Commentary on Colleague's Post

I am choosing to provide a commentary on Suzy Gallagher's 4/29/16 blog, "Yes, doctor...I am aware of his dysfunction". Ms. Gallagher wrote about a South Carolina representative, Mia McLeoud, who proposed a bill to the house in April requiring stricter regulations for men obtaining Viagra. For those of you who are unfamiliar with this drug (probably not many of you), this drug is prescribed for erectile dysfunction, or the inability to get and keep an erection. Rep. McLeod was introducing this legislation to show men the hoops that women must go through to obtain contraception and abortions based on current laws. Although I appreciate Rep. Mcleoud's effort to wake up the male audience, it really doesn't compare to what women face in our modern day.

It is impossible to understand the stress placed on females to avoid unwanted pregnancies unless you are female. I know that men are afraid of unwanted pregnancies, of course their life changes forever too, but they don't have to go through the physical and emotional changes that a pregnancy brings to the body. Females still bare the burden of obtaining reliable contraception or undergoing termination of unwanted pregnancies because, let's face it, we have to deal with the physical and emotional toll of pregnancy. Until a man is biologically able to get pregnant and carry a child or until a male contraception pill is invented, the rules of the game are just never the same for each sex. I am not implying that men do not care about their significant other getting pregnant, what I am saying is that women tend to be more responsible to prevent pregnancy because it effects our bodies first and foremost. What makes the playing field so uneven in our country is that most of our Congress and Senate are made up of men so the government's laws on women's health issues are from a male agenda, primarily. The proof is the controversy and fight still around Roe v. Wade and the Texas Bill 2 law that was just passed. We women still have a long way to go in this country so we will continue to try and control in our lives what we can until our society and it's laws fully protect women and their rights.

http://suzygallagher.blogspot.com

"It is not the horse that draws the cart, but the oats" - Proverb

Pay-to-Play in Politics

The Supreme Court is currently considering reversing a corruption charge against former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, according to a spot that was aired on NPR today www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016. It seems that the Supreme Court justices are deciding between an "official act" vs. a corrupt act when doing political business. The justices are "seeking a federal standard that may be administered" to seek convictions on public felony charges and try to come up with a more narrow definition than what they have now.

According to the charges filed against former Gov. Bob McDonnell and his wife accepted $50,000 loan from businessman Jonnie Williams, money that would help defray costs for the governors' daughter's wedding. Three days after accepting the loan from Mr. Williams, former governor McDonnell had an aide forward information about Jonnie Williams business to the secretary of health because Mr. Williams wanted a health supplement tested by two Virginia Universities because his business couldn't afford scientific testing. This sounds like a case of one palm greasing the other, if you ask me. 

According to the current definition, "official acts" occur when you are holding a political office and perform an activity such as writing a letter to a federal agency so they can look into a matter, to attending political events and attending meetings. It is not illegal to accept money for these "official acts" if the person giving the money is not expecting to shape a government decision. Why does money need to exchange hands in the first place if it is an "official act"? Those acts are part of being an elected official, in my opinion. Also, the person giving the money may not be wanting to "shape a government decision" right now but you can bet dollars to donughts that they want to shape a government decision at some point down the road! The fact that the Supreme Court is considering even overturning this conviction when the government was the one in the first place who convicted former Gov. Bob McDonnell is maddening to me. I believe that money should never be exchanging hands between these types of parties, just the very nature of that activity means that there is a conflict of interest in my opinion. 

The Supreme Court justices will be voting on this case this Friday, April 29, 2016, and it sounds like the only benefit that may come from it is a clearer definition of "official acts" when it comes to government officials doing their job and accepting kick-backs, I mean, loans. 

Same Sex Marriage

governedtobegreat.blogspot.com

My commentary is on my fellow classmate Song Mayo, and her blog "Where Is The Love?" dated April 8, 2016. Ms. Mayo asks why some states in America are still not obeying the federal law that says it is unlawful to discriminate against gay marriage due to religious beliefs? Ms. Mayo also poses the question why would these states want to get in the way of a couple's happiness?  The answer to both questions is because of FEAR. Fear is always at the base of discrimination and prejudice. The fear in this case, is that people who want to get married in America and are of the same sex, are going against biblical teachings that say homosexuality is an abomination to God and this "lifestyle" is a sin in God's eyes. This view point is the basis of most conservative, Republican leaning voters.

Last I read, homosexuality is not even listed in the 10 Commandments, unless I am committing "adultery" with my best friend, but it doesnt this is a sin because my best friend is a woman and is married. Or if one "covets their neighbors wife" and that wife is named Steve, then the coveting is a sin. There are so many negative stereotypes that come with prejudice of homosexuality that feed off this fear like homosexuals are pedophiles, same sex relationships will damage a child raised in this home, homosexuals are perverts, etc. I am sure you have heard these stereotypes and some that are even worse. 

