Wild Winter Weather

A storm combining snow, ice, and rain is causing chaos throughout the midwest and is expected to continue through New Year's Day. In particular, it has recently caused a 100-car pileup in Fargo, ND on Interstate 94. As a result of the pileup and worsening weather conditions of snow and wind, the interstate closed. The pileup originally started when two semi-trucks jackknifed on Thursday night. Highway Patrol were even having to rescue drivers by snowmobile and foot because the visibility and road conditions were so terrible. Three people were taken to the hospital. Out towards Denver they received the heaviest snow of the season on Friday morning and even parts of Wyomig and New Mexico are preparing for freezing temperatures and stormy weather. Phoenix, AZ also woke up to temperatures below freezing Friday morning because the storm had left a snowy mix of precepitation on the edges of the city the day before. People were shocked upon seeing snow because it is so rare there. Strong winds have also creates snow dunes on rooftops, streets, and yards across mountanious areas of Arizona. Because of this, two major thoroughfares in northern Arizona were closed, which stranded people just south of the Grand Canyon and Flagstaff. New Mexico, Colorado, Wyomig, Montana, and Nevada also all have major roadways shut down due to the storm. Up to a foot of snow is predicted to fall in the Denver and Colorado Springs area while the eastern plains are expected to get about 7 inches. Ski resorts are happy for the snow, but it has trapped some skiers on the mountain and prevented others from coming. This is because roads have been closed to those resorts because of dangerous conditions and the threat of avalanches. United Airlines has had to cancel 32 flights from Denver on Thursday alone. This storm has had a significant portion of the country in its clutches and is causing trouble for many.

This story first caught my attention because of its headline, "100-Car Pileup in Fargo, ND." I travel that area of Interstate 94 quite often because I take saxophone lessons from a college professor that lives up there. In fact I was there only two days ago, and it's amazing to me how drastically things can change in such a short amount of time! When something like this huge pileup occurs, I wonder if there was any way in could have been prevented. The only thing I can think of is if they could've closed Interstate 94 before conditions become so bad that the pileup occured. Today with our technology we have gotten pretty precise and accurate in predicing weather, so maybe it should become policy to shut down major highways and interstates before conditions become terrible. Of course, I also understand people have places to go and that would cause people to get upset, especially if conditions aren't bad yet, but at least it would ensure people's safety. I also found it shocking how places as far south as New Mexico and Phoenix, AZ are seeing snow! That, I'm sure, doesn't happen very often! One of my friends in in Phoenix right now for vacation, and I'm sure the family she was visiting has given them a hard time about bringing Minnesota's weather to Phoenix. It is kind of ironic how that works! I think what these storms remind us is that we aren't all-powerful. Some things are out of our control, like mother nature. In a way, these storm humble us and force us to slow down and re-examine our life in the midst of our busy schedules.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40861490/ns/weather/

Holiday Shopping Shows Income Gap

Some analysts and investors are reporting this year that "the American consumer is back," but in actuality, it's "some consumers." This shopping season has shown America the big picture of the growing income gap between upper and lower income households. This is largely due to the unemployment outlook. Those on the higher end are feeling more secure in their jobs and their incomes increasing, so they are willing to buy much more this year. Statistics say that the unemployment rate for those with a college degree is at 5%. However, those on the lower end are facing an unemployment rate of about 16% and a decrease in wages. This causes them to not feel very secure in their jobs and forces them to focus on necessities. Retailers that cater to low-income families, such as Wal-Mart are seeing decreases in revenue, while retailers geared towards high income families are experiencing their best sales this season of the past three years. Some days they have even had to close their stores because they ran out of merchandice! These high-income households are so confident in spending because in the third quarter this year they've seen their household net worth jump up by $1.2 trillion because the stock market saw a $1.9 trillion rise in financial assets. People who are weathy are now very willing to pay top dollar for luxury brands. Online retailers are also showing strong sales this year as they are up 12% overall. Still though, low-income households are having a hard time, largely due to the falling value of real estate and the fact that they don't own any stocks or bonds. The "rich" are the ones spending this year and who are increasing overall spending data, while the "average" and low-income people are not. Overall, the American consumer is still depressed, but a growing number are not.

I find this article hesitantly optimistic. I think it's heartening because it's saying that there are some people who are willing to spend money--and alot of it--again. Although these are just the weathy Americans, at least it's some. It's been 3 years since the weathy have spent as much as they are now.This may be one of the first signs that the economy is turning around. I mean, low-income families can never really spend alot money, because they just don't have it. They may not be buying as much as before the recession, but I don't think they were ever really able to make purchases like the high-income households, and therefore they probably wouldn't have as much of an effect on the overall consumer statistics and economy. I do find it unfortunate, though, that there has to be such a gap between the "rich" and the "poor." There is something not right in our government if the rich can continue to get richer while the poor continue to get poorer, which is what seems to be happening. If we truely are coming out of the recession, then I would think both ends would be seeing improvements, not just the weathy. That's why I'm hesitant to believe this article is a "good sign."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40593905/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

