Population Rate Extremely Low

The article can be found here.

In this article we read about the declining population rate in the United States. In fact, it is the lowest it has been since the great depression. So, why is this happening. There is a strong correlation between the recession and the declining birth rate. People are postponing births, and this is causing it to drop. Also, we have to realize that one of America's main sources of population in the past has been immigration. America has always been known for how it throws open its gates to those that need a place to live, how it is very open to everyone. We are the melting pot of the world. At least, we used to be. Now, with laws more strict on immigration, and with how many regulations there are, it is much harder to get into the United States. These two problems are what contribute, mainly, to the declining population.

So, what's the big deal? Isn't it okay that we are declining? Some people might ask this question. They might look at more people and just assume it means more money. It also means more potential, more growth, more innovation, and invention. We need a growing population to keep our ideas, our values, our country alive. We need a positive population. There really isn't an immediate answer, since we can't make a law to force people to have children (at least not constitutionally). And with how bogged up the process that immigration laws must go through is, we cannot expect any immediate change there either. This is a problem that will have to be changed over time, in the hearts of the citizens, and we desperately need it to change for the better.

Congress Reconsiders Military Cuts

The article can be found here.

This article from the Washington Post is talking about a recent cut to the retirement money for the military members who are retired. However there was a huge backlash in Congress when the President signed this bill. They believe that it is unfair to take away the money that those military personnel have earned. There is support to repeal or at least modify this bill from both sides of the political spectrum, these cuts were supposed to save quite a bit of money. So the question remains, how are we going to keep up those cuts if we take away this bill? Is there a way to still save that money? There is no definitive decision on what Congress will do, only that they know they need to do something.

I agree with this article. While I really think that we spend too much on our military already, I also think that it is extremely wrong to take away the money from those who have earned it. Especially those that had to retire due to medical reasons such as injuries or handicaps. I understand the need to make cuts; our economy is not exactly healthy. I will be interested to see what Congress does in order to try and make cuts that would replace this bill. Whatever the change may be, it is very clear that there must be a change, and a quick one so that those who have been cut can go back to living a normal life.

Health Co-ops Meet With Trouble

The article from the Washington Post can be found here.

With the Affordable Care Act coming into the scene in the recent weeks, there was a push that the government made trying to set up non-profit insurance companies. They wanted to create some competition in the market against insurance companies that many feel are taking advantage of their clients. This proposition was a hopeful success, originating from the Senate and being reviewed and changed some by Congress, but it looks like it may not work. There has been a lot of trouble getting funding for them, and a couple have already closed down. This would leave a lot of people who had opted into those programs with medical bills to pay, and the funding for them would have gone to waste.

I think that this was a daring move by the government. I would love to see some competition against insurance companies of all kinds, lowering the prices but allowing for us to also be insured. Just recently there was a flood in my house and it has been disturbing to see the amount of dishonesty, from the insurance companies, and the reviewer (who was going to have to lie to get us any money). It is sad to me that there has to be so much deceit and corruption in a program that is designed for the benefit of others. The same is true for medical insurance companies. They will find any loophole that they can to cover as little as possible. I think that while these programs may be failing, they present a good point. We need competition. That is how a free market works. If we do not get some sort of opposition to the already present and very powerful insurance companies, then we will just have insurance rates increase, while corruption causes our coverage to decrease.

GOP Reassess After Shutdown

The link to the article on the Washington Post is here.

The message of the article is simple, and clear: The republicans are recognizing a need to push back against the extremists in their party. The government shutdown was a shocking event. One that perhaps changed the dynamics of politics for forever. Never in the history of political polls has the approval rating for Republicans been this low. If they do not act quickly then they will be in big trouble, and it could cause somewhat of "political chaos" due to their falling apart.

