Sore Losers: Republicans and Obamacare

There's a huge cry in the Republican party of the United States about the Affordable Care Act - or rather Obamacare.  The Tea Party Caucus, the Libertarians and the full fledged Republicans are crying over what they have been referring to as socialized medicine since day one of the argument - not to mention its passing.  Since the ACA passed, it has been repealed by the House of Representatives (Tea Party controlled) 41 times, and now the government is being held hostage by the same people who look to de-fund what the health care act is.  Whether for or against Obamacare, the first thing one should know about this is that it does not socialize medicine across the board - it socializes treatment for people making less than $30,000/year, or families making less than $75k.

Here is the main summary of the Bill according to wikipedia - just in case you haven't actually looked at what the Republicans are calling socialized medicine.  As you can see, the bill only sets guidelines and regulations for the market - as the government has done in nearly every other market in the country - and sets up an exchange for the insurance companies to use for competition purposes.  They will put their quote on the exchange and the people will choose which one they can afford.  If they use the exchange - they will receive a tax credit.  If they do not use the exchange and have insurance, nothing happens.  They have insurance - there's no tax.  If they have low income and make less than 133% of poverty income - as I said somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 - they will be eligible for a tax credit which they can either take in advance or the following year.  This tax credit pays for the insurance - which is set at a premium rate of 4-5% of the person's income.  The companies agreeing with this will be subsidized by government funds, but will not be run by the government outside of the regulations the government dictates.

If you are at 133% of poverty or lower, then you will be eligible for medicaid - and the federal government will give increased funds to the state providing the medicaid insurance.  Medicaid is a state run institution and paid for with medicare and social security taxes - which many people receive in a lump sum at the end of the year during what's known as tax season through what's called a tax refund.  So, if one is poor enough to receive this portion of taxes back, then one will actually receive less than what they normally get, as they will be paying with those tax refunds.  In essence, those people crying about having to pay for someone else's insurance do not have ground upon which to stand, unless they're complaining about making insurance cheaper for grandma and grandpa.

Yet, for some reason, the Republicans and conservative 'intellectuals' argue that Obamacare will destroy health insurance.  How, when all parts of the law allow more choice, better prices, and tax breaks, could it destroy health insurance as a whole?  One would think that everyone having health insurance would be a good thing for health insurance companies since more people would be included in the pool, and health insurance companies could charge more people with premiums.  However, this is not what Republicans see.  What they see is something entirely different: Change.

Many of them are scared of change - they have seen the previous medicare (which they have gutted in the past) as well as medicaid (which they also gutted) become ineffective (because they were both gutted) and many doctors deny people using medicaid and medicare (since reimbursements for healthcare costs are slowed now that they have both been gutted).  However, if one does some research, one can easily find a great resource that shows where and who supplies care for medicaid or medicare treatment (I found my link by googling medicaid and medicare doctors - as simple as that).  So, while it may not be the same one you wanted, it will be a doctor.  If you already have insurance - the doctor will remain the one you already have.  So, that argument is pretty flat.

The other argument is jobs - it's a job killer.  Despite the fact that Health careers have sky-rocketed since the passing of the law and its eventual implementation, and insurance jobs within the health sphere have increased drastically, Republicans argue that full-time work in other fields will drop drastically, and we'll see the advent of the two-job part-time workers.  However, based on the results of the first Obamacare
 incarnation - Romneycare - the proof just isn't there.  Maybe people like Wal-Mart, MacDonald's or others will do so, but we already know that they have been unethical for quite some time, and we expect such a thing from their corporations.

The last thing is the real argument - meaning the only one that holds up: premiums will rise.  This was explained to us by Obama during the voting, and the election, saying that initial costs will rise.  Why?  Taxes to the insurance companies for specific things for which they typically charge the patient - medical devices.  They will garner about 47 billion dollars to help provide the subsidies to insurance companies on the exchange to promote cheaper health costs.  However, the costs do not go up unless you choose not to use the insurance exchange.  If you use the insurance exchange - which they don't mention in article - you receive a tax credit and a break - and get a specially reduced cost if you are a low income person or family.  Yes, if you go off on your own and buy insurance from a company directly, you will be paying more.  However, if you sign up for the exchange - which can be done by googling it, or clicking on this link - you can end up saving money because of the exchange's government funding.

Bipartisan?  Hardly

Yet, even though the Republicans have been proven wrong time and time again, they continue to rail.  Why?  Why do the Republicans take every answer given by liberals - who seem to be the only ones trying to solve problems with the marketplace - and squash it like a bug?  They seem only to complain about what's there, and the only answers they have are tax cuts for the wealthy, subsidies for big oil/coal/gas, and cuts to social programs.

Now, as the government shutdown becomes imminent, politicians are quick to point fingers at each other. Republicans blame Democrats for not budging on the de-funding of healthcare, and the removal of mandatory over-time pay.  Democrats blame Republicans for being bull-headed.  I would side with the Democrats on this one - only because I believe I know why the Republicans do not want Obamacare to be implemented.

In my humble opinion, based on the past five years of turmoil and conservative backlash to having a black president, there has been a Republican elephant sitting in the room.  This elephant is the Republican/conservative idea that black people are the only people/majority of people who benefit from social programs such as SNAP assistance and social security welfare programs - outside of grandma and grandpa.  This is flawed - while it once might have been, the numbers have evened out and are now weighted towards poor white people in communities where jobs have disappeared.  I hate to think this, but I have to wonder if it's true.  Why else have these Republicans been so staunchly opposed to a man doing what needs to be done to save the majority of the country?  Why else would people throw such hatred against a man who has done nothing more than what his predecessors have done?

It is my belief that these politicians, funded by old school racist money-holders who still cling to Southern Strategy doctrine, are working so hard against Obama - like no other president has been subject to - because Obama represents the forward progression of social reform and equal rights.  Obama also represents what the big money guys fear the most: wealth redistribution.  So, what do they do?  They pour money into elections throughout the country for Republican candidates and work tirelessly to pass laws that will help them keep their money, give them corporate subsidies, and break the ability of the workers to rise up against them.

I think that is the main reason why people have been arguing something that is just not true, or something that already exists in a private forum.  They argue that Obama is going to take your money to pay for someone else's insurance.  But, even if you keep your own private insurance, or choose not to have insurance, you are paying for someone else's insurance, or someone else is paying for your treatment.  It's already happening - Obama is just making sure that everyone pays for everyone else, instead of having the many pay for the unfortunate few.  Would you rather have your premiums go up because Stan - the broke carpenter - can't find a job doing what he does and can't afford insurance, and goes to the emergency for care for which he won't pay... Or would you rather have your premiums go up for one year, then steadily drop because everyone's chipping in to the larger pool - including broke ass Stan?

Another fear they voice is the idea of death panels - which is ridiculous.  Death panels, in Obamacare's incarnation, already exist within each insurance company currently running.  If you need treatment, there is a panel already choosing whether or not the treatment is something you need or something you should just pay for yourself.  The reason Obama has placed them in the ACA is because they already exist in the private forum, and the government will use it as a final check to either enforce the insurance company's existing decision, or reverse it to force them into giving you coverage.  In essence, they act as market regulators.  But Republicans - or rather their wealthy supporters - don't want regulators, and therefore argue incessantly against them.

