http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/22/as-ebola-fears-spread-states-take-emergency-response-into-their-own-hands/
Several states do not like how the federal government is responding to Ebola, so they are taking the matters into their own hands. They are tapping emergency funds in their budgets, launching treatment units and holding public hearings to stanch the spread of misinformation about the virus. The responsibility that the federal and state governments should be taking has blurred. But, states who have been touched by the outbreak scare are trying to bring up their medical defense in their state, including Ohio where one Ebola patient visited before returning to Dallas. Texas Health Presbyterian made a mistake when they release Duncan, the first one in the U.S. He had come to the facility and told them that he had traveled to Liberia, one of the hardest-hit countries in Africa with Ebola. Three days after this he was admitted back to the hospital and died 10 days later. Federal Health Officials have proposed that they would have been better prepared if their funds had not been cut.
Should Ebola be scaring people? Should the Federal Government be doing more? How should we stop the virus from spreading? Are these states being smart in their actions?
Thursday, October 23, 2014
10-6-2014: Voters to decide on raising minimum wage
http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/06/news/economy/minimum-wage-state-elections/
Democrats are usually the ones are pushing to raise minimum wage this year. But, four Republican-learning states-Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota-will approve ballots to increase their minimum wages in their state. Recent polls have shown that the majority are favoring an increase in minimum wage. And if history is to repeat itself minimum wage will increase. Three of these states' current wages are or are slightly above $7.25 an hour. Arkansas is a dollar below at $6.25 an hour. Alaska has proposed an increase to $9.75 by 2016 and Arkansas want $8.50 by 2017. If these measures past they will join 12 other states and D.C. who have raised their state minimums in the past two years. A couple of West Coast cities including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and Seattle are getting in on the act. But, "any success in raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily mean all types of low-income workers will benefit. A patchwork of rules and exemptions let employers pay some kinds of workers less than the full minimum wage--including those who work for tips, those who are disabled, and those who are teenage trainees.
I think that Utah needs to get on this act of raising minimum wages. It should be a nation wide act. I don't expect people who have no education to be wealthy, but I do expect them to be paid a livable expense. The minimum wage needs to be raised, so that others can be able to live off of it. What do you think? Should minimum wage be raised?
Democrats are usually the ones are pushing to raise minimum wage this year. But, four Republican-learning states-Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska and South Dakota-will approve ballots to increase their minimum wages in their state. Recent polls have shown that the majority are favoring an increase in minimum wage. And if history is to repeat itself minimum wage will increase. Three of these states' current wages are or are slightly above $7.25 an hour. Arkansas is a dollar below at $6.25 an hour. Alaska has proposed an increase to $9.75 by 2016 and Arkansas want $8.50 by 2017. If these measures past they will join 12 other states and D.C. who have raised their state minimums in the past two years. A couple of West Coast cities including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and Seattle are getting in on the act. But, "any success in raising the minimum wage doesn't necessarily mean all types of low-income workers will benefit. A patchwork of rules and exemptions let employers pay some kinds of workers less than the full minimum wage--including those who work for tips, those who are disabled, and those who are teenage trainees.
I think that Utah needs to get on this act of raising minimum wages. It should be a nation wide act. I don't expect people who have no education to be wealthy, but I do expect them to be paid a livable expense. The minimum wage needs to be raised, so that others can be able to live off of it. What do you think? Should minimum wage be raised?
10-15-2014 Ann Romney: If Mitt had been elected president, 'I do not believe there would have been an invasion in Ukraine'
http://news.yahoo.com/bianna-golodryga-interview-with-ann-romney-134951209.html
Ann Romney, in an interview with Bianna Golodryga, discussed how Russia would not have invaded Ukraine had her husband, Mitt, been elected president. She said, "I do not believe there would have been an invasion, of course, in Ukraine. I believe Putin would have known there would've been consequences to that." Before Ann said this Brianna referred to a debate between Mitt and the President. Mitt had said that Vladimir Putin is one of the most dangerous men in the world and Obama laughed and said, "The 1980s are calling and want their foreign policy back." This is a brave move for Ann to take. Could Obama's foreign affairs with Russia cause the attack on Ukraine? Do you think that Romney would have been able to change this? Was Putin aware that Obama does not see him as a threat and that is why Russia attacked Ukraine? Later in the interview said that there are no plans right now for her husband to run again, despite encouraging poll numbers that show him as a leading candidate. She said,"One poll's not going to sway us. I think a lot of American know that Mitt was right and have trust in his abilities. And, you know, it's a tough time. I think America's in a tough place."
What do you think? Would Romney had stopped the attack on Ukraine? Is Ann Romney in the right spot to say this? Should Mitt run for president again?
