Paying for a Future

Ashley’s government blog post regarding student loan debt is a topic close to my own heart. I also must pay for 100% of my college education with student loans. It is a bitter-sweet opportunity being able to attend school under the umbrella of debt. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to attend school, but having to go into so much debt to do it makes me feel sick. I am, as I am sure so many others are, a single working adult that makes just a few dollars an hour more than minimum wage. Almost every penny I make goes towards living expenses such as rent, utilities, car insurance, gas, groceries, etc. So, in order to better my situation in life, I must attend school so that I can then hopefully one day get a better paying job. In order to accomplish this I must take out thousands of dollars in loans. All of these loans are constantly occurring interest, and to put the final proverbial nail in the coffin, if I don’t score an awesome paying job out of school, well, let us just say that my financial situation will then be a serious shit-storm.

So yes, I could not agree with you more.  President Obama needs to seriously reconsider his decision on vetoing that student loan interest rate bill, and if he carries through with vetoing it, his assistance in helping to make higher education more affordable would be helpful. I understand that higher education sets people apart, and not everyone can get a degree, but the determining factor on whether or not a person deserves a higher level of education and the obtaining of a degree should not have anything to do with money, but with intelligence.

Freedom of Speech

A recent incident involving U.S. Marine Sergeant Gary Stein has many people questioning whether or not his right to freedom of speech is being infringed upon. As we all know, our freedom of speech lies within the 1^st amendment of the constitution, and it states that citizens of the United States have the right to say, or not to say, anything they want. We also have the right to say and write things for or against the government, as well as for or against the president of this country. Individual citizens are protected under this civil liberty. Citizens are free to express themselves, even in a negative manor. Stein, as is every other military man or woman, is a different story though. Although he still has the freedom of speech, the difference is, that when Stein took the Oath of Enlistment, completed basic training, and became a US Marine, he entered into a contract with the United States Government and became subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which are the laws that govern the United States Armed Forces.  Under this set of laws it is illegal to create and organize political groups such as Stein’s online facebook page, “Armed Forces Tea Party.”  Members of the military are free to express their thoughts and beliefs regarding political things, just as civilians are, they are just are not allowed, as stated under this law, to do it while dressed in military attire, or while using the name of the military or any reference to the military and their connection to it. So, by defaming the President, the Commander in Chief, trying to organize a political party, and openly disobeying direct orders previously given by Commanding Officers, Stein broke laws of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  At this point, the United States Government has every right to institute the punishments per the laws that were broken, and I feel that Stein should be punished, not for speaking against the President, but for breaking the laws of the military which he fully knew and understood.

Gay Marriage

I greatly enjoy, and agree with, the recent post made by a fellow government student entitled, “Same Sex Marriage.” Although I think that the legal road that needs to be taken in order to pass same sex marriage laws will be a long and rough one, I think that it is something that can in fact be done, and needs to be done. I think that the only thing stopping these laws from coming to pass is, as her post so acutely put it, fear.  I could not agree more, and had to laugh out loud, when I read the comment about Tiger Woods and Kim Kardashian. It’s true, straight people have been successfully making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage for decades now.  So, if the sanctity of marriage is obviously not the problem here, I must agree with you, it’s all about fear. I do believe that the main source of fear directed at the homosexual life style stems from Christianity. Apparently, according to the Old Testament in the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination to God, and if we are taking the Old Testament literally, I sure hope none of you good Christians have had any shrimp, lobster, rabbit, pork, etc. recently (Leviticus 11:4-47), or have wore any clothing of mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), because apparently those things are abominations to God as well.  There is although, a list in Proverb 6:16-19 of things that God apparently does hate, and homosexuality isn’t one of them.  So yes, I believe your post was extremely insightful and accurate. Ignorant fear is what is stopping numerous upstanding citizens of this country from being able to have a lawful union with the person they choose to love.  I also support gay marriage.

Government Control

     Recently an Oklahoma District Judge, Bryan Dixon, struck down a law that was passed by Oklahoma legislature in 2010 that required women seeking an abortion to not only get an ultrasound, but also forced them to listen to details about the fetus. Many thanks Judge Dixon. My only complaint is that it took two years to strike this law down, and that some states still enforce this law. I think that this law is not only unconstitutional and a violation to an individual’s rights, but it is also being used to guilt women into not having abortions. I have always been with the understanding that persuasion & emotion are not factors that should come into play when creating laws for this nation. Maybe I was wrong.

     There is so much that is ridiculous regarding this abortion law that I almost don’t even know where to begin, so I will just cover my top two. First, do our leaders and lawmakers really have so little faith in us that they do not think that women are capable of making a responsible decision regarding their own body? It’s like lawmakers are saying, “You want an abortion? You silly girl. You have no idea what you are asking for, so here, let me change your mind.”  The majority of women seeking abortions are quite competent and extremely capable of make this very big life choice. Every woman has a fundamental right to make her own choices regarding her body. Every human does for that matter. It is not the government’s place to try and sway these decisions.

