http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/the-saturday-word-readiness/
The Saturday Word: Readiness
May 2, 2009, 10:21 am/By Janie Lorber AND Sarah Wheaton
This article is about the swine flu epidemic that is slowly taking over the United States population. It's highly contagious and although it doesn't mention it in the article but two cases of the flu have been reported in Bowling Green, Kentucky. Pres. Obama gives healthy advice, such as washing your hands freguently and informs the public that we have, ".. fully operable influenza readiness plans and are better prepared to deal with such a challenge than ever before.”
This spread of illness seems just like the beginning of a massive outbreak nationwide. The government knows that telling the public that we're not prepared will cause unnessacary panic and hysteria. I personally don't believe that we're prepared, at least not to the point where we're in a position to heal the entire country. Everywhere I look people are sick, coughing, spreading, infecting others around them. We could already be sick and not even know it until the damage is all ready done.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Missouri State House Approves Plan B Restrictions
http://www.feministmajority.com/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11674
Missouri State House Approves Plan B Restrictions
Feminist Daily News WireMay 1, 2009
(Media Resources: Feminist Daily Newswire 4/23/09; Associated Press 4/29/09; The Missourian 4/28/09)
The article above is about an approved amendment (Plan B) to the licensing bill, that may restrict access to the Emergency Contraception (EC) in the state of Missouri. It gives pharmacies the right to sell (EC) or not to. This is potentially problematic to females because the contraception if taken within 24 hours after sex can be 95% effective to avoid pregnancy. My view on this subject is similar to Mary Still's who told Missourian, "....This is one more weapon of mass distraction that we see at a time where we should be paying attention to the real issues of the state."
I understand that this is an important drug that could mean the difference between a child and freedom. But what a waste of time and money. If there is demand for the drug then it will be available. It will still be possible to obtain within the elapsed time. People that rely on this to prevent pregnancy on a regular basis deserve to get pregnant. These people should worry a little more about their choices and behavior rather than rushing to the pharmacy to get their baby fix.
Missouri State House Approves Plan B Restrictions
Feminist Daily News WireMay 1, 2009
(Media Resources: Feminist Daily Newswire 4/23/09; Associated Press 4/29/09; The Missourian 4/28/09)
The article above is about an approved amendment (Plan B) to the licensing bill, that may restrict access to the Emergency Contraception (EC) in the state of Missouri. It gives pharmacies the right to sell (EC) or not to. This is potentially problematic to females because the contraception if taken within 24 hours after sex can be 95% effective to avoid pregnancy. My view on this subject is similar to Mary Still's who told Missourian, "....This is one more weapon of mass distraction that we see at a time where we should be paying attention to the real issues of the state."
I understand that this is an important drug that could mean the difference between a child and freedom. But what a waste of time and money. If there is demand for the drug then it will be available. It will still be possible to obtain within the elapsed time. People that rely on this to prevent pregnancy on a regular basis deserve to get pregnant. These people should worry a little more about their choices and behavior rather than rushing to the pharmacy to get their baby fix.
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act Passed in House
http://www.feministmajority.com/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11670
"
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act Passed in House"
Feminist Daily News WireApril 30, 2009 (Media Resources: GovTrack HR 1913; Senators Kennedy and Leahy Press Release 4/28/09; Feminist Daily Newswire 5/4/07, 4/29/09; Statement of President Obama 4/28/09)
This article is about The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (or the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act) the was passed in the U.S. House on 4/29. The Act will add to the current federal hate crime laws and remove some of its faults. The new Act will "include crimes where the victims were targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability," (Feminist Daily News Wire). It used to be that a victim of a hate crime could only be protected under this law if they had been injured in a "federally protected area or activity" in other words going across a state line or at the polls during an election. Thankfully this was removed.
Not to seem unkind. But what kind of people experience a hate crime trying to vote or crossing a stateline. It's ridculous to only protect these kinds of places under the Hate Crime Law. How many people could've seen justice for their abuse if this new Act would've been passed just a year earlier. You know how many? All of them. Not one of them would've gone unpunished if the proof was ubtained. This just shows you how luck we are to have the President we just elected. During Bush's reign of idioticity similar bills were constructed but never made it out of the congressional committees. When Bush hear of this particular bill he said and I quote , "veto the bill" if it made it through congress.
Hopefully this will put an end once and for all to senseless Hate Crimes. It won't, but it's a step forward in the fight against the harming/hatred of other races, sexual orientation, sex, mental disorders, etc. We live in a world that is made up of different kinds of people. This Act will help but it's not enough. The only way we can end hate once and for all is through education. Better understanding of others will help us become more open-minded to the world around us.
