Blog Post No. 8

 I would have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Adrian Martinez' opinion of eliminating the social security fund because it is an “exponentially growing tax” burden http://adrianmartinez41130.blogspot.com/ Indeed, social security is funded by American's income withholdings, but to eliminate this federal fund would cause many Americans, especially the elderly to fall into poverty. I do however agree with Mr. Martinez' that “more people are living longer,” but it doesn't have to mean that there will be no money in the future for this program. What we need is to reform the social security fund and eliminate or at least substantially bring down the deficit so that this most important federally funded program can continue to keep poverty at bay.

One proposal that has been brought up, but is not exactly popular with Americans is raising the retirement age. Experts say that life expectancy has risen tremendously since the program began in 1937 when the average life was 62 years. Now Social Security is paying benefits to Americans for longer periods of time. With the raising of the retirement age it would shorten the length of time paid to retirees. Again, experts predict that if this reform goes into effect, the deficit could be reduced by as much as 44 percent.

A second proposal, which in my opinion is more logical and favorable would be to “modify” the social security cap. Currently, an employee who makes over $107,000 annually is only subject to being taxed on $107,000. Experts propose that anything made over $107,000 should be subject to being taxed, but should not be counted towards social security benefits. The more fortunate would essentially be paying more into the fund, but why did the government cap the social security at $107,000 where it has been for years? This amount should have keep growing concurrently with wages over the years. If this would have occurred, the federal government's social security fund would not be such a taxing burden.

The photo spookily resembles a political cartoon drawn by Lalo Alcaraz from 2002.  The cartoon depicts a man dressed as a stereotypical Native American and is explaining that his dress is “honoring” the Native American to whom the man is speaking.  http://www.tumblr.com/search/chief+wahoo/recent?language=pt_PT

http://mmqb.si.com/2014/04/03/washington-nfl-team-name-debate/2/
John Warren, Chairman of the Pokagon Band of the Potawatomi, in Michigan and Indiana: “To me, I look at it as a part of an old, institutionalized racism. I don’t understand why some athletes, especially the ones of color, don’t say something. The ‘R’ word is just as offensive. Athletes of color should be very, very offended when they hear that word. It’s the same thing we’re talking about here. Why is it offensive to us, and not others? Does it matter that there are not as many Native Americans playing the game? It shouldn’t matter. The connotations that word has, any minority group who has had a history of oppression, they should know that it is wrong.”

Neely Tsoodle of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation in Oklahoma: “My personal belief is completely different than anyone I know. But I don’t see the need to eliminate Native Americans as mascots. In fact, I don’t want to do that. At all. If we do, then we are erasing another part of our footprint in American culture. … Somewhere along the road it got out of hand, and became a caricature. Maybe it was lack of education, maybe it was society, but it turned into crazy, violent men running around beating drums with red paint on their face, and that’s not OK. But that doesn’t mean we should erase the name completely. We just need to make sure that the nickname is used in a tasteful manner and we are educating people about the meaning behind it. If we get rid of the name completely, we are erasing a part of our identity, and that’s something I know we have fought so hard to maintain.”

Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, Atlanta Braves Cleveland Indians, Central Michigan University Chippawas and Ottowa University Kansas Braves are just a few of the endless sport teams that use some sort of Native American reference in their team's sport title.

The controversy surrounding the use of Native American mascots in both collegiate and professional level sports has remained unsettled for many years. Taking into account all the oppression and injustices that the Native Americans have endured for hundreds of years from the United States government, should provoke Americans as a whole to be more in tune to this hypersensitive topic?

America was different many years ago. They were more accepting of prejudice and racism. Then came the civil rights movement and people started to evolve in their beliefs and opinions. Society as a whole became acutely aware that capitalizing on a particular race for financial gain will no longer be tolerated. Today, with a multitude of social media and devices to catch every word and action makes it that much more important to be aware of stereotypes.

The Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder has been under pressure recently to remove the “redskins” slur from his professional football team. Snyder who defends his team's name refers to a survey conducted ten years ago citing that 90 percent of 768 Native Americans polled did not consider the team name “Washington Redskins” to bother them.

As a society evolving, we do still have a ways to go in understanding other races and cultures. For example in March, the late night satire news host Stephen Colbert blasted Mr. Snyder for initiating The Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation. Mr. Colbert poked fun at the fact that a corporation worth millions would “assist” an Omaha tribe in the purchase of a new backhoe as opposed to the foundation purchasing the whole thing. Colbert then introduces his own foundation, which promises to help Asians, which is racist satire and again poking fun at Mr. Snyder's foundation. Colbert's skit started a tweeting frenzy which called for the cancellation of his show.

Of course, his show was not canceled, but because the Asian racist skit has not been a part of the American culture such as football and baseball with all the tolerated racist names Americans were disturbed more by the Asian skit then the actual reason the skit was aired to begin with.

