The Fed's Response to Marriage in the 801

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 5

It was interesting to read this article due to its national viewpoint of what's going on here in Utah with respect to same-sex marriage. The article focuses on the fact that 1,300 marriages will recognize the marriages performed by county clerk's within the window created after Judge Shelby deemed Utah's stand-point on marriage between a man and a woman unconstitutional. Since a stay wasn't called for the marriages performed within that window are legal. Governor Gary Herbert, though, has said that Utah won't be granting new State privileges relating to marriage to the hundreds of gay, newly wedded couples. Due to fact that the previous legislation on marriage, strictly between a man and a woman, is back into play, the State will not grant further privileges to same-sex marriages. When it comes to federal aspects of marriage, Utah will recognize the rights of the same-sex marriage couples. One of the reasons why the State has decided to comply to federal aspects of marriage is because of the Attorney General. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., said that the federal government will recognize the marriages performed in Utah. Therefore, the same-sex couples who were married in Utah will be able to have federal marriage privileges such as "married, filing-jointly" when it comes to taxes. A step was made in giving equal rights to gay and lesbian couples, but there is a lot more to go before the term, equal, should be used.

Personally, I'm fine with same-sex marriage; it doesn't bother me. I don't see why someone should be discriminated because of their sexual affiliation. People are people, no matter what. Even though I support the legalization of same-sex marriage and the furthering of equal rights related, I don't necessarily believe in the notion of same-sex marriage. On a personal level, I don't think same-sex marriage is morally right, but I do believe people should be able to choose freely. In my mind I choose that same-sex marriage isn't right, but in another's it just might be right. People deserve to be free to believe what they want to believe. I think that our society needs to gain a little respect for individuals who are different. Once that happens, we can grow and become a stronger, more opportunistic community of individuals working towards the mythical "pursuit of happiness."

Israel's Finest

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 5

The alliance between Israel and the United States has gone on since the the late 40's. The U.S. has always given support to the Israeli State and its leaders. On Saturday, today, the former Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, passed away. He wasn't the current Prime Minister of Israel at his death, though, he was a great leader while in office. He served from 2001-2006 as Prime Minister. Sharon's political career was suddenly ended due to a fatal stroke that kept him in a coma-like state until his death. His condition got better over the years, but his time was done. President Obama gave his condolences to Sharon's family and the people of Israel. Many politicians, both U.S. and Israeli, commented on the passion he had for the Israeli State. He will be remembered as a great leader, warrior, and idealist of the State of Israel.

While reading this article, I thought about some things regarding foreign policy. I remembered learning about how the United States pledged its loyalty Israel in AP U.S. and how that affected the world we live in today. I think it is interesting that one move, call it good or bad, can dig a hole so deep that it becomes almost impossible to get out of. The move to help Israel and support them was a reasonable decision, but it makes me think where we might be if that decision wouldn't have been so strictly made.

I wonder what wars might have been avoided and how the relations in the Middle East might have been different if we had chosen not to take a strong ally-related stance with Israel. It's possible that making a loose decision on who our allies in the Middle East are might have caused more harm than not. I understand foreign policy is a very hard issue to deal with, but I hope the White House has learned from its mistakes; history is supposed to be something we learn from. All we can do now is move forward and try to make better stances on what we think of countries and the peoples of the world.

A Privacy Hazard

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 5

This article has some useful context of a real-life situation where the civil right of privacy is challenged. A theft of credit card, personal, and debit card information affected Target's holiday shoppers that were shopping between the times of November 27 and December 17. There is an estimate of 70 million customers who were affected by this scam. Some customers had all three items - credit card, personal, and debit card information - stolen, but some only had their one or two of the three stolen. The fact being that the right of privacy of an estimated 70 million people was breached by thieves. Target recently came out with a plan to deal with quite a large problem that happened over the holidays. 

Target, like a responsible company would do, has decided to offer free credit surveillance to any customers that feel like their privacy is at risk. They have offered suggestions to their customers in order to help them keep their information private: watch for mysterious purchases, notify their banks, and possibly change their pin numbers. They are continuing to correct the situation at hand, but in the mean time, they hope their customers can trust that they will handle the situation. 

I thought this article was interesting regarding that our class recently talked about civil rights and civil liberties. We talked about how government has created civil liberties to ensure certain aspects of human interaction are protected. We also talked about civil rights: the things you are entitled to for merely being a citizen. I think it is interesting that our civil rights can be challenged more often because of individuals in our society who don't support the ideology of such. When events like this occur, it is important that we learn. I think this article can teach us somethings about privacy, the most notable being the fact of late: the right to privacy, along with our other civil rights, won't always be protected. 

