My Throughts on "Mandatory Drug Testing To Receive Welfare Benefits"

     In a recent blog entry entitled “Mandatory Drug Testing to Receive Welfare Benefits”, the author of “Politics: Not Worth My Vote”, discusses existing welfare programs in the states and the beneficial and detrimental factors they bring into play.  In this post, the author’s main intent is to examine the relationship between welfare programs and the recipients who insist on abusing the system.  Ultimately, her goal is to find a way to eliminate the latter while still maintaining the former, and I believe she has some very excellent thoughts and ideas on how to formulate this change. 

     First off, the author states that welfare programs are designed to assist those who are experiencing temporary financial struggles and are unable to provide for themselves and their families.  While these programs are incredibly effective tools in helping those who are going through tough times, the system is often heavily depleted by recipients who abuse the benefits by purchasing drugs.  As a result, the author mentions that many states are working toward enforcing a mandatory drug test in order to regulate who is receiving these benefits. 

     I agree completely with the author on this particular subject.  Unquestionably, welfare programs are enormously successful tools that help to foster the financial burdens of those experiencing a difficult time financially.  However, as the author mentions, this system is frequently being taken advantage of, and I completely agree that we need a solution.  Her suggestion to finding this solution is to enforce mandatory drug tests in order to collect benefits, and once again, I have to agree.  I believe that if states were to implement a drug screening before receiving benefits, we could greatly influence a different outcome.  Not only would this proposal eliminate recipients who are harming the system, but it would also preserve the welfare program for those who truly need the help. 

     The author also brings to light the fact that these drug-using individuals often have children that desperately need the benefits the welfare programs can provide.  Is it right to deny aid to the parents, when the children will suffer the most?  This is one question the author attempts to answer, and her response is to implement a plan of action that places these addicts into a rehabilitation center or substance abuse class.  If the individual remains in these classes, then they are allowed to keep the assistance.  While I believe the entire welfare system is far too damaged and void of morality to be miraculously healed by the engagement with rehabilitation, I do believe it is a good place to start.  With this kind of system, these addicted adults could receive help, but there’s no way to determine if it will make any difference.  Addicts are people whose dispositions are often set in stone, and while I believe the author has her heart in the right place, I don’t necessarily believe this will solve the issue, but it is a route worth traveling. 

     In addition, the author mentions that if drug testing were to be put into effect, taxpayers would be left with the bill.  It is certainly a factor that must be considered, but in actuality, taxpayers are already being burdened with welfare program debt.  The difference between the two is that the cost of a drug test is far more inexpensive than the paying for months or years of assistance.

     To summarize, my belief is in accordance with the author’s: welfare programs should be available in the United States; however, it should only be given to those who desperately need it and who are receptive to assistance in order to become financially stable once again.  I agree with the author when she states that it’s impossible for the government to weed out every welfare recipient who is ill-suited for the program, but the proposal of drug screening is an excellent way to work toward creating a system that can fully utilize its resources to affect the lives of those who desperately need it, not those who misuse it. 

The Threat of Same Sex Marriage

     Until recently, if the definition of a family were to be questioned, one would most likely respond that a family is a man and a woman living together with their children, or something to that effect.  However, this definition does not hold much weight in our modern society.  Due completely to the rise in same sex marriages, the definition of a family has come to take on many different forms.  The term “family” used to be accompanied by a rigid set of standards and customs, but now, the very notion of same sex marriages are threatening to wipe out the foundational lines of marriage.  This argument is one that has been heavily disputed, and like every argument, there are two sides; the one that believes same sex marriage is an abomination to the constitution of marriage, and the other that holds fast to the belief that we can only benefit from extending marital rights to gay citizens.  However, before I continue, I want to state that while I do not acquiesce to the constitution of same sex marriages, I absolutely don’t believe gays should be ostracized or ridiculed for their standpoint on this subject; I only disagree with the notion of same sex marriages.  Furthermore, I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and I have several reasons to explain the foundation of my belief. 

     Though it is a very common argument when debating this subject, the belief that gay marriages greatly weakens the definition and respect for the institution of marriage is a principle that should not be taken lightly.  Marriage has always been—and should always be—a ceremony that joins together one man and one woman.  When a same sex marriage takes place, it greatly abates the integrity and morality of a ritual that is not only a sacred ceremony but is also critical to the prosperity of our traditional family values that are essential to our society.  For example, men and woman have extremely different personalities, traits, and roles they play in a marriage and a family, and when this delicate balance is disrupted, it can have a tremendous affects on the children involved. 

