I'm still alive, you?

Well, the whole health care thing has passed. Ask me in five or ten years what I think of it, because it's so hard to say without reading the whole thing. Republicans say one thing and Dems say another. So, let's just discuss some of the general principles and ask some questions.



First of all, I'm totally supportive of helping people get health care. I don't think anyone should have to go through unnecessary pain or death, because we have good enough medical knowledge in this country to help nearly everyone. However, some people don't get it because they can't pay for it. I would like to say that emergency rooms accept and treat everyone. You can get health care if you don't have insurance, it's just costly for you or other people who do have insurance.

Even though I think it's good morally that everyone gets treated, the economics don't make total sense to me. Yet. They might eventually, but I don't understand how requiring insurance will help, as people will still be unable to afford it. Also, forcing insurance companies to insure every person who asks for coverage seems like it would raise prices for everyone. I don't want to sound harsh, but if someone without insurance is requiring million dollar treatments, and they go ask for insurance, is that really insurance at that point? The company is going to pay out a hell of a lot more than the person will ever pay in.

So I'm not going to pass too much judgment on this bill until we have to live with it. I think anyone who was worried that the world was going to end was crazy. I'm sorry to disappoint them, but the fact that the Democrats were finally able to pass something doesn't mean armageddon, and it doesn't make them bad people.

In fact, the consistently partisan efforts are what make Congressmen and women bad. Instead of trying to come up with something good for the American people, especially their own constituents, they work to come up with something that is good for their party. I wish we could get past that and become a country governed by the people, not by political parties and their motives.

Congress has a lower approval rating than the Pres?

A shorty, but a goody. Or at least a thought provoker, so I have to say something...

First of all, this really improves my approval of the American people. I thought people didn't care, but I must have been wrong, and boy am I glad. I can actually say that this is one of thew few approval polls that I care about, and am actually happy about.

It's nice to see that people now care about what their leaders do. We elect congressmen and congresswomen so that they can voice our opinions in the national government. The ideal representative puts aside their personal values (unless they are aligned with their constituents) in order to happily serve the people they serve. However, in today's highly partisan politics, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Should we totally clean out Congress, though? Probably not. If we did do that, no one there would have any idea of what to do, or what things are going on at the moment. It wouldn't be good. However, I do think it would be good to get rid of some of the politicians that have been there for thirty, fourty years. That's a little ridiculous. Their district can't find anyone else? I just find it hard to believe that someone who has spent so much time on Capitol Hill would still have the drive to be a good leader.

Congress should be more responsible than the President. To me, the President, a single person, is the one who should be proposing crazy measures, not a group of 535 individuals acting collectively. Normally, you would expect them to wring out the radicalism.

Continuing relations with Mid-East is healthy, needed

Finally, an inspiration from something other than the New York Times. I haven't heard much about Pakistan since their election craziness, but it was nice to read this article on Newsweek by Fareed Zakaria. Apparently, the Obama administration is doing some good work in the country, which is a great achievement for international relations in any Middle-Eastern country.


It's tough for America to be popular in the Middle East. We are almost single-handedly running a war in two countries. We continue sending soldiers to their countries to fight people who are more like them than like us. Our presence alone increases the number of civilian deaths, so I think it is reasonable for Middle- Easterners to feel some degree of contempt. It has to be tough to be overrun by a foreign country that believes its values are better than yours. In the U.S., we don't have to worry about fighting in our lands, but they do.

We also pump billions of dollars into the oil rich countries. While this may seem like a nice perk of American greediness, much of the money stays in the hands of a few incredibly wealthy individuals. The rest of the people don't benefit much from the profits. If I were one of the disadvantaged, I would hate American greediness as well.

Even though most of the people in the Middle East don't hate the United States, it's still a good thing when we create healthy relations with foreign countries. We are always so involved in their affairs, that it may seem to everyone that we try to control everyone else. It's especially important to create strong ties with growing nations such as India, that already outnumber the United States' population, and will soon have power to match.

I commend the Obama administration, and the Bush administration that started this work, on their work in Pakistan and Israel. Peace with any nation is wonderful, but it's tougher to obtain in some.

Iowans are good drivers!

It's funny that I should choose to write about texting laws, because at the moment, America's Worst Driver (America's Worst TV Show) is on TV. I'm not sure how much these people text or call whilst driving, but I know that I do sometimes. I know, it's not safe, but I have to respond!

Normally I talk about Congress and the federal government. Now, however, I am going to talk about the Iowa legislature and their attempts at curbing cell phone use in vehicles. They're trying to pass a ban on texting while driving, but what I didn't know until a few days ago is that they are also trying to ban handheld electronic use entirely. That includes talking on your cell phone. Yes, I do both sometimes without a law against it. Would I support a ban? Yes. I think that using a cell phone, especially texting, can add incredible danger to an already dangerous activity. Talking on the phone takes a hand out of use and distracts you. Texting while driving takes (for some) two hands, your concentration, and your eyes.

However, some of the proposed rules make me think twice about a ban. The first one is that the current house bill bans only the sending of text messages, not the reading. Does that make sense? Well, the fact that you are forced to keep your hands on the wheel is good. But you shouldn't be able to read text messages! That takes your eyes off the road for far too long.

Plus, how will cops be able to tell which you are doing? Any texting law seems hard to enforce unless it is for every driver holding a phone. However, it would still be hard to prove. Cops can prove that you were speeding with radar, but how will they prove that you were texting?

The second stipulation was the one that made me scream. The Iowa house changed their bill to ban only teenage drivers (16-17). What good is that going to do? Teenagers make up a small portion of drivers on the road, and adults text just as much. Adults might even talk on the phone more than teenagers. How many soccer moms do you know that are always on the phone when they're chauffering their children? I know a few.

And another problem for cops: are they supposed to guess who's a teenager? Should we be forced to put stickers on our car that announce, "TEEN DRIVER?" It seems outrageous.

Targeting teenagers for texting seems like a cheap way to ticket them to get them off the road. More than that, though, it allows the adult legislators to continue using their phones when they drive.

I will regulate you, but don't regulate me!

I hate always using the NY Times, but until I find another website that allows one to access articles without having to sign-in, I will keep using it. With that said, this NY Times blog post gave me a few questions.

The post was mostly about Obama and the Democrats using regulation of Wall Street as a 'crowd pleaser' that would help at midterms. That may be true, but that's not what I want to talk about. The whole time I was reading this, I was just thinking, "Oh great, another invasion of the government into our lives and our work." On top of that, they want to regulate Wall Street when they seem to be just as reckless with money.

Let's just say that I'm a parent with a child. I constantly give my child an allowance, because I love him so, and I set him up with sweet jobs so he could easily make more. Basically, I help him out a lot. As for me, I make decent money, but I always seem to be in debt. I owe tons of money on the house and the three cars. Oh, and the vacation home. I like to spend money, I just can't help it. One day, my beloved son wants to spend $200 on a bike, and I say no, because I consider that reckless. Is that fair, that I am allowed to spend as much as I want, but because I am in a position of power, I try to regulate the spending of others? I think that is something that the American government and the American people need to think about.

Speaking of these American people, who the government is supposed to be of, by, and for, the post says that the Pew Research Center found that three-fifths of Americans support tougher regulation of Wall Street. I don't want to bash on my people, but I find it hard to believe that 3/5 of the country invests, or even knows what Wall Street does. Americans, myself included, need to become more aware of what our politicians tell us. It is wrong to vote them into office, and then allow them to control us like they do. We should be controlling them, holding them accountable for everything that they do.

I wish three-fifths of Americans supported tougher regulation of Congress, but the politicians probably wouldn't tell us that.