The Government fails us yet again

The government has a duty to provide for the people and ease their troubles. It was made to make life more civil and less chaotic. Unfortunately, it doesn't protect us from the smallest attackers: Disease. See, the United States protects people from fires and the "horrors" of marijuana, yet refuses to provide healthcare for everyone. A lawyer is provided for criminal cases to make sure you don't go to jail due to the sixth amendment, but you have to go to the ER if you have a cut that is infected with Gangrene. Where does the sense lie in that? Jail is at least slightly better than dying of Gangrene, so why not provide a doctor when needed as well? When I worked at Flextronics, Chris, a coworker of mine was telling my why he chose to get the insurance the factory was offering, despite it being crappy coverage that was fairly pricey. He had a really bad infected tooth awhile back and was unable to afford a dentist. So, he drank a bunch of whiskey and ripped out the tooth with a pair of pliers. Is this the type of care we want? To force people to cut off their limbs if they get Gangrene? I also was admitted to a hospital due to a severe illness that nearly killed me. We had my dad's very good IBM insurance, so that definitely helped. For two weeks, it cost 6,000$ for the care I received. Insurance took care of 4,000$ of it, but that still left us with 2,000$ to pay, when I was quitting my job because it was very toxic to my health and my family was not exactly rolling in money. With socialized medicine, we can provide some for all. It won't be high quality care for everyone, but at least it gives people something. It will save money as well, since people go in for medical care in crisis situations, which is the most expensive part, and are obviously unable to pay, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the tab. Socialized medicine at least makes sure that people don't have to try to deal with fatal or debilitating illness rather than going to the hospital, for fear of medical bills in the age where we are able to send rockets into space and can make roll up TVs. Plus, socialization has helped much of society. There are socialized schools that have brought intelligence way up. Back in the Dark Ages, people rarely had the luxury of being able to read. Nowadays, people have baseline levels of education that allows them to function in the world. Other nations have socialized health care, and let people find private options for specialized illnesses or cases if they need better care. In conclusion, the National Government MUST socialize medicine! It is their duty to provide for the American People!

The Los Angeles Times gets it

On October 6, 2015 the Los Angeles Times published an article titled: The issue isn't mental illness, it's too easy access to firearms.I decided to give a critique on this editorial.

I took a look at an editorial on how mass shootings are not due to the mental health of the shooters, but more due to how easily firearms are to get in this country. I personally agree with it, and have evidence on why the argument is sound.

For starters, the article is persuasive and simple enough for anyone to understand for the common man. The target audience appears to be liberals, anti-gun activists, and the mentally ill.

I couldn't find one specific author, so I went with the person that seemed to have written it. His name is Scott Martelle. He spent over 30 years in news rooms, and his work has appeared in The Washington Post, Sierra Magazine, and Esquire.com. Lastly, he has covered a wide range of topics, ranging from presidential elections, books and publishing, among many other topics.

The author was arguing that just because someone has a mental illness, doesn't slate them to be the next shooter. Evidence of this includes: "As President Obama noted in the wake of the Umpqua Community College mass killing in Oregon last week, this is not the only country with people suffering from mental illness..." If mental illness is world wide, the problem should be world wide, yet it is much more common for America, as the President himself pointed out. There is also:"...Vivek Murthy as surgeon general...that gun violence is a public health issue; he eventually promised not to use his office to press that point, a grotesque muzzling of a heathcare professional." The surgeon general (a type of office held by those very proficient in the medical field) said that this was a public health issue, not a mental health issue, like the title of the editorial. Finally, there is the number of guns in America:"There already are more than 300 million guns in the United States..." With so many guns, if it was mental health (which affects 18.2% of the population, according to Google), then there should be much more gun violence incidents. There are quite a few, but the number would be much higher if it was indeed mental illness.

The conclusion is that gun violence is not due to mental illness. Both the President of the United States, and the surgeon general agree that this has nothing to do with mental health. The conclusion is a logical one, as evidence in the form of quotes and statistics on the amount of guns.

The scapegoating of the mentally ill in order to avoid talking about gun control is one of the arguments the author is calling out. The author is saying that the mentally ill are not violent monsters about to shoot up a school, and it is more due to the ridiculous amount of guns available. Also being said is that there needs to be lobbying and research into the public health issue of gun control.

New York Times on GOP's homophobia

On September 12, 2015, the New York Times published an article titled: G.O.P Anti-Gay Bigotry Threatens First Amendment. Below I have provided my critique and thoughts on the subject.

For my Blog 3 assignment, I decided to take a look at an editorial on the GOP threatening the First Amendment with their anti-gay bigotry. I personally agree with it, and will show you evidence as to why it is a solid argument.

The article is well written and very easy to understand, as it uses language at a simple level. The audience is liberals and gay allies. The author is sort of an amalgamation. I was unable to find a single person, so I used The Editorial Board of the New York Times. A few people worthy of mention here are: Andrew Rosenthal, and Francis X. Clines.

Andrew Rosenthal has been an editorial page manager since 2007, and has been in the business since 1988, in which he covered the presidential elections and the Persian Gulf War. Francis X. Clines is a man that deals with National Politics, Congress, and Campaign Finance. He spent 40 years as a reporter for the Times, before he joined the editorial board. He won the Meyer Berger Award as well as a polk award for coverage of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The author was arguing that the GOP is going to mess with the first amendment because they are so against the homosexual lifestyle. They exhibit evidence of this such as: “Many religious leaders and clergy members are themselves deeply disturbed by the proposed legislation; more than 3,000 signed a letter opposing it on the grounds that genuine religious liberty “does not allow us to harm or discriminate against others.” As well as:” As critics of the bill quickly pointed out, the measure’s broad language — which also protects those who believe that “sexual relations are properly reserved to” heterosexual marriages alone — would permit discrimination against anyone who has sexual relations outside such a marriage. That would appear to include women who have children outside of marriage, a class generally protected by federal law.”

Their logic is that the bill is harmful, because even the people that the GOP are supposedly representing it, called it out as something that is not genuine religious liberty “Genuine religious liberty “does not allow us to harm or discriminate against others.” As well as critics said it allowed discrimination against people who have sex outside of a marriage, which is discrimination, something the first amendment is supposed to protect against.

Their conclusion is that the GOP is so homophobic that they are allowing discrimination that even the leaders of their religion think they are going too far. Their conclusion is valid as they present evidence of their claim in the forms of quotes and links to other articles.

This attack on the first amendment that the GOP is committing is showing they are so disorganized (or hate filled, could go either way) they will do things that make no sense or negative sense (goes backward instead of staying where they are or forward).