A Town's Battle for Tolerance

In Sidney, New York, a town of about 6,000 and located 150 miles north of New York City, there has been a debate over religious tolerance that has sparked the attention of the nation. In November of 2009, a Sufi Muslim man, Amir Celoski, was killed in a car accident and was the first to be buried in a Sufi cemetary located on Wheat Hill Road in the town. Nine months later, it ignited a huge controversy after a second Sufi man was buried there. At a meeting with the Board of Supervisors in the town, the leaders voted to investigate the Sufi graves. The Sufis had gotten burial permits and followed the proper procedures, but the town Supervisor, Robert McCarthy, still called the graves illegal and said the bodies should be dug up and removed from their town. He said, "You can't just bury Grandma under the picnic table." McCarthy then became a symbol for Muslim-bashing everywhere. Sidney soon attracted the label of an Islamophonic, backwards, and ignorant town. In response, many people in the town bonded together and spoke out against the Board of Supervisors. Over 150 people who had never been to a town meeting or even ever met a Muslim showed up after hearing the accusations against the Sufis and shouted, "Shame on you," and "Apologize," to the Board members. They believe what the Board of Supervisors had done was wrong and wanted to make it right. The Board soon dropped the cemetary issue, but the movement that it had caused within the town was far from over. These people who were fighting for tolerance went to the Sufi center 8 miles from town and also talked with the shiek. They were determined that Sidney would become a prime example of tolerance and understanding. Both sides of the issue still run high in the town, however, with McCarthy supporters holding meetings promoting that all Muslims are terrorists, the Sufis have pictures of Osama Bin Laden at their center, and that the town would still be better off if they dug up their graves and left. The people counteracting that, lead by Han Hass, have been talking with national media, writing letters to town leaders and state officials, and attending meetings of the new group, "Concerned Citizens for Responsible Sidney Government." They are determined to end predjudices and hurtful assumptions that all Muslims are storing weapons, are a cult, or planning something evil. The Sufis in the town are extremely grateful and the town shiek has said, "this can show the world that we can live peacefully as Muslims and non-Muslims, that we can share the same land, that a small town can show the whole country is not mirred in Islamophobia." Others say it fills their heart that people whom they never knew would reach out and help them, and want to get to know them. The people leading this movement insist that we must get to know these Muslims as individuals-the mother giggling at her 14 month year old son, the old man and his walker he needs to walk into his mosque, the beekeeper-so on and so forth. McCarthy still insists, though, that his sole purpose was to decrease tax dollars. He thought that could be accomplished by getting rid of the cemetary. He denies that his proposal had anything to do with them being Muslim. Of course, many people in the town beg to differ. They are working to bring the Muslims justice and to encourage that all fear of them will go away if you only take the time to get to know them.

I found this story very moving. Often we would like to think that today, in 2010, our country has progressed enough to not be prejudiced or condeming to other cultures, religions, and races. Unfortunatly this is not the case. Personally, I think some of the people we are most judgemental upon are Muslims. The reason for this fear of Muslims is rooted in 9/11, which does make sense. However, we need to realize that the Muslims who carried out the attacks were part of an extremist group who view jiihad as a battle against other people and religions and have a hatred of Americans in particular. The vast majority of Muslims are NOT this way. They are peaceful people who view jiihad as an internal struggle to become a better person. I think that our accusations against Muslims in our country is just terrible. This story is a perfect example of it. Here were these peaceful Sufi Muslims living in small town America, and all they wanted was to bury one of their loved ones who had died. They got a permit and went through all the right procedures, and a few months later were told they may have to dig their loved ones up and take them somewhere else. How awful! These Sufis hadn't done anything against the law or anything wrong at all! I'm so glad people in the town stood up against the Board of Supervisors and told them that what they did was wrong. It makes me proud that they have been taking the time to get to know these Muslims as people, not just inaccurate stereotypes. And what have they found out? That they are normal human beings just like us. Yes, they have some different customs, viewpoints, and religious views than the majority of Americans who are Christians like myself, but we need to be accepting and tolerant of each other so that we can live as one country in peace. Since the foundings of our country, we have prided ourselves upon the fact that we are a place of religious freedom and the "melting pot" of many different people. Then because of that we have become one of the most successful countries in the world. Why would we ever want to go backwards and virtually "outlaw" other peoples? I think it's because we're scared of differences, but we have always prided ourselves on that and we need to continue to!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40629213/ns/us_news-life/

The 12 Days of Christmas Would Now Cost Almost $100,000

If a person was to buy all 364 items listed in the twelve days of Christmas, it would now cost almost $100,00. This is an increase of 10.8% compared to last year, according to the Christmas Price Index. Even if you bought one of everything in the song, it would still cost $23,439, which is 9.2% more than last year. This is according to the 27th annual holiday index, and in the past it has always mirrored the national Consumer Price Index, however, this year it does not. The Christmas Price Index grew about 9.2% this year and there was just a 1.1% increase in Consumer Price Index. This large difference is probably because the Christmas Price Index looks at a relatively small and "whimsical" group of services, compared to the much larger Consumer Price Index. Even in the index, there are goods that have seen small increase and goods that have seen large increases. Gold prices are also high with an increase of 30%, which makes the golden rings about $650 each. The price of food and the availability of birds has also drastically increased-turtle doves by 78.6% and french hens by 233%. Four items didn't see an increase though, those including a pear tree, four calling birds, six geese, and eight maids-a-milkings. Nine ladies dancing was the most expensive at about $6,300 with a 15% increase, and the cheapest was a partridge for $12 with a 20% increase. The good news is that these higher prices are not necessarily a bad thing. They mean the economy is improving.

Personally, I found this whole study a bit frivolous. I mean, who would really buy all those things in the 12 days of Christmas anyway? And almost every object is so absurd, that no one would would buy any of the items, aside from maybe a golden ring. It's funny that they do a study each year to find out how much it would cost to buy everything, that in my opinion are not very good examples of goods in our market, and compare it to other years. I suppose it's a constant 12 random items that they can keep track of and compare easily, so I guess it could be viewed as a controlled scientific study. If the results are truly reliable and predict real trends in society and our economy, then I would view the study as worth it. It will be interesting to see if the dramatic increase in prices from last year to this year will actually show in the statistics that prove the health of our economy. I have my doubts on this, because although I do think the economy is better, I don't think it has drastically improved in 2010, nor will it in 2011. It's suprising to me how the Christmas Price Index has grown over 9%, while the Consumer Price Index has grown only about 1%. I would guess this would mean that although Christmas prices and buying are up, the overall consumer buying and economy has not greatly grown. That would be the only way I could make sense of those numbers. It will be interesting to see if these predictions hold true with all the other statistics that come out at the end of the year.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40418705/ns/business-us_business/

Could Wild Tigers Be Extinct in 12 Years?

