In response to "Government is telling us what to eat now? Whaaattt?!"

In a fellow classmates blog, she talks about lawmakers passing a bill that would prohibit us and specific groups from eating certain food items.


http://brandyssdrost.blogspot.com/2011/05/government-is-telling-us-what-to-eat.html

I would have to agree with my colleague that this would be a ridiculous law to pass. Things concerning what we do, or put in our body, isn't something the government should decided. Yes research shows that trans fat are linked to heart disease deaths every year, but what it doesn't tell us is that it is the cause of these heart disease.

If your just tying things together, then anything in the world can give you a disease, cancer, or any other illness. It seems that it's just another thing that the government and its lobbyist are trying to push because they are getting paid by other food industry to push a certain market. The banning of trans fat food in places will not stop people from eating at home. I would like to see the statics showing where these people spent time eating their whole life. My guess is not everyone can afford to eat out, or buy and eat a whole tub of popcorn. 30,000 ties compared to a whole nation isn't much proof of anything.

If you want to improve health, why not start by hiring more teachers and teaching kids about health. Next thing people will start to panic about is how genetically alter food is bad for you, and that everything must go organic. That is if the organic company can pay lobbyist enough to push such a thing.

Overall the government cannot dictate what we can or should not eat. Without physical evidence that trans fat is the causes of these death, we can't just assume if something might be bad for us that it is. If the government is concern with our public health, why not promote something more physically active for people. Make it a law and mandate that people get off their asses and work out.

Why the labels?

Why is it that politicians have to label themselves?  I'm not a democrat or republican. I'm just me, an American citizen.  With a nation of free speech and thought I find it hard to believe that our government for the most has only two ways of thinking, democratic or republican.  No person has the exact same views on every issue.  I believe this constant labeling has corrupted our way of thinking and is killing our society.  By labeling ourselves, our thought process can become one sided believing only what those labeled alike tell us.  One example is voting, some may say they would never vote republican or vice versa.  They shut out the views of another based on a label yet on certain issues they may have the exact same beliefs.  When voting, I vote for a person, not a political party.  Politicians may also be reluctant to voice how they truly believe because of backlash from their political party.  Voting should be done based on whats best for the country not because of a label. According to James Madison, factions are bad yet our government is split into the two largest factions. Let's do away with these labels and focus on solving issues.

World Police

                Is America the police of the world?  I can’t help but think this is how our government thinks.  With other nations stepping in to handle the situation in Lybia why couldn’t the US just stay out of it.  I’m not against helping Lybia but I just don’t understand why the US had to join the fight.  Before the military strikes, Obama sounded reluctant to agree to helping because we’re already trying to police other middle eastern countries but he just couldn’t say no.  We somehow went from wanting to stay out of Lybia to being the lead behind the air strikes.  Our need to please foreign countries seems to have top priority over our own country’s needs.  Everyday I read that we are days away from giving up command to NATO but this sounds too similar to our government always telling us they plan to start pulling troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan.  The US needs to stay out of other country’s problems until we can get our own country back on track.  Defense is one of the biggest federal budgets today but I don’t see much of a defensive stance on anything. We’re always on the offense.  When North Korea attacked South Koreans recently, the US was quick to send warships to the area.  The US felt the need to show off our power to control the situation in Korea.  Are we the only ally to other nations across the world?  Using our military power takes money that our country just doesn’t have right now.  We need to bring all troops home and cut military spending. Although I doubt that would happen anytime soon. 

Trouble in the Middle East means trouble in the US

Trouble in the Middle East is once again driving up gas prices.  In USA Today's editorial, Mideast oil shock threatens U.S., again , they point out that this isn't the first time this has happened and that the US has promised to free itself from foreign oil dependency for four decades.  An embargo by Arab oil companies in 1973, an Iran revolution in 1979, the Persian Gulf war in 1990 and 1991, and now violence in Libya has risen gas prices near $100.  This is true as many Americans have seen this with their own eyes as I did when i went to fill up car at $3.20 a gallon today. USA Today states the "US doesn't have nearly enough oil to feed its habit" and that foreign oil dependency has caused distasteful alliances.  In USA Today's opinion we need to expand drilling off the east coast, gulf of mexico, and alaska while noting that last years oil spill in the gulf was the first big spill in 41 years.  They want to raise taxes on gasoline help to reduce oil use and the deficit.  USA Today talks about taking advantage of new supplies of natural gas and a new generation nuclear power plants.
This article was intended for anyone who's affected by sky rocketing oil prices, which is everyone.  The author of the article isn't posted but USA Today is a well known newspaper and i would like to think that all of their employees would be well qualified to write for a substantial news source.  I don't  agree with USA Today's opinion on oil price solutions.  If drilling was expanded i think it should only be done moderately to help lower gas prices while focusing on finding new renewable energy sources.  Sound like they have "drill baby drill" on their minds. They want to raise taxes on an already inflated cost to help pay down the deficit.  Which means the people have to pay for the governments mistakes.  This is one part of economics I'll never understand.  If the public isn't making enough money to pay taxes how will raising taxes help the public. Natural gas is just another resource for us to have to rely on and I'm not sure i like the idea of more nuclear power plants.  I can only imagine what safety and health risks come along with nuclear power

Employed Illegal Immigrants

New bill targets employers who hire illegal immigrants

On Wed. 9, 2011 State Rep. Debbie Riddle, R-Tomball filed a bill against employer who hire undocumented workers.  She said her bill would make it a state felony to "to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly hire a person who is not lawfully permitted to be in America."  Ridde believes the hiring of undocumented workers is the key reason to the immigration problem.  No longer will these businesses be able to hire illegals without consequences.  Luis Figueroa from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) says this could be problematic for legal immigrants and that it would be too much of a burden on police.  Bill Hammond, president of the Texas Association of Business, says it's too hard for employer to determine someones legal status to work.

As a Mexican-American I am for this bill.  Taking away an illegal immigrants chance to work is ridding them of a reason to come to this country ILLEGALLY.  I'm all for going through the proper steps to obtain legal work status.  A co-worker of mine who came to the USA legally from Mexico believes all the illegal immigrants give Mexicans a bad name and i agree.  I think Luis Figueroa is making excuses for illegals and Bill Hammond just doesn't want the responsibility.  I don't believe its too much for LAW ENFORCEMENT to enforce the law, that's kinda what their job is.  If the employer is supposed to check on legal status i don't think it would be problematic for the legal.  Your employer should already know your information and can check your status.  The proposed bill is more focused on stopping employers from hiring illegals not finding the illegals.  It should be the employers job to check on who they are hiring.  As Americans i think everyone should do what they can for our country.  Checking on the legal status of someone you hire is not that much too ask.  It should just just be part of the hiring process.