Then there is the fear upon which they play that talks about how the government is going to insert itself into the medical field and force unnecessary tests and procedures upon you.  The Koch brothers made a few ads that try to instill that fear within the young.  Of course, the fear is only trying to get young people to engage in civil disobedience by not getting healthcare through the exchange.  If they don't go through the exchange, they won't get the tax credit, and the premiums will be expensive.  If they just don't get healthcare, they get taxed anyway, and end up paying what they would have - if note more - had they used the exchange in the first place.  After a few more ads from those brothers, a doctor debunked the fears with this video.

These arguments are just indicative of the Republican strategy of fear.  It has been used for the last 13 years to such a great extent - in security (fear the terrorist and give up your rights), military (fear foreign powers and let us go in there and bomb people), social welfare (fear the poor people trying to get your money) and taxes (fear the government trying to take your stuff).  It really makes me sad that the only real strategy Republicans have left is fear, and that conservatives are responding.

As the Republicans work to shutdown the government - using fear to bolster their reason - I wonder why they really don't want the Affordable Care Act to succeed.  Why would Ted Cruz - whose home state of Texas would actually benefit greatly through the ACA's implementation - want to fight so hard against it when, in the long run, doesn't make a huge impact on the nation's spending due to the revenue increase the taxes create (according to the CBO)?  Well, if I were a political party who has been classically against social programs (fear communism), and I saw a bill that might work, and knew, based on Massachusetts's own success with Romneycare, that such success would make whichever party implemented the law very popular with the people, I would try to stop it from being law.  Not being able to stop the law, I would probably try to sabotage the law.  Hence the attempt to de-fund, followed by the subsequent delay in the mandate and the tax on medical supplies.  The Republicans are trying with all their might to destroy a possibly popular program because they don't want to lose power.  In essence, the only reason the Republicans are trying to de-fund Obamacare is because they know it will work.  If it works, the Republicans - who have been staunchly against it from the get go - will look like idiots and lose their House majority.  So, instead of trying to fix it and claim credit for mending a broken machine, they try to sabotage it with ridiculous arguments.

It shames me and saddens me to a huge extent that government programs and jobs are going to suffer because a political party wants to win - whether Democratic or Republican.  It's the only reason I can see all this hoopla as viable anymore.  Republicans have asked for a stall in the mandate so they can win the Senate in 2014 and then repeal the law.  They want to remove the tax so the exchange cannot give the subsidies to the people like the law demands.  It's all part of a scheme to keep their power base solidified, and the more they try to de-fund/repeal the law, the more they lose, the more they reveal their true intentions to the people.

They've stripped social security, the rights of unions, medicare, disability, and SNAP assistance at the federal level.  At the state level, they have implemented the Right to Work laws - which remove people's ability to hold their employer accountable for poor working conditions, poor treatment, and accountability - implemented moral legislation (adopting unconstitutional state religions, promoting vaginal ultrasound procedures for abortions) and have removed voting rights for minorities and poor voters.

Yet, what do they support?  Oil, oil, and more oil - plus removing EPA regulation on business, and supporting more tax cuts for big corporations.  So, how does one pick oneself up by one's bootstraps when the party telling one to do so removes one's ability to do so?  It's just indicative of a failed and flawed reasoning, and a product of the idea that an individual is more important than a community.  Our social organism has long been separated by the idea that the individual counts more than the community.  The reasoning is that if one cares for one's own needs, then the community can prosper because the individual doesn't have to count on or depend on anyone.  It's a belief that's espoused by people of wealth, who do not understand that they are just as dependent on people buying their product - whether abstract or concrete - as the people are for the jobs those wealthy people can create if given the opportunity.  It's a belief that the people of wealth built their own intellect and wealth, and did not have any support or help along the way.

I say it is flawed because no one is a product of themselves alone.  Everyone, no matter how great or small, receives aid from someone else - whether it's rich mammy and pappy, the professor giving a strong lecture, the teacher showing the student how to reason and think critically, the bus driver taking the child to school, the police officer putting social order in place, the fire-fighter keeping one's house safe, the church-goer giving the needy family a Christmas present, or the consumer supporting the big corporation making the necessary item - the social organism is entirely connected.  To say it is not is a fallacy and a skewed logic.  To promote the idea of individuality while removing the individual's ability to get ahead is a lie and a way to steal one's power in order to give it to another.  Who do the Republicans support?  Who supports the Republicans?  Answer the second, and you'll answer the first.  Based on the laws they implement, the Republicans support big business, big oil, gun manufacturers, and fossil fuel burners, which, in turn, means those they support return the support.

It's time to give the power back to the people.  In my personal opinion, the single most devastating thing that could happen to our country is if the Republicans are given more power, or returned to their seat of power.  The only thing one could do to hurt the country more than electing a Republican to office would be not voting, and letting someone else have your voice.  I recommend voting for anyone other than a Republican during the next election.

Where is the art in this whole debacle?  I could say blind ignorance, I could say willfully sleeping.  What I will say, however, is that the art resides in the image of the person suited in power, smoking the cigar and puffing the smoke all over the people upon whom that person stands.  The Republicans are taking advantage of the people who vote for them - do yourself a favor and elect someone else.  Independents or Democrats - as long as they aren't Republicans.

Last thing:  We need to make a law that removes Representative and Senate pay altogether as a FIRST option if the government either defaults, shuts down, or grind to halt for any other reason.  These guys work for us, we do not work for them.  It's time to remind them of that fact.  

  

Raising the Minimum Wage - the Fight For and Against

Ah, the minimum wage.  How the arguments get heated from both the right and the left.  I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the minimum wage.  I asked why it would be such a problem for people to have a few extra dollars per hour.  He rattled off a laundry list of conservative arguments: Companies wouldn't want to hire any more people; inflation would raise more; the economy would get weaker; we need to let the free market decide on the wages.

When I was debating the pros and cons with this friend, I noted that the minimum wage hasn't risen since 2009.  Back then, food costs were lower, gas prices were lower, and energy costs were half of what they are today.  He told me it would behoove us more to lower the cost of living as opposed to raising the standard wage.  

This argument perplexed me.  The cost of living is something based on supply and demand.  The more one demands the supply, the higher the cost of the supply becomes.  When one has a city, like New York, where people are competing with tens of millions of other people to get that one thing they need, or the energy they must have to power their AC/heat/computer/lights/etc., the cost cannot artificially go down unless the government spends money, or the company producing the product lowers their price.  If a company's sole design is to make profits, why would it drop the price of a scarce commodity when it's in demand?  That would be opposed to the logic of the free market.  If a company is making money on the supply they have, and they raise the prices to increase profits - yet do not increase the wages paid to employees making the supply - then the employees have a harder time buying the supply demanded.  They then have to cut out other things in their lives to afford the necessary supply.  If the company's product is unnecessary, then chances are even their own employees will stop buying their product because of the high cost and low wage.

Case in point: MacDonald's in 2006 charged between 4.99 and 5.99 for value meals.  The costs now are between 5.29 and 7.29 on average.  Yet, the wages of the employees have not changed, despite the fact that average MacDonald's employees are in their 20's - 30's and have been working there at least 9 months (where the company once set the first raise benchmark).  In order to make money, the company - rather than pay its employees more - reduced the cost of production by purchasing cheaper, less healthy food.  They kept the wages the same, and have increased profits by more than 3 times what they once were.

