blog 7

My good friends, Mark and Ikuko, have been happily married for 27 years. They met while Mark was in Japan serving as a Marine military policeman, and Ikuko was the Japanese interpreter for the military police. About 5 years ago they decided that they wanted to adopt a child and started the arduous process that is the federal adoption program. This blog will be about their struggles, hoops, and hurdles in the seemingly attainable procedure of adopting a newborn child and how the federal government made their dream impossible.

In the United States, there are currently about 500,000 children, from infants to sixteen year olds, waiting to be adopted. There are in upwards of 2 million people on the adoption waiting list. It is blatantly apparent that there are enough children to fulfill the dreams of the perspective parents. However, some of the stringent requirements to be approved by the federal government to adopt a child pose obstacles that discourage, and even make the goal of adoption downright unattainable. Some of the requirements are completely necessary, i.e. criminal background checks, fiscal security, and home and health checks.

Then there is the unspoken, but obvious discrimination against gay and lesbian couples, single parent households, and transracial adoption. Transracial adoption is when the parents are of one race and the prospective adopted child is of another race. Obviously the federal government cannot come out and say that they are against these groups of people, but they can make the task so difficult to reach that said couples usually give up altogether, or go overseas to adopt a child. How infuriating is this?! Perfectly able couples being turned away because of the prejudice from the federal government.

Mark and Ikuko started the adoption process on their own, they filed the papers by themselves, and sent them off to one of the many Federal Adoption programs. They paid the $300 filing fee, they paid a few grand for representatives from the program to comeout and interview both of them, check their living situation, and perform psychological evaluations on both of them. Then they were told to wait. They experienced long periods of time waiting on a phone call that never came. They waited 4 years on that phone call, and eventually came to the realization that acquiring an adoption lawyer, and considering an overseas adoption might speed up the adoption process.

What was the Federal Adoption program’s reasoning for not calling them back? They were in good health, had a completely clean criminal background, had excellent healthcare, their finances were in order. About 6 years later the adoption agency called them and stated their reason for denial was that that Mark and Ikuko were in their late 40s, which is evidently too old to raise a child. With so many children needing homes, and so many people willing to love and raise the children, why is this still an issue that the United States of America faces?

Maya oh Maya

I am choosing to critique Maya's blog, http://mayakelliott.blogspot.com/, because it really captures my interest in the fact that I agree and disagree with her on the two presented issues. Maya's blog starts off tackling the issue of the U.S. debt crisis, and ends by touching on the subject of immigration reform (this is where she and I differ in our views).
     She starts off accusing the U.S. National Government of being "as reckless as a young adult." Whoa. Bold statement, but she's completely right. She then brings up several facts about the U.S. being oh-so-willing to help other countries with their debts and peace problems, all while ignoring our own massive debt. I agree with her in that we need new leaders in place and that fixing the debt will take time. I believe that we need strong leaders who are not afraid to make the difficult decisions. Decisions such as cutting entitlement programs, which account for over 60% of government spending. I recognize that some people will see these decisions as "mean" and right now it seems as though our current leaders do not have the backbone to make such hard choices.
     In the last paragraph, Maya brings up immigration via a comment that her stepfather made. According to Maya, her stepfather believes that 11 million illegal immigrants are being made legal residents "overnight." When in fact the "Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA), the body of law governing current immigration policy, provides for an ANNUAL worldwide limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants, with certain exceptions for close family members." So you see, 11 million immigrants overnight is quite the exaggeration. Next, without coming right out and saying it, she blames undocumented immigrants for taking minimum wage jobs. I agree that education is very important so that one can get a degree, hopefully get a good job, or in her case "buy a plane ticket and get the hell out." What I dont understand about her argument is how come she is the only one worthy of the benefits of the American society.
     Without immigrants, where would this country be? Here is a short list of companies founded by immigrants:

1. Google
2. AT&T
3. eBay
4. Nordstrom
5. Yahoo

      This is an amazing country because of its immigration, because of its melting pot of a society, and its freedoms. Freedoms such as women being able to vote, women being able to drive cars, and every one having the right to blog and voice their opinions about government.
     "We cant just bring in more." I suppose the next statement will be along the lines of "you cant have more than two children" or "you need the government's permission to have children." Welcome to communist China everyone.
     I believe that this is a well written, but unsupported, blog and it is always interesting to hear/read other's points of view. Maya, I wish you all the luck in getting your degree and purchasing your plane ticket.

　

　

　

　

　
　

Blog #5

            I am choosing to write about, argue for rather, the legalization of medicinal marijuana versus the seemingly ever dream-crushing Drug Enforcement Administration and how I think that the DEA should stay out of state affairs. There are several resounding facts that the world of science and medicine is making leaps and bounds in the discovery of several medical benefits in the field, no pun intended, of marijuana. Lets talk about the some of the more recent astounding discoveries that marijuana has provided us with.