Wild tigers could become extinct in as little as 12 years if countries don't soon take action to protect their habitat and crack down on poaching. The World Wildlife Fund says that fewer than 3,200 tigers remain in the wild, while a century ago there was over 100,000. This huge drop is because their habitat is being destroyed by forest cutting and construction, and their skins and body parts are used in Chinese traditional medicine and therefore fetch a huge prize for poachers. The summit that is going on to bring awareness to this issue is hosted by Russian Prime Minister Vladmir Putin who has used tigers and other animals to support his image. A wide-ranging program with the goal of doubling the world's tiger population by 2022 was approved by the summit. It's backed by 13 countries that still have wild tiger populations. These nations include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Thailand, Vietnam and Russia. Specialized reserves are also being set up for the tigers with the effort to restore and conserve the forests around them to help the tiger population to expand. One way these nations are funding this is by donor commitments. The Global Tiger Recovery Program that was approved at the summit estimates that $350 million is needed in outside funding in the first five years of the 12 year plan in order for it to work. Many supporters of this plan say that saving tigers have a much higher effect the idea of preserving a graceful and majestic animal. In the words of the Global Tiger Initiative, "Wild tigers are not only a symbol of all that is splendid, mystical and powerful about nature. The loss of tigers and degradation of their ecosystems would inevitably result in a historic, cultural, spiritual, and environmental catastrophe for the tiger range countries." The subspecies of the Bali, Javan, and Caspian have already become extinct in the last 70 years. The hope is that these new efforts will be more succesful than the highly diverse efforts of the past.

I am hopeful that these new programs to help save the tigers will work. Even though I'm not much of a fan of tigers, I think it's sad whenever any kind of species is in danger of becoming extinct, especially when it's the fault of human civilization. These tigers were here before us, and now we have destroyed their land for our purposes and poachers have killed them for the sake of making money. How much more selfish can we get? Now obviously, we need some land to build buildings and homes on, but I don't think we should do it to the point of causing animals to become extinct. I'm very glad that his new plan sets up some reserves for them and efforts will be made to conserve their forests and new poaching laws will be enforced. Also, when one animal become extinct, it isn't like they're gone and everything else goes back to normal. Living things are all part of a food chain, and when an animal like the tiger goes extinct, it will have a dramatic effect on the rest on the chain. Tigers are at the top, so when they aren't there to prey on other animals, there will be an overpolulation of numerous species. That is never a good thing. Then for those animals that had previously been the tiger's prey, they might run out of their own prey because with an increase in their population there will be more competition to find their own food. Their prey might become extinct. This all becomes one problematic cycle because one link is broken, which in this case would be the tigers. I really hope these efforts work and that tigers will not become extinct in 2022.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40298964/ns/world_news-world_environment/

Issue #1-Comprehensive vs. Incremental Health Care Reform

Summary: The United States health care system has some of the best doctors in the entire world. The problem is that many Americans can't afford health insurance and therefore can't visit these doctors. Solutions to this problem have been disscussed for over a century and the debate is mostly over if the government should fund insurance programs to help the poorest of Americans, or keep insurance companies privatized. Today there are two health insurance programs for senior citizens. These include Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare users pay a certain amount, and then rest of the medical hospital expenses are paid by medicare and 80% of their doctors' fees, laboratory tests, and other medical expenses are also covered. This is funded by a payroll tax that everyone pays out of their paycheck. Medicaid helps low-income people pay for their health insurance. It continues to drain out more and more of states' budgets as medical costs continue to increase. Both Medicare and Medicaid will go bankrupt or severely damage the economy if something isn't done about them. The reason for the rapid increase in health care costs has been the expansion of the system where the government and insurance companies pay medical bills instead of patients, expensive new medical technology and drugs being invented, and the rapid growth of America's older generation ("the baby boomers"). Most Americans get their health insurance through employers by paying monthy premiums and deductibles for medical visits and procedures. This system also uses "after the fact" payment results, which means a person isn't able to see the total costs of their medical care and treatment until it's already done. This causes people to not be able to comparison shop and then providers don't have to compete for lower prices. Instead, they can raise their prices because people can't do anything about it. Then starting in 1990 employers began moving their employees from fee-for-service plans to PPO's and HMO's that offer consumers a range of medical services for a set monthly fee. Some people argue this helps keep costs down, while others think it denies patients being able to have important medical tools and specalists. In 2007 there was a consensus that the health care system needed to be reformed. Today the debate continues over if the change should involve universal coverage (comprehensive changes), or using incremental adjustments to expand existing coverage and reduce the number of uninsured people. Universal health care supporters believe the best way to make sure everyone has health care is to completely overhaul the nation's health care system. They believe Medicare and Medicaid have only increased medical costs and have not provided a reliable source of coverage for uninsured people. In their opinion the federal government should be the single purchaser of health care and force health care providers to not charge too much and hold them responsible for how they care for their patients. Another option is that government subsidies should be controlled by the federal government so that the poor get tax credits or money to help them pay for their health care. Others favor a mix of government funding basic health care while still providing elements of competition and choice. Everyone would be able to have basic health care, but people would have the choice to choose from competing plans to purchase more coverage. Then there are those who completely oppose universal health care. They still want health care for all, but they belive that government control over medical programs would create less competition between providers that would eventually lead to a decrease in quality of health care. They also think it will lead to soaring costs, inefficiency, bureaucracy, and unemployment for many people in the health insurance companies. What they support is incremental changes health savings accounts that help people save money tax-free for certain health care expenses. With more people paying for their own health care insurance and medical expenses, the market would naturally cut their medical costs. These are the two sides of the issue.


Opinion: I most agree with the opinion of a mix of the government funding basic health care with the option of people being able to purchase more coverage from competing plans. This provides a sort of "bridge" between both sides and is a good compromise. With this system, everyone will be able to get their basic health needs met. No longer would there be 50 million American uninsured, and 18,000 people would no longer die each year because they can't afford to get the care they need. People wouldn't be turned away because they couldn't pay for a chemo treatment. People wouldn't have to chose between the loss of two fingers which one they wanted to reattach because it's all they could afford. People wouldn't be turned away because they had a "prexisting condition" that may be as minor as headaches or a yeast infection from 15 years previous. (These instances I got from the movie "Sicko.") I don't think anyone could argue that getting rid of these problems wouldn't be a good thing. As to appease the Republicans, though, I think it's important to allow people to purchase more coverage if they desire it. That way competition between companies can still exist, people won't loose their jobs, and the quality of care would not decrease. Hopefully they won't feel like the government is taking too big or a role, it's just trying to help those people in our country who can't afford health insurance or can't set aside money in a health savings account. Against what some people might think, I believe there are many, many, people in our country who work very hard, but just do not make enough to purchase health insurance. Maybe it's a young woman who had to start working at Wal-mart instead of going to college to help a sick or disabled mother who had her as a teenager and therefore herself couldn't go to college or earn enough money to pay for health insurance either. Then when that mother dies, the daughter has no means to go to college or get a higher paying job that would require a college education either. There are numerous instances where people are doing there best to make it in the world, but they can't afford to go to the doctor when they're sick. I don't think this is right and that's why I think that their basic care should be funded by the government. Then for those who can afford it, they can purchase more health care if they desire and don't have to worry about a decrease in their quality of health care. This are also primarily the views of President Obama and I believe are a win-win situation.

