UPDATE: My Dream

One day after I posted about literally having a dream about the economic future of the United States, I read this headline on Americablog.com.

"Obama slams government hiring, says private industry should lead"

Obviously intrigued, since this line of thinking is more Republican than Democrat, I clicked on the cited article from Bloomberg. The first statement confirmed to my horror, the idea that government cannot be a main proponent in the creating of jobs.

"Government is not, and should not be, the main engine of job-creation in this country,” Obama said in his weekly address on the radio and Internet. “That’s the role of the private sector.”

In the rest of the article, Obama stated that the role of government was to make sure the working populace of the United States were trained to take the jobs created by the private sector. While I'm in agreement, (and wondering when the US government is going to pick up my full tab for medical school. wink wink, nudge nudge), I disagree that the United States government should not be a major source of stability for the fragile economy. It is common knowledge that we were brought out of the Great Depression by the entry of the United States into World War II. But specifically, it was the spending by the United States government that brought the country out of the Great Depression. Yet, in this same article, it is stated that Obama is in talks with business leaders on how to increase hiring without increasing government spending. The idea of decreasing payroll taxes, which fund social security, has also been kicked around. This is a Democrat who is looking at these solutions? No. I don't believe it. The last time an economic recession of this magnitude occurred, the actual Democrat elected to the presidency created these measures:

•federal assistance for people who had lost their jobs, houses, savings, and livelihoods
•job creation for the unemployed through massive public works projects
•agricultural assistance for troubled farmers
•manufacturing assistance for troubled industries
•stricter banking regulations to prevent bank failures
•creation of the FDIC to protect bank customers’ deposits
•investment in the banking system to free up credit (link)

Almost all of these policies, called the New Deal, have been under attack since Obama became President. While he has actually used all of them at the beginning of his presidency, Republicans have used scare tactics and sometimes outright lies to tried to hold them back, discredit their effectiveness, and keep the economy in its fragile state so they can regain the White House, the Senate and keep the House in the next election; voters almost always go with the other party when the economy is bad.

Obama has tried to be so bipartisan that he is actually starting to look and sound like a Republican in his messaging and policies (yet those on the right still accuse him of being a socialist/communist). I'm very disappointed. Something has got to be done. Any ideas?

Because I wanted to include some music in this post, I think this might be fitting. "Cold Shoulder", by Adele.

House Votes to Withhold Education from Medical Students

How far will the right-wing go? This makes me burn with rage. An amendment to a funding bill for the health care law signed last year was sponsored by arch-homophobe and now anti-medical Virginia Foxx (R-SC). The amendment states that no federal funding will go to any medical school that teaches abortion procedures to its students. It passed with bipartisan support, 234-182.

I have several problems with this. First of all, what the hell?! Abortion is legal, and it should be. Regardless of how one may feel about the morality or ethics of abortion, there will always be women who have them performed, whether in a back alley, someone's home, a clinic or doctor's office. As someone who actually respects life, especially of someone who is already living, I would prefer that these women see someone who is competent in their skills, so there are as little complications as possible and they may receive the support they require/want without fear of being arrested or the stigma of having one performed. Second, some abortions aren't really a choice. Sometimes babies need to be aborted to save the life of the mother. Should a woman be required to carry a baby to term when said baby was conceived during a rape? What if the baby's father was a close-blood relative of the mother, like her father, uncle, or brother? I feel like the 'respect for life' movement has jumped the ship named Sane Discourse, and is swimming to shore, hoping to make it to Crazy Town, USA. Third, I thought that republicans were all about less regulation and control and more freedom. How does this amendment allow for more freedom? Will this attachment create a better, more competent, compassionate medical field? No. Third, if you want to decrease the amount of abortions performed in the country, and the world, research has shown that proper comprehensive sex education needs to be implemented. Counseling should be provided for those women who are considering an abortion, and rhetoric should be toned down. If you are really 'pro-life,' then you should practice being pro-life for everyone. Oh, and get ready to adopt a bunch of babies.

The abortion debate is so complex and nasty. It sickens me that I have even felt the need to put in my two cents. However, when the culture wars start meddling in my professional life, I won't take it sitting down.

P.S. A book was recommended to me, Killing Rage, by Bell Hooks. It is my understanding that it suggests constructive ways to deal with rage. It might be helpful for those who feel so strongly about this issue.