            In August of this year, an article came out about a 5-year old little girl named Charlotte who had suffered from about 300 grand mal seizures a week since she was 1-year old. Her parents had tried every drug and diet that the doctors had recommended to stop the seizures, to no avail. They got in touch with a marijuana dispensary in Denver that grew a strand of marijuana that was low in THC, the derivative that produces psychoactive effects, and high in CBD, which produces medical benefits without psychoactive effects. Charlotte now receives cannabis oil in her food twice a day and her seizures occur only two to three times a month.

            CNN’s chief medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, who in 2009 wrote an article titled “Why I Would Vote No On Pot,” has now come forward with a completely changed attitude towards the legalization/medical uses of marijuana. This is a HUGE deal because he is a trusted public figure who has the ability to reach millions. As he continues his research into the benefits of marijuana he also recognizes that it has its downfalls. An example being the risk of hindering the growth of the adolescent brain, which could cause a permanent decrease in IQ.

            Lets look at how the DEA views marijuana and all things marijuana related. The DEA classifies drugs, substances, and certain chemicals into 5 classes. Schedule 1 drugs are considered the “most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence.” Such gems are heroin, LSD, ecstasy, peyote, and, yep you guessed it, marijuana. Marijuana has not been shown to lead any “significant addiction in the medical sense of the word.” 

          I am fully aware of, and support, the DEA’s mission to protect us from drug dealers, drug cartels, and whoever else might seek to harm us via illegal, harmful substances. The major point of contention is when a state, such as Washington, sets it laws allowing citizens to grow and sell marijuana and then the DEA swoops in and shuts legit businesses down. Sometimes the DEA sends a simple cease-and-desist letter, other times it is more violent and completely unnecessary. There are several documented cases of DEA agents busting doors down of dispensaries, destroying plants, merchandise, and spirits of people who are literally following their state laws. It needs to stop. A set of guidelines for the DEA to follow must be enacted in order for the madness to stop.

Editorial Critique

     I chose to critique Michael Reagan's column from the article titled "The Republican Party and the government shutdown: Two diverse opinions" because of his use of sarcasm and wit, and the fact that the article makes total sense to me. He uses a play-by-play strategy to basically predict likely political outcomes if the implementation of Obamacare goes full speed ahead.
      I believe his intended audience are Conservatives because he leans towards the
Conservative view of the government. Michael Reagan is the adopted son of Ronald Reagan which
helps support my belief of his Conservative views.
     He starts off by saying to continue to let "every American voter -- low-information as
well as high-information -- hear over and over again that it is the bad Republicans and
conservatives who want to kill Obamacare." Fine with him, no big deal. But he goes on to suggest
that, if this political battle continues, by January everyone will have had the opportunity to
see for themselves the "hard realities" of Obamacare. "Hard realities" meaning the lie that any
given American will be able to keep their family doctor under the new health car law. Americans
will also see ridiculous spikes, up to 20 or 100 percent, in monthly insurance plan premiums. Not
cool Obama, not cool. Unless, you are a Democrat then you should be very happy signing your
checks to the insurance company, with a noticeably higher amount, just like the rest of the
country.
     He reassures Republicans that people will realize what a "poorly planned and sloppily
launched" health care scheme this is and that they (Conservatives) can breathe easy. The point
that Michael makes that really hits home with me is that "America is getting to see the stark
difference between the Republican and Democrat parties." Before this class, the only difference I
knew between the two parties was that one was represented by a donkey and the other by an
elephant. The contrasting views, and possible results of the 2014 midterm elections that he
brings up, highlight the two parties differences.
     In conclusion I believe that his stance on the health care issues are very clear and
concise, and make sense to his readers.

    In "WARNING: Our government is a threat to public safety"  Michelle Malkin voices her opinions about the lack of insight our government officials have in regards to homeland security incidents. She points out that they have "fallen down on their jobs" and, throughout the article, continues to point the finger at them.
   The most recent example she sites is about Washington ignoring countless red flags in the case of Aaron Alexis at the "Navy Yard massacre." Alexis had countless mental health issues ranging from paranoia to schizophrenia, as well as several run-ins with the law in regards to his disorderly conduct and insubordination. She goes on the question why Alexis was allowed high-level security clearance and had passed several background checks regardless of his history. What she fails to mention is that he was not charged for these crimes, or that the military gave him a slap on the wrist and an honorable discharge. Honorable discharge is a discharge from the armed forces with a commendable record. If someone is not charged with a crime, then the crime would not show up on his background check. My question to her would be "How did she expect the civilian contractor to know about his past?" I see her point in that there seem to be these glaring red flags. My opinion is that its super easy to look back and comb through evidence and say "Hey you could have prevented this tragedy if only you would have paid more attention."
    Here's an analogy. Let's say I got several speeding tickets in one month. Do the police have the right to come arrest me on the assumption that I might hit someone with my car and kill them? The answer is no. It violates my civil rights as a U.S. citizen, presumes that the government has the power to see into the future, and authorizes Congress to make laws "necessary and proper" for the good of the country.
    Hindsight is 20/20. I believe this is a good read because it challenges us to think against the popular opinion of the lets-blame-the-government game while keeping us informed by giving different examples.