To see issue #2 visit my classmate's blog at:
 http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-2-ensuring-quality-care-for.html

To see issue #3 visit my classmate's blog at:
http://maxineannec.blogspot.com/2010/11/issue-3-safe-to-eat.html

Midterm Elections 2010

The midterm elections today are expected to "shake things up" in the nation politically. President Obama's agenda is then also at risk because predictions are that Republicans will take over the House, and possibly the Senate if they win each tight race. Republicans are talking about a divided government and a change from the last two years. Their goals are to reverse Pres. Obama's tax and spending plans, climate change, trade, arms control, reduce the deficit, make jobs, and repeal the health care law. Races are particularly tight in Pennsylvania, Nevada, Illinois, Colorado, Wisconsin, Illinois, West Virginia, and Washington State. Then if Republicans do take control of both the House and Senate, a political "gridlock" will occur unless President Obama can find common ground with Republicans. President Obama, Michelle Obama, and former President Bill Clinton have been campaigning almost non-stop these past few weeks for democratic supporters to go out and vote to stop the Republicans from taking over Congress. President Obama says, "We need to keep moving forward, that's why I need folks to vote today." Republicans need 40 seats to take over the House and 10 to take over the Senate. One factor that might help out the Democrats is how the Tea Party has been causing a split in Republican votes. On Wednesday at 1 pm President Obama is set to have a news conference to react to the results of the midterm elections and it is then that we can reflect on what has transpired and see where we go from there.

I wish so very badly that I was just a little bit older so that I could vote. This is the last election where I can't. From now on, for the rest of my life, I can and will vote. It makes me very upset when people think their one vote doesn't make any difference, so they never go and vote. One voice can make a difference!!! Back when our founding fathers were voting on what should be our official language, english won over german by one vote. ONE VOTE!! And just looking back at previous races in 2008 between Frankin and Coleman and in 2000 between Bush and Gore, each individual vote had to be recounted-by hand. Now tell me one vote doesn't make a difference! The predicted outcome of this election also make me very angry. I don't understand how only 2 years ago everyone was gung-ho over Obama and his promises for change. It's only been two years and it seems we have already given up on him, and it's not like he hasn't been trying. He's done almost everything he's promised to do, but just because they all haven't worked people are angry. President Obama is a very smart man, but he's not God. Nobody can be God. Nobody can snap their fingers once taking office during a time when we've already slipped deep into a recession and have been involved in two wars for many years and make things all wonderful and fix every problem. That just doesn't happen. But man, President Obama has tried. Almost immediately after taking office he put in place the stimulus plan. Although it didn't turn out to be as succesful as hoped, it was definitely worth a try and I do believe it helped some. I highly doubt the Republicans could of done any better. Their goals of wanting to reduce the deficit so much and get rid of President Obama's health care law also scares me. Yes, we are in a huge debt and it needs to be reduced, but we can't do it by cutting out things that people need. And just because you may not need welfare, or whatever the case might be, doesn't mean other people don't need it. I believe most of those people who rely on government support use it wisely and are NOT lazy. Some people, maybe it's the neighborhood they grew up in and their family's financial status, an illness or disease, or any unforunate circumstance can cause people to find themselves in a bind and need government's help. We can't cut out people's lifelines just so we can reduce our national debt. I strongly disagree also with the Republican view that, "I make more money because I work harder and therefore deserve that extra money. Nobody should make me pay more in taxes." Umm, well, I think many, many, people work extremely hard but have a very difficult time making anything over minimum wage. I believe the more you make, the more you should pay in taxes. It's only fair. And finally, it will really anger me if Republicans take control and they get ride of Obama's health care plan. There's a lot of misinformation out their and manipulation of some fine details that have caused people to believe some crazy things such as that it will cover illegal immigrants and cause you to not be able to chose your doctor or your care. Obama's health care bill is to insure all Americans can have health insurance and won't get turned down for a pre-existing condition or not having enough money. There are literally thousands of people in the United States who die each year because they don't have health insurance. And I really don't understand how someone could not want health insurance because there's no way you can go through life without ever getting sick. So the Republican's health care plan of no change and just, "don't get sick" doesn't work. Obviously, I agree with almost all of Obama's agendas and it will make me very sad tomorrow if Republicans take over both the Senate and the House. Nothing will every get accomplished then because whatever Obama wants, the Republicans won't vote for it. And whatever the Republicans want, President Obama will veto. I don't think that will turn out too well, and if there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that I will vote for Obama and the democrats the next election and make my voice count!!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39962482/ns/politics-decision_2010/

Cholera Treatment Hospital Protest Erupts in Haiti

In St. Marc, Haiti, a cholera treatment center was attacked by protestors yesterday. The protest is a response to the fear many people are feeling to this disease that they most didn't know existed until it began infecting their citizens by the thousands. There were about 300 protestors, and their goal was to stop the clinic run by Doctors Without Borders-Spain from opening because they didn't want it to bring more of the disease to their town. Already it has been one of the hardest hit towns in this outbreak that has killed 284 people and infected 3,769. Multiple rocks and even a Molotov cocktail was thrown. To stop the violence, peace makers from Argentina can with riot shields to help back up the police. Warning shot were also fired, but no one was injured. The protestors were then told by Haitian health officials that the clinic would not open in their neighborhood. It had been meant to help rehydrate and treat over 400 people infected with the cholera. The country chief of the Doctors Without Borders-Spain has now talked with local authorities and explained how the clinic is important for combating the disease and that they would try to open in another area of St. Marc. But in order to do that, there will need to be good communication between health officials and the Haitian citizens so that they know there is no risk in locating a hospital in their city. The majority of cases have been occuring near the Artibonite River and in Haiti's central plateau. One of the first places to widely alert the epidemic to the world was St. Marc's main hospital, as it soon became overflowing with people who were sick and dying. U.N. staff can only enter areas of heavy infection if they are given special permission. To enforce this police have been set up to guard check points. The neighboring country of the Dominican Republic is also now announcing that everyone who crosses the border must wash their hands and fill out a medical form. In addition, military supervision is be used and markets between the countries have been closed. Everyone is trying to do whatever possible to avoid the disease that is continuing to spread like wildfire across the country.

