Like almost everyone I was horror stricken when I heard about the mass shooting in Colorado. When something like this happens the media asks a lot of questions, but one that they didn't ask right away was this; why does any person who is sane and reasonable need an assault riffle? I want someone to tell me when a gun that can spray hundreds of bullets before needing to be reloaded would be needed by anyone in a private home. I want someone to tell me why any person would defend the right to own such guns.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Sunday, July 1, 2012
The affordable care act upheld
Like all other supporters of health care reform I was more than just pleased when the PPACA was upheld. There is a lot of talk about the impact of this law on business growth, and this talk is important. In France companies stay small so that they will not have to abide by that nations many regulations, the thought is that companies in the U.S will do the same.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
The next gen Republican
Tonight the Utah Fox news affiliate profiled the man who is hoping to replace Orin Hatch in the U.S. Senate. Dan Liljenquist, served in the Utah legislature and was the leader in the successful weakening of Medicaid coverage, he pushed for the cap on Medicaid spending. He believes that giving affordable health insurance to people is against the constitution. I really don't need to go on, it's the same tired story re told here in Utah. What I want to do is ask a few questions of this new Republican party. I am very confused by the mixed messages they send out.
For Republicans like Dan L the government has no place helping its people with anything other than military power. In the constitution it states that the government has been given non specific powers to see to the "general welfare" of the people. This leads me to question #1 Do you really think that former presidents presided over a nation whose poor were well taken care of by charities?
Our social programs came about because of a great need, that need is even greater today because of a capitalist system that has gone out of control. Employees wages are not increasing, yet cost of living is.
#2 If we turn everything over to charity, will they be able to refuse services to people?
This seems like a direct violation of civil rights.
#3 If our nation is built on Christian principles, and Christ gave to the poor than why the f**k are you so opposed to socialized medicine?
See the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not invest in the health of its people. Why? because the party of God and family thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Dan L is hoping to replace Orin Hatch, a man who created a state run insurance program, which is good, but who opposes letting Medicaid patients choose their treatment options, which is bad.
I really don't know what to hope for in this election. Do I hope Dan wins because he will have little power in the Senate, or do I root for Orin and bank on him being reasonable once he is re elected?
For Republicans like Dan L the government has no place helping its people with anything other than military power. In the constitution it states that the government has been given non specific powers to see to the "general welfare" of the people. This leads me to question #1 Do you really think that former presidents presided over a nation whose poor were well taken care of by charities?
Our social programs came about because of a great need, that need is even greater today because of a capitalist system that has gone out of control. Employees wages are not increasing, yet cost of living is.
#2 If we turn everything over to charity, will they be able to refuse services to people?
This seems like a direct violation of civil rights.
#3 If our nation is built on Christian principles, and Christ gave to the poor than why the f**k are you so opposed to socialized medicine?
See the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not invest in the health of its people. Why? because the party of God and family thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Dan L is hoping to replace Orin Hatch, a man who created a state run insurance program, which is good, but who opposes letting Medicaid patients choose their treatment options, which is bad.
I really don't know what to hope for in this election. Do I hope Dan wins because he will have little power in the Senate, or do I root for Orin and bank on him being reasonable once he is re elected?
Deportation reform
For those of us who support Obama it has been a tough couple of years. We have watched him act the gentleman in the face of Republican childish obstinacy. We have felt frustration at Obama's reluctance to use the power granted him to combat stalemates in Congress. Well the wait is over, earlier this week Obama got his balls back.
For years now America has said that government needs to enact immigration reform, Congress has stalled on the Dream Act which has a strong level of support from Americans. So Obama used the DHS, that's the Department of Homeland Security, to alter how they prioritize deportations. This in effect enacted part of the dream act, the part that is most popular with America, the part that says children who know no other country will not be deported based on the crimes of their parents. For Obama supporters this is a big deal, but it is a bigger deal for the cause of humanity. What the head of homeland security, and the president have said is that children who we can easily find; because they are working, going to school, or have served in the military, should not be thrown out of the only home they have known. Instead the deportations will focus on people who add to the problems of this country, those who have committed crimes.
Now Republicans are all up in arms about this "amnesty", they are saying that allowing people who came here illegally to apply for work visas is wrong. They say it is rewarding bad behavior. Well considering that the bad behavior was not that of the infant in arms their argument, predictably, is nonsense.
