Your employees are buying condoms- get over it.

It has recently been brought to headlines that a handful of major corporations do not want to conform to the new health care law because their religious beliefs morally prevent them from doing so. The affordable health care law requires businesses to provide health coverage to their employees- however, this health coverage includes the provisioning of contraceptives.

Contraceptives, in the eyes of Christian owner, David Green, of Hobby Lobby, and many other owners, are forms of abortions- which many Christians look down upon.

50 corporations are pending lawsuits against the Supreme Court because they feel as if they are being forced to break religious law. The problem with this claim is that the majority of such businesses like Hobby Lobby, have stated that they invite a multitude of faiths to work in their stores. So… These companies are aware that they must have employees that aren’t all Pro- Life. And the owners of these corporations all of a sudden decide that they want to enforce their beliefs onto their employees. This sounds bigoted on the employer’s part, because they are reeling in employees and making them think that they have the freedom of their own social practices, but not really.

tumblr_lzaw7sV2EC1r1jls9o1_r1_500

In the above comic, a group of Catholic women are illustrated looking onto their religious officials, who do not want insurance to cover birth control.

Woman’s contraceptives can be used to treat a variety of conditions. Take into consideration a woman with chronic acne. In some types of medical acne treatments, the patients are required to take contraceptive pills because if a woman were to get pregnant, the baby would have deformities and would most likely die. In this case, the contraceptives are necessary for her to take in order to receive the acne treatment. Also, take into consideration a woman or man who cannot afford to have a vasectomy or a tubal ligation procedure. They need to use condoms, pills, or diaphragms until they can afford it.

34882789-ap_supreme_court_birth_control

These employees are relying on their work for insurance. The inclusion of contraceptives are necessary under health coverage. However, even though the government’s health coverage do not conform to the beliefs of ‘Pro-Lifers’, they conform to the general needs of the public.

Maybe Hobby Lobby, and the rest of these corporations, should employ people of their own beliefs, whom they don’t have to worry about ever participating in the purchase of these contraceptives in the first place, instead of getting upset when people who they employed want a prescription of Plan B pills.

If pompous Christian-Pro-life owners don’t want to offer contraceptive coverage to their not-all Christian employees and think they can defy the law, they will be fined a lovely 1.3 million per day.

Happy Belated Thanksgiving!

Sources

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/26/politics/obamacare-court/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/26/us-supreme-court-agrees-to-review-obamacare-contraception-mandate

http://hiring.monster.com/hr/hr-best-practices/workforce-management/employee-benefits-management/health-care-reform.aspx

Advertisements

LBJ and The Assassination of Kennedy: 50 Years

As we all know, November 22, 1963 is a day that Americans will always remember. Today was the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated and Linden B. Johnson took over office. Between the mourning of a wonderful man and the confusion over conspiracies, there is one question Americans must ask in order to understand history just a little bit better: How did the actions of that day influence the next election.

The December 7, 1963 newspaper Star News article tells of how President Johnson looked like an adequate successor of President Kennedy due to his skill in being able to adjust and respond to certain scenarios quickly. This was imperative for the structure and reconstruction of the government after Kennedy’s death; if Johnson was not suitable as president, the citizens would not accept him and the political war Johnson had been fighting to get the presidency would be lost. The Democrats would have been lost forever in the “accidental presidency” of Johnson if he were to fail at becoming the image of renewal the Americans needed. Just like now, the Democratic Party could have been blamed for many governmental fallouts and shifts in governmental protocol. There are many issues relating back to class and what we are studying throughout the year, but now I would like to address the voting situation of the takeover presidency.