MacDonald's is only one example of how a company gets around raising their employee wages to make more money by spending less.  But the fact remains that the minimum wage is 30% lower than what it should be if it were doing as it should and adjusting for inflation.  I have my own theories on why people refuse to increase the minimum wage - but I think the flood of misinformation helps.  Here are some facts from a site dedicated to restoring the minimum wage.  It's pretty biased towards the raise, but it makes some good arguments.

The fact of the matter is, with more people able to afford their daily necessities, more companies would be making more money.  If gas prices are on the rise because of inflation, and we can grudgingly accept paying $3.59-$4.29 per gallon of gasoline so big oil can keep making big money, why can we not accept the idea of federally enforcing a minimum wage standard that makes those companies pay enough to help the workers afford the gasoline they need to get to work?

The big businesses would not suffer, but they are the ones making the largest of arguments.  It would be the small business that suffers from a raise in the minimum wage.  An NPR report looked at both the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage, and found that most of the companies negatively affected were small businesses.  These businesses would have long-term employees demanding more, which would mean the people running the business would have to take a pay cut to afford such employee benefits.  This is a good argument against the minimum wage - but only because it shows factual evidence as opposed to ideology.

Another flawed argument is the idea that it would cause inflation to raise.  However, inflation and the value of the dollar - being relatively opposed - are not affected by how much people make of the already created dollar, but by how much people borrow, or loan, from the banks.  In a fractal reserve system, money is first lent to from the central bank to the commercial banks.  The commercial banks then hold a fraction of the original deposit and loan out the rest - when the other banks deposit the loan in the commercial bank, the commercial bank treats it as a new deposit, not the same money they lent out.  This practice is followed by the other banks who loan money out to consumers. So, in essence, as new mortgages are bought by consumers, and sold by banks, and new loans are given to businesses so they can pay their bills and suppliers, deposits are made and inflation increases.  This is done so in a Fibonacci sequence coil that continues to spiral endlessly with the relatively small amount of money it originally took from the central bank.  In the end, because we can't pay for what we want when we want, and we get loans to buy those things we want (or convince ourselves we need), whether through credit cards or banking industries, inflation occurs regardless of how much we get paid.  It would be sound reasoning to think we could stem the tide of inflation by increasing the pay of workers so they could afford more without borrowing, and so businesses could earn more so they wouldn't have to borrow to pay bills.  Increasing the minimum wage will not increase inflation as much as banks, credit card companies, or retail businesses and restaurants already do.  The amount of money they'd receive would be a drop in the bucket compared to the flood waters of inflation pouring over us.    

Even a majority of Republican voters demand better minimum wage (62%).  In a Huffington Post aggregate story, there was proof showing that less people, if the minimum wage were increased, would require the need of SNAP assistance because they would end up making enough to cover their food costs.

It frustrates me to see so many people quietly comply to pay higher prices for necessities such as food, water, gas, and energy, yet argue so fervently against higher wages for the people working for the suppliers of those necessities.  The most remarkable thing is that most of the people arguing against it are doing so because they do not believe people deserve a 'raise' simply because it's the legal standard.  They believe that the people should go out and get a better job, or earn it through hard-work; that minimum wage jobs are there to spur people to get better jobs.  I'm sure they would if there were better jobs available.

However, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobs that pay well are on the decline, while Retail (which includes restaurants) continues to show increased employment.  This is because the jobs that would normally have under-educated or less education requirements are on the decline.  Manufacturing jobs are no longer as plentiful because they are being outsourced to China.  This leaves retail, fast food, service and restaurant industries taking up the slack.  If those jobs only pay minimum wage, and make sure to keep the employee under full-time hours, then the employee receives no benefits, a low wage, and will have to remain on SNAP assistance and continue to be seen a 'burden' for society.

Another factor going into the inability to find a 'better' job is that most of the people working those underpaid positions do not have the resources to find better jobs.  Unless they receive hand-outs from friends or family, they can not afford a computer and the Internet with all the other services for which they have to pay.  They pay for rent, they pay for utilities, food, gas, and what their kids might need if they have them.  Most of the times, they are only able to afford just enough to keep going to their low-wage job, and pray day in and day out for the one break they need to find a better position in life - so they can join the median income yearly wage earners(I linked the wage in 2011). It's either that, or they become drug dealers/gang members/criminals in their poverty income neighborhood, self-employed and offering services to others at a discounted rate to do good business, or get discovered by some random talent agent from American Idol when/if their minimum wage job gives them time off.

I think it's funny the people who have found their 'better' job feel they keep their positions because of their hard work - when a majority of Americans are only working hard enough to not get fired.  I think it's a bit hypocritical that people who understand the struggle of finding a good job argue that people who are complaining about minimum wage should just be quiet and find a better job.  It reflects the notion that poor people are not poor because of their circumstances, but because they are lazy.  If they were truly lazy, they would be living off of someone's couch, arguing that they should not have to clean up after themselves, should not have to find a job, or should not have to contribute to their household for whatever reason they can find.  I know lazy people - some of them work, some of them don't.  But the real indicator is that they are really too lazy to care about this argument.  If people arguing for a minimum wage increase were truly just too lazy to find another job, we would not be hearing from them.

Sometimes, the people arguing have been looking for better jobs for years, and have not been able to find them or gain interviews because of their lack of experience or education in the field.  Many can not get the education because the job that pays their bills will not allow them to gain it - or give them the time or extra gas money to attend classes. Yet, the argument goes - if you don't like the wage, get off your ass and find a better job.  People argue that minimum wage should not be increased, but rather people should start doing their jobs and earning their higher wages.  Yet, wages have been stagnating across the board while profits and productivity increase.  So, if people can't get better wages through earning a raise, why should they care about doing a good a job?

I think the real problem here is that a few people have had a few bad experiences at places where people get paid minimum wage, then rail and rail about why minimum wage should not be raised because those people weren't doing their job.  I propose a question to those people: If you were in the middle of trying to find a better job, had a position at a retail store/restaurant/hotel/fast-food chain, how serious would you take your job if everyone treated you like you were just a lazy person who didn't want to find something better?  How would you treat the people who treated you with disrespect?  How would you respond to the people who decided to get angry because they thought you weren't being patient enough to answer their 36 questions (many of them the same questions) about a single product only to change their minds and decide on something else? What response would you have when someone threw a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it?  What kind of action would you take when someone complained about your customer service skills despite your every attempt to please them, and you got written up?  Would you appreciate the customers more or less?

   

The 'Miley Cyrus' Dilemma

I didn't watch the MTV Video Music Awards.  I'm not a big fan of MTV.  I don't like the idea that music has become an issue of appearance rather than sound.  We have people shoved in front of us with no talent, other than their voices, who have been tailored to look a specific way that someone at the top wants us think is attractive.  Despite the fact that MTV now plays very little in the way of music videos, they had a huge hand in the sexual revolution of 90's that took us to a whole new level of bodily objectification.

Pop Music now is performed by people who look the part, but can't write a single word or note of their own music.  Songwriters, many of whom do not fit the mold for sales, get shoved back into rooms and work tirelessly with the hope that one day their song will be picked up by some attractive singer's manager.  Rap was one of the last bastions of musical originality until people began doing the same.  Now, they (record producers) find a guy who can speak in appropriate rhythm, dress him up in gold and give him a gold 'grill', and then sic him on the masses.  It's become such a production that many of the artists who originally put their word out through the genre of music find it revolting.