An individual or a group is bound do go against the morals of society. It is our responsibility as citizens to try our best to not let that happen. Of course, the government is there to help protect our rights; this explains why we use jails and prisons. Since we as a society have little control on what an individual or a group of individuals decides to do against the law, we must be cautious; when our rights are challenged, we must be smart. The security of the rights of an individual must be controlled by that individual. Sure society and government can help, but if a change is to occur or a decision is to be made to aid the assurance of security, it is up to the individual to see to it.

Capitalistic Freedom

I was quite intrigued with this article. It is a Radical Capitalists' response to a recent speech given by President Obama in Kansas. I hope you enjoy it.

The link is right here

Unit 5

First off, let's some up the part of Obama's speech that is driving this guy up the wall. Obama talks about a "certain crowd" in Washington who believe that the market will take care of everything. He shuts down this group and bluntly says that this ideology that the market will take care of everything isn't working and it isn't going to work. He then calls for the solution in his eyes: more regulations and government involvement in business. I thought the journalist, Harry Binswanger, had some interesting points in his response.

Binswanger starts out by admitting to being a part of that "certain crowd," and he clarifies what their beliefs actually are. This "certain crowd" is technically a rather small group of Radical Capitalists who are, that's right, radical for capitalism. He clarifies that government exists for one use and one use only, "to secure these rights" or, in other words, government is there to secure the personal civil rights we possess for merely being human beings. He gives some insight on how long its been since laissez-faire of capitalism; its been since the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. Get this, he then bashes on the Federal Reserve and tells why he thinks it is corrupt. He makes this point, "Obama is pretending that the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism." The finishing touches too his article are quite superb; he concludes that Obama is trying to do two things: limit our freedom because we can't handle it and, to fix that, force is the answer. 

It's been a long time since the free market, per-say, "just did its thing," but I believe there are some reasons for that. Some things, like subsides, are a good way government is involved in business. Think about if government didn't have a subsidy on oil, the oil companies could charge whatever they wanted to. Sure, if that were to happen, a better energy source might rise from the ashes, but the transition would be detrimental; we rely to heavily on oil, so we aren't going to drop it. Regardless, government helps contain corruption of power. 

There is a point that I think government needs to cease its involvement in business, but that's not the point right now, the point is that, if what this writer is saying has any significance, we need to worry but not a lot. In my opinion, capitalism is a pretty good building block for an economy. The concept of supply and demand helps to get people what the want/need when the want/need it. There shouldn't have to be more regulations on businesses. Of course, some newer regulations may be needed, but business should be free. People should be able get what they want because they want it. I'm not saying that Obama is trying to limit peoples freedoms, but people need to watch and pay attention to what's going on around them so that they can protect themselves and their freedoms; if they want to be protected, they will be.

A New Silicone Valley Might Be Stirring in East London

A link to the article may be found here.

Unit 3

Within the space of about four years, the amount of tech-based businesses and start-ups in East London have quadrupled to about 1,400. Over the last four years, London officials have been pushing for the run-down eastern part of London to become a bustling hub in the workplace. Some of their businesses like King.com, the maker of the popular mobile app game Candy Crush, have been fairly successful and continue to be. These start-ups have helped to create more jobs in the London area, and they have helped to put London on the top of Tech Communities around Europe.

The interesting thing about East London compared to the continually thriving Silicone Valley is that London is the basis of a large financial oriented community in the workplace. For years and years, London has been Great Britain's New York when it comes to finance. With this background, New York is starting to feel that their competition in the business world is starting to come more from East London than Silicone Valley. The new sense of potential in the 'Tech City' of East London is starting to cause tech start-ups to wonder, "Doing business in London might not be a bad idea."

In think that the question at hand is, "What does this mean to American business? Could this potentially cause bright-minded entrepreneurs to go oversees to do tech-business?

Business is competitive, but Americans have been known to thrive on it. I think there needs to be a push from business leaders all way down to young entrepreneurs like myself to keep the money making businesses here. Sure having a global economy improving is what one would like to see, but America can't be downgrading during the process. As a people, let's continue to be innovative and one step ahead of the curve when it comes to the world of business.

Europe Cracks Down on Tobacco

The link to the article can be found here.

Unit 3

The European Parliament recently voted for some higher regulations in regards the marketing and sale of tobacco. In past years, they have been fairly lenient when comes to cigarettes, so any improvement could be considered significant. The vote among the European Parliament was successful. Lawmakers will now work with national governments to get them on board. The concern that a country wouldn't be on board with increasing regulations towards cigarettes is not a valid concern. The European Parliament frequently passes laws as a whole that help to make Europe a better place socially, economically, and politically.