Ann Romney, in an interview with Bianna Golodryga, discussed how Russia would not have invaded Ukraine had her husband, Mitt, been elected president. She said, "I do not believe there would have been an invasion, of course, in Ukraine. I believe Putin would have known there would've been consequences to that." Before Ann said this Brianna referred to a debate between Mitt and the President. Mitt had said that Vladimir Putin is one of the most dangerous men in the world and Obama laughed and said, "The 1980s are calling and want their foreign policy back." This is a brave move for Ann to take. Could Obama's foreign affairs with Russia cause the attack on Ukraine? Do you think that Romney would have been able to change this? Was Putin aware that Obama does not see him as a threat and that is why Russia attacked Ukraine? Later in the interview said that there are no plans right now for her husband to run again, despite encouraging poll numbers that show him as a leading candidate. She said,"One poll's not going to sway us. I think a lot of American know that Mitt was right and have trust in his abilities. And, you know, it's a tough time. I think America's in a tough place."
What do you think? Would Romney had stopped the attack on Ukraine? Is Ann Romney in the right spot to say this? Should Mitt run for president again?
10-10-2014 In the abortion wars, a new ground zero
http://news.yahoo.com/in-the-abortion-wars--a-new-ground-zero-180231913.html
First, go read this article because I will not do it justice. It goes into detail on how the daily routine goes at this abortion clinic and the sidewalk across the street. Buffer zones are used to separate protesters from patients at abortion sites, but this summer the Supreme Court declared a buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, and over the past few months almost all of the zones have been lifted. This keeps the war of abortion going. These protestors are found at a lot of abortion clinics with different signs that say, "Real Men protect women and children, Babies are murdered at 443 congress street." The people outside of the clinic said, "No, we've never had anyone turn around, so why am I here? When I had my first abortion, if there had been people standing outside like this, I would have run to them. So here I am." A volunteer at clinic said,"They would stand on both sides of the sidewalk, one line with their backs to the building, the other with their backs to the street, so that patients had to walk between them. They would ask patients questions: 'Are you having an abortion? Can I talk to you? Can I help you?' By the time the patients got insde they would sometimes end up upstairs at the desk in tears."
Do you think that every state should have a law that uses buffer zones? Is it disrespectful for the protestors to question the patients like they do? What are your thoughts on the war over abortion?
First, go read this article because I will not do it justice. It goes into detail on how the daily routine goes at this abortion clinic and the sidewalk across the street. Buffer zones are used to separate protesters from patients at abortion sites, but this summer the Supreme Court declared a buffer zone in Massachusetts unconstitutional, and over the past few months almost all of the zones have been lifted. This keeps the war of abortion going. These protestors are found at a lot of abortion clinics with different signs that say, "Real Men protect women and children, Babies are murdered at 443 congress street." The people outside of the clinic said, "No, we've never had anyone turn around, so why am I here? When I had my first abortion, if there had been people standing outside like this, I would have run to them. So here I am." A volunteer at clinic said,"They would stand on both sides of the sidewalk, one line with their backs to the building, the other with their backs to the street, so that patients had to walk between them. They would ask patients questions: 'Are you having an abortion? Can I talk to you? Can I help you?' By the time the patients got insde they would sometimes end up upstairs at the desk in tears."
Do you think that every state should have a law that uses buffer zones? Is it disrespectful for the protestors to question the patients like they do? What are your thoughts on the war over abortion?
10-6-2014 Supreme Court dodges gay marriage, allowing weddings in five more states
http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-declines-intervene-gay-marriage-cases-135144175.html
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear, once and for all, whether states should ban gay marriage. The court did not explain why it was not taking up the issue. This means that is left to the separate districts or the lower-court rulings. Utah's district, district 10, decided that states cannot ban gay marriage and it is unconstitutional. This means that our state has to allow same sex marriage. With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case this means that there is no national ruling on this matter. But, gay rights advocates still want the Supreme Court to intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states. President Obama's view is that, "it's wrong to prevent same-sex couples who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from doing so."
My take on the matter of gay marriage is similar. Whether or not we ban same-sex marriage, people are still going to be gay.. Giving them marriage rights only benefits our country. In my religion we do not believe in same-sex marriage, but religion and state are different. We cannot combine church and state. Church is on private matters. State is on legal matters. I do not think that even if the Supreme Court were to have chosen to hear this case that the outcome would have been different. What is your guys' take on this situation?
The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear, once and for all, whether states should ban gay marriage. The court did not explain why it was not taking up the issue. This means that is left to the separate districts or the lower-court rulings. Utah's district, district 10, decided that states cannot ban gay marriage and it is unconstitutional. This means that our state has to allow same sex marriage. With the Supreme Court declining to hear the case this means that there is no national ruling on this matter. But, gay rights advocates still want the Supreme Court to intervene and provide a definitive ruling covering all 50 states. President Obama's view is that, "it's wrong to prevent same-sex couples who are in loving, committed relationships and want to marry from doing so."
My take on the matter of gay marriage is similar. Whether or not we ban same-sex marriage, people are still going to be gay.. Giving them marriage rights only benefits our country. In my religion we do not believe in same-sex marriage, but religion and state are different. We cannot combine church and state. Church is on private matters. State is on legal matters. I do not think that even if the Supreme Court were to have chosen to hear this case that the outcome would have been different. What is your guys' take on this situation?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)