I have noticed something happening in our culture, through pop stars, actors and actresses, and through the art in which they take part.  Now that singers have to be a certain image, more and more songwriters are being shoved into those rooms and forced to make music for people who have sex appeal.  This is done to create sales - because music sells much better when some sexy guy or girl sings it rather than the person who wrote it.  I recently saw a meme about people who actually made their own music.  I thought they were funny, but now I see why they're so poignant.


The most recent issue I've had with the image of pop singers comes with the Miley Cyrus fiasco on the MTV VMA's.  Like I said, I didn't watch them, but I sure as hell heard about them.  I figured I'd check it out, to see what all the hub-bub was about.   Well, there was a lot there to talk about.  Unfortunately, it was not the good kind of thing about which to speak.

So, the performance starts with Miley Cyrus coming out of an over-sized teddy bear with her tongue stretched out and around her mouth.  She continued the motif through most of the first verse and chorus of her song.  I was wondering if she thought sticking her tongue out like that made her seem attractive.  I wondered if she even knew what she was singing, or cared about the lyrics.  In my own opinion, it made me wonder what she was thinking.  I read a few articles that were enraged about her performance.  The only one that seemed relevant - as most were accusing her of being slutty for the whole twerking incident - was the one that said she ripped off the image from Rihanna, another female pop star who made her claim to fame by singing sexually explicit and suggestive songs - like Rude Boy.

This made me wonder a few more things.  I wasn't enraged nor attracted to what Miley Cyrus did.  I'm not enraged nor attracted to what Rihanna does.  In fact, while not being offended, I pitied the women who chose those images over themselves.  It was clear that Miley Cyrus was not being herself - but rather being what she thought she should be.  From the reports, she wanted to show an image of maturity and sexual desire - meaning she wanted to put herself out there as a sex object to show the world 'Hey, Miley Cyrus isn't a kid anymore.'  Others have done so in the past as well.  Janet Jackson did so with her album Janet - going from child star to sex symbol with one album.  Since then, female pop-stars that begin as girls and travel to the realm of adulthood in the spotlight have been trying to reproduce it.  However, because they do not write their own songs, do not produce their own music, and try to force the image of adulthood through sexual explicitness, their attempts fail to hit the same message Janet achieved.  Instead, they turn into the 'slutty' image and show young girls, who may look up to them, that in order to become adult, they have wear skimpy clothes, show off their bodies, and start having sex.

Now, I'm all for sexual independence.  I feel that girls and women know when they are ready for it.  But having sex does not make an adult out of a girl, and does not reinforce adulthood in a woman.  Sex is an expression of pleasure, lust, and love.  It can be done in one or all three of the aspects.  Some do it for the simple pleasure of experiencing the single most uniquely human act.  Some do it to attain the woman or man they have pined over for so long.  Some do it to express their love for their companion.  Some do it for all three.  While it is an adult act, it does not make a girl more of a woman outside of the physical reality that the girl's body is getting ready for adult activities.

The bigger question here, for me, is what does it say about our society?  Does it say that the true measure of a woman is in her sexual prowess?  Does it say that to become an adult she must become sexually active or sexually desirable?  I understand that many women have the dilemma of growing out of their childhood.  Many feel that by dressing as adults, they can be taken as adults.  By partaking in adult activities, they can be seen as adult.  But that is only an image, not a truth.  In my opinion, the truest proof of womanhood is not with how many men she's been with, or in how well she performs sexual acts, but in how well she maintains her own self image despite her surroundings, and how strong she proves herself against the adversity life brings.  The truth of a woman is much more than what she appears, how she looks, or whether or not she's good in bed.  The same can be said for men - but the social aspect is much more present in the female gender.

A girl can remain a girl throughout her life, if she does not accept the trials and difficulties life brings.  A girl, in my mind, does not become a woman until she understands the realities of life.  In the spotlight of stardom, such a thing is hard to accomplish.  People will give in and enable so much that a girl growing up as a celebrity has it even more difficult than a girl growing up in hometown USA.  Instead of being exposed to realities of life, the girl is pampered and given anything she wants - so much so that the girl celebrity thinks the only way she can throw off her childish coil is by making herself a sex object, or turning to drugs - as most adults do for escape.  Instead of staying true to herself, she makes a huge display of herself in front of the world.  See Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Rihanna, Madonna, and now, Miley Cyrus.

Back to the twerking incident - I feel sorry for Miley Cyrus because she felt she had to do something like that to get her image to change from good girl (as presented in Robin Thicke's portion of the medley) to 'bad girl' so she could be seen as developing into an adult.  She wore skimpy clothes, displayed herself in a very sexually explicit manner (using the foam finger as a humping toy), and twerked all over Robin Thicke - a clearly adult oriented male pop star.  Nevermind the idea that Robin Thicke's song was about turning good girl's into bad girls - another message I tend to loathe (the idea that a man could go in and use a good girl for sex and then dump her like a bad habit once he was through - thus turning her into a 'bad girl' who becomes 'slutty').  This image does not promote her adulthood to me - what it appeared to me as was a confused girl who was trying to be something she wasn't.

Afterwards, the memes came in droves.  They ranged from making fun of Miley Cyrus twerking - like this one - to making fun of Miley Cyrus' body - like this one.  This also disappointed me.  Yes, it looked like Miley Cyrus should have worn something different if she was trying to make herself a sex object.  However, this also shows how our society is unforgiving of a woman's body.  Women's bodies vary from one to the other.  Women go through child-birth and many other changes through their lives to where their bodies do not hold up - the same can be said for men, sans child-birth, of course.  Granted, Miley Cyrus has not had a child - from what I know - but the fact that we have people making fun of her for her body reinforces the idea that women should be seen as such.  At least celebrity women.

If you look at society since the dawning of pictures, magazines and film, women have been under more pressure by men to maintain a certain body type to be desirable.  While women are reversing the trend by placing the same standards on men, it says a lot about our culture that we place more importance on what a person looks like than who a person is.  Our measure of successful aging is remaining fit and youthful in appearance, not in learning life lessons or staying healthy despite all the temptations otherwise - but by maintaining a sexy image.  This has caused a lot of girls to become anorexic, bulimic, bipolar, or simply unhealthy because they are concerned about gaining weight and aren't willing to eat what they need to eat to remain healthy.  This practice leads to obesity and poor self-image, as well as mental instability - One's mind is not focused when one is hungry and malnourished.  Yet, instead of addressing this issue, we, as a society, encourage women to resort to these measures simply by accepting what is presented by a small group of men and women who edit and control what is put on a magazine, film or video.  Just because one man likes it doesn't mean all men do.  But that's the implied value when it's put in our face and we are told it's attractive.

Healthy is different in all men and women.  Attractive is different for each man and woman.  There is no one image for it.  Beauty comes in many different forms - and most are too abstract to be noticed through image.


Likewise, adulthood is not given in concrete image, either.  It's assumed when one decides to say no despite the desire to say yes; it's making the hard decision to be responsible rather than making the easy choice of giving in to social pressure; it's choosing, and understanding what the choice will bring; it's accepting the consequences of actions taken and living with them as best as one can; it's becoming independent in thought, and not driven by what other people want; It's becoming truly oneself without repressing ideals for someone else.

I will say this again in closing - Miley Cyrus twerking on stage did not outrage me, did not titillate me, did not amuse me.  It made me feel sorry for our society, and hope that in the future, we can do better than assume adulthood and beauty can both be attained by becoming an image someone else wants.         