There are a few things European lawmakers have decided to do about the smoking issue. First off, the Europeans decided to lawfully push tobacco companies to change their marketing in the 'warning' category. They voted to increase the warning labels to 65 percent of the front and back of cigarette packages, 40 percent above the current requirement. To put that into perspective, warning labels in the U.S. on on the sides of the packages.

The second change European lawmakers have made would tend to be unheard of in the States. They voted on banning flavored cigarettes after three years of law enactment and eight years for menthol cigarettes. The F.D.A. got a passed for the ban of flavored cigarettes in 2009, but not for menthol cigarettes. If they tried to ban all cigarettes, they probably wouldn't have been successful, but that might be a different story now.

The most interesting change The European Parliament voted on was about e-cigarettes. The pattern of being strict with regulations starts to undermine here. The e-cigarette companies pressured the European Union so that they wouldn't label their product as a drug-delivery device. It would've been interesting if the Europeans went through with that. They did vote on the same regulations as regular cigarettes regarding the marketing, but sales were centered only towards adults. Compared to the lack of the F.D.A. to regulate this product like tobacco, this is some improvement

Something the writer of this article said sparked my interest. She said, "Lawmakers have made some important steps; United States regulators should do the same."

I think that the U.S. should take more notice to the issue of cigarettes than they currently have. I understand there are priority issues, but tobacco is still an issue. Let's face it, people still die from cigarettes. Sure, I agree that we as a country need to get some other things figured out first, but we need to make some changes to the regulation of cigarettes. I know having stricter regulations for cigarettes is the same as having stricter regulations toward business, but this is different. There are things called ethics. I absolutely do not believe in a product that is harmful to its consumers. For me, products and innovation are there to improve life, not degrade it. Therefore, cigarettes should be regulated to the point that they aren't killing anyone.

The Business Side of Obamacare

http://news.investors.com/politics-obamacare/092513-669013-obamacare-employer-mandate-a-list-of-cuts-to-work-hours-jobs.htm?fromcampaign=1

Unit 2

The Obama Administration extended the date at which the aspect of Obamacare that requires businesses with 50 or more full-time employees to provide full benefits, respectively to their full-time employees, to 2015. Businesses have been preparing for the day the Employer Mandate of Obamacare is enforced in a few different ways, one of them being the act of cutting hours. In a recent study, a list of states, organizations/businesses within the states, and their response to the year of preparation in respects to hour cuts, was given. 313 employers listed information on their hour cuts. Every business listed was cutting their hours so that when the Employer Mandate came, they wouldn't be overwhelmed with increased business expenses in the health care category.

I was quite surprised with how many businesses were cutting hours to avoid paying for health care they didn't want or, in some cases, couldn't necessarily afford with the amount of full-time workers. I'll be honest, I don't think that the Employer Mandate of Obamacare is going to get us anywhere with providing more health care in the work place; the current mindset of the business won't allow it. Not only is the mindset, which I will discuss later, a factor in the growing desire of businesses to pay for the least amount of health care they have to by law, but businesses are feeling pressure on their shoulders to provide healthcare or pay a tax fee; the mindset is the most important of the two.

The mindset of the average businessman consists of these: passion to have success, stubbornness to do things as freely as possible, and longing to feel like a difference is being made in their specialized area of business. Business is a competitive profession; if you don't work hard, you won't make it. So, that brings us to the why; why is the business mindset negatively influencing the Employer Mandate of Obamacare? The answer is simple; businessmen don't enjoy seeing anything get in their way of constantly trying to gain a sliver of success in their industry. Frankly, I think they're terrified, intimidated the Employer Mandate; most companies feel pressure from it.

Right along with the business mindset, there is a sense of forcefulness felt by businessmen from the government in respects to this aspect of Obamacare. It's like anything in life that makes you feel pressure, you get scared. When fear comes into play, you lose sight of the why and choose to deny that which frightens you; this is how the businessmen feel. So how can we express the why to businessmen?

I think businessmen tend to have the type of personality where they feel a need to answer the question, "What's in it for me?" Before the rant begins on what good the Employer Mandate could potentially do for spreading healthcare and wellness to hard working employees, we must consider the how; how are businessmen going to feel the need to pay for their employees health care rather than paying the mandatory tax fee.

There are three basic ideologies that would lull the average businessmen into the cradle of Obamacare: benefits and healthcare help to improve employee morale, employee work efficiency, and employee  
success. With each of these boosters to employees come more benefits for the business. When employees work harder, more revenue comes in, thus more profit. When employees feel better about their work situation, customer service and loyalty skyrockets. When employees find success in their workplace, they incorporate business visions with more vigor and pride.