I have to say that I am really enjoying the first week of the presidency. You know that I have voted in 5 elections now and I've never watched an Inauguration until this week. The past 2 elections I was so disenfranchised (esp 2000) that I just didn't even care to hear anything. I basically went MIA from cable news.
It's definitely been interesting watching how the transition of power takes place. I'll admit that I haven't been the best citizen by tuning out during the Bush administration, but I did give him the benefit of the doubt in the beginning. I will give him some credit with the transition, although I think he was so ready to be done that it benefitted him to make it smooth. And the amount of pardons, rather who he didn't pardon surprised me some.
I love this era of transparency. It's exhilarating to feel like you are truly part of the government. I love all that Obama is doing to keep the people in the loop.
I just finished watching the concert from last weekend. I had to tape it because I had a birthday party to go to. I cried several times. It's amazing how some of those patriotic songs can get you to feel. I remember right after 9/11, they frequently played "America the Beautiful". I absolutely love this song. It really makes my heart flutter.
And, I have Fridays off so I was able to catch some of the news. I saw my first WH press conference. I LOVE Robert Gibbs. He was one of my favorites from the campaign, and it was quite fun to watch him dance with the press. To be able to dodge questions, with humor is a definite skill he will need.
So, this is it! Somebody pinch me because I feel like I'm dreaming!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
Although, I've been self-censoring myself from the news, tv and otherwise, I did see a little article in the Seattle Times this morning that Obama is/has already reversing Bush's federal funding ax for abortions, nationwide and worldwide! Thank you, Obama!
I know I'll get blasted by the conservation anti-choice people, but I don't give a crap. If there is just one woman out there that is in need of an abortion and can't afford it whether here in America, Africa, Asia, or the moon for that matter and my tax paying $$ can help her, then I'm proud to be able to help her in her time of need.
I can't wait for the changes Obama will help bring to our country!
I totally agree with you. One of my conservative posters already made that point on taxpayer money going towards abortion, but I didn't feel it was appropriate for that post so I rejected it. I'm sure he'll let it rip now.
Next week comes stem cell research!!! That is awesome!
can some Obama supporter/liberal whatever please explain how Pelosi and her funding of birth control is supposed to "stimulate" the economy?!
http://www.wjno.com/cc-common/news/sections/newsarticle.html?feed=244038&article=4898130
She could learn a thing or two from Japan and Russia: both countries face critical population replacement shortages as does Europe (in general).
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/01/26/contraceptives-stimulus/
I think it's being blown way out of proportion as usual. It's giving the option to the states to provide birth control for low income women. If you have less unplanned pregnancies, then it's less burden for Medicaid to cover the prenatal care and care of children. This will leave more money in families pockets.
Actually Jen, the use of birth control results in higher rates of abortions.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9687311/Does-the-Use-of-Contraceptives-Lower-Abortions
In Britain the government hands out contraceptives to children as young as 12 at school. Despite this Britain has the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the whole of Europe.
Free Contraception does not work, the problem is more complex than simply throwing money/contraceptives at children/adults, the solution is to fix the family and promote marriage. All of the secular solutions been pushed in America have been tried already in Britain for years and they have utterly failed.
For your information:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Whoever told you that this approach would reduce abortions is also wrong, again for your information:
http://www.politics.co.uk
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
So basically you agree with Pelosi that children are an economic drain?
She (Pelosi) said that lifting the federal funding abortion ban would save lives. Today, that aggressive birth control will help the economy.
A couple things undergird this attitude:
1) People are liabilities. Or rather, the wrong kind of people are liabilities, better keep the herd thinned.
2) The economic crisis justifies any agenda.
3) Abortion is a miracle tonic for social justice, and for robust economies. Saves lives, saves money.
4) Demographics can be engineered via eugenics for public benefit.
Taking that last point, which is particularly chilling, I wonder if she will turn her keen fiscal eye to this: the 2.1 replacement rate. What happens to the beloved ponzi schemes such as Social Security and Medicare, when the next generation of workers is too small to support it? Isn't that at least obvious by now? So, even on non-religious or moral terms, this entire line of thinking is crazy. That's being charitable.
I'm not going to get into all that.
I'll just say this. The ideal is probably for kids not to have sex. Instilling these moral values of waiting until you are in a committed relationship. However, there is the reality that people do have sex... and I believe they should be educated on birth control. I think sex education is key to helping them make informed choices.
I feel like it's a family and personal decision when it comes to abortion. I try not to get into the whole "social justice" as you put it. I don't think abortion is a good thing. I think it should be avoided at all costs. However, it should be left up to the individual to make that choice. If they are poor, they should have financial help.