The Government has started to make amends with Native Americans by building a better relationship with the tribal nations. This includes, returning land to the rightful family owners, giving tribes water rights, investing in education and employment for adults and children. Until we come together as a Nation and honor the history of Native Americans, will we then see the true meaning of respect and know that just by the mere fact that we are still using stereotypes as mascots shows no progression in our society to treat all races equal.

Putin

I whole heartedly agree with Iryna Aniushkevick’s blog http://governmentandpoliticsgovt2305.blogspot.com/ regarding Vladimir Putin and his hostile takeover of Crimea.  But, what leverage does the United States and the United Nations (“UN”) have at this point?  Iryna states that Putin will not be content with the warlike takeover of Crimea and that Putin will most likely not stop at Crimea’s takeover.  His recent actions against Ukraine have solidified that he will not stop until Ukraine has renounced its land to Russia.

President Putin’s most recent action is to cut off gas to Ukraine if their 40 billion dollar bill is not paid to Russia.  This would not be the first time Putin cut off gas to Ukraine.  The problem is that major pipelines also are fed into other parts of Europe.  Now, there are alternate lines and IF the time comes, Putin will probably use these routes under his conditions remember.

I also agree with Iryna where she said “Russian’s aggressive actions toward Ukraine are linked to a desire to prevent Ukraine’s integration with the European Union.”  To elaborate, on this, in my opinion, Vladimir Putin has put millions into Ukraine’s economy and does not want to continue this anymore.  He feels the European Union (“EU”) should bail out Ukraine and if they don’t Putin has threatened to cut gas from Europe if something is not done about Ukraine’s debt to Russia.  The International Monetary Fund (“IMF”) will soon propose and pass an aid fund for Ukraine for the next two years; however this aid may not be enough to bail Ukraine out of its financial debt to Russia. 

Again, I am in agreement with Iryna when she stated that “It is every nation’s right to decide its own future, although only by political means rather than military force and aggression.”  However, in Ukraine’s case I don’t think this will be possible.  Here is a county that has in the past faltered financially and has relied heavily on Russia for economic stability, where the United States has said they will not go to war over this invasion, and where even financial aid from the IMF would not totally pay off Russia’s debt.  Ukraine is a defenseless, tender state who is constantly exposed to Russia and Putin’s rule.  I wish there was an amicable resolution to this travesty.

Voting – It Seems As If "They" Really Don't Want Us To

You've heard all the reasons why you should vote. You know, it's your civic duty, your vote really does count and the more popular saying; make your voice heard, vote! With all of this positive reinforcement to vote why does it feel as if our government discourages us from partaking in this sacred ritual that has been a part of history for so long?

My personal experience with the government discouraging me to vote just recently took place in the primary elections this March, 2014. It all started on an icy day in Austin, Texas. The Tuesday Primary Elections were being delayed by two hours because of icy road conditions. Instead of 7:00 A.M. the elections polls would open at 11:00A.M. The idea was that voters got a late start so the polls hours would also be extended to accommodate all the late working people.

Pursuant to the Texas election laws, a court order was granted in district court to extend voting hours until 9:00 P.M. My plan was to work late because of the late start, run and pick up my son who was involved in an extra-curricular activity that evening, and who by the way, was also running on an altered time plan.

I ended up at a polling place right at 7:00 P.M. I was greeted with confusion as election officials discouraged me to vote. "Oh, you’re here to vote? I responded, yes. "Well you know that is now after 7:00 P.M. So your vote tonight will only be provisional. Why? I asked. Because, technically, the polls closed at 700 P.M. When I heard this answer, my first reaction was to scream and pull my hair. What was I hearing? I along with others who had arrived after me, were being punished for the two hour weather delay? My vote would be provisional? In other words, as it was explained to me at the voting site, all voting ballots done after 7:00 PM would be counted and reviewed for eligibility within the next two days. After this process, I would be notified by mail if my vote counted our not. It just didn't make sense.

It wasn’t until I looked up the meaning of a provisional ballot that I felt my civic duty had been crushed. According to the Texas Election code:

A Provisional Ballot is used when someone is not listed on the voter registration roll. A special process outlined in federal legislation is used to review the eligibility of these ballots. If you arrive at a polling location on Election Day and your registration status cannot be verified, you may request a provisional ballot at that time.

This was not the case here. I was certainly on the voter’s registration roll. I know because I had been mailed my updated voters’ registration card weeks before. I finally asked why I had to fill out all of this extra paper work and why my vote was being counted as a provisional ballot when the polls didn’t close until 9:00 PM. The answer I received was not good enough. It was simply because votes needed to start being counted so that candidates would be able to know their status by the next morning.

This special process that is "outlined in federal legislation" in order to review eligibility ballots is unjust when it comes to ballots that for no other reason were being investigated and held because the vote came in after 7:00 P.M.

The whole process of being scrutinized because of an after 7:00 arrival really tested my tolerance for the whole voting process as a whole. Here I was along with others in line behind me trying to exercise our right to vote, but being faced with yet another tactic our government has imposed on citizens.