So what do I think? I'll be honest, I am a conservative Republican. But I do agree with this article. There is a division in the Republican party. There was once a story told about a wedge, that was rested by a young farmer in a young tree, at the base of one of the "Y's" that branches come together at. He decided he would pick it up later that day, but got busy, forgot, and left it there. Years passed, and the tree grew around the wedge, swallowing it up. But then a storm hit. The wedge was in the center of the tree, and because it had weakened the tree, the tree fell apart. It was split in half and fell, all due to a small wedge. This is the position that the Republican party is in. There is a division, a wedge, in their ranks. If they do not take the time now, when it is exposed and easy to remove, then it will become so deeply rooted in the system that it will be nearly impossible to remove. And then, when the storms hit, they will fall apart. Now is the time to act. Now is the time to make the necessary changes, and restore relative balance to the two-party system.

Same-sex Marriage Lawsuit in Michigan

The article is here. My apologies that it is so brief and on ksl.com

In this article it states that there was a federal judge, Bernard Friedman, is going to hold a trial before deciding whether or not to overturn the ban in Michigan on same-sex marriage. The reason this came up is that a lesbian couple in Michigan was in the process of trying to adopt each other's children, and the judge suggested that they actually go up and challenge the ban on same-sex marriage. Judge Friedman says that he needs to see research and statistics, numbers and facts, about the benefits and drawbacks of same-sex marriage in order to determine the outcome of their challenge.

I don't want to get into an ideological battle. It's a fight that no one will be able to win, since we are so firmly set in our ideas. What I do want to evaluate is the fact that it is within Michigan's rights to ban same-sex marriage. According to DOMA the Defense of Marriage Act the following definition was put forth: "The word marriage means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife . . ." You can find that here. The definition of marriage is between one man and one woman. The ruling in Michigan that same-sex marriage is banned is constitutional under that definition. 

Nobel Prizes in America

You can find the article here.

This article is about three people who won the Nobel Prize in America for their work in economics. I don't think that I'm the only one to find this slightly ironic, given the circumstances our country is in right now. These three men had devoted a lot of time to their work, and we are obviously seeing the fruits of their labor.

The reason that I chose this for one of the issues is because the economic conflict in America. People are losing trust for the government. We are at a new low. There are so many people, with so many differing opinions that all hope is squandered until we have none, because we can't hear those hopeful voices rise out of all of the despair. But that is the biggest threat to our country. A people without hope can not function. But these three men stand as a beacon of hope. They show that all is not lost. Three men, not just one, were awarded the Nobel Prize for economy. There are people who know a lot about economy in our country. We need to keep our hopes high and encourage those who know how to manage money to come forward and help our country. We must not lose hope.

The New $100 Bill

The article I got this from is here.

In this article it is explained that we have printed a new one hundred dollar bill. It has the highest security measures, including a 3-D blue strip, a hard to copy bell and inkwell, along with original counterfeit deterrents, such as watermarks. This has been decades in the working, and the highest security measures are being applied.

What I am questioning is why? Why do we need better one hundred dollar bills? Is counterfeiting really that big of an issue? I tend to believe that it is not. I am not saying that counterfeiting is good in any way, but I am not sure that our research is best spent in pursuit of a better one hundred dollar bill. Was the money spent on the new bill worth what it will "save" us from forging money? According the the Secret Service, the amount of forged money in circulation in the United States economy is . . . 0.01%. Is this really where we should be spending our money? We are trillions of dollars in debt, and we are worried about a hundredth of a percent of forged money? I think that one of the biggest issues with out government spending is money priority management. If we don't spend money on just the essentials first, and use what is left over for wants, then we will fail. We should not be spending our money researching and developing for such a minor statistic.

Better Flu Vaccine On the Horizon

In Better Flu Vaccine On the Horizon, an article found on CNN's website, the discussion is led about the ever present influenza virus. They point out that as summer approaches we tend to forget about the flu virus. And then it presents itself in a new way each year, killing between "3,000 and 49,000 people in the United States. . ." Scientists believe that they are now coming up with a better way to fight it. a more advanced technique. They are, in fact, almost to the point of claiming that they have an influenza "catch all", that soon you will be able to be vaccinated for basically every flu.

So why would I have a problem with this? It would seem amazing, and an extremely GOOD thing, that we are developing another vaccine that could cure disease. But how many of you know what goes into a vaccine? How many know why people often get the flu right after getting a flu shot?