LBJ was an inspiring president, standing up and taking an important position in an increasingly difficult time. This contributed greatly to his success in the house and the further success of the Democratic Party in the future. The Electoral College and popular votes were gained during this rough time. Americans saw a man in LBJ that could stand up and overcome amazing obstacles. The statistics show that later in 1964, the results were overwhelmingly for the Democratic Party. http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=1964

Image

There are also many conspiracies covering the whole assassination that Johnson had to address when he went into office. Lee Harvey Oswald, the man accused and suspected of murdering Kennedy, was a prime example of the scandal America had been experiencing with Communist Russia at the time. The Cold War had begun, and relations with the Russians were slim and none, making the Russian defect Oswald even more suspicious. What had been scandalous about Oswald’s situation was the theory that Oswald had defected to America to kill the President for the KGB, and later was ‘silenced’ by a fellow Russian to keep his mouth shut. This entire theory created a scare among Americans, along with the already upcoming “Red Scare”. The way LBJ dealt with the theory and conspiracy created such a calming state of mind for the entire nation that LBJ’s popularity increased even more.

So in many ways, LBJ influenced the outcome of the elections based upon his actions and courage. I believe that LBJ, while among other things, was a fantastic example for Americans in a time of tragedy, building the public up and giving the public the reassuring President they needed.

http://www.chicagonow.com/not-for-jews-only/2013/11/the-jewish-chicagoan-who-killed-lee-harvey-oswald/

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19631207&id=JERjAAAAIBAJ&sjid=MnQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=845,1125156

http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/biographys.hom/lbj_bio.asp

“What If?”: Remembering Kennedy 50 Years Later

The ever elusive question: “what if?”. These two simple words have the ability to haunt many due to the unknown factor they question. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. While many questions surrounding this event question what happened and why it happened, I want to address a separate issue: What if Kennedy had not been assassinated? Kennedy was a relatively young president who had several issues he did not get a chance to finish addressing.

The rather inexperienced socialite politician entered the Presidency at a difficult time; the Vietnam War and Bay of Pigs Crisis, a rough economic situation, and a civil rights issue, Kennedy was facing a plethora of tasks to be completed. After some risky business with Cuba, Kennedy was able to grasp the situation in time and come to a partial treaty, all the while, the economy managed to improve. When Kennedy was killed, he was still in the middle of dealing with issues that Johnson was forced to resume for him.

The Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 after Johnson pushed for it in “honor” of Kennedy; it can be assumed that if Kennedy had not been killed, the same outcome would have taken place. He had planned to wait until his hopeful second term as President to pass this. The upcoming Election of 1964 was also a pending topic on Kennedy’s plate. He expected to face some issues in the race because of his support for civil rights; in fact, one of his major reasons for visiting Dallas was to attempt to build some bridges of support, even though he had not won their support in the prior vote (in a close race). The question of whether or not Kennedy would have won the election can be raised and pondered, but no answer can be definite. Kennedy did have a popular vote of 58% approval rating when he was in office, this being higher than that of other re-elected presidents.

Kennedy had been a major supporter of moon exploration. He had chosen Houston, Texas to be the location of the headquarters of the space research and had also promised to have America on the moon by the end of the decade. He was unfortunately not alive long enough to see the astronauts land in 1969. One can question if there might have been more urgency in exploring space had Kennedy been alive to continue making the appropriate messages of urgency, or if the space timeline would remain the same as it did.

While the President was dismissed from life early, his legacy remains today, especially for North Texas during this time of remembrance. The greatly admired figure lost his life but his spirit remains, setting a youthful example of idealism. Being killed in the midst of these issues caused even more confusion and chaos to the United States, but also managed to bring the country together in the time of mayhem, allowing us to thrive and build off of this great tragedy, just as I can imagine Kennedy would have wanted us to.

Sources:

http://millercenter.org/president/kennedy/essays/biography/1

http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/what-if-jfk-had-survived-his-assassination/

News Reporters Unknowingly Biased

Where do you go for your latest news updates? CNN? NBC? FOX? Everyone has that one source they know they will agree with their opinions and trust their facts. Nowadays, it is nearly impossible to find a news source that will only state the facts without being the tiniest bit biased. Conservative people tend to use the news sites like Fox News, Wall Street Journal or The Drudge Report while the more liberal people tend to use CNN, The Huffington Post and Newsweek. These news sources have the power to sway someone’s thoughts a certain way, give them a slightly opinionated perspective on the story and possibly even twist the facts. When hearing the stories in the news, I solely want to hear the facts without the biased bits sprinkled in, so I decided to compare the same story from two different sources, one conservative and one liberal.