The Common Misconceptions on SNAP

The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program - or SNAP - has come under fire recently.  The conservatives argue that it is a program being abused by the masses, and that Obama prefers a country dependent on the program.  Other conservatives argue against paying taxes to put food on other people's table when they have a hard enough time putting food on their own.  I have listened to ranters complaining that they see people using SNAP to purchase food that they - the working class - cannot afford themselves (i.e. steaks, choice cuts of chicken and pork, etc.).  But there is an inherent problem within their argument.

The Heritage Foundation - a conservative think tank - complain that people are taking advantage of loopholes.  People who have recently become unemployed and receive unemployment money, are applying for SNAP without the need.  The Heritage Foundation argues that the system does not take into account savings, saying that people who have worked hard to save are taking advantage of a government run system.  I would argue that those same people have paid their taxes to the system, and should be able to receive their benefits since they were once working a job that allowed them the expendable income to save in the first place.  The people arguing this point are the same people suggesting that the working poor simply save their money and be frugal to survive the economic turmoil.  These are the same people arguing that Social Security be ended.  If someone who has been employed with a good job and has saved a small amount for retirement, how can they expect to get ahead if at the first sign of disturbance they dip into retirement savings?  The SNAP program is there to aid the populace during times of struggle - and many of the struggling people need the extra assistance since the cost of food is on the rise.  This study also says nothing about the retired - living on Social Security - the single mothers only able to work part-time so they can care for their children, nor the working poor who do not attain positions of full-time employment (or those who DO work full-time, but receive minimum wage).

Another common misconception is that most of the people benefiting from SNAP should just go out and get a job.  Sean Hannity argues that it would be better for America if the people on SNAP simply went out and got jobs so they could leave the assistance program.  However, John Stoehr presented numbers that would suggest most of the people receiving food stamps were either ineligible to work, or were already working.  This is yet another misconception from the conservative wing of the political sphere.

I did some research there because I knew people who were working who still received SNAP funds.  I looked at Feeding America's website, which told me that 83% of the people receiving SNAP funds had incomes.  The average income for those households - which had children, elderly, or disabled as well as the working income earners - was $744 per month.  In addition, I found that unemployed people were only allowed three months of benefits before the program ousted them - unless they found a job.  This means that most of the people receiving SNAP do have jobs.  Hannity was clearly mistaken with his question.  Even the Heritage Foundation's research stated as much.  

I decided I would take a look at some facts about food stamps, myself, since both sides seem to be arguing about it.  While Hannity and the right seem to be arguing philosophy over facts - and twisting facts to their philosophical stance, the left sounded like it was doing the same.  I figured it would be best to find something at which I could look so I could end the inner debate going through my own head.

Here is a link to the government website to help determine eligibility and the amount received for each household.  I note that the monthly income is calculated based on the amount within the household.  I figured that if one person received more then $2,000 per month, they were ineligible.  I also figured that if a family of four received $2,500 or more, they were ineligible.  On the site listed, it also states that they DO count bank accounts, but they do not count Social Security Income (whether retirement or disability), nor do they count TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds.  So the problem with Heritage Foundation's assessment of the program is this: a person with $20,000 in savings, stretched out for the year, does not equal $2,000 per month.  The same person, who is receiving TANF will not count those funds.  In addition, most have to re-apply after 3 months of assistance from SNAP.  What the Heritage Foundation does not take into consideration is that the person COULD get a job during that 3 month period, and then earn out of the SNAP funds - meaning their monthly income plus savings would exceed the amount for a single person.  However, if they do not earn enough income plus savings to equal the cap for a family of four, they would receive SNAP, though get less due to their income.

Another thing I decided to research was how much of our GDP SNAP consumed - to combat the people who remark that SNAP assistance is contributing to our fiscal budget issues.  What I found was the amount we - as a country - spend on SNAP is currently less than 1% of our GDP.  Less than 1%.  So, in fact, most of our taxes are not going to feed the people who can't afford to put food on their own tables.  In fact, we spend more on healthcare for government employees than we do for SNAP.  However, the amount we spend has been shown to be on the rise, nonetheless.  This is due to the slow growth in our economy, and the lack of willingness for major corporations or 'job creators' to actually create more jobs that pay a wage to get the people on SNAP transitioned out of the program.

Here is another link from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) that gives a more basic look at SNAP, and the guidelines for eligibility as well as what SNAP aims to accomplish.  One can see, with simple research, that someone got something wrong when looking at the numbers from the conservative right.  I wonder why they decide to make SNAP the enemy when they claim our nation is Christian: Wouldn't a Christian nation wish to feed the poor with a modicum of their paycheck?

I recall a time in the last presidential election where Romney said something about not worrying about the 47% of the country whose taxes were not kept by the government.  He said that Republicans shouldn't look at the message of tax cuts for those people, because they don't matter when it comes to cutting taxes - they don't pay.  That 47% gets all of their taxes back at the end of the year.  What's funny is that most of the people I've spoken to who argue that they don't want to pay to put food on lazy people's tables are members of the 47% who get all their money back.  In essence, they already don't.  For those that actually do - it means they make more than $40,000 a year, and the government keeps their income taxes.  These people who make $40,000 or more per year end up paying roughly 30% of their income to taxes - which still, at the lowest level, allows for $2,300 per month of net income.  Depending on where you live, it's either right at poverty, or well over poverty.  For the people arguing against SNAP - most being rural America - that's well over the poverty line.

While the numbers prove one thing, the philosophy continues to be espoused despite the facts.  Why?  In my opinion, this is partly due to the Southern Strategy - a discreet form of politically capitalizing on racial polarization - becoming more abstract.  The GOP (Republicans) use it now to attack social programs (TANF, social security, SNAP, Medicaid and Medicare, WIC, education) that benefit the poor - who are primarily minorities - in an effort to gain campaign funds and wealthy supporters.  So, now, instead of being the party of the white people, they are the party of rich white people - a shrinking minority.  They talk on states' rights, cutting taxes, and cutting spending for social programs so the poor (primarily minorities) will pay more and the rich will keep more of their earnings.

However, there is one flaw in all of their stratagems.  Without the poor buying their product, the rich will not gain money.  In a world where the wealthy are becoming more wealthy than in any other era of history, I find it difficult to believe that jobs that can help people get off SNAP are becoming less and less available.  Wouldn't it behoove the people who create products to employ and pay people in order to create a consumer base to buy said product?  Wouldn't it help the economy if poor people could continue to buy food, so farmers can continue to feed them, and businesses can continue to buy from the farmers to make their products, and farmers could continue to buy stuff from the product makers to help farming become easier?

The one flaw this political strategy has is that the right refuses to see the economic situation as a cycle.  It's  not a ladder, where one person walks up the rung and attains mass wealth on his own.  It's an economic cycle, a ladder where the people below the wealthy man holds him up so he can reach the top fruit and hand it down to the people below - that was the essence of trickle down economics.  In our current condition, that idea sees the one man on top picking the top fruit and eating it while telling everyone else to find food from the middle and bottom branches of the tree.  The man at the top does not realize that if he does not send the food down, the human ladder to the top crumbles.  We created a system to keep the cycle in place, to force
the man on top to send some food down, or help those below him get to the top branches so they could pick the fruit themselves.  However, the conservatives again gained control, and removed the person put in place to kick the top man down if he didn't follow the rules.  Now, we look at the system in place, where the man at the top has so much fruit he can feed himself for three lifetimes, and he complains that the fruit he has to give to the people at the bottom rung is straining his ability to feed himself.

