetus on a sonogram and hear it's heart beat. As if the decision to have an abortion isn't already a great burden on women, he believes it necessary to force HIS personal views upon those choosing to have one. His implication that an alternate solution will be reached after hearing the heartbeat or seeing the fetus is nothing short of insulting to women. Regardless of whether it's a choice he agrees with, it's a perfectly legal act. It can't be summed up any better than the quote, "If you can't trust a women with a choice, how can you trust her with a baby?"

Being a minority and a woman, it's a double edged sword. I can't say who the next president should be or who is going to be able to change the world but I can say that it's a safe bet Rick Perry won't be my choice.

Let's talk about sex.

I greatly enjoyed reading Ashley Sanchez's commentary, in the Statesman, about teen sex education. She gladly reports on the statistical decrease in sexual activity for teens between the ages of 15-19 years old. Her article also reports an increase in contraceptive use for teens who are choosing to partake. She attributes these changes to the teachings of both abstinence and the use of protection if sexually active. I couldn't agree more.

I never understood why sex education had to be one way or the other. I couldn't (and still can't) grasp the concept that people can't rationally see why it's necessary to teach our children about both of these options. I was thrilled to see someone else writing about the necessity I've felt is common sense. Ashley points out the benefits of both methods, explaining that proper education in regards to protection will at least help in preventing teen pregnancy and the passing of sexually transmitted diseases. She also explains the methods used in regards to teaching abstinence. About informing the children of the morality factors and spiritual factors. I just can't agree more. I believe it's so important to educate on both grounds, despite the concern for being hypocritical. Sex is extremely personal and meaningful when you find a person that you love, but we can't just forget that it's just as biological as well. Regardless of how we each feel about it, puberty is inevitable and teenagers will always suffer from raging hormones. We simply can't ignore that.

I hope that education systems will eventually come to a compromise and realize that the best way to handle the situation is to join forces rather than being at odds with one another. We're all wanting to promote the same outcome. Young but wise individuals capable of making their own decisions and being educated enough to know how to properly prepare for those situations. After reading Ashley's article, I will continue to have hope that Texas will see the error of it's ways and promote the education of both abstinence and safe sex. It doesn't have to be one way or the other because sexuality is anything but black and white.

"A million people can't be wrong".. or can they?

I've followed the news about the strict immigration laws in Arizona, ever since the first one passed. It was a shocking realization that we really haven't come all that far along since segregation. It's unbelievable, and yet not, that such a law could be passed. When I read the LA Times opinion article about this latest development, it only further cemented my views that America (Arizona leading the way) may possibly be going straight to hell in a hand-basket. Hopefully we're not considered illegal aliens when we get there. Though I did enjoy the informative article, I had hoped that I was going to read an article a bit more opinionated. The author does acknowledge that this win will come at a loss to American citizen's and our nation. In stating so, the author presents their view that they do not agree with the stringent law or with Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn's decision to find that no parts of the law were in conflict with federal immigration laws. Effective immediately, officials will be required to detain anyone they believe to be of illegal status and schools will be required to report students they know or believe to be illegal. Though the author does use passionate words, referring to the law as "cruel and unusual", I would have like to have seen more conviction in the article. I perfectly agree with the author's stance and appreciate the use of accurate facts that aren't muddled by biased opinion, I don't feel they quite encompassed all that the situation involves. I've was raised and born in Texas and having traveled to many of the states in this nation, I can say that I've seen an overall acceptance of my ethnicity. Or at least, people are nice to my face if nothing else. I can't imagine what it must be like to be in Arizona and have racial assumptions made on my appearance and having to endure the embarrassment of such a scandal. Reading the article at least gave me hope that not everyone out there shares these views, in fact most don't, and I'm thankful that people are still decent enough to speak up for others and argue what is unconstitutional.

Hey! Teachers! Leave them kids alone!

Okay, let me first start off by saying that I don't think teachers and students being friends on Facebook should be an offense punishable by jail time. I do, however, have to wonder if some type of restriction, regulation or rule of some sort needs to be set in place. The article I read was written by the AP and published on NPR.org. It is in regards to Missouri Law makers rejecting a law that would restrict teachers and students communicating on internet sites such as Facebook. I do understand that this is a society of rapidly advancing technology. There is no doubt in my mind that there are going to be many instances, like this one, that will arise as our society continues to try and keep up the pace. Though I'm surprised this law was automatically rejected without some type of down-scaled suggestion. I remember being in elementary school and having the most foreign feeling when I'd see a teacher outside of school. I wasn't able to comprehend the idea of them having any other life than that of a teacher. I mean, didn't all the teachers live together at the school? Of course, I know better now. I can't help but think though, that the illusion created some type of mystery about the teacher that was to be "respected" or at least acknowledged. I feel like most people who have Facebook accounts freely express themselves. Sometimes too much! I can only imagine what it'd be like to be in school and see pictures of your female teacher boozing it up at the local bar breaking 14 out of your school's 15 dress code violations. Or your male teacher with this friends at spring break surrounded by bikini bearing bar bunnies. Do all teachers do this? No. But I feel as though it's highly probable that a grown, educated adult befriending their student on a social networking site, is likely to be a person whose actions reflect little thought and consideration. Should something like this have strict rules and consequences if those rules are broken? I'm not exactly sure. I do think that properly educating the teachers on this matter, as well as the students, could help in the discovery to what solution would be best. Not much surprises me, but even I was a little flabbergasted that the situation has gotten so apparent it merits an actual law be set in place. Why are teachers friends with students?! They're the educators, THEY should know better. I'm not saying it will be easy but many universities and colleges, including ACC, has set in place mandatory communication rules restricting professors to replying to students via emails from accounts other than the designated school account. I understand that in 5-10 years, every child in high school will have grown up completely engulfed in technology but it's still up to the people entrusted to educate these children, to know the differences between proper methods of communication and those such as Facebook and Myspace. These changes in society question situations we've never had to consider before. It's going to be a process of trial and error but hopefully we're not so diluted with a love for technology that we don't foresee the problems it can cause.