     Secondly, who is paying for all of this?  It’s one thing that the government is forcing doctors to provide unnecessary and unwanted services to these women, but these women, if uninsured and unable to pay for these services on their own, must turn to government funding to pay for it. The average abortion cost around $350-$600. Most of us could come up with that in a pinch, and be done. The average cost of a doctor’s visit with an ultrasound, if uninsured, is anywhere from $700-$1000, and then an additional $350-$600 would be added on top of that if the woman remained with her choice to have an abortion. Some women may be able to pay for these services themselves, but the majority of women in this situation would not be able to. The financial burden would then fall where it always does, the taxpayer.

     I may not know a lot of things about life, nor do I claim to be an expert on any one subject, but I do know one thing for sure. My body is mine. What I do with my body is my choice and no one else should have a say in that. Not even the government.

Help Wanted

In a recent article in a news blog called The Huffington Post, Robert Reich, the current Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, writes about the recent increase in new jobs in America. Reich informs us that 227,000 new jobs were added in February, and that it is the third month in a row that news jobs exceeded 200,000.  Not only this statement, but the article in its entirety, appears to be directed at those currently unemployed, as well as the nation as a whole.  

Reich takes the stance that the increase in new jobs could be fleeting, and that this increase is based upon public spending, which in turn affects corporations creating new jobs.  He also states that the ratio of profits to wages is currently higher than ever, meaning that although corporations are profiting much greater than before, employee wages are shrinking.  After reading this article, I feel that I somewhat disagree with Mr. Reich. Yes, in an ideal world public spending would directly affect business growth, and that would in turn create new jobs and would generate a profit allowing for higher wages of employees. I do not think that is exactly what is happening though. In regards to public spending, Reich says that “spending is anemic” in the US. Really? I haven’t driven past an empty mall parking lot recently, and two women I work with both just received $400 Dooney & Burke handbags last month. As gifts. For Valentine’s Day. People are definitely spending. This leads me to corporation profit and new job creation as a result. I disagree with Reich here as well. I think that no matter how much money people spend, corporations are not going back to the employee force that once was. Businesses have learned in the past 5-6 years that they can run their business on skeleton crews. So now that the economy is starting to look up, why would corporations hire large numbers of employees, when they can continue with the employees they currently have, and keep the extra profit from the upturn in the economy? If I were a business owner, and learned by way of an economic downturn, that I can run my business just as efficiently with 10,000 employees versus the previous 15,000, hiring those 5,000 employees back and paying out my profit in wages, well, that would just be bad business sense on my behalf. So, while there has been an increase in new jobs, I disagree with Reich that public spending has much to do with it, but I do agree with him that the growth won’t last. 

Political Religion

Recently, Michael McGough, a senior editorial writer for The Los Angeles Times, wrote an article regarding a current disagreement between Mitt Romney and Elie Wiesel.  The article, obviously written for a Los Angeles based newspaper, is one that many from across our nation could probably benefit from reading. In the article, McGough explains that Wiesel is apparently pressuring Romney to taking responsibility for the Mormon Church and its “proxy baptisms” of holocaust victims.  In his column, McGough expresses that in his opinion, though Wiesel has the right to be upset, he is also being unreasonable in expecting change regarding an issues Romney has no control over.  

I more than agree with McGough in regards to this issue. Though on the surface, this appears to be a minor tiff between two prominent men, with little concern to the American people, in actuality it is a topic of high concern. The topic: politicians and their religious/personal lives.  As Americans, we like to pride ourselves on being a country of religious freedom, and a nation that separates church and state, but do we? As McGough points out, it is as ridiculous to request that Romney make changes in the Mormon church as it would have been to ask Kennedy to make changes in the Catholic church. It’s quite comical that so many Americans are concerned that Romney will allow the Mormon church to influence him if he were to reach presidency, and therefore expects him to separate his political self from his religious self, but on the same line, requests that he make changes to the Mormon church that they don’t approve of. These men are politicians, trying to participate in our government, not pastors and/or priests trying to convert an entire country. I personally find religion as a whole to be an unnecessary waste of time, but even with my beliefs being as they are, I would never judge a political candidate of any kind based upon their religious faith. Whether a politician attends a temple, takes a sacrament, wears a cross around their neck or a kappa on their head, should make zero difference to any American voter.

To Teach or Not To Teach...

In an article published on February 9, 2012 in the USA Today, some say President Obama over reached his authority by releasing 10 states from having to follow the No Child Left Behind law. I disagree completely. President Obama acted correctly and appropriately in waiving this law. He acted on behalf of the millions of students and teachers nationwide affected by this law. The No Child Left Behind law is a strict standard of education that was established a decade ago under the presidency of George W. Bush, and this law requires that all students be up to certain standards in math and reading by 2014. In following this law, teachers nationwide spend the majority of class time training students to pass a series of test so that the school can show yearly improvement. This is not teaching. Teaching is the act of imparting knowledge, of guiding, of instructing by precept, example, or experience.  Teaching is the act of cultivating the growth of an individual. Teaching, on the other hand, is not the act of preparing a group of students to memorize certain material that they can then regurgitate in order to simply pass a test, yet this is what the teachers of our nation have been forced to do. President Obama bypassed Congress in waiving this law, and I applaud him in his actions. I agree that our education system is in need of a change. I encourage everyone to not only read this article, but to also become more familiar with the No Child Left Behind law. Understand why this law needs to be done away with, and learn how allowing our teachers to really teach, will only improve our nation.