Republicans Refuse Aid to Ailing Heroes

On Thursday, July 29th, many people were shocked (and perhaps slightly frightened) as they watched footage of an enraged Democratic Representative, Anthony Weiner, give (well, shout actually) a very hostile, 90 second speech aimed toward the House Republicans. But what exactly made Mr. Weiner angry enough to lose his cool like that in front of so many people? Well, it was because the Republicans were able to secure enough votes, which led to the rejection of a bill to give $7.4 billion in health care to the 9/11 responders who fell ill after working to save the lives of others.

Basically the fire fighters, policemen, and paramedics of New York are more than welcome to risk their lives to help clean up a terrorist attack on the nation, however their efforts do not warrant any sort of medical compensation from the government. I understand, that is their job and what these men and women signed up for -- but I think it's more a matter of respect and the right thing to do. I mean, if those who risked their lives for this country can't get free health care then what hope do the rest of us, non-heroic citizens have? And what about those who volunteered to help and fell ill? Should they be punished for being good people? Let's face it, with out them many more lives would have been lost on 9/11.

And if rejecting the bill was an issue of "taxation" as many Republicans claimed, why not get the public (who would essentially be paying for this health care) more involved. According to the Democrats, this bill would be paid for by a "tax loophole," which throws out that argument. Furthermore, why is it okay for the public to pay for bogus government projects in the form of pork-barreling or earmarking. One example of this is the proposed $398 million Gravina Island Bridge that was to be built to connect the island's 50 residents to the mainland. Yes, that's right. 50 residents. And an airport. The Republicans of our nation will stand behind this project, but not give health care to those who deserve it.

So perhaps the Republicans truly thought that the rejection of this bill was a good idea; chances are that the ground zero workers will still get $713 million in the form of a settlement, which is better than nothing. However I believe that we missed a chance to reward those who have been good to our nation. The House missed the chance to do what was right and not act "cowardly," as Weiner put it.

Modern Civil Rights

Ann Coulter is a well-known political commentator and author (among other things) who is known for her extremely conservative opinions. She is a woman unconcerned with being impartial when speaking on public issues, which has stirred up much controversy in the past. Her online blog, AnnCoulter.com showcases her right-wing opinions, as we can see with her May 26th piece, "Modern Civil Rights: Cockfighting and Same-sex Proms". This article is just one example of the many biased, over-emotional, and outright annoying rants this woman has imposed on today's nation. While Ms. Coulter is obviously a very intelligent woman, having graduated from law school and worked for the Senate Judiciary Committee, her words convey a sense of immaturity and extreme prejudice that I find hard to get past.

Ann Coulter's "Modern Civil Rights..." blog was written in order to defend Republican Senate nominee Rand Paul after he asked to discuss whether "federal civil rights laws should be applied to private businesses". Because of this, Paul has been accused of racism. However Coulter argues here that the issue is not whether business can "engage in race discrimination" but whether civil rights laws should be able to stop any sort of discrimination. While I think that this is a valuable discussion, the writer turns this article into a war between Republicans and Democrats, which in my opinion completely misses the point of the whole issue. Her evidence of Democrat wrong-doing lies in past events (which in some cases are a stretch to connect to the issue) such as the fact that Al Gore's father and Bill Clinton's mentor (William Fulbright) were opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. She goes on to talk about the Constance McMillen same-sex prom incident, later alluding to her as an "irritating lesbian", and "lawsuit-happy disabled persons", unable to hide her conservative views from the matters. But the real question is, what exactly is she talking about? The article seems to be about civil rights, however Coulter spends so much time griping about democrats and lesbians that she does not have a compelling argument for her confusing point.

Perhaps the article would be easier to read if Coulter did not riddle it with sarcastic rhetorical questions, air-quotes, and mean-spirited jabs at the Democratic party every chance she got. We get the picture. She hates liberals... and thinks she's clever and cool because she doesn't care what anyone thinks about her narrow-minded views. Although, maybe she is the smart one after all. By that I mean I'm pretty sure my blood pressure was a little higher after reading that article; I felt more passion for something politically oriented than I have in a long time. However that being said, maybe some day Ms. Coulter will remember that a little bit of niceness goes a long way.

National Government Sues Arizona Over Immigration Law

On July 7th, USA Today's editorial board (a group comprised of seasoned editorial editors, writers, and journalists that collaborate on editorials for the establishment) published an article concerning the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's newest immigration law. The editorial board page gives pictures and a short bio of each of it's ten members, a seemingly diverse group of people eventually brought together by a love of journalism. While I'm sure there are two sides to every story, this particular view seems to be in opposition to the decisions of the government. The writer uses words such as "righteous", "pretend", and "suffered" to paint a picture of a villainous government taking advantage of an already weakened state. These words, which have bad connotation, can give the reader a sense of sympathy to Arizona through the use of ethos and pathos.

The law in question "requires local police to question the legal status of anyone they reasonably suspect" of being in America illegally. USA Today's editorial board conveyed their extreme annoyance in regards to the lawsuit, claiming that Arizona would not have had to create this law if "Washington had done its job enforcing federal immigration laws in the first place". Essentially, the writer of this article is trying to put them blame on the government. This article relies on the argument that the government is acting prematurely, instead of waiting for racial profiling to actually happen. But isn't it part of the government's job to eliminate a problem before it occurs? Seeing as how the problems formerly mentioned are the only ones presented in the article, we must question which side is really the right one and not just go with the ideas put in front of us.

Though the feelings in the article are valid (in that we have not necessarily seen the reforms in immigration laws that we would like to), I think that we must always remember to be patient. Some may not agree with the President and his actions regarding certain topics, however things are not always as simple as they seem. And furthermore, while the immigration laws may benefit America in terms of more job opportunities, is it ethical to force someone out of this country who so badly wants to turn their lives around? We pride ourselves on being the land of opportunity, which should apply to everyone. And although the writer stresses the fact that this law is popular among citizens, we cannot be sure how accurate the statistics are. Are the people voting well informed? Have they truly investigated what the law entails?

The article's conclusion goes on to help redeem itself somewhat with the idea of a compromise, which is probably a good idea -- if agreements can be made without creating even more tension between state and national governments.

While it must be frustrating for those eagerly awaiting the day that the national government finally makes it's immigration laws more strict, one must also see this situation from Washington's standpoint. Though many in favor of the law may say a lawsuit is premature, perhaps the government is really trying to protect the state by preventing racial profiling and the trouble that may ensue.

Health Plans Must Provide Some Tests at No Cost

Health care is a popular topic these days. It's written about in the news, talked about on television, and discussed by anyone and everyone with an opinion concerning politics. It seems like we've gone through countless months of promises of reforms and complaints from the public, however, as The New York Times reports, we are now one step closer to the more easily accessible health care plan that many seek. On Wednesday the White House laid down new rules that will force health insurance companies to offer free coverage for many types of preventative care. This includes processes such as vaccinations, cancer screenings, blood pressure tests and even counseling to help quit smoking -- which will cut health care costs for a large percentage of Americans and hopefully encourage them to get the proper treatment that they need. While some people may not think this is that big of a reform, studies have shown that the public is only using these preventative services at half of the rate of doctor recommendations -- most likely due to the build up of cost that can occur. Without the daunting doctor bills it is extremely possible that the public will more so utilize these health services and help America take one step further in creating a better nation.

This article is extremely worth the three minutes of reading time (or sixty seconds of skimming), as it mentions many more free preventative services that will be available to the public. Furthermore it is very important to spread the word of these changes so that everyone will (hopefully) be more inclined to go out and seek the appropriate health care for themselves and their loved ones.