First of all, I don't blame those Haitians for protesting against the hospital. I can't imagine how terrified they must feel with this potentially fatal disease running rampant through their country, as if the catastrophic hurricane wasn't enough earlier this year. Cholera is a disease they haven't seen in generations and all they know about it is that it kills. I'm sure they feared that the hospital, with all its infected patients would only attract more sick people to their area, causing the disease to continue to spread even faster than before. It makes sense. What I really hope though, is that these health officials can effectively get the word out that the hospitals will help combat and stop the disease, not spread it. The doctors will be able to treat people and hopefully save lives, which would not be possible if the Haitians were just left alone to fight the disease themselves. Communication needs to be drastically better between the government, those giving aid, and the citizens so that they can work together and stop the disease before everyone dies. I also think more doctors need to be sent to Haiti so more people can be helped. Those doctors will have to be extremely brave, but I believe the work they can do would make all the difference in the world. These Haitian people have already suffered so much, and although the world may be getting tiring of sending aid and money, it still needs to be done. People are dying, and Haiti needs all the countries and people working together so that the dealth, disease, starvation, and poverty can be put to an end. Haiti deserves to get back on its feet.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39867288/ns/health-infectious_diseases/

Runners Beware of Your Usage of Common Pain Pills

The advantages of taking a pill before a race has been found to not be worth the risk. A women named Stephanie Ehret landed herself in an emergency room following a 24-hour track run win in record time after taking pain pills. She was throwing up her digestive tract lining. According to her, she had never felt so bad and was sure she was dying. What she had was diagnosed as rhabdomyolysis, which is a precurser to kidney failure. And she was not in this state solely because of dyhdration and overexhaustion from the race, but because she had downed 12 ibuprofen pills during the course of the race. Of course this was from overuse because when used properly pain medication can be very helpful. Many pains can be eased by an acetaminophen drug such as Tylenol, and non-sterodal drugs such as ibuprofen and aspirin can reduce both pain and swelling during the first few days of an injury. The problems come with overdose. Many runners think that because they're exerting their bodies the more ibuprofen pills they take, the better they will feel. This is definitely not the case. Overdose does not have to be as extreme as in Stephanie Ehret's case either. Even just one pill before a race doesn't outweigh the risks. The drugs can inhibit hormones that help regulate blood flow to the kidneys, raise your blood pressure, block enzymes that normally protect the heart, lessen protection in the stomach lining from digestive acids that can cause nausea, cramps, diarrhea, and intestinal bleeding, and increase the risk for hyponatremia that can cause swelling in the brain that can even lead to death. Also, studies go against the belief that pain meds cause an increase in pain tolerance. David Nieman, Dr. P.H., from Appalachian State University in Boone, North Carolina did a study on ibuprofen use in Western States. He found that 70% of the runners said they took the pills to have less discomfort while racing. What he found was that when measuring pain and muscle soreness in both the pill takers and the nonusers that there was, in fact, no reduction of pain. The ibuprofin takers actually had more inflamation. What has been found to be the most helpful and safe for pain is acetaminophen drugs such as Tylenol since they work differently than drugs such as ibuprofen. Still, however, with overdosage there is a risk of liver failure. These pill should also not be used to treat long-term injuries because it slows down the healing process for soft-tissue. Bottom line is that more is not better in this case, and dosage instructions must be followed very carefully.

I found this article very interesting because I am a runner. I mostly run just to stay and shape and for fun, and usually only go somewhere between 3-5 miles. I've never done any big races, but I have had my struggles with injuries and pain medicine usage. One year when I tried distance track I soon found myself with terrible shin splint after about three weeks. Mostly likely the cause was from almost doubling my usual weekly mileage right from the get-go and not stretching as I ought. After spending another three weeks corss-training on the elliptical with no improvement, I decided I had to quit and just give my legs rest. During this cross-training time and when I first began running again, I relied on pain medicine quite a bit. What I usually used was Aleve, which after I looked on the back, is a NSAID drug like ibuprofen. That kind of scares me. I never experienced any scary side-effect, but I was also careful to follow the dosage instructions too. I would think a lot of it also depends on how much you are running because I'm sure with more exertion, the higher the risks of the high blood pressure, nausea, internal bleeding, brain swelling, etc. At the time I was "taking it slow," so that's probably why I didn't experience any of what was mentioned in the article. I do think it's important for every runner to read this though, because pain meds are used all the time and it's important that we know how to use them properly so that they can help us, not hurt us.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37341523/ns/health-pain_center/

Jailed Chinese Nobel Prize Winner Meets His Wife

On Sunday a jailed Chinese man who was just awarded the Nobel Prize was finally able to meet his wife. A day earlier he was notified of the award by his jailers. He was very emotional and said he would dedicate the prize to award the victims of the 1989 military crackdown on pro-democracy protests. The Nobel committee chose him because of his over twenty years of advicating human rights and peaceful democratic change. These acts ranged from demonstrations for democracy at Tiananmen Square in 1989 to a public display of political reform in 2008 that was the cause of his current arrest. This man's wife, Liu Xia, wanted to meet with him on Friday after the Nobel announcement, but she was refused until Sunday. Now there is controversy between the country that gave out the award, Norway, and China. People in the pursecuted communites are cheering and other countries including the United States and Germany have called for the man's (Liu Xiaobo) release. Beijing in response was very angry. They warned Norway that its government relations would suffer because they awarded someone the Nobel Prize who is a criminal in the eyes of Beijing's government. Liu Xiaobo is a 54 year old man and is in his 2nd year of an 11 year prison term. The news of his award was kept secret by China's state-controlled media. They also forbade Liu Ziaobo's wife from telling him of his nomination for the award in her visit in September. She was also put on house arrest on Friday when the award was announced and she couldn't make or receive calls on her cell phone either. In response to this, a Washington-based legal rights association pleaded world leaders to call for her release. Then she had to negotiate with the police to visit her husband and tell him the news. The police escourted her until other policemen put up a road block about 1.5 miles from the prison. It was removed on Sunday, but Chinese authorities are still putting pressure on activists and Liu's supporters. Some the most prominent activist lawyers are being harrassed by police as they are trying to use to award to patch up differences amoungst themselves. On Sunday there was a group of 20 protestors in Hong Kong who celebrated his prize by drinking champagne and eating Norwegian salmon in front of the Chinese government's local liaison office while they demanded release of  Liu Xiaobo and his followers. Now his wife's plan is to go to Norway to get the Nobel medal and the $1.5 million prize money.