To make this more concrete: The wealthy are not providing enough jobs that pay enough to keep people off government assistance.  The Republicans insist that giving the top earners tax credits will trickle down and create more private sector jobs - but what have we seen?  A rise in retail, restaurant and consumer service jobs that pay less than poverty, or are not full-time positions.  It's time to stop pointing the finger at poor people who are only doing what they need to do to get by - or the tiny percentage of people who abuse the system - and start pointing the finger at the people who are benefiting the most from our current condition.  I'm not saying punish the wealthy - I'm saying it's time to end the loopholes they use to get out of paying taxes, it's time to stop giving them outright cuts, and it's time to stop blaming the poor for the country's economic hardships.

Gender Equality: The Social Change and What it Means

Working is something many men enjoy - it gives them an identity; it tells them what they do.  In the American social culture, it often times allows the males to obtain a sort of pride in the idea that they bring in a sum of money that can pay for things they would like to have, or pay for bills on what they already have.  Men have been ruling the workplace for quite some time, as the social role of women has been to keep watch over the children, and maintain the home.

However, as the modern workplace begins to integrate women, and the men begin to compete with women over similar jobs based on education, the stats show that women are on the rise... meaning men are on the decline.  I think this is a good thing overall, in that women can truly find an equal place in the socio-economic world of the West.  It means that the feminist movement has raised awareness across the board.

The studies done on gender inequality work to show the various reasons why men and women are treated different in the social settings of life and work.  They note that many times, especially in the past, women have been regarded in relation to their husbands and their husbands' economic status.  Yet, as the modern age continues its progression, more and more women are finding roles in the workplace, and enjoying their jobs as much as they would being at home with their children.

In addition to the workplace, at home, women are quickly becoming single mothers and being the sole breadwinner of the family due to divorce/partner separation, having children outside of wedlock, or the decrease in traditionally male dominated workforces (i.e. manufacturing, construction, manual labor).  The numbers still are not at an equivalent rate, as many women who do have careers find themselves in the lower wage positions, but women in the management positions are increasing.

What does this mean for us as a society?  What does this mean for the family unit that has been traditionally viewed as the male dominated patriarchy?  What will feminine equality bring?

For one thing, the breadwinner complex has begun, as men have lost their jobs, or are working from home on their own projects and dreams, and women have come to be relied upon for the sole income of the family.  While some men take small part-time jobs to bridge the gap between one job and the next, the women remain constant in their career-fields.  Regardless of why, the fact of the matter remains that a social revolution is quietly occurring and changes are going to need to be made to successfully go from the old traditional view of the social scene to the new world of equal pay, equal rights, and equal treatment.

Politically: I would argue for a new amendment restricting the respect of gender from laws, however there are key differences between men and women that might prohibit such.  Integrating prisons would not lead to welcome change, and may, in fact, cause more problems than solutions, for one example.  However, until we get equal pay and equal treatment under the law for both men and women, the true equality for which people have been fighting the last century and more will not be won.  In this case, it is my opinion that the political scene must be the last step instead of the first step towards the gender equality.  An Equal Pay Act would be a good first step - but after that, the movement must rely on social change instead of the political.

The biggest hurdle in the fight for equality is the social stigma and social perceptions of each gender.  While women have been getting more jobs in educated fields of work, they continue to take on the traditional roles in the household and have more share of the workload.  In order to combat this, men and women must be raised with equal values placed on both parts of the household tasks - both within and outside the home.  

Men: For men, this means accepting the tasks at home that are traditionally seen as 'the woman's work.'  It means not being afraid of the laundry; sweeping and mopping the floors; vacuuming the carpets and dusting the furniture; cleaning up after the kids and taking them to and from school and extra-curricular activities.  It means being the house-husband in a society that still has yet to accept the image.  It means doing the dishes and cooking breakfast, lunch and dinner without complaint.  It means studying the work the traditional wife has been doing for the last few thousand years of civilization, while not feeling emasculated by other males who cannot accept the social change, or by the woman who holds her paycheck over your head.  It is a hard road, but women have been doing it for thousands of years, and things are starting to change.  As men in the new society, you must be willing to see the house-work as a job equally as important as the one that pays.

Women:  The important factor for women is patience and understanding for the men at home, while also dealing with the stress of being the breadwinner.  Men have had the load of monetary stress on their shoulders for some time.  Many times, women make fun of, or emasculate men who do not have jobs.  This has to change.  For every woman in the workplace, there is a man without a job because the number of jobs does not change to accommodate the addition of women into the working social strata.  Women will have to help the men just as much as men will have to help the women deal with the social change within their household.  This can be hard because of the way we typically view stronger, more assertive women in the workplace.  It flies in the face of tradition.  However, in order to be successful in marriage and career, the goal of the woman who is flying in the face of tradition must be the financial rock of the family as well as the helper for the man at home.  Do not do the house-work he is supposed to do - tell him how to do it, and let him go to work on it.  Maybe you've had experience doing the work - aid him with patient instruction.  Enforce your role by not performing his.  

In essence, the social change means that traditional roles of men and women will have to be mutable within the new modern household.  This also means that parents raising both boys and girls will have to start treating each equally, as well as training men to do something other than finding a job and earning money to support the home.  Men will have to start being raised with the importance of maintaining a clean home, the knowledge of how to care for children, the knowledge of how to cook, and the acceptance of doing those tasks as equal to earning money for the family.  Women, likewise, will have to be raised to understand the importance of earning money for their own family, and the willingness to undergo that stress for the good of their family.  While many women have already learned that through experience, the very same women also have been raised with the traditional view of women, and often times look for the first male breadwinner they can find to take away their stress and allow them to dip back into the traditional female role.

Equality is a two way street.

Where is the art in this opinion or image?  Simple: The image of the man wearing the apron and doing dishes with a baby in the crook of his arm and a casserole in the oven.  The image of the strong woman going into her job and making her family money so they can go one more day without worrying - power suit and blue-tooth donned for business.

Maybe equality is a myth.  Maybe, deep down, every woman wants to be taken care of, and every man wants to be the one caring for the family - I refuse to believe this.  I think the roles are simply the super-enforced gender roles our society creates.  But until the roles can attain mutability in the social atmosphere, we will never know.  Until the house-husband is seen in a similar light as the house-wife, and the woman breadwinner is seen in the same light as the top earning man, we will continue to have social inequality.

Religious Freedom - The Right's Misinterpretation of the First Amendment; Fourteenth Amendment

Many politicians have arisen stating that the Founding Fathers created - in the United States - a Christian nation.  They say because the Founding Fathers were Christian, they founded the nation based on their beliefs.  Most of them quote the Declaration of Independence - a non-constitutional document.  They say, since the Founding Fathers stated that inalienable rights were granted by the 'Creator', that they clearly meant the Christian God, since all of them were Christian in religious belief.

I have a lot to argue here, but it takes very little effort to counter their claims.  For one thing, our nation has the First Amendment - which was ratified in the Bill of Rights.  The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.  It's the first sentence.  This amendment was ratified by every state.  This law, however, did not restrict states from adopting their own state religion.  Now, at the time, just being Christian wasn't the same thing as religion.  There's some history behind this.