     It is true that some couples will never have children, whether by choice or other complications, but nonetheless, there is an understood expectation of procreation closely linked to marriage, and that is one reason why different gender roles are so vital in a marriage.  If our country continued to condone same sex marriages, it would succeed in further weakening tradition family values by greatly affecting the children that are directly and indirectly involved in these relationships.  Children that are brought into the circle of gay couples would certainly grow confused about gender roles and expectations that are constantly being confronted and challenged.  For example, men and women play entirely different roles in marriage that are essential to the prosperity and health of their children, and without this distinction, the children could be negatively affected.  Without a doubt, a certain custom and tradition has been deeply rooted into our society, and if we further question these values, we could quite possibly loose sight of marriage in the traditional sense, and in the process, we could hurt and inflict serious consequences upon the innocent children involved. 

     Lastly, if we were to completely allow the legalization of gay marriage, would we then be satisfied?  Possibly, but possibly not.  If we continue to encourage this kind of lifestyle, we could very well fall into a trend of altering and morphing the legality of marriage.  In addition, we must ask ourselves what type of effects this would have on our sense of marriage.  Suppose people were to get married to someone who they planned to live with for a while, simply to enjoy the legal benefits.  Once this has been done, why not allow polygamy and polyandry?  Should we then discriminate these groups, if living together and a mutual fondness of each other are the only requirements?  I strongly believe that is we continue to morph and alter the legality of marriage, we will not be wholly satisfied.  Polygamy and polyandry could follow, and soon, monogamy could be a thing of the past. 

     In summary, I do not acquiesce to the notion of same sex marriage. Moreover, I believe if we wholly condone gay marriage, it will certainly not be the end, and in the process, we will manage to misinform and mislead the children involved in these relationships, but most importantly, we will heavily damage the very constitution of marriage.

My Thoughts on "A Continued Rant"

     In a recent blog post on USA Today entitled “A Continued Rant”, the author brings to light her opinion on the sensitive subject of same sex marriages.  There is no use in trying to believe that same sex marriage is simply a phase or chapter in our country due to the velocity at which it has blossomed into a full-fledged, heated debate.  Like every argument, there are two sides; the one that believes same sex marriage is an abomination to the constitution of marriage, and the other that holds fast to the belief that we can only benefit from extending marital rights to gay citizens.  While the author of this post stands in the community favoring same sex marriage, I have to disagree.  However, before I continue, I would like to state that while I do not acquiesce to the constitution of same sex marriage, I absolutely don’t believe gays should be ostracized or ridiculed for their standpoint on this subject; I only disagree with the notion of same sex marriage.  Furthermore, I believe that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman, and I have several reasons to explain the foundation of my belief.

     Firstly, the author of this post notes that people should have the freedom to marry whoever they please, even those of the same sex. I believe, however, that the very idea of same sex marriage weakens the definition and respect for the entire institution of marriage.  Although it is quite cliché and has been said many times before, I completely agree that marriage is a ceremony between one man and one woman.  When a same sex marriage takes place, it greatly abates the marital ceremony that is not only a sacred ceremony but is also critical to the prosperity of our traditional family values that are essential to our society. 

     Secondly, the essence of same sex marriages would further weaken traditional family values by greatly affecting the children that are directly and indirectly involved in these relationships.  The author does not mention the affects these relationships could inflict on children, and I don’t believe this is something to ignore.  To illustrate, children that are brought into the circle of gay couples would certainly be confused about gender roles and expectations that are being confronted and challenged.  Since the beginning, a certain custom and tradition has been deeply rooted into our society, and if we further question these values, we could quite possibly loose sight of the entire notion of marriage, and in the process, we could hurt and inflict serious consequences upon the children involved. 

     Finally, if we allow the legalization of gay marriage, would we then be satisfied?  Possibly, but possibly not.  If we encourage this kind of lifestyle, we could very well fall into a trend of altering and morphing the legality of marriage.  The author writes that she is excited for a world where people can marry freely, but I believe if we allow that to happen, we will not be wholly satisfied.  For instance, polygamy and polyandry could follow, and soon, monogamy could be thing of the past. 

     In summary, I do not acquiesce to the notion of same sex marriage.  Moreover, I believe if we wholly condone gay marriage, it will certainly not be the end, and in the process, we will manage to misinform and mislead the children involved in these relationships, but most importantly, we will heavily damage the very constitution of marriage. 