When I first read this story, it completely shocked me. I guess I didn't realize that these things still happen today. Here is a man who has stood up for what he believes in, and has tried to make changes in peaceful ways, and he gets put in jail. As far as I know, he has never hurt a soul. The Chinese government has put him in jail because they must believe he is a threat to how they want to run the country. It's not right. I'm very glad that Norway was brave enough to see the courage in this man, Liu Xiaobo, and award him the Nobel Prize. From what I have learned in the article, he sounds like he was very deserving of it if he was willing to give up his own freedom in order to try to gain more freedom and fairness for others. It's really sad if the government relations between Norway and China suffer because of this, but they probably will. I think China need to re-examine their current policies and take into consideration the protests this man has made and the calls they have been recieving from other countries for his release. The man in my eyes definitely deserves to be freed. This whole situation reminds me of Martin Luther King, Jr and how he was put in jail many times for his peaceful protests and attempts for civil rights. Parts of our government were not pleased with him at the time, but because of his bravery and hard work he helped make our country into the one it is today with equal rights for people of every race. In the same way, hopefully the efforts of this Chinese man, Liu Xiaobo, will also create positive change in China for the future too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39600507/ns/world_news-asiapacific/

Topic #3-Social Insecurity

Summary: The United States Social Security System is not in good shape. It is about to go bankrupt as soon as the year 2017, because it will be giving out more money than it takes in. The reason for this is that the amount of Americans who are nearing retirement age is much higher than the amount of people who will take their place in the workforce. The Social Security System was established in 1935 to fight poverty and has indeed reduced the senior citizen poverty rate from 50% to 10%. It is also now the main income source for many retired Americans. However, 1/3 of the fund is also used for disabled workers, families of dead workers, and children. A general rule is that people who have earned lower salaries receive more of their incomes percentages in Social Security Benefits than those who earned higher salaries. From 1983 to the present, Social Security has taken in more money through taxes than it needs to pay in benefits. That extra money has been used for other programs and acts as an IOU to the Social Security Trust Fund. The only way Social Security would be able to provide full benefits for people eligible into 2041, the government would have to pay back the money it borrowed from the Social Security system, which is not an easy thing to do. Most likely Social Security will only be able to pay for 60-80% of the current benefits promised through payroll taxes. In an attempt to address this problem, Pres. Bush proposed to allow Americans to put their Social Security payroll money into private investment accounts. His idea was not very popular. There is also another system for the elderly called medicare. People who are 65 or older, or have a disability are eligible for it. It operates just like social security with a trust fund, but it's in even worse shape than social security. Already it is taking paying out more money than it is taking in. By 2019 it is expected to be depleated. For all of these reasons, the debate on when and how to fix social security is a very heated topic. People who want big changes believe that because the system is going bankrupt, it is also affecting our nation's economy. They think that it needs a major overhaul because it has promised retirees more than it can give if programs are not cut and taxes aren't raised. According to them, the Social Security System was never suppose to be a national retirement program, and they believe in Pres. Bush's plan for private investment accounts and cutting benefits for everyone except those in dire need. This is what they think will save the system. But others say the system is still going strong and shouldn't be huge changes. People pay into it and later reep the benefits in return. It's currently still in a surplus and brings financial help to millions of Americans. All that is needed is a small change on raising the cap on earnings that can be taxed and raising the retirement age. Both sides of view has valid points to back them up, and the future is up to the lawmakers we elect.

Opinion: I believe in most of the 2nd opinion mentioned in the previous paragraph. I think that social security is very important to keep because it is what so many older people rely on to live. For example, without social security my grandma wouldn't have been able to pay for my grandpa's assisted living/nursing home fees and medicines for his disease. My grandpa had a high paying job, but even if he hadn't, I don't think it would have been fair for his benefits to be cut, as in Pres. Bush's belief that benefits should be cut for everyone except for those in dire need. The wealthy should help those in need, because lots of those people are those who have also worked hard and deserve to have benefits as good as the wealthy's. In my opinion, Social Security could be fixed by raising the cap on earnings. If we all pay just a little more each month I believe the shortfall could be fixed. There are millions of citizens in America, and even a small change can make a huge difference. Social Security has worked for over 75 years and has done a lot of good in the country-it dropped the senior citizen poverty rate by 40%! And that's been done by payroll taxes, which in my opinion will still work into the future if we up the rate to compensate for the higher percentage of Americans retiring and the lower percentage of workers replacing them. What I do not think should happen is a raise in retirement age. That is crazy. Right now I believe the retirement age is on average about 65, and no way should it be increased. People spend years and years and years of their life working long hours at their jobs, and everyone deserves to spend the last years of their lives being able to enjoy family, traveling, or just plain relaxing. At age 65, a person usually has a good 10 years at least to do that. If the retirement is upped even to just 70, those years for enjoyment are cut in half. Eventually a person would work until they died, and how sad it that!? My opinions can be validated by our current President Obama. If you would like to read more information about him and his opinion on this issue follow this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/


To find information about issue #1 on War Dollars check out my classmate's post at:
http://kellimontbriand.blogspot.com/2010/10/issue-1war-dollars.html

To find information about the issue #2 on spending what we can't afford check out my classmate's post:
http://katieireneiverson.blogspot.com/2010/10/issue-2-spending-what-we-can-afford.html

Is it Possible to be Fat and Fit at the Same Time?