"
Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act Passed in House"
Feminist Daily News WireApril 30, 2009 (Media Resources: GovTrack HR 1913; Senators Kennedy and Leahy Press Release 4/28/09; Feminist Daily Newswire 5/4/07, 4/29/09; Statement of President Obama 4/28/09)
This article is about The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act (or the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act) the was passed in the U.S. House on 4/29. The Act will add to the current federal hate crime laws and remove some of its faults. The new Act will "include crimes where the victims were targeted on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and disability," (Feminist Daily News Wire). It used to be that a victim of a hate crime could only be protected under this law if they had been injured in a "federally protected area or activity" in other words going across a state line or at the polls during an election. Thankfully this was removed.
Not to seem unkind. But what kind of people experience a hate crime trying to vote or crossing a stateline. It's ridculous to only protect these kinds of places under the Hate Crime Law. How many people could've seen justice for their abuse if this new Act would've been passed just a year earlier. You know how many? All of them. Not one of them would've gone unpunished if the proof was ubtained. This just shows you how luck we are to have the President we just elected. During Bush's reign of idioticity similar bills were constructed but never made it out of the congressional committees. When Bush hear of this particular bill he said and I quote , "veto the bill" if it made it through congress.
Hopefully this will put an end once and for all to senseless Hate Crimes. It won't, but it's a step forward in the fight against the harming/hatred of other races, sexual orientation, sex, mental disorders, etc. We live in a world that is made up of different kinds of people. This Act will help but it's not enough. The only way we can end hate once and for all is through education. Better understanding of others will help us become more open-minded to the world around us.
Same Sex Marriage Bill Passes in Maine Senate
http://www.feministmajority.com/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=11675
"Same Sex Marriage Bill Passes in Maine Senate"
Feminist Daily News WireMay 1, 2009
(Media Resources: Feminist Daily Newswire 4/30/09; Associated Press 4/22/09, 4/22/09; New York Times 4/29/09; Bangor Daily News 4/22/09; Human Rights Campaign Press Release 4/30/09)
The article is pretty self explanatory. The state of Maine is attempting to follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont in allowing people of the same-sex to marry. Even though the state's senate voted for the bill it will be left up to Governor John Baldacci to decide whether it becomes law.
More than likely it will get accepted into law. I believe that the United States has become more comfortable with the idea of homosexuality and in turn gay marriage. Whether or not it gets passed now doesn't really matter. The gay population are just like you and me. If they want to get married, they will. America is about giving each and everyone of it's citizens equal rights and freedom to live in peace. Why offer something in one state and not another? I predict that in the next 20-25 years the entire U.S. will allow same-sex marriage.
"Same Sex Marriage Bill Passes in Maine Senate"
Feminist Daily News WireMay 1, 2009
(Media Resources: Feminist Daily Newswire 4/30/09; Associated Press 4/22/09, 4/22/09; New York Times 4/29/09; Bangor Daily News 4/22/09; Human Rights Campaign Press Release 4/30/09)
The article is pretty self explanatory. The state of Maine is attempting to follow in the footsteps of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, and Vermont in allowing people of the same-sex to marry. Even though the state's senate voted for the bill it will be left up to Governor John Baldacci to decide whether it becomes law.
More than likely it will get accepted into law. I believe that the United States has become more comfortable with the idea of homosexuality and in turn gay marriage. Whether or not it gets passed now doesn't really matter. The gay population are just like you and me. If they want to get married, they will. America is about giving each and everyone of it's citizens equal rights and freedom to live in peace. Why offer something in one state and not another? I predict that in the next 20-25 years the entire U.S. will allow same-sex marriage.
Monday, April 27, 2009
"Obama and the Big Dogs"
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090504/greider
by:William Greider
published: 04/22/2009
For several businesses on Wall Street, such as JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs say their ready to give back over 50 billion dollar of bailout money back to the government. Their apparently no longer suffering. You usually never see that type honesty. It's almost to good to be true. Well, that's because it is.
They want to give the money back as fast as they can because they want the government's nose out of their business. Apparently they're having a hard time conducting legitamite business with government official working along side them. The people on Wall Street are all of a sudden not the top dogs anymore. The government has kicked them to the curb and are now running most of the show. Which means that the wallets on Wall Street are a little lighter than they used to be.
If we don't wan't to have to bail out Wall Street again then Obama needs to step his game and not back down. Some people believe that Obama' being too soft, some feel like he's backing down when he should be standing up. He hasn't been President for that long and what people don't understand is that this kind of problem just doesn't go away over night. The old days of the "good ole boys" running things is coming to an end.
by:William Greider
published: 04/22/2009
For several businesses on Wall Street, such as JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs say their ready to give back over 50 billion dollar of bailout money back to the government. Their apparently no longer suffering. You usually never see that type honesty. It's almost to good to be true. Well, that's because it is.