Back in England, and during the colonial periods, religious freedom was not something the Founding Fathers had.  In fact, in much of Christendom, mainly because of the Protestant Reformation, religious freedom was not something practiced.  In England, one could be discriminated against for not practicing Anglican beliefs.  The Puritans, who helped found New England, were ostracized from businesses, legal practice, and lawmaking because they were not Anglican.  They were hated by the populace, and laws respecting Anglicans did not respect them.  To escape it, they created their own state in Massachusetts.  However, they did not allow people who practiced outside of the Puritan faith to attend schools, create business or own land.  They did the exact same thing England did to them to those looking to settle in New England.  

Why do I bring this up?  Because both practices were Christian.  However, their definition of religion is what we would now consider denomination.  In order to avoid this kind of treatment from the federal government - in order to protect the people's right to choose what they believe and practice, the Continental Congress and Constitutional Conventions created this idea of religious freedom so oppression would not happen.  I'm pretty sure that fact is common knowledge.  It would not matter what religion the Founding Fathers were, because Congress could not create laws respecting religion.  

Again, it did not restrict the states from doing so.  Many states chose their religion, and established their states as specific Christian denominations.  However, after the American Civil War, the 14th Amendment was adopted and something within - known as the Equal Protection Clause - stopped the states from adopting religions as a state religion.  The reasoning behind this was that citizens of the state that adopted a specific religion - if they were or were not of that religion - would not be treated equal under the law based on their religious affiliation.

Now, we have people like this woman, and states making sure Muslim law does not infiltrate the government - despite the fact that no laws can respect religion one way or the other.  It astounds me how certain people can call this country a Christian nation when it has never adopted the Christian religion at the federal level.  It has never been allowed to, and for good reason.  Some states refuse to allow Muslim schools to apply for the voucher programs, and make their laws outside the constitution to adopt state religions once more.  It makes me sick to my stomach that these people are so ignorant of their country's past, and the laws that protect even their hard-lined fundamental Christianity.

The reason our country excels, and has done so in the past, is because we allow everyone to have a voice regardless of race, religion, or politics.  These people who choose to voice their opinion about their religion have the freedom to do so.  When they decide to put their religion into law, they are no better than the Muslims in the Middle East who have laws forcing women to cover their bodies from head to toe.  It's the major problem with the Pro-Life argument (yes my personal philosophy is against abortion, but I believe that every woman should have their own choice on the matter); It's the major issue with Gay Rights and DOMA (Religion is the only argument against same-sex marriage and homosexual discrimination - see Leviticus - Old Testament).  

This country was founded by Christians, yes - but it was left open so Christianity would not suppress and oppress the people who held different beliefs.  Even if the country was founded by Christians, the laws they created made it a state of tolerance and individual freedom.  No law can respect one religion over the other, and no law can be created to reward or punish someone for believing in a religion.  By not allowing Muslim schools to apply for school vouchers, they restrict the Muslim practitioners of their community from receiving funds - which directly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  The Declaration of Independence makes no statement saying the founders wanted to make a Christian nation - and the Declaration of Independence has no legal impact on the country's lawmaking or law enforcing bodies.  

The art?  Simple - the bible thumping politician who says what he/she needs to say to get elected; People invoking religion for their own benefit, yet refusing to see the message the religious founder deliberated to the people.  Happy ignorance.  It reminds me of a religious parent who forces their beliefs on their children whether the children like it or not.  Some of those children only hold out until they can escape, and some get brainwashed and thump their Bibles right alongside the parent.  There's only one problem here - as a parent, you're free to do such things; As a government or lawmaking body in the United States - you're unconstitutional.  

Climate Change - The Global Warming Truth

It has come to my attention that several conservative media outlets refuse to believe that global warming - or climate change, as it is now being called - is happening.  I have several friends who watch and listen to Fox News who continues to contend that climate change is not happening.  The Fox News team has also done some work to destroy the EPA so they stop regulating the amount of greenhouse gases being emitted by coal power plants and chemical companies.

Despite this flood of media trying to prove the information is false, we, as a society, continue to see ice caps melting, global temperatures on a rise, droughts across the globe, and ocean levels rising by the year.  So, if global warming is a hoax, why is all this happening?  Well, some conservatives tell me it is God's work.  I write this off because in our history God was also responsible for storms, the sun rising, and whether or not a disease would spread through a city or not.  God also backed two different nations who were at war with each other during the 100 Years War, and God backed both the Catholic Inquisition and the Protestant Reformation.  So, with that reasoning set aside - why do conservatives continue to argue that climate change is not happening?

The major factor I have found in my research is misleading information.  Who funds these reports that purportedly debunk climate change?  Well, none other than the people responsible for putting carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other greenhouse gas emissions into the air we breathe.  Here is a wiki-page that shows the various forms of arguments against the idea of climate change that are being supported by people who are directly affected by EPA and Climate Change science- including Exxon Mobil, and the American Enterprise Institute.  Basically, people who make money of fossil fuels - which put CO2 into the atmosphere - and those who make machines that currently run on fossil fuels are creating organizations and or scientific studies to 'debunk' the climate change phenomenon.

However, with a scientific consensus - meaning a majority of climatologists in agreement - stating that climate change is happening and that humans do have an impact on such things, the arguments against are beginning to sound like the arguments against the idea that cigarettes cause lung cancer.  We now know, due to several decades of scientific data and smokers developing lung cancer, that cigarettes do in fact contribute to lung cancer.  The evidence is clear.  Similarly, now that enough scientific data has been discovered and proven by even the harshest of skeptics, we find that the loudest arguments are being made by private sector researchers who are given money to 'debunk' climatologists.  They are paid several thousand dollars to find holes in the scientific data collected, and then make a statement regarding those holes.  Science is a collection of conclusions reached through observations of events.  Science does not have a pre-determined conclusion when observing.  However, when scientists are paid to have a pre-determined conclusion before they read someone else's observations, it stops becoming science and starts becoming something else.

What is the scientific consensus on Climate Change?  Here's a link to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research's report on Climate Change.  It directly states that humanity has an impact based on the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.  Fossil fuels are burned in cars, coal power plants, and a variety of other things, and add CO2 to the atmosphere - proven and well known.  How?  Cars burn gas - they emit CO-, or carbon monoxide.  This carbon monoxide fuses with the O3, or ozone, and takes the hanging oxygen molecule to create O2 and CO2 - thus reducing the ozone and increasing the carbon dioxide levels.  Deforestation reduces the planets ability to absorb the excess CO2.

But that single source is not enough - here's NASA's research, and here's the World Health Organization's (WHO) study as well.  I believe the evidence is clear that climate change is happening.  However, because this means that certain parties in the United States will have to pay more money to make sure their drilling and burning does not pollute too much, they decide to confuse the argument with false facts and misleading information.  Instead, they make it a social argument, and turn it into a political debate.  They cry that the way we did things in the past was fine and that we shouldn't be forced to do things we don't want to do.  If that argument ever held up, then cars would made without seat-belts, workers would be working seven days a week and twelve hours a day, and our country would resemble China - who is having problems with their rivers being contaminated with radiation and human waste, and their rain being more acidic across their country.  Other issues have arisen there, as well, due to the lack of climate awareness and pollution reduction.