imagesThe story I chose was about a man, falsely accused of a murder, who was just released after ten years in prison. Both sources, CNN and FOX, had both a video and an article but they focused on very different aspects of this whole situation. For example, the CNN report had a one-on-one interview with the man, Ryan Ferguson, and pinpointed his feelings while in prison, when he found out he was freed, and then how he is dealing with everything now. CNN barely stated facts about the actual court case and why he was accuse in the first place. In fact the only aspect of the original case was when the reporters asked Ryan about his thoughts about his friend who had a “dreamlike” testimony that got him in jail. Ryan then responded by saying he holds few grudges against an old pal whose bogus testimony landed him in prison for a decade. In fact, he said, Charles Erickson should be a free man, too.
—-
On the other hand, when looking at the same story on Fox, I learned different facts about the whole situation. While watching the Fox video, they showed a clip of a speech he gave, never directly asking him any questions like CNN did. The reporters were focused more on the beginning story and how Ryan was put from one place to another, they were concerned with the logistics of the court cases, the attorney and focused on how he was finally released after ten years. Both of the news sites were covering the same story, neither one had incorrect or contradictory information but both made a unique stance on the issue at hand.
article-ferguson6-1113
Everyone has their favorite shows, websites and routines. Getting stuck in their own bubble, people never test their beliefs or question their sources. News and media has an incredibly strong impact on how thousands of citizens receive information about what is happening in politics, wars, and crimes. If these reports are biased, then the people’s opinions will be biased, which should not be okay. The previous example given proves the point that the reporters can only report so much, and they are going to choice the information they want to give. Every source will have different approaches and different focus to the story or case, which is imperative for anyone to see. Everyone should be given the facts, that is it. I urge other citizens to look beyond their usual bubble and explore other perspectives and other sides of the story, to not only fully comprehend the circumstance but see other sides of the story as well.

Where do you go to catch up on what’s happening in the political world?

More and more people are turning to social media for political news. Social media provides real time updates that come directly from the source; for example maybe a tweet straight from President Obama’s twitter explaining why he is going to veto a bill. In 2012 more people were using social media, like Facebook and twitter, for political news than people were even using social media at all in 2008. In 2012, according to a study done by Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project, 60% of American adults were using social media and those numbers are growing.6C7089488-engage_blocks_desktop_large Interestingly enough adults who use social media politically that make less than $10,000 are just as politically involved in social media as those who make more than $150,000. 6C7089487-graph1_blocks_desktop_largeSocial media appeals to people from all walks of life just life it appeals to all politicians. With so many people using social media what a better way to share your feelings about the Affordable Healthcare Act then send out a tweet to all your followers. Almost all politicians have twitters and Facebooks but some take it even further. Rep. Eric Swalwell from California vined his “nay” vote on an anti-abortion bill. The scary thing about social media for politicians is it’s permanent. Even if something is deleted after being posted on the internet it is never truly gone; thousands of people could have seen the post even if it was up for only a minute. That is why most politicians have some who manages their social media. It is extremely important that politicians tweet or post or vine or instagram things especially targeted at either their election or reelection. Everything we and others post online is open and sharable.

Social media is political parties’ newest and biggest tool. Since social media is so permanent and influential today, it needs to be the parties’ job to organize and manage social media for their politicians.untitled There is no way social media could replace parties as key organizing and fundraising networks because social media can hurt just as much as it can help if not correctly managed. With great power, like the ability to post to social media, comes great responsibility.  An excellent example of this is Anthony Weiner, a former senator from New York. With two sexting scandals under his belt along with a not so nice YouTube video of him that went viral I would say social media basically ruined his political career. This is a learning opportunity for both parties. If the heads of the democratic party had better managed Weiners’ twitter the second sexting scandal could have been less explosive seeing that it wouldn’t have been on twitter. Political parties should not let politicians manage their own social media. Everyone politician needs to have someone especially on the payroll just to manage Facebook, twitter, vine, and instagram accounts and parties should enforce that.

