H1N1: Pandemic was emotional as well as physical

About the article:

H1N1 was considered to be an issue that affected many people emotionally more than physically. When contracted, H1N1 can be a very deadly illness that is said to have killed more than 500 people in the United States alone, that is however, implying that some of these people had other factors contributing to their deaths.

My thoughts on the article:

I do believe that many people believed they had the "swine flu" just because it had been talked about so much. It is hard to differentiate between what is fact and what is fiction when people scrutinize everything you say. Although the H1N1 Flu is a serious problem (that was blown to mass proportions) some people were able to find a light at the end of this dark tunnel... they cracked jokes (actually they photo shopped them!!!!)

Attached is a link of the actual toll H1N1 had on the world.

http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_07_06/en/index.html

Source:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/23/h1n1.flu/

Aviation safety rate: One accident for every 1.4 Million Flights

About the article:

Accidents are not as common as one thinks, the article discusses that although when an accident is reported it seems all too common; however that the media makes such a big deal about an isolated incident and they blow it to mass proportions, creating more problems! Such as "the Miracle on the Hudson" That was an isolated incident that was a "miracle", yes but we need to focus more on what the Officials and everyone on board the aircraft should do in the case of an emergency like that. Not make such a big deal, and a Premiere TV Special about the incident. Yes, Don't get me wrong "Sully" was a hero but there are everyday heroes who do not get recognized like he did, The difference was that the task he performed was very difficult and stressful knowing that the lives of so many people were at stake. I agree with the article, people need to calm down! It is only nature for people and machines to make mistakes and malfunction, but we should not dwell in it; We need to accept it, and change it! as one of my former teachers always said "embrace change, don't fight it!" so.... all that is left to say is that Airplanes are still the safest mode of transportation; we should be proud of that! Something that people operate is still safer than something a robot operates!

My Opinion: I did somewhat share my opinion about the issue but my biggest hang-up with the media dominating the Aircraft agency is that, if they own the information they can twist and turn it as much as they want. Fact or not; people believe what they see and hear, especially if it was from their favorite news source.


http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/02/22/aviation.safety.report/

Federal Budget Blog: Social Insecurity

Issue #3 Social Insecurity

Background: The Social Security System is a form of pay for retired, disabled, and others who are unable to work for different reasons. The problem with Social Security is that currently and in years to come; there will be more people drawing off "the system" then there will be paying into "the system" meaning that within a matter of years, (maybe even months) Social Security will be overdrawing its income (spending more than it is taking in.) The idea that has been talked about the most to fix the Social Security deficit, is to raise the age that you have to be before you can draw your Social Security income out(raising the retirement age). Currently the ages are being adjusted depending on when you were born; if you were born in (or before) 1937 you could have began withdrawing Social Security at age 65, but if you were born from 1938-1942 you cannot start withdrawing until the age of 65 and 1/2. However at the current rate it is estimated that every four years after 1946 your benefits will be delayed 2 years (1946- 1950= 67; and so on...)







My Side: I believe that the Social Security Officials need to do a thorough evaluation of the people that are withdrawing money; Not only to retirees withdrawing money that they rightfully earned and worked hard to put money into for many years, but the biggest issue of people on welfare. I am NOT opposed of people getting help that are honestly trying but just need some help to get through a rough patch, but I am opposed of people getting welfare "free money" that have not worked a day in their life! Recently I was talking to a woman while waiting to go to the doctor. The woman that I was talking to was actually bragging about how much free help she gets; in disbelief I asked her how she gets free health care, free food, gas, and housing and has not worked a day in her life. Mind you she also had a nicer car than I have, and I work a full-time job in the summer and when I have time off {I am working hard for my money, that I am happily putting into Social Security (: can you sense the sarcasm? GOOD! } But back to the big issue, when I asked her how she got all of the "free stuff" she said "oh, it was simple. I have 4 kids, with 4 different fathers and I have never been married, but I claimed that my first three boyfriends (babies fathers) beat me and my children, so we all get free health and mental health care for life. But with me being disabled because of the beatings I can't work so I get disability. I will NEVER have to work! My kids get a free K-12 education and after that they will not have to work either, they are disabled, too." She also went on to talk about how she does have a "job" where she gets paid in cash and gets to stay in hotels... you get the point. That is not what is important, the problem is that this woman and her kids will never have to work but they have a "free life" because of us (the taxpayers) who work hard to make ends meet and have to struggle in life; but because we are honest people we do not qualify to have a "free life."

Public opinion- A Louisiana Politician (John LaBruzzo) wants to pay poor women $1,000 to have their tubes tied, which seems like a lot of money; but if we would pay that much to prevent more people using welfare, it would certainly be less costly than supporting children for 18 years; and then probably even the rest of their lives. I agree with Mr. LaBruzzo paying $1,000 to prevent more people from withdrawing money from the "system" that have not payed their fair share!

John LaBruzzo

Issue #1 War Dollars

http://felicia01.blogspot.com/2010/02/issue-1-war-dollars_18.html

Issue #2 Spending what we can afford

http://mayaseverson.blogspot.com/2010/02/issue-2-spendin-what-we-can-afford.html

"Life after denial"

What this article is about: President Obama's Foreclosure- prevention program, the affects that it has on people who were promised the help that they needed and did not receive. The program boasted that it would help nearly four million people in serious need, however with the state of the economy, the Federal Government decided they could not help; that much. So many who were/ are in need of assistance to prevent their homes from being foreclosed on are not able to obtain the help that they so desperately need. These people are seeing their dreams and futures being "flushed down the toilet that we can't even use because we have been evicted." All because they were promised help and relied on it, when it no longer became available, several people struggled to hold on to what they had left, and after the evictions because of foreclosures wiped them out, many had nothing left their cars, jobs, homes, and belongings were all sand in the hourglass of time, that didn't mean anything to the "confiscators" but meant everything to its owners.

