“I feel that if it is necessary to strain the wallets of the citizens for the better of the country then it should be done.”

If every American had to pitch in a little amount to raise the quality of life in this country, then so be it. As an American Citizen, I would be honored to know that my tax dollars are supporting a Universal idea that everyone deserves a healthier life.

As far as it not being economically feasible. I’m sure that We can all live with the government funding a project that may not make sense at the time. Most of us have grown immune to it. Besides, according to USA Today (October 25, 2005), it has been speculated that by 2030 more than %20 of Americans will be senior citizens. That might be around 85 million Americans who will need to see a doctor.

Although I’m quite unsure if those who are being taxed would notice a difference. Those who pay for health coverage every month now will just redirect their payments through higher taxes.

The economy may currently be in a slump but Obama’s plan for Universal Health Care is looking toward the future of our people and our country. It will be a difficult path to take given the financial crisis. However, I feel that if it is necessary to strain the wallets of the citizens for the better of the country then it should be done.

This is the most frivolous question ever asked by the media. That question should be asked at the Magic Kingdom, not the White House. Someone please convince me that this is a valid question to ask the president.

In my opinion, it is considered a big deal than people think because his tenure is weighed against him if he is involved in a scandal and with that, he will get away with it if he was taking gifts from the government, accepting money from other people etc. The media have to do their job just to fair to themselves and trust worthy in their viewers because everybody takes the liability and the blame and as a result will taint their reputation for good.

The change in coverage by some outlets could also be explained by some of the losses of revenue occurring in the media. Two important causes of the revenue losses are 1) the internet is becoming more popular, and 2) some news outlets are fairer than others. The first is obvious. And the second, I am postulating because not all news outlets are losers in ratings. Therefore, people are discriminating from bad news stations like MSNBC and switching to Fox News—note: a fair network. Most importantly, President Obama is scrutinized more because the media is competing for viewers.

Furthermore, Presidents are victims of intense press coverage when they’re presiding over a war and a recession. When the War in Iraq started, much of the press carried out critical coverage of President Bush. I will acknowledge that President Obama dealt with some difficult questions regarding the economy on his 24th of March Press Conference. On the other hand, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton presided over peace and prosperity so they didn’t have it too bad. The media did adore Clinton until the Election of 2008 and detested Reagan’s policies, but Reagan was a very popular president. However, each President did have some bad days—see Iran-Contra and the Lewinski Scandal. Namely, Presidents serving in difficult circumstances deal with difficult questions from the press.

On the contrary, President Obama doesn’t deal with as much scrutiny as President Bush did. Late night talk show hosts all had a variety of ways to trash Bush. The double standard is shown with President Obama when he made an appearance on Jay Leno’s The Tonight Show. Just imagine if President Bush went on a late night talk show and mistakenly referenced his personal anecdote to the Special Olympics. Much of the press ignored this frivolous story about Obama, but if it was George W. Bush, Keith Olbermann would have been apoplectic. He would also invite people on his show who agree Bush should be arrested for his statement. This is possibly a reason he is losing his ratings to another douchy reporter who does invite opposition to his show—O’Reilly. There is no question that much of the media favor their Presidents.

President Obama’s deal with the press—to coin a phrase—was made during his election and then broken as he ascended the highest office of the world. It could be noted that the press are mendacious, moreover, because they made his slim record look appealing. However, the media are losing money and ratings, so they are beginning to become more objective. Also, Presidents under hard times are pressured to answer hard questions. Therefore, the people do have enough information if they pay attention to the events in national news.

In my own opinion I believe the constitution was a well crafted document left open for interpretation by there predecessors for a reason. So that each president that preceded the former was allowed room to change course for the nation as necessary (like captains of a ship changing course to avoid icebergs in shifts). Some captains liking to take to dangerous courses, some the more safe. Each captain however realizing that there is but one goal.

The diminishing but still apparent forms of racism in this country will always exist unfortunately as likened to the birth of new stars in the sky each with the same goal (To provide to those closest to it) but different ways as to which they go about it because of there composition.

To quote a line from Mississippi Masala that I’ve recently watched, and I’m paraphrasing “racism is like a bad recipe passed down thru generations, the trick is to know what to eat and what to leave on the plate”.

From a scientific point of view, one could say, all of our own genetic make-up compels us to explore, even at the expense of our destruction for doing it. Yet, some of us thru this “bad recipe approach” are still taught to shun or negate the very chemical reactions in our DNA that tells us to do it. If love, harmony, and understanding are the eventual catalysts that unite humanity, then maybe we should have been paying more attention to George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson’s actions rather then there teachings.

the question that stumps me is, can we fault them if they are merely a product of there surroundings and genetic make-up scientifically speaking.

Let us propose life went the other route, ask yourself how many slaves you would own today!
How many people would you own and sacrifice to build your empire, until someone else with a stronger empire came to take it with an opposing view of how life was suppose to be lived.

So yes, I do believe they had the country’s best interest at heart, and maybe even taught us thru actions how they felt the country could get past racism, and still keep some peoples views intact. However, this is all just my perception and observations of the past and what I know of it.

Sorry for the long history lesson. My point is that the banning of Sati was spurred on by a combination of factors, not merely British benevolence.