Sources other than hyperlinks:

http://socialmediatoday.com/contentmoney/1587011/interaction-social-media-politics

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23101813/social-networking-sites-play-more-prominent-role-politics

Political Parties Being Replaced by Social Media

It is an evident part of our lives, the one thing everyone checks periodically throughout the day, and the new craze that is catching attention all around the world: social media. But if we were to intertwine social networking sites and politics together, what would the result be? It would be an innovative way of thinking that is only applicable to our generation right now. Currently, people say that they hear three fourths of news through things like the news, or Facebook. Replacing political parties with Web2.0 sites could definitely act as key fundraising networks in the American political life because of its ability to reach a wide array of people at any given time.

 

Image

                With the ability to share different opinions and sources with the click of a button, people can get their point across without having to set up fancy press events or call in for backup. This makes it especially easy for the various political parties to debate with each other. In a recent study done by CBS news, evidence was shown (in the form of bar graphs) displaying what people do to promote political parties online based on different age groups. For example, the data shows that people ages 18-29 tend to show the highest percentage of liking/promoting political parties, encouraging others to vote, and posting political links on websites such as Facebook.  I believe that this is already a small step in the long run of the slow replacement of political parties in the American Culture.

Image

 

Image

This is especially true considering the fact that these people who are partaking in the advertisement of the parties are in their late teens to early twenties. That is a major achievement coming from such a young generation. Some statistics I found interesting were that liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans are most likely to post links and stories for others to read in order for them to get a point across. Another interesting thing I found while researching political parties and social media is that it is a worldwide trend. People from all over the world are active in social networking. Some countries documented are Africa, Latin America, North America, and South America. Imagine the widespread of information political parties could have if they were replaced with numerous websites that are able to reach anyone at any time. And without the control of political parties, people would be able to choose whom they wanted to vote for, and why. Everyone would have the ability to listen to other’s opinions and research what they choose without feeling like they are forced to choose between certain parties. Social networking helps everyone in the long run because of the easier access to politics. Voting would be more laid-back if we got our resources online for the simple fact that it gives people the freedom to vote for whom they want to on the premise they want to. 

 

Image

 

Sources:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57544570/pew-social-media-as-a-political-tool-on-the-rise/

http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/social_media/review.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media

 

50th Anniversary

This year marks the 50th anniversary for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So far our TVs. our Twitters, our Facebooks, our Instagrams have been flooded with news reports on conspiracy theories both new and old and the continuous retelling of the story on what happened November 22,1963. A lot of people ask themselves, why does this still matter? Why are we still hearing about this?President-John-F-Kennedy2Bwith2Bjackie2Btwo2Bin2Bseat

We are getting into a new generation of people that can no longer be asked the all heard question of “Where were you when you heard JFK was shot?” We are getting into a new generation of people that were not alive at the time he was assassinated or were too young to remember. For example, I am seventeen years old, and I cannot relate to those who were alive and remember this horrific event in history. However, just because some of us were not alive at the time, or were not old enough to remember does not mean that this event is no longer significant.

When I hear about this assassination I think to myself how it seems as though it is a mythical story. The young handsome athletic man getting murdered at the height of his glory. Many people talk about Kennedy being the most charming, the most handsome, the most idealistic man and then he gets murdered instantly. In the four days after the assassination, televisions ran on an average of thirty-two hours. Almost every American was watching the same story told by the same newscast day after day after day. For these few days the United States truly became united. All watching the same thing for days on end all asking themselves “Who did this?”jfk-in-his-own-words-1024

Those that are tired of hearing the new and old Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories or the stories of how it happened, you continually disappoint me. Most of these people are the people that were not around at the time of this horrific event and I am sure they would think differently if they were alive. However, if you were not around or were just too young to remember is it really a big deal to you if our 35th President has a day or one week at the most dedicated to him? I believe for one week it is completely okay to have social media and television repeatedly telling this story. I do not mind having my Twitter and Facebook page full of tweets saying something as simple as “RIP JFK” or my Instagram full of pictures of Kennedy. Is it not important for those that were not alive at the time to gain some historical knowledge on one of the most well-known assassinations? And most importantly, I believe out of respect to his family we all need to be aware of this tragic event. My hope would be that as time passes Americans continue to remember events in history whether they were around for it or not.