Cause and Effect

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?sid=32077639&nid=157&title=ny-nj-order-ebola-quarantine-for-doctors-others&fm=home_page&s_cid=queue-2

Well folks, the U.S. is finally taking things more seriously about Ebola. New Jersey and New York have decided to quarantine anyone who "have had contact with victims of the deadly disease in West Africa." They will be quarantined for 21 days (the incubation time for the Ebola Virus) and depending on their circumstances, either receive house visits from medical personnel, or have been quarantined within a medical facility.

I think this was done primarily for the safety of the other citizens in the area, but also because of the backlash the media has been giving New York because of the way the initial case of Ebola here in the U.S. was handled. It seems a little extreme, but it may be necessary if they're going to keep everyone from getting sick.

We're Adopting!

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=32073090&nid=148&title=utah-supreme-court-lifts-stay-on-same-sex-adoption-cases&s_cid=queue-13

With all the publicity gay-marriage has been getting lately, I'm surprised I hadn't heard more about this debate. As of today, The Supreme Court of Utah lifted the stay on allowing same-sex couples to adopt children. This is another huge step for Utah in legal rights. I think it is awesome we have been able to accept gay marriage as a legal marriage, and now they can legally be parents, too! So awesome. I hope things can keep moving in this direction, so that everyone can share the same rights.

Apparently, California is putting an end to racial segregation during lock downs. But what I find interesting, is that I have never even heard of them doing that before. I knew that prisons would do lock downs if they were having problems with inmates, but separating the inmates by race? Almost seems extreme to me. Almost. I understand why they would do it, but I almost think that would aggravate the situation again once the inmates were put back into their original cells.

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=32062983&title=ap-newsbreak-prisons-agree-to-end-race-policy is the original story.

Do you think this is a step in the right or wrong direction in removing racism? Or, do you think it is inapplicable?

A "Gun On Gun" Situation

Anita Sarkeesian was supposed to give a speech at USU recently, but canceled it last minute due to death threats threatening, “the deadliest school shooting in American history” (Deseret News). Apparently, universities have no legal right to ban fire-arms on campus. If you have a concealed weapons permit, you can carry on campus. That doesn't particularly make me want to go off to college . . . knowing any of my classmates could, legally, have a gun sitting 3 feet away from me. Especially if threats are floating around simply because a woman is going to come speak to me. University of Utah has even attempted to fight this law, in attempts to keep their students safe. But when they banned firearms in about 2004, they were sued for being "unconstitutional" in 2006. Having lost the suit, they lobbied to have the law changed, only getting as far as a law that "allows any student living in a dormitory to specify that he or she does not wish to room with a concealed weapon permit holder." Well thanks, glad to know none of the 5 people I sleep with have a gun. But does my next door neighbor?

Go to http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865613500/Utah-gun-law-that-canceled-USU-speech-is-an-embarrassment.html to read the full article. Who knows, maybe schools can get some more protective rules in place.

Racism, or Criminal Justice?

While scrolling through facebook today, I saw three news articles pertaining to the same topic. Racism. While this is still a problem in the US today, I don't think people can continue hiding behind it the way they do.

Fox13 posted this article: http://fox13now.com/2014/09/14/django-unchained-actress-claims-she-was-cuffed-for-showing-public-affection/, claiming that the woman had been detained due to her race.

In this case, racial profiling probably was a high factor. But lately, I have seen more and more people claiming that they were singled out, or mistreated, because of their race. It reminds me of a comment that Andrew made in class a few weeks back, saying that because of our history, it's okay to call white's white trash but the second someone says "yellow jap" they're in trouble. We are overcompensating for our mistake in the mistreat of the other races, but that doesn't excuse their behavior now. The second they pull the "race card" they're untouchable.

Illegal or Immoral?

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=31468456&title=protest-over-schools-firing-of-pregnant-teacher

In Michigan, a chemistry teacher was reportedly fired after becoming pregnant. The catch? Shes lesbian.

Isn't it illegal to fire someone for becoming pregnant? Even if this is a Catholic School, they shouldn't be able to fire someone for things such as this. Was her pregnancy hurting anyone? No. Was her same-sex attraction hurting anyone? No. Was them firing her, hurting anyone? Yes; her. She has lost that source of income, and pretty soon she's going to have an extra mouth to be feeding.

Why would anyone think this was okay?

Out With the Old

While this isn't about our government in specific, I thought I would be justified in posting this, seeing as we've been discussing the ability to dissolve the government.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/08/25/french-president-dissolves-government-amid-dispute-over-economy/

Due to an economic slow down in France, the Prime Minister (Manuel Valls) "offered up his Socialist government's resignation . . ."

Okay, pausing there. The Prime Minister, offered up his governments resignation? Thank you social media, for politely sliding over the fact that the Prime Minister just "let go" an entire department. Now all these people are out of jobs simply because one man decided they were done. Did he himself resign? No. I'm sure that he isn't part of the problem either. Just all the people that have now joined the ranks of the unemployed.

"Hollande accepted the resignation and ordered Valls to form a new government by Tuesday."

Anybody else see a problem there? Seeing as the Prime Minister has the power to "resign" the first batch and pick the next, I'll bet he put together the first group. What makes anyone think he is going to do a better job the second time around?

"Hollande has promised cuts to taxes and spending as well as reforms to make it easier for businesses to open and operate."

That sounds promising, until you step back and wonder, without taxes, where are they going to get enough funding for the government to continue running?

Just within the first few paragraphs, I'm skeptical that this new government is going to be able to do anything different. When you're in such a deep hole economically, all you can do is wait until enough people start spending their money to jump start everything else.

Take the five minutes and read the article. To me, it sounds like everything in the French Economic Government is just a mess, and I'm not sure anybody knows how to, or is willing to clean it up.