This is a proud moment for human decency, thank you Mr. President.
For years now America has said that government needs to enact immigration reform, Congress has stalled on the Dream Act which has a strong level of support from Americans. So Obama used the DHS, that's the Department of Homeland Security, to alter how they prioritize deportations. This in effect enacted part of the dream act, the part that is most popular with America, the part that says children who know no other country will not be deported based on the crimes of their parents. For Obama supporters this is a big deal, but it is a bigger deal for the cause of humanity. What the head of homeland security, and the president have said is that children who we can easily find; because they are working, going to school, or have served in the military, should not be thrown out of the only home they have known. Instead the deportations will focus on people who add to the problems of this country, those who have committed crimes.
Now Republicans are all up in arms about this "amnesty", they are saying that allowing people who came here illegally to apply for work visas is wrong. They say it is rewarding bad behavior. Well considering that the bad behavior was not that of the infant in arms their argument, predictably, is nonsense.
This is a proud moment for human decency, thank you Mr. President.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Romney's education promise.
Today Mitt Romney spoke to a group of Latino small business owners. Among the topics he discussed with them was education. Romney said that some U.S. students receive a third world education, and that minority students were the most likely to be under educated.
I have to give the Romney camp credit for stating an actual point of fact. Fact are hard for this candidate to grasp so, good job.
Romney said that the solution to this problem was to allow federal dollars to follow each student rather than be given to states to allocate. The logistics of this plan are a nightmare, but that is not why I am writing about this. A few months ago Romney was overheard at a campaign event telling rich donors that if elected to office he would eliminate the department of education. He said that each state should handle its own education needs, and that the federal government had no place in education. Yet today he told prospective supporters that poor, and disabled children should be given a chance to go to any school they want, funded by the department of education.
It is easy for Romney to talk up the uses of education spending to people who use the public school system, and then tell rich donors that he will get rid of such spending, because he is a wind sock candidate. Romney will pander to each audience and will in the end lean to the side with the most money.
Please vote wisely.
I have to give the Romney camp credit for stating an actual point of fact. Fact are hard for this candidate to grasp so, good job.
Romney said that the solution to this problem was to allow federal dollars to follow each student rather than be given to states to allocate. The logistics of this plan are a nightmare, but that is not why I am writing about this. A few months ago Romney was overheard at a campaign event telling rich donors that if elected to office he would eliminate the department of education. He said that each state should handle its own education needs, and that the federal government had no place in education. Yet today he told prospective supporters that poor, and disabled children should be given a chance to go to any school they want, funded by the department of education.
It is easy for Romney to talk up the uses of education spending to people who use the public school system, and then tell rich donors that he will get rid of such spending, because he is a wind sock candidate. Romney will pander to each audience and will in the end lean to the side with the most money.
Please vote wisely.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
City creek project. the union of church and commerce.
For the past three years Utah news stations have devoted hours of air time to the city creek shopping center/ high end condo project. In a strange twist of fate, this downtown project opens on my husbands birthday. This got me thinking about this project more deeply.
The city creek center is a combination of apartments high rise condo's that over look the SLC temple, and expensive shops, the likes of which Salt Lake has never seen before. In theory it sounds like a good idea, a group of investors get together and start a great money making venture, right? Wrong. In the case of City Creek, the largest investor is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In a news story about the project a reporter talked to the Bishop in charge of the project, yes I said Bishop. A church that enjoys tax exempt status is putting all of that tax free money behind Tiffany's and a Porsche store.
That Bishop made the comment that this project was the most important thing that Gordon B Hinkley (head of the church at the start of the project) wanted done. As I look around at the number of people without a home, at the number of hungry children in this state. I have to ask, is this really the most important thing that a church as large as this one can do? Imagine the great impact disabled housing would have had on a community with a large disabled population. Or what amazing things could have been accomplished with a community center, theater, or.......... I mean the list of things that would have been more Christ like is endless.
Instead, tomorrow, on a birthday that my husband would not have lived to see if it were not for tax funded programs, programs prominent Mormon leaders wanted, and still want to end, a church will open a shopping center that caters to the rich and influential.
A church that teaches others to put God at the center of their lives, has chosen to put profit at the center of it's function. So buy an expensive condo, and look down on the house of God.