The Death Penalty Makes Killers Of Us All

     More than half of the states in our country employ a devastating cruelty known as the death penalty.  Most of them have adopted the method of lethal injection, but other methods, such as electrocution, are certainly not unheard of.  The death penalty has been around for quite some time, and it has certainly given rise to numerous disputes and arguments over whether or not this law is just and legitimate or unconstitutional and illicit.  Many substantial arguments are made concerning the success and importance of the death penalty, but they all fall short in proving that the death penalty produces more good than harm because this unforgiving act only succeeds in making killers of us all.

     An argument that is commonly found in the pro-death penalty community is the one that suggests the death penalty deters future criminals from carrying out horrendous crimes.  However, the belief that deterrence justifies the execution of offenders is only feasible if the death penalty actually succeeds in preventing crimes.  In actuality, the overwhelming conclusions of studies show that the death penalty is no more of a deterrence than is life in prison.  Most people who commit crimes and murders do not expect to be caught, nor do they thoroughly weight the different consequences.  Criminals act impulsively and hastily, and if they intent to commit crimes, they will not be discouraged by the death penalty more than life of imprisonment.  In addition, there is no conclusive proof that the threat of the death penalty provides a stronger deterrent than life imprisonment.  Moreover, more states have sentences of life in prison without parole, and if this sentence is given to a prisoner, our society can rest assured that these criminals will not be released, thus ensuring our safety without the use of the death penalty. 

     Retribution is another word for revenge, and when a life is taken, retribution seems to be the only opportunity in which to restore the justice imbalance that was disturbed by the murderer and his violent acts.  To some people, the execution of a murderer ensures that he will not be allowed to take more lives, and although the life of the victim can never be restored, it helps to bring justice to the victim’s family, as well as brings closure to the killer’s crimes.  Sometimes, when a person has been victimized, their first instinct may be to inflict the same pain upon the person responsible for said crimes.  While this may be a reasonable emotion, it is not the response of a mature society, nor should it be a judicial foundation on which our country is based.  The belief that taking a life for a life is the only way to achieve justice is not a sufficient excuse for employing the death penalty.  As a country, we should strive for and demonstrate an absolute respect for life, even the life of a killer.  Furthermore, by sanctioning the term “pay-back” to be justified by the death penalty only encourages our motives of revenge and does not provide justice in any form; it only further builds the chain of cruelty and ultimately ends in yet another killing. 

     The cruelty known as the death penalty is simply vengeance, and vengeance should have no place in our country’s justice system.  Allowing an execution to take place does not right a wrong; it only causes more pain in the end and places us on the same moral level of murderers.  In summary, the notion of a life for a life is an unequal punishment and is one that our country should never support.  The death penalty and all that it entails is simply an attempt to ascribe a horrendous act a less terrifying title.  But no matter the name of this method of execution, it remains to signify one thing: an unspeakable murder is to take place at the hands of our government. 

The Endless Abortion Debate

     In a blog post on Redstate, author Breeanne Howe writes about the candidate’s arguments on abortion during the first Vice Presidential debate.  More specifically, she notes the common religion of Catholicism that both candidates share, and how their faith affected their views on this particular subject. 

     In this post, I believe the author is reaching out mostly to the pro-life community in an attempt to reassure them of their belief, and as if to remind them that abortion is wrong and that any life is worth saving.  While she doesn’t direct hard-hitting facts toward the community of pro-abortionalists, I do believe she speaks to them though emotion-triggering arguments of the cruelty that abortion implies.

     As for Howe’s credibility, she is well informed on the subject, and includes reason and science to support her argument; however, it is very clear her opinion is not completely unbiased, but with a subject such as abortion, no person can eloquently base their belief on facts and reason when a child’s life is at stake. 

     Breeanne Howe argues that life is created at conception, and no matter how you look at it, an unborn child is still a child.  At the beginning of her post, she mentions that both Joe Biden and Paul Ryan share similar beliefs concerning their faith and abortion.  However, Ryan is the only one who is actively proclaiming his views, while Biden simply insists he does not wish to impose his belief on other that may not hold the same position.  Isn’t that the entire point of this debate?  To present your views in a way that causes other to see your judgment and join you in your beliefs?  I strongly agree with Howe when she notes that the Vice President’s statement on not wishing to impose his beliefs on other is a weak excuse with which most everyone in the pro-life community is familiar. 