 A new study in the September issue of Diabetes Care has found that obese people who are metabolically healthy can still benefit from weight loss. This goes completely against an earlier study that showed that if people who are obese, but yet healthy, lose weight it may be negative thing. Each obese person is affected by excess weight differently. A person who is considered obese has a BMI of 30 or higher, which takes into account your height and weight. What it doesn't take into account is your body ratio of muscle to fat. Beginning in the 1960's some researchers were finnding that some obese individuals were not inflicted with weight-releated issues because they had normal cholesterol, blood pressure, and insulin levels. They were metabolically healthy. In 2001 there was a study that found that out of 43 obese women, 17 of them were metabolically healthy. The key difference between the two groups was that the 17 "healthy" women had less than half of the deep belly fat that the metabolically unhealthy women had. This deep belly fat is considered really bad because it is much more likely to spew fat into the bloodstream. The healthy obese women in this study also were found to be more active than those who were considered unhealthy. Now the big question that researchers are wondering is if these obese, but metabolically healthy individuals should still try and lose weight. A 2008 study said no. It found that out of 20 metabolically healthy women and 24 metabolically unhealthy women, there was a 13% decrease of insulin sensativity in the "healthy" women after dieting for 6 months. This is not a good thing because lower amounts of insulin sensativity can lead to heart disease and type 2 diabetes. However, a more recent study that included other weight loss methods, such as exercise, in obese men and women both metabolically healthy and unhealthy showed that the metabolically healthy people's insulin sensativity levels increased by 18.5%, while the metabolically unhealthy individual's increased even more. One of the researchers in this study, named Janiszewski, says this, "You certainly won't get any worse with diet and exercise, and you have the likelihood of improving some metabolic risk factors." The researcher of the earlier 2008 study says that more research is definitely needed and that the two studies are hard to compare because they used different measurements and methods. Obesity is a major public health issue and even the obese people who are metabolically healthy are still at risk for things such as joint pain and depression. Also, obese individuals who are metabolically healthy and unhealthy have no difference in life expectancy. The main idea is that no matter how much you weigh, eating healthy and exercising is extremely important and reduces your risks for disease.

I believe that although metabolically healthy individuals are in much better health than those who are metabolically unhealthy, it is still extremely important for both groups to work on losing weight. Eating healthy and exercising regularly is good for anyone, even for people of normal weight, and there's no reason a person who is obese but metabolically healthy should think they don't need to do that. Even if it doesn't make a huge difference in the stats of their health, I think the emotional changes would be enourmous. I know that whenever I get finished with a run or a long, grueling tennis match, I feel so good. The endorphines kick in and can always put me in a positive mood, even if I had previously been having a really horrible day. These obese, but "healthy" individuals could feel much healthier and become much more happier if they worked hard on exercising and eating right. Depression rates would go way down I would think, because along with the feel good emotions that endorphines create in people, it always feels good to get a compliment like, "Wow, you've lost weight! You look awesome!" I'm pretty sure anybody would rather be a size 6 than a size 25. And as for the study that found that the metabolically healthy people who lost weight and their insulin sensativity levels went down, I think that was caused by the way in which they lost weight. To just drink protein shakes or three saltine crackers at every meal or something, is not a good way to loose weight. But, if you eat healthy with whole grains, low-fat foods, and lots of fruits and vegetables with exercise, I really have a hard time believing anything bad could come from that. I guess all we can do is wait and see for more research to be done to see for sure.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39466130/ns/health-diet_and_nutrition/

BP's Payment Promises to Gulf Coast Citizens

People of the Gulf Coast affected by the oil spill have been promised to start seeing bigger payments faster, according to the administrator of the fund, Kenneth Feinburg. He said he was responding to many complaints saying that payments were coming much too slow and were not nearly enough to make much of a difference. According to him, he says, "I am implementing new procedures that will make this program more efficient, more accelerated and more generous." But in response to his words, there is much skepticism. The mayor of Orange Beach, Alabama, says he was not moved by the words and says his residents need help now and they don't feel like they're getting it. Many of the people affected by the spill owned mom-and-pop shops and are now totally devestated. Everyday he gets people who leave the town because they lost there home and business, everything. The spill has also not only affected those mom-and-pop shop owners, however. Doctors who relied on tourist walk-ins are also finding themselves in a bind because tourism has dropped significantly this summer because of the spill. These doctors are also having their claims for compensation denied because they don't work in an industry that has direct ties to the ocean.  But now according to the administrator, Feinburg, claims will sorted by industry to let those reviewing the claims apply a more fair and uniform set of standards to decide how much a person or business will be paid. It's unclear if this will help people like those doctors mentioned previous who are not directly linked to the ocean, or if it will just make payments to victims who are being compensated more consistent. The oil spill occurred on April 20th, and has since leaked 206 gallons into the Gulf Coast. A $200 billion fund was set up that so far has paid $400 million to 30,000 claims. However, this is less than 2% of total BP had agreed to set aside. Right now people are getting an emergency fund amount, and later they will get a lump-sum final payment if they agree not to sue BP. We'll have to wait and see if BP follows through.

The Gulf Coast oil spill occurred over five months ago. It was just last week that BP claimed to have sealed the hole for good. In the meantime, for people of the Gulf Coast, it must have been one never-ending nightmare. I can't imagine how it would feel to be a fisherman or shrimper who earned your entire income off the ocean. To have the oil contaminate and kill what you relied on to earn money and live on, and then only be given only a little bit of money by BP while they're still scurrying around trying this and that to stop oil that is continually leaking for 5 months, making your life worse and worse, is crazy. What really makes them think that now it's all going to change and more people are going to be given more money and everything is going to be rosey again? If they were going to really help people and if they were truely sorry, they wouldn've done it right away, not five months later. The damage has been done. They're commercials on TV are all fine and dandy, but I'd much rather have them use that money on helping those Gulf Coast victims. People's lives have been destroyed, and in no way was it those people's fault. They should be given full compensation. I also believe that should include people like those doctors mentioned in the article that have lost alot of money from their income in the effects of the spill, even though their jobs are not directly linked to the ocean because everything connects. Even though the spill may not have been BP's fault entirely- accidents do happen,-I think it is their responsibility to help those affected try to get their lives back on track and that they should've been much more efficient at closing off the leaking well. I hope that my thought are proved wrong, however. It would be great to see BP actually be more helpful to all those affected by the worst oil spill the U.S. has ever had.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39359569/ns/us_news-environment/