On March 3, 2014, Laura Bassett of The Huffington Post wrote an article: Hobby Lobby Win at Supreme Court Could Lead to More Anti-Gay Laws. The article explains how abortion rights activists are comparing the just vetoed Arizona anti-gay laws to the Hobby Lobby case that will be heard before the Supreme Court soon. And, IF the Supreme Court rules in Hobby Lobby's favor the ruling could lead to more gay discrimination laws.

Hobby Lobby is stating that they do not want to be a part of offering birth-control coverage to its employees that is mandated by the new Affordable Health Care Act. Hobby Lobby is using their right to religious liberty in order to get around this law and not offer birth-control coverage to its employees and their dependents.

Abortion activists are stating that what Hobby Lobby is doing is no different than what business owners in Arizona were trying to do: assert their religious liberty by turning away; not providing services to the gay and lesbian community simply based on their religious beliefs. Of course, Rep. Governor Brewer vetoed the Arizona bill a few days ago because of much backlash from the media, constituents, democrats and even her fellow republicans.

From my viewpoint, the comparisons are valid and the article is right on target. The fact that the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) community and Planned Parenthood came together to issue a statement to the media and declared that by letting Arizona businesses try and use the religious liberty “card” to deter the LGBT community from patronizing their businesses is the same thing as a for-profit corporation like Hobby Lobby playing the religious liberty card to get around a government mandate and violate the rights of women by denying them affordable preventative health care. Basically, abortion activist want the public to know that Hobby Lobby would represent the Arizona businesses and the women who are employees and dependents covered under the Hobby Lobby insurance policy represent the LGBT community that are being discriminated against.

In addition, I also agree with the article that this type of imbalance and inequality, will only make this nation suffer more of the injustice that so many people face today simply because of the color of our skin, our gender and even who we choose to love. Hobby Lobby as a corporation has no right to religious liberties as the Arizona businesses did not either. Hobby Lobby is a for-profit company that should abide by the government mandated Affordable Care Act and not discriminate against women the way Arizona tried to discriminate.

Legalize Marijuana? Check Yes or No.

A CNBC article posted on April 20, 2010: Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana  is somewhat one sided at best.  The article does not reveal an author, but sites numerous citations at the end of the article.  I believe the authors intended audience are older middle class possibly wealthy conservative Americans.  The author believe the use of marijuana is just as destructive to society as alcohol and tobacco and should not be legalized.  If the US Government legalizes marijuana is would only promote recreational use.

The article uses the gambling analogy as a vice that was previously legalized by the US.  "Legal gambling sets the stage for illegal gambling just the way legal marijuana would set the stage for illegal marijuana trafficking."  The article does not provide any statistics on the growing number of people or entities that have been convicted or sentenced for illegal gambling.  So the reader is too assume that author has personal knowledge of illegal gambling rings existing at that time.

I believe that the article also fails to point out the benefits of legalizing this drug.  Proponents for legalizing marijuana for medicinal reason argue that the drug can be an effective treatment for people with cancer AIDS, multiple sclorosis, epilepsy, and glaucoma.

The article does however make a good argument in stating that the drug is not the most abused illegal drug (although there is no statistics on this statement either).  Proponents fail to realize that the greatest price tag of the drug is not that it is illegal, bu that it is the outcome from the use of the drug itself.  In other words, people who smoke marijuana are less likely to contribute to society in a good way.

In general, I believe that the legalization of marijuana will benefit the US.  The drug will be taxed and regulated.  And yes, legalizing this drug may lead to more potent marijuana and possible higher use, but that will have to be dealt with by new laws.  The fact that marijuana is an effective treatment for cancer, that alone for me is a great reason to legalize.  I myself have had many family members die from cancer and would one day like to see if this drug may lead to other effective treatments.

Increase the Minimum Wage.

On February 8, 2014, The New York Times posted an article titled:  The Case for a Higher Minimum Wage.  The minimum wage was established in 1938 under the Fair Labors Standard Act.  It was enacted to protect the American worker.  If you watched the President's State of the Union address, he spoke on raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. President Obama went on to state that millions of Americans would benefit from this wage increase and take them out of poverty and off possibly off government assistance.  

According to Democrats, 4.6 million people would be brought out of poverty "without requiring the government to tax, borrow or spend."  Apparently low wage paying employers actually help to bring the minimum wage down because their point of view is that the government is there to assist you in making ends meet.  The low paying employer has an incentive to keep wages down and have his employees be subsidize by way of food stamps and Medicaid.  

On the other hand, Conservatives favor the earned income tax credit as a way of discouraging the minimum wage increase. Conservatives say raising the minimum wage would cause an unnecessary income tax on the already poverty-stricken.

Reading this article will inform Americans on the subject of the possible minimum wage increase and shed light on just how large the wage gap is between the average American worker and corporate America.