We Americans have always been excellent at discriminating against people that show their differences from societal norm, such as skin color, body size, religion, social status and same sex couples. One of the wonderful freedoms we have in America is that we can choose our religion, our values, and our peers. I don't want a religion or political party to tell me who I should vote for, what to do with my uterus, and if same sex couples should be given legal status. I agree with same sex marriage now, even though a few years ago I voted for Proposition 8 in California at the urging of our church pastor, but I've regretted that vote ever since. I believe that my God wants me to be kind, compassionate, loving, reasonable and forgiving. I may be simple minded, but I really think that God is more concerned about the violence we siege on each other than if Tiffany is carrying on with Kathy. Personally, I like to remember the greatest commandment in the bible which is Leviticus 19:18 "thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of they people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the Lord". Seems pretty simple to me.

http://rachels64.blogspot.com

Legalization of Cannabis

"Of course I know how to roll a joint."―Martha Stewart

Legalize Cannabis With Care

There are 88,000 deaths per year associated with alcohol consumption, 440,000 deaths per year associated with cigarette smoking. The numbers for death and cannabis use aren't even close. In 1970, the federal government classified marijuana as dangerous and with a high potential for addiction, like LSD and heroin. Really? According to recent studies, the potential for addiction is only 9% of people who regularly use this drug. Comparing marijuana abuse to heroin is like comparing Mr. Rogers to Hitler. 

There are many health benefits associated with using marijuana, especially medical marijuana, from increasing appetites for Alzheimer patients and reducing their anxiety levels, to assisting some soldiers with their combat PTSD symptoms. Of course, these are benefits that are studied in adults. The research on marijuana usage in adolescents shows negative effects in neuron processing due to their developing brains until age 25. As with alcohol, legalization of marijuana should have an age attached to it, at least until after the age of 21. 

With opioid addiction and the economic devastation it creates in this country, I believe marijuana is the least of our societal problems. Most of us have read about the tax revenue that is pouring into Washington, California and Colorado, states that have legalized medical marijuana. Tax revenues that could be better spent on rehabilitation for heroin, alcohol and cocaine addicts. The criminal element of marijuana is attributed mostly to illegal distribution so legalizing marijuana would financially reduce the impact in our prison systems.

To this day, I still do not know one person who ever stole money from their parents or broke into a neighbors house to steal items for their marijuana habit. On the flip side, I have seen so many families (including my own) that have had deep emotional and financial scars that have been created by alcohol and substance abuse. 

http://rachels64.blogspot.com/

sources:
Results of Marijuana
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/which-is-worse-booze-or-pot-a-doctor-weighs-in/
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/legal-pot/no-high-risk-marijuana-may-be-less-harmful-alcohol-tobacco-n312876

Is Privacy More Important Than Security??

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” – Benjamin Franklin

Terrorism and Privacy in the Digital Age:

Being alive in our present state of computer technology is very exciting. It also presents new ethical issues surrounding the use of technology and our right to privacy. Case in point; the San Bernardino husband and wife who opened fire killing 14 students and school administration in a special education facility in California this past December. The husband and wife team claimed terrorist connections and both suspects destroyed their iPhones before they were killed by authorities. The debate on privacy vs. security stems from the male suspect, Syed Farook, who had a work iPhone that was confiscated by authorities and a federal court ordered software company Apple to hack into the accused terrorists' work cell to obtain information. So far, Apple has refused to cooperate with this court order.

So what does this mean for privacy vs. security in our digital age? The article from USA Today, dated February 20, 2016 "The terrorist's iPhone: Our view" http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/18/apple-court-order-iphone-fbi-syed-farook-editorials-debates/80572492/ raised this and other questions. Is Apple responsible for creating software that can be hacked into for federal crimes and investigations? What would this mean for Apple as far as consumers being able to trust that their information cannot be hacked by entities outside of Apple? Is it the duty of Apple to concede with the federal government or side with the consumers for their privacy? 

My initial gut answer to this situation was to side with Apple software. I felt Apple owed it to the consumer to protect their information, somewhat like a doctor / patient confidentiality agreement. However, even in a doctor / patient confidentiality agreement, there is a disclaimer that says medical records can be subpoenaed by the courts. What makes this situation between Apple and the federal government any different?

Perhaps there is some comprise that can be created and the editorial article did make mention of this when it stated “The best outcome to this showdown might be a compromise that keeps a single-use-only key confined to Apple's headquarters, combined with legislation that limits government access to extraordinary scenarios in which lives are at stake”. This compromise makes sense, it seems reasonable and rational. Not only does it respect the business ethics of Apple software, but it allows for the government to investigate when crimes this heinous are committed. It seems in this day and age privacy may have to take a back seat to safety.

US Government Opposition on Abortions in Zika Developing Countries

The GOP has always had a strong opinion about reproductive health and the abortion issue for American women being at the top of their list. Presently, the GOP has made a stance on abortions for women who are infected with the Zika virus in developing countries.

In a recent article by Laura Bassett, the Huffington Post, she writes that many women in Brazil, El Salvador and Colombia where the Zika virus is spreading, are denied abortions and sometimes jailed for experiencing miscarriages. The House Republicans who were running the Zika virus hearing suggested that women in these countries accept their babies born with microcephaly stating these babies "can go on to lead very normal lives". I guess it depends on what their definition of "normal" is, as some of these infected babies can experience seizures, cognitive delays, hearing loss and developmental problems. 

As a nation we have had a long history of pro-life and pro-choice debate and that will probably continue into the future. It is interesting to me that our House Republicans feel they have the right to tell other women in other countries what they should do with their bodies and with their children. These women, in many cases, are poor so their financial resources are and would be limited, especially if they have a child with special needs. I understand that reproduction funding for abortions may not be the answer for these women, however, a reasonable discussion about funding for contraception and family planning should at least be addressed for these countries. 

I think this article is worth reading because Planned Parenthood now has limited the resources available in our state of Texas and this strong GOP opinion could further limit the rights of women in other areas of life. 

Hello y'all.