The scientific facts do not always change the minds of people who refuse to believe that climate change is happening.  You can argue the facts until you are out of breath, and they will continue to assert that 'nature has cycles' or that 'our temperatures and sea levels are completely normal for an Earth going through the ice age melt'.  They sound ridiculous, but people will adamantly stick to their guns because the people misleading them have turned the climate change idea into a social argument.  It becomes the ideology of - typically - the conservative wing of the socio-political environment.  So, to argue that climate change exists means - to them - that you are from the other side of the aisle.  Instead of arguing facts, they argue ideas.  Instead of accepting truth, they revert to what they've 'always' known, and we see cognitive dissonance.  This means that people who have listened to one side of the argument for too long cannot, or do not accept the facts from the other side of the argument, and continue their lives as they always have.

In essence, Climate Change is being refuted by people who think what they've been doing has been fine and has not been hurting the country.  These people are being manipulated into continuing such a train of thought by wealthy individuals or mega-corporations that do not want to change how they do things - most of the times because it will cut a few million off their billions of profits.

The image I keep getting in my head about people arguing against climate change is the man who closes his eyes to lead the people into the forest.  The people all ask him to open his eyes, but he tells them he knew the forest as a child and can lead them blind-folded.  They follow him anyway, because they trust him, and he leads them into a newly inhabited den of wild animals that rip them all to shreds.

I encourage debate about issues, but only if scientific data has not made the argument moot.  This argument is like the arguments we heard for and against cigarettes, or for and against racial integration.  Eventually, facts and experiences will win out over misleading, or misunderstood information.  I just hope we don't have to lose cities to show people the truth.

Tip: When arguing against someone who refuses to believe climate change is happening - use the effects of climate change and ask them them if it is happening.  If they agree that the effects of climate change are happening, then they have agreed that climate change is real.  The argument then becomes whether or not humans have a big or small impact on such a thing.  Good luck!  Change some minds.

The Tea Party Bullies

In recent years, the American public has seen the outrage of people calling themselves the Tea Party Republicans.  These people are an ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party, and have been bullying their way through Congress since 2010.  Why?

They would have you believe they are all about fair taxes and the reduction of needless government spending.  They would have you believe they are fighting for the working class citizens and the rights of the people.  They would have you believe they are shouting the voice of rural America and trying to reform government to make it easier for people to rise up the ranks of the economic ladder.  They would have you believe they are trying to make a stronger America.  In reality, they are doing just the opposite.

Here is a good look at what they claim to be and who they actually are.  The document shows that most of the Tea Party constituents are upper-middle class white males.  Their arguments for fair taxes have actually made the tax code less fair for working class members, and blocking the stimulus packages presented by Obama have actually caused less job growth, and strengthened the upper class of our society.  Their arguments have been heard - tax breaks for job creators.  However, when these tax cuts get involved, they often benefit only the highest earners in our society, and the private sector jobs have not been increasing as much as the corporate profits.  For instance, MacDonald's has seen an increase of four billion dollars profit since Tea Party Republicans took hold, and their average work-force has not budged from the federal minimum wage standards, which have stagnated since 2009.  Another place to look are the banks and wall street, which have made record profits since Tea Party Republicans decided to give them tax credits.

But the most infuriating thing about the Tea Party is their insistence on 'more freedom.'  They have done nothing but try to restrict the freedom of individuals since they came into office.  A liberal website, called Politicus USA marks each and every one of their legislating goals, which include removing the freedom of choice from a woman, returning to a segregated society based on race, allowing murder of abortion clinic doctors, removing the funding of WIC, Medicaid, Welfare, fighting LGBT rights across the country, and allowing Jim Crow laws to return, among other things.

I don't know how this helps the American people have more freedom.  It seems to me that this group of people is fighting to return us to the 1920's, or even the 1850's.  There are even some that want to arm militias to protect against invasion - what kind of invasion they're speaking of, I have no idea.

To me, this group of people are bunch of right-wing nuts who started out with good intentions and got de-railed from the message they originally voiced.  When I first heard about the Tea Party - which was using the fair taxes, equal rights for everyone rhetoric - I thought it was a good idea.  But when I took a better look at what they meant by fair taxes, and listened the rhetoric they continued to spout about bringing more freedoms to the people, I realized they were just a bunch of scared conservatives who were worried about what having a black president would do to them.  That's just my opinion - there are many others, including some from the conservative right, that share my opinion.  Even Rush Limbaugh has said the Tea Party is killing the Republican party.

Here's some more of what the Tea Party has done around the country.  As you can see, they have done more to restrict the freedoms of individuals - save gun rights - and have worked hard to remove the voice of the American populace.  However, because many of their supporters are multi-millionaires and can afford to flood the media sources with misinformation, our population thinks the Tea Party is fighting for the common man.  In fact, they have done nothing of the sort.  They have made it harder for government to create jobs, have used the government to put down the rights of the working class or the poor, and have removed rungs of the social ladder to make it harder for people to fight the tyranny of the wealthy minority.

Yet, when confronted with these facts, the Tea Party resumes their idealistic rhetoric of returning America to what its founding fathers designed.  But what did the founding fathers design?  In my studies, they created a government that could change with the times - adapt to the role it needed to play to protect the rights of the people.  So, what rights have we lost since Obama took office?  Since Tea Party members took hold, they've done nothing but try to regulate the rights of individuals while promoting the rights of corporations.  How has this made our country more free?  How has this made our country's tax system more fair?  How will auditing the IRS prove anything?  How will destroying the Affordable Care Act, the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, or pushing aside the Immigration Reform Bill proposed by Obama do anything to help our country be more free?  I would love to hear some answers on that one, because no Tea Party member has been able to answer them without stuttering through their own rhetoric of what they stand for.

Let's just call the Tea Party what it is, and be done with it.  They're a bunch of bullies. They bull their way into congressional office by speaking a mean game of restoring freedom.  When they gain the seat, the first thing they do is restrict them.  They lie to us, as many politicians do, and tell us they are working to make things better for the common man.  In fact, they make it harder.  They remove our social safety nets by de-funding healthcare (Medicaid and Medicare) for the extremely poor, de-funding social security benefits for elderly and disabled, de-funding infrastructure works to help create middle-class jobs, de-funding welfare (SNAP assistance) and telling us to 'get a job' (which often times pays less than welfare), and they remove the rights of people to voice their opposition through a vote.  How is this strengthening America?

Yet, because their supporters have money, the Tea Party pushes its message on us with their propaganda of returning America to its idealistic past.  I do not want a country bound in slavery.  I don't want a country where women cannot vote or choose abortion if they will not be able to fund, support, or properly care for their child.  While I am personally pro-life, I do believe that everyone should have a choice in the matter, and restricting a woman's rights while simultaneously de-funding the social services that would provide care for the unwanted/improperly cared for children seems a bit draconian and borderline imbecilic.  After a decade of federal 'abstinence only' education, followed by years of welfare/medicaid-medicare/social security destruction - what have Tea Partiers done if they've not hurt the country?  They've forced a moral code on the population of America through legislation.  They've forced their fundamentalist Christian viewpoints on people who may not necessarily be Christian.

In essence, since taking office, they've worked to restrict freedoms, make taxes less fair, and worked to promote the wealthy.  This is exactly to the opposite of what they were founded to do, and I would be ashamed if I ever called myself a supporter of the Tea Party.  Their original message had weight.  Their work goes against their espoused values.  I would call the Tea Party a gang of bullying hypocrites.  But you are free to choose your own opinion, and you are free to believe your own facts - because that's America.  Not this 'my way or the highway' rhetoric the Tea Party has been spouting for the past three years.