They want to give the money back as fast as they can because they want the government's nose out of their business. Apparently they're having a hard time conducting legitamite business with government official working along side them. The people on Wall Street are all of a sudden not the top dogs anymore. The government has kicked them to the curb and are now running most of the show. Which means that the wallets on Wall Street are a little lighter than they used to be.
If we don't wan't to have to bail out Wall Street again then Obama needs to step his game and not back down. Some people believe that Obama' being too soft, some feel like he's backing down when he should be standing up. He hasn't been President for that long and what people don't understand is that this kind of problem just doesn't go away over night. The old days of the "good ole boys" running things is coming to an end.
Thievery Under TARP
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090504/scheer?rel=hpcurrently
by: Robert Scheer
published: 04/22/2009
The article "Thievery Under TARP" is about how the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Fund) might do more harm than good. The fund was initially designed to help bail out the businesses after Wall street crashed. But a report made by the Treasury Department's Inspector General shows how its poor management makes it vulnerable to fraud. As of Tuesday 20 separate cases of fraud are currently under investigation.
According to the article, "... the TARP program from its inception was designed to trust the wall Street recipients of the bailout funds to act responsibly on their own, without accountability to the government that gave them the money," General Neil M. Barofsky.
What? They had in mind since the beginning of the fund's inception that they were going to trust them. Trust them? The very people that got themselves into the mess in the first place. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. I have faith in our new president, but this is ridiculus.
The program shouldn't rest solely with the Wall Street recipients. Their the problem. Their the kind of people that look out for themselves and others like them. Their the ones that are commiting fraud and the government might as well have put the money directly into their pockets and their foreign bank accounts. If everyone else can be held accountable for their own actions then they should be too. They think that we work for them and it's up to our government (I mean Obama) to stand up to them.
by: Robert Scheer
published: 04/22/2009
The article "Thievery Under TARP" is about how the TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Fund) might do more harm than good. The fund was initially designed to help bail out the businesses after Wall street crashed. But a report made by the Treasury Department's Inspector General shows how its poor management makes it vulnerable to fraud. As of Tuesday 20 separate cases of fraud are currently under investigation.
According to the article, "... the TARP program from its inception was designed to trust the wall Street recipients of the bailout funds to act responsibly on their own, without accountability to the government that gave them the money," General Neil M. Barofsky.
What? They had in mind since the beginning of the fund's inception that they were going to trust them. Trust them? The very people that got themselves into the mess in the first place. Someone once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. I have faith in our new president, but this is ridiculus.
The program shouldn't rest solely with the Wall Street recipients. Their the problem. Their the kind of people that look out for themselves and others like them. Their the ones that are commiting fraud and the government might as well have put the money directly into their pockets and their foreign bank accounts. If everyone else can be held accountable for their own actions then they should be too. They think that we work for them and it's up to our government (I mean Obama) to stand up to them.
Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are Proposed
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/world/middleeast/27withdraw.html?ref=politics
by: Rod Nordland
Published: 04/26/2009
The article "Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are proposed," is about whether or not all American troops should leave Iraq when the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) goes into effect on June 30th, 2009. The troubled city of Mosul is still in need of further protection and is vital to the preservation of the progress we have made in Iraq. The Iraqi military and United States officials will soon meet to discuss whether this is nessecary.
"For Al Qaeda to win, they have to take Baghdad. To survive they have to hold on to Mosul," said General David Perkins. This quote from the article pretty much says it all. If we leave too soon we could jeapordize everything we've accomplished (which isn't much) so far. We don't want to leave now and have to come back later. This war needs to end now, but in the right way. I've never supported the war in Iraq, but stopping before we're 100% positive that we finished our job over there is completely foolish. The troops deserve to return home, they've earned it. But only when we know for sure that they won't have to return.
by: Rod Nordland
Published: 04/26/2009
The article "Exceptions to Iraq Deadline Are proposed," is about whether or not all American troops should leave Iraq when the SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) goes into effect on June 30th, 2009. The troubled city of Mosul is still in need of further protection and is vital to the preservation of the progress we have made in Iraq. The Iraqi military and United States officials will soon meet to discuss whether this is nessecary.
"For Al Qaeda to win, they have to take Baghdad. To survive they have to hold on to Mosul," said General David Perkins. This quote from the article pretty much says it all. If we leave too soon we could jeapordize everything we've accomplished (which isn't much) so far. We don't want to leave now and have to come back later. This war needs to end now, but in the right way. I've never supported the war in Iraq, but stopping before we're 100% positive that we finished our job over there is completely foolish. The troops deserve to return home, they've earned it. But only when we know for sure that they won't have to return.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