The city creek center is a combination of apartments high rise condo's that over look the SLC temple, and expensive shops, the likes of which Salt Lake has never seen before. In theory it sounds like a good idea, a group of investors get together and start a great money making venture, right? Wrong. In the case of City Creek, the largest investor is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. In a news story about the project a reporter talked to the Bishop in charge of the project, yes I said Bishop. A church that enjoys tax exempt status is putting all of that tax free money behind Tiffany's and a Porsche store.
That Bishop made the comment that this project was the most important thing that Gordon B Hinkley (head of the church at the start of the project) wanted done. As I look around at the number of people without a home, at the number of hungry children in this state. I have to ask, is this really the most important thing that a church as large as this one can do? Imagine the great impact disabled housing would have had on a community with a large disabled population. Or what amazing things could have been accomplished with a community center, theater, or.......... I mean the list of things that would have been more Christ like is endless.
Instead, tomorrow, on a birthday that my husband would not have lived to see if it were not for tax funded programs, programs prominent Mormon leaders wanted, and still want to end, a church will open a shopping center that caters to the rich and influential.
A church that teaches others to put God at the center of their lives, has chosen to put profit at the center of it's function. So buy an expensive condo, and look down on the house of God.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
What it means to be poor in America
I have been involved in several conversations recently involving our welfare system. The common theme seems to be that more people abuse it than need it. I thought that I would take a moment and debunk one of the peaces of so called evidence used by opponents of the system.
1. "I see people who use welfare driving nice cars and wearing nice clothes, clearly they are not poor."
This is an interesting idea, the idea that all people who have nice things must have a nice sized bank account. The problem here is two fold, one, it shows a lack of understanding about credit. Most middle class people understand that the car in a persons driveway is not always bought and paid for, but when it comes to welfare users they tend to forget that. We live in an auto centric society, some communities would be very difficult to navigate without a car. As to why the car has to be nice, being poor sucks. When a poor person goes home to their crummy apartment they are constantly aware of their poverty. Some have such a hunger to escape that poverty, even if it's just for a little while. They figure there is no reason why the people at the mall, or at work need to know how poor they are, so they pay for a car and clothes that they cannot afford.
For as long as anyone can remember, being poor has been a source of shame. Throughout human history other things were thought of as shameful; having a disability, being cheated on, being gay, but society has advanced to a point where with a few exceptions these things are not seen as shameful any longer. A woman who is cheated on today, can talk about it, because it is no longer seen as her fault.
Poverty has failed to undergo such a change. It is as if people think that if it is no longer seen as shameful, it will have to be seen as something to be proud of. This is not the case at all. Being poor should be seen as just one way of being. It should not define the whole substance of the person in that condition.
Until our society advances beyond this limited view of poverty, poor people will still by nice cars and expensive clothes. As a result, they will be more likely to remain in poverty, wasting money trying to hide something that they should never be made to feel ashamed of.
1. "I see people who use welfare driving nice cars and wearing nice clothes, clearly they are not poor."
This is an interesting idea, the idea that all people who have nice things must have a nice sized bank account. The problem here is two fold, one, it shows a lack of understanding about credit. Most middle class people understand that the car in a persons driveway is not always bought and paid for, but when it comes to welfare users they tend to forget that. We live in an auto centric society, some communities would be very difficult to navigate without a car. As to why the car has to be nice, being poor sucks. When a poor person goes home to their crummy apartment they are constantly aware of their poverty. Some have such a hunger to escape that poverty, even if it's just for a little while. They figure there is no reason why the people at the mall, or at work need to know how poor they are, so they pay for a car and clothes that they cannot afford.
For as long as anyone can remember, being poor has been a source of shame. Throughout human history other things were thought of as shameful; having a disability, being cheated on, being gay, but society has advanced to a point where with a few exceptions these things are not seen as shameful any longer. A woman who is cheated on today, can talk about it, because it is no longer seen as her fault.
Poverty has failed to undergo such a change. It is as if people think that if it is no longer seen as shameful, it will have to be seen as something to be proud of. This is not the case at all. Being poor should be seen as just one way of being. It should not define the whole substance of the person in that condition.
Until our society advances beyond this limited view of poverty, poor people will still by nice cars and expensive clothes. As a result, they will be more likely to remain in poverty, wasting money trying to hide something that they should never be made to feel ashamed of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)