It's clear that we are not going to see eye to eye on this so let's not drag this out to every tiny detail. We've done that already.
Jen,
So if I am understanding you correctly birth control in the stimulus package is good because it allows poor people to not have kids hence less burden on the tax payer. Is that correct?
Now if that is correct can you tell me how limiting births by poor people in the long run is helping this country. Since in say 18 years these kids that would of been born but now do not exist would be contributing to society via being on the tax roles. Also do you not see the hypocrisy of targeting "poor" people and limiting how many kids they birth? Like poor peoples kids are not as worthy as say a rich persons.
Now, you are putting words in my mouth. I feel that families should only have the amount of kids they can support on their own. Given that... some people run into bad times for whatever reason. It's not a good idea for say a married husband and wife, who are living lower class, to not have access to birth control and keep having kids they can't support. A loving married couple should be able to have sex and not conceive should they desire. If the gov't should help with that, perhaps. I mean, the govt (Medicaid) supplies Viagra, so how is that fair.
Let's face it. The earth is over populated now... not to mention the future. So maybe you don't believe in manmade climate change (Yes, I am assuming given your other beliefs). So we shouldn't just keep having children in order to collect money from them when they get older and work.
Maybe by supplying this in the stimulus package, it won't create jobs... but it will help the states provide birth control through their Medicaid programs. It's just a small part of what this plan is going to help the states with.
I think this is just something that's being focused too much on, when there is so much other stuff in the entire package.
Never meant to put words in your mouth, just asked a simple question.
Regarding your comment on "over population"
The world is overcrowded and population growth is adding overwhelming numbers of humans to a small planet. In fact, people do live in crowded conditions, and always have. We cluster together in cities and villages in order to exchange goods and services with one another. But while we crowd together for economic reasons in our great metropolitan areas, most of the world is empty, as we can see when we fly over it. It has been estimated by Paul Ehrlich and others that human beings actually occupy no more than 1 to 3 percent of the earth's land surface.
If you allotted 1,250 square feet to each person, all the people in the world would fit into the state of Texas. Try the math yourself: 7,438,152,268,800 square feet in Texas, divided by the world population of 5,860,000,000, equals 1269 square feet per person. The population density of this giant city would be about 21,000 somewhat more than San Francisco and less than the Bronx.
Another fact: World population growth is rapidly declining. United Nations figures show that the 79 countries that comprise 40 percent of the world's population now have fertility rates too low to prevent population decline. The rate in Asia fell from 2.4 in 1965–70 to 1.5 in 1990–95. In Latin America and the Caribbean, the rate fell from 2.75 in 1960–65 to 1.70 in 1990–95. In Europe, the rate fell to 0.16 that is, effectively zero in 1990–95. And the annual rate of change in world population fell from 2 percent in 1965-70 to lessÊ than 1.5 percent in 1990–95.
Worldwide, the number of children the typical woman had during her lifetime (total fertility) fell from 5 in 1950–55 to less than 3 in 1990–95. (The number necessary just to "replace" the current generation is 2.1.) In the more developed regions, total fertility fell from 2.77 to 1.68 over the same period. In the less developed regions it fell from more than 6Ê to 3.3. Total fertility in Mexico was 3.1 in 1990–95. In Spain it stood at 1.3, and in Italy, it was 1.2.
Official forecasts of eventual world population size have been steadily falling. In 1992–93, the World Bank predicted world population would exceed 10 billion by the year 2050. In 1996, the U.N. predicted 9 billion for 2050. If the trend continues, the next estimate will be lower still.
Maybe by supplying this in the stimulus package, it won't create jobs... but it will help the states provide birth control through their Medicaid programs. It's just a small part of what this plan is going to help the states with.
So by targeting poor people Jen (that is who benefits from Medicaid) society is saying that they ware worth less than someone not on Medicaid.
And I ask you again, the 2.1 replacement rate. What happens to the beloved ponzi schemes such as Social Security and Medicare, when the next generation of workers is too small to support it?
This really is the last I'll say on the matter.
Not punishing poor people. Middle/Upper class people generally afford and purchase birth control. I was saying that by allowing Medicaid costs to provide birth control will allow them to have it should they want/need it. After all, that is their health insurance.
Obviously you are trying to be wise and draw me into some sort of diatribe about Medicare/Social Security. By making way for more jobs, more taxes will be collected. I've never seen a 100% employement rate. So there will be jobs that need to be filled allowing for more money to be collected for the social programs. And when the baby boomers run through, there will be less people collecting per people paying in.
That's it... I'm done with this conversation.
Post a Comment