The problem is, in order to create a temporary safeguard, scientists have designed a way to "beat" viruses and diseases. And how do they do it? They give it to you. Now, they don't give you large doses of the virus, no, they are controlled, and limited amounts of weak or dead forms of the disease. At least, they are supposed to be. In many cases we have been extremely successful. I am not trying to condemn all vaccines. But there is something fundamentally wrong with getting injected, year after year, with that year's chemical smorgasbord. That is why I am against the flu vaccine.

In cases like polio, measles, etc. where the disease has been all but eradicated from the United States, and mutation rates are low, I think that vaccines can be helpful. But the flu is ever changing, new mutations and strains coming out each year, some with extremely deadly repercussions. It is estimated that during a normal year, about half a million people die from influenza. Half a million. And what is the success rate of our vaccine? Well, they reduce risk by a whopping 60%. Am I supposed to be impressed? The scientific and health community throws that percentage out there like it is the greatest achievement in the world! But if they were in a classroom, they would be failing. And that isn't even the people that don't get it, that is just reduced risk.

I do not think that vaccines are the answer to curing influenza. In fact, I don't know if there is a way you can cure a disease that mutates so rapidly. However, you can fight it. Without a shot. The only answer I can see to actually reducing the potency of this disease in our communities is a complete cultural shift. Something that I don't see happening, but would be ideal. The coupling of modern health technology and good, healthy eating habits is, in my opinion, the way to solve this. So to what ends should modern health be used? I think it should be used in fighting the disease if it comes, not in the prevention which it tries to anticipate. Our immune systems are powerful. Well, they can be. The lack of good eating habits and physical exercise are what makes them weak. If we could get on track by eating healthy, balanced diets, and exercise regularly, you would see disease and health problems plummet. This cultural shift is the only way I can see fighting disease in an effective way, and for a long period of time.

"Let's Have the Conversation About Race"

Article from CNN Opinion

The subject in this article is, well, should we talk about race? The reason that this is so debated, is because of all of the political accusations made, specifically about race, in some murder cases. In this case, Chris Lane, a college baseball player from Australia, was shot by some teenagers in Duncan, Oklahoma. Lane was in Oklahoma visiting his girlfriend and her family when he was shot by two black teenagers, who then drove away in a car driven by a white boy. So, why is this an issue? People are wondering why the race card is not being thrown all over the table in this case. Why should we not point out the racial difference, when in cases like the shooting of Trayvon Martin it was flung all over the place as if it was the only possible motive of the killer. Why should this case be different? Does the fact that the shooters were African-American make a difference, and it is just too "taboo" to talk about? The opinions expressed are that we should talk about race. Not that we should accuse everyone of killing because of race, not condemning someone because of race, not pointing it out to bring hatred towards one race or another. The reason we should talk about race is because, yes, it is a possible motive. Yes, it is more information. And don't we need all the information we can get? As they say, "Would we leave out of a story any mention of one's gender or age, so we're not accused of sexism or ageism?"

 Do I agree with this article? Yes, I do. I think that the time has come to look racism square in the face. We have fought it for years, and many think that it is a problem of the past. But who are they kidding? People are still racist. So should we let them have their opinions and just let this chasm of discrimination slowly widen? No. We need to face the problem head on. However, I think that we need to be careful. In our talk about race, we should come at it with an open view. We should not lean towards one side of the story, because of race. We should talk about it, as the article suggests, the same way we should gender. It's a characteristic. It is part of who the person is. We should no more attack or slam a person's race than we should attack a person's gender. I think that we need to begin talking about race openly, and without hesitation. The only hesitation we should have, is the hesitation to begin to react emotionally to what people say. That's the difficulty. Emotional detachment during a conversation is extremely difficult. However, when we learn how to bridge that gap, we will be able to talk openly and freely about race. And that is what we need. We need to be able to talk openly, and fairly. We must treat everyone, of every race, with equality. But the time has come to talk about it. Not tentatively, but boldly, breaking down the barriers and seeing that despite color, gender, age, etc. we are really only part of one race. The human race.