Button Batteries are Harming Children

This article talked about button batteries and how if swallowed, they can cause serious harm, or even death in children. New research is also reporting that althought these incidents are rare, they are on the rise. The latest episode has been in Utah where 10 children were hospitalized, and 7 of those children had serious injuries. Last week there was a recall for Chuck E. Cheese battery-containing toys, because if swallowed, they can do alot of harm. Dr. Fuad Baroody from the University of Chicago says these button-batteries "...are bad news. They have to be removed immediately." These batteries are found literally everywhere, however. Just some of the places where they're found are in toys, musical greeting cards, games, remote controls, cell phones, watches, etc. This can be very dangerous because if swallowed, they can block the throat, or even worse, trigger a chemical process that burns through tissue in only a few hours. The window of operating time to get a battery out of a child is less than two hours, and if it's longer than that, seriously harmful events can occur, including death. Dr. Albert Park from the Primary Children's Medical Center in Salt Lake City says, "This is a very much under-appreciated problem, and the severity of these conditions is under-appreciated." In fact, more than 3,500 people a year swallow button or disk-shaped batteries according to George Washington Medical Center in Washington, D.C. The most deadly is the lithium cell batteries that are about 20 millimeters in diameter. They're very common because they're light and more powerful than older batteries. These batteries have killed 6 of 10 children since 2003 who swallowed batteries. The numbers are increasing too. Since the 1970's there have been 80 severe cases reported to the George Washington Medical center, and 42 of them have been just since 2004. Also, 10 of 14 deaths from 1977 have occured in the last six years, and many cases go unreported. A little battery can be a lot more dangerous than it looks.

Before reading this article, I had never given much thought to children swallowing batteries. But after I read this, I can see how it's a very real and serious problem. Batteries seem to be in just about everything now, and children's toys are no exception. I think it's sort of sad that it has to be that way. When I was little, I liked to mostly play with my Barbies, stuffed animals, and coloring books that did not include any batteries. Of course some of my toys did contain batteries, and kids still play with those battery free toys I mentioned previously, but it seems kids don't like a toy anymore if it isn't able to make noises and "talk" to them. These toys may be fun, but it's not without risks. A little two or three year old doesn't know yet that they're not suppose to swallow a cool little object inside their toy. We can't expect them to not swallow things, and although we could blame parent's for not watching their children closely enough, accidents can always happen. And if this little accident of merely swallowing a battery can cause death, that is an awful thing. I think the government should work on either finding a way to get rid of these batteries, or manufacture them in a way that makes it either impossible for a little child to get ahold of them, or is not harmful if swallowed. This would probably take a lot of money, research, and time, but if it saves lives I most definitely believe it would be worth it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39273790/ns/health-kids_and_parenting/

9/11 is Full of Political Conflict in 2010

In the years since 2001, September 11th has been a day of somber rememberance and reflection, free of politics. Not this year. Even though there will still be the official ceremonies at Ground Zero lead by Vice President Biden, the Pentagon lead by President Obama, and Shanksville lead by first lady Michelle Obama and former first lady Laura Bush, there is much political turmoil and controversey about religious freedom. This is because there has been a proposed plan for a mosque to be built two blocks north of Ground Zero in New York. Terry Jones, a non-denomination pastor of a small church in Florida, is even threatening to burn the Quaran on Saturday. He says he will not go through with it if he is able to meet with leaders in New York and convince them to not build the mosque near Ground Zero. In response to his threats, at least 11 people were injured in Afghanistan over protests of Jones' plan. In Indonesia, cleric Rsuli Hasbi told his many worshippers on Sunday that even if Jones' doesn't burn the Quran he has "hurt the heart of the Muslim world." Following the events at Ground Zero this year, there will be rallies in protest of the mosque and for it, at a park southeast of the trade center site. Not only is the general public divided on the issue, but so are those who lost loved ones in 9/11. Some say that a mosque being built so close to Ground Zero is "a grevious offense to the sensitivity of 9/11 families." Others say it's just adding more hate and fear to the issue and the past, and that people have a right to free speech and religion. The strained relationship between the Muslim world and the Christain United States is not one that is going to go away anytime soon either. Former 9/11 Comission chairman Lee Hamilton says that this relationship "is one of the really great foreign policies challenges of the next decades." Police in New York are also preparing for the rally, even though they don't expect any major problems. September 11th this year will be one that people around the world will pay attention to, and watch to see what happens.

September 11th, 2001 is definitely a day that no one who was old enough to absorb and understand news will ever forget. That is something everyone can agree on. And now nine years later, the memories and hurt are more prominent than ever. What happened that day was absolutely awful, but so is what is going on this year, I believe. Here we are, fighting about where to build a mosque, filled with hate for a religion and culture that is different than ours, when we should be remembering and honoring those who died. I understand why people are angry at Muslims and the idea that they would want to build a mosque next to a place where thousands died, killed by people of that religion, but a pastor planning to burn the Quran is not okay, and only fuels the fire of hate between the religions. Everyone was terrified of what went on during 9/11, and it's easy to hate all Muslims because we fear them. But we must stop and think about the facts. The people who caused 9/11 were radical Muslims. It's an extremely small percentage of Muslims that are this type, so to think that everyone who believes in Islam wants to kill us is simply not true at all. The mosque would not be built right ontop of Ground Zero, and it would be used as a place of worship, not a place to plot to kill more Americans. The United States has always prided itself on the fact that we have freedom of speech and religion. If we tell a certain group of people that they can't worship where or how they want, we are not following this. Yes, we may not agree with their beliefs, but denying them rights and burning their holy books only makes tensions worse. We do not want Muslims to hate us. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the world, and we have to accept that we are going to live on the same planet with them, and therefore we need to figure out a way to get along so that we don't kill each other. And if you put yourself in their shoes, how would it feel to be a Christain living in an Islamic country and you wanted to have a church built so that you could worship your faith, and you were denied? I don't think you would be too happy. As Martin Luther King Jr once said, "Darkness cannot drive out darkness;only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39097839/ns/us_news-911_nine_years_later/