     In addition, when Howe introduces the fact that while Ryan is defending the issues of life, he was obligated to demonstrate unity with Governor Romney’s beliefs (despite the fact that he believes different), and I share his belief in that there should be no exceptions for abortion aside from the life of the mother.  It is in fact Romney who believes exceptions should exists for incest and rape, but just as Howe mentions, these exceptions are just as cruel as an abortion.  The most prevalent point in which I agree with Howe is when she states that the life of a child, and the events that come before life in the womb, should have absolutely no impact on the value of that life.  While this may sound cliché, it is my belief: no matter how dismal or overwhelming a predicament, the blame of that event should never be attributed to an unborn child. 

     In closing, Breeanne Howe gracefully portrays the burden unborn child have had to pay because of the abortion laws in place today, but she also provides hope in the fact that this dark time could pass if Romney wins the elections.  I believe having Romney as President would aid our country in recovering from the suffering the current administration caused.  Like Howe, I believe unborn children desperately need a voice to help prove that all life is precious and valuable, and that punishing the son for the sins of the father is never the answer, nor a principle on which our nation should be based. 

The Effects of ObamaCare

In this article on FoxNews, Dr. Marc Siegel brings to light an issue with Barack Obama's health care law that has evidently gone unseen. Although I believe Obama's intentions are pure, and he obviously means well, this article highlights an argument that should have been brought to attention long ago.

The author's intended audience is a wide one, I believe. While his main objective is to raise awareness of the fact that he and his fellow colleges are struggling to handle the health care expansions, he is also speaking to the patients that ObamaCare has brought forth. He is conveying, through the viewpoints of the doctors in question and conclusive facts, what is taking place on the other side of ObamaCare. I believe he is trying to truly reach out to the patients and demonstrate to them that if the number of doctors plummets, along with their passion of caring for patients, they are not the only ones who will suffer.

Dr. Siegel's credibility is very trustworthy, in my opinion. As a doctor, he is the perfect advocate for this issue. His insight into the mind of these struggling physicians is carefully shown throughout his article, as well as his overt passion to resolve the issue at hand. In addition, he adds studies that support his argument, and does not rely on his and his colleges perceptions alone.

His main claim is pointing out the problems with ObamaCare that greatly impact not the patients, but the physicians caring for them. He demonstrates the doctor's struggles to meet the demand of the extra patients brought on by Obama's health care. He claims that all over the country, doctors are overburdened, underpaid, and ultimately ill-equip to handle the surpluss of paperwork and patients.

Toward the middle of the article, Dr. Siegel provides studies and surveys that reveal the growing exhaustion and frustration of the doctors. To illustrate, he includes surveys from numerous associations that have all consistently shown that doctors are not at all happy with the direction of medicine (some even said they would retire early, if that were possible) and that it is also greatly impacting how they practice.

Dr. Siegel's argument is a reasonable one, and I feel it should not be taken lightly. He is not making excuses for himself or the other physicians, nor is he focusing extensively on the welfare of only the doctors. Instead, he keeps in mind the patients by first keeping in mind the prosperity of their physicians. After all, where are the patients left if the number of doctors abates?

In closing, I agree profusely with Dr. Siegel on this subject. I wonder now how we did not think of how this would directly affect professionals in the medical field. Did no one think to consult these physicians when these health care laws were being made? Though it may have seem like the right choice at the time, ObamaCare has apparently greatly affected the doctors of our country, and it seems as though no one has taken notice. Undoubtedly, the federal government should not have placed the heavy burden of ObamaCare on the shoulders of doctors whose resources, passion, and fortitude are dwindling.

The Issue of Student Debt

   In this article by the NTDaily, Mitt Romney discusses the issue of student debt and his opinion on how things would be dealt with if he is voted President.  Although this article does illustrate Romney's thoughts on the subject, it is more beneficial in the fact that it is an incredible eye-opener—it really highlights the harsh reality of paying for higher education.
   Since I will be attending college next year, it has been a huge wake-up call to find out the truth about paying for college. In addition, it brings to light that fact that after graduation, a college degree does not necessarily guarantee a job in this every-changing economy. I agree with Romney on most things, and this subject is definitely one of them. I don't believe it's the government's priority to pay for its citizens college debt. With all the resources and scholarships out there, it's sounds almost lazy to blame the government for college debt. 
   To summarize, it's a good read for those heading off to college, and a good way to get acquainted with Romney's views on the government's roll in student debt.