Obama aide says that many of the people who are not receiving assistance that were previously guaranteed help, are families whose income is close to the poverty line but not close enough that they need immediate assistance, the aide who did not want to be named also said that "if these people would learn how to spend their money wisely, and save perhaps they would not be in such a hurting position." Based on this article, the generalization that I made is that with all of the people that need help, the numbers are much higher than expected. With that being said, the Government officials had no choice but to inflate the numbers so that the poverty line would be lower and many low-income people/ families would not be considered below the fluctuating poverty line.

As Bert Carvajal stated : "Life has to go on, if (the) Government is unwilling to help like they had previously guaranteed then it is up to my wife Mery and I to make all the ends come together." Unfortunately, with Bert and Mery's situation they do not qualify for assistance, as they do make too much money. Their situation was considered to be not at a crisis point either, but like Bert revealed; "If we are not at a crisis point, what are we at? Once we get evicted from our home, we don't have enough money to buy another or rent. We will be homeless."

How I feel about the issue:
I feel that it is terrible how the Government can promise a lifesaving measure, (which saving someone from eviction could be!) and then go back on your promise and tell them that they currently are not at a crisis point and that they will not receive any money to prevent them from being dislocated from their homes. I think to a certain extent it is a little bit naive or dirty for the Government to say that if the people "fasten their budget belts" they will be just fine. In all reality a person that is unemployed is only making at the most 75% of what they made before their position was terminated. That is 25% less than you were making before. 25% is also the magic number of the percent of your income that you should save (or spend, rather) on housing per month, so in some situations where money is tight when all occupants are working; losing 25% of your income can mean that you are losing the 25% of your income that is used for your housing.



Source:
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2010/real_estate/1002/gallery.Life_After_Denial/index.html?cnn=yes&hpt=Mid

Obama aide: Ending "don't ask, don't tell" must wait

Description of don't ask, don't tell: In the simplest form, don't ask, don't tell is a policy that gives all people the chance to become a member of the United States Military, regardless of their sexual orientation, thus meaning that gays and lesbians can be part of the military so long as they don't "tell" that they are homosexual. The stir is being caused because homosexual people are upset that they are not allowed to be in the military and show displays of affection such as: (holding hands, kissing, etc.) whereas; heterosexual people in the military are allowed to do that with no such disciplinary action.

Outline of article: Within the bounds of the article the author shares his thoughts about the issue, based on his writing style I inferred that he wants the policy to be changed so that people are allowed to be openly homosexual and be able to enlist in the military. The man that wrote the article did also, include the poll on iReport.com: 'Gays in the military? No thanks' and how only 17% said No thanks, they would not like to serve in the military with an openly homosexual person.

How do I feel about this article: I do not like the thought of excluding people from the military based on their sexual orientation, I believe that as long as they are willing and able to perform the demands that are set fourth for them in the military, they should be able to. However I do not see anything wrong with the don't ask, don't tell policy... it is simple. I don't ask you if you are homosexual, you don't tell me you are. But there is also a flaw with this policy, if, in fact we are free to choose then why are we being punished for choosing someone of the same gender, I think that if we are going to be flat out honest about the issue it all goes back on the shoulders of our older generations where only WHITE, HETEROSEXUAL MALES were allowed to be in the military. Times have changed and if we can allow women and blacks then why not homosexual people, there is a double standard that is very unfair to our dedicated Americans that ONLY want to serve our country. As one soldier had said "It's not like if we have gays in our military they are going to come after us for sex, and expect us to just give in, the military is not a sex cult." I think that he nailed it by saying that, it takes a lot of courage for people to stand up for what they believe in especially when they know that they will be criticized for everything that they say and do.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/14/obama.gays.military/

Herbal remedies, heart drugs a dangerous combo

Taking both of these do sound like a really bad idea! I believe that if you are going to take prescription drugs and over-the-counter drugs you should NOT be taking herbal remedies, because of the fact that most people do not use both at the same time, they, until recently had not been tested together so people did not know the potential side effects. "'These products are not by themselves dangerous,' says the lead author, Dr. Arshad Jahangir" proving that neither drug is unhealthy or unsafe just that together they can be a potentially lethal combination.

The article goes on to discuss how certain Herbal Remedies (ginseng, ginkgo, garlic, black cohosh, St. John's wort, hawthorn, saw palmetto, and echinacea) can significantly dilute or strengthen heart medications, neither side effect is good. Dilution would cause the body to not get the full dose that is required. Strengthening would cause the body to over-react, as there is too much of the substance within the bodies organs. I now can see how this would affect a person, Herbal Remedies are typically stronger than prescription drugs because of the fact that the doses are not as easily measured, and often times as the article says the drugs are not created to work with herbal solutions. With that being said the CDC urges people to consult their Doctor before taking Herbal Remedies while on prescription medications.

Living in America I have the liberty to say what I think, so I am going to take this opportunity to share my thoughts on Herbal Remedies, Prescription drugs, and how the combination is a dangerous idea. When I first read this article it shocked me that people would even think to do such a thing, but it was then that I realized other people may not realize that Herbal Remedies are usually used as part of a religious practice, there are religions that do not believe in Drugs that are made in a lab (legal or not) since these "medications" do not abide by their practices and beliefs, their only other option is to create holistic or herbal remedies. This is strictly my opinion but I do not believe that a herbal supplement will give the body what it needs to become healthy once again. I do however believe that if Holistic, or Herbal remedies, rather, are used faithfully over an extended period of time. They can prevent disease. But I don't believe that they are as successful at treating disease as prescription drugs are.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/01/moh.healthmag.remedies.avoid/index.html