Liberty and Videogames for all!

Being an eighteen year old boy who loves video games this topic is a huge deal to me. In 2005 California was trying to pass a law that banned the selling of any violent videogames to minors. The law was written by Cal Senator Leland Yee and Governor Arnold "Terminator" Schwarzenegger. The reasoning behind this law was the outburst of child violence because of violence these kids saw in videogames such as Grand Theft Auto. Thankfully the law was shot down in the state court system by reason of being unconstitutional. The verdict was appealed and is now heading to the Supreme Court; this is the first videogame case the Supreme Court has ever agreed to hear. Senator Leland Yee talking about his law against violent videogames

A photo from Grand Theft Auto one of the controversial videogames

I along with many others believe this law is ridiculous. Two major newspapers The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times spoke out against the appealing of the law, the LA Times even called the California videogame law “an embarrassment”. Not only are these two highly respected newspapers speaking out, but the entire videogame community has fully spoken out against this law. There is normally a national expo in LA, called “E3”. It is held in LA every year, except for now; the president of E3 said that they are not willing to hold such a huge convention in a state where they are not wanted. Since the introduction of the law in 05’ the E3 expo has now been held in Los Vegas, Nevada. I believe that this law is complete baloney; you can not restrict kids of something just because it “shows” violent acts because if you were to do that videogames are not the only thing that should be banned. There are hundreds of movies, TV shows, comics, magazines, even advertisement that depicts some violence that not all kids should see, but no one is chasing after them trying to band them. In my view I think it is up to the parents of the children of today to limit what their kids can see because some kids, such as myself, know the difference between a videogame and real life and are allowed to play videogames that portray violent behavior. I hope the Supreme Court goes the same way of the California state court and shuts down this law before it spreads to other states.

Arizona’s Harsh Immigration Law

As we know Arizona has came out with a new state law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer as well as signing an executive order. This new law orders immigrants to carry any form of registration documents at all times. It also requires police officers to question people if they believe that they are illegal. This new executive order requires all police officers to get proper training about when they can and cannot stop and request people about their immigration status. Immigrants in Arizona believe that the court will step in and declare the law unconstitutional. Other immigrants believe that they should flee and leave Arizona. The Mexican American legal defense and educational funds already have vowed to sue. Thomas Saenz, the organizations legal counsel agreed that federal law prohibits race and ethnicity from being considered. He also said that this new law illegally intrudes on the soul right of the federal government to determine if someone is in this country legally. Attorneys say that those who believe to challenge the law may have a case. At a press conference Brewer seemed speechless by a question of what an illegal immigrant looks like. He responded by saying I don’t know. Gov. Jan Brewer says that the law will be enforced civilly, fairly and with out discriminatory points to it. Then why would Brewer sign a bill that is now made into a state law that points the finger at illegal immigrants with out even knowing what an illegal immigrant looks like. I have thought about this topic very seriously and it has strongly grabbed my attention since it has been on the news. I believe that this law is unconstitutional because I look at it as Arizona trying to point the finger at Mexicans. I have a lot of opinions on this topic as well as a lot of people out there who are against this law as well. I could say that immigrants belong here as well as anybody else does because God didn’t put borders on this world and neither should anybody else try to. What do you believe is right?

Photo by: Arasmus Photo via flickr

New Auto Industry Laws

As of 2010, Congress has passed a number of regulations on reduction of green house gases and better millage of cars for consumers. The new law/program, Corporate average fuel economy with the 2010 clean air act was passed to eliminate emissions of Greenhouse gases and improve mileage on the car, reducing the amount of oil needed with old cars. Since the decline of the economy, there has been an increased demand for oil and the auto industry suffering mainly, because of competition with Germany and Japan over car production and companies being taken over by foreign companies like Porsche and Toyota. So far the gas mileage for American cars has reduced from 35.5 miles per hr to 34.1 miles per hr, with government aid, even with help from the government, it will be a while before the auto industry recovers fully. The new green gas regulations, which cover carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons, are expected to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases by about 30 percent from 2012 to 2016. Specifically, officials said the national program aims to: Save the average buyer of an average 2016 model-year car $3,000 over the life of the vehicle; Conserve about 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the nation's regulated vehicles; and Reduce nearly a billion tons of greenhouse gas emissions over the lives of the vehicles covered. The new regulations for the auto industry will cost them 52 billion dollars in five years. "When the new regulations are implemented into the industry there will be a 30 percent decrease in emission gases from green house gases and a 40 percent increase in fuel economy for the new cars" said the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 auto makers. I think the overall situation of the auto industry is very bad and even with these regulations and changes it will take a lot more effort and work to achieve what they are trying to do, fix the auto industry. But how do you do that? There is a lot of competition with foreign companies that sell more cars than American companies, the economic decline and raising of gas prices at fuel points, The oil spill in Mexico, that caused many ships carrying oil to Mexico and the U.S to divert their course and cause the economy to decline even further, with the debt of Greece added to the problems of the government. All of these issues go with fixing the auto industry, the more cars you sell, the better chance you have in fixing the decline of the economy.

FDA investigates risk of CT scans

A meeting was called by the FDA taking opinions from scientists concerned about the effects the CT scan might have on patients. The amount of CT scans increase in medical patients has cause radiation exposure by seven times since 1980. The American Cancer society and American college of radiology support CT scans on healthy patients. Some people feel the risk outweights the benefits that the scan has over time. Because of talk of risk of radiation, the FDA is asking for information from manufactures to identify the effectiveness. Due to companies request for FDA apporval, FDA has the chose to whether or not to allow them to scan a large number of patients. Government experts recently sent urgent warnings about the risk of having a CT scan for colon cancer which in such scans can send radiation equal to 400 chest X-rays. The American college of gastroenterology recomends examinations using a felixable tube with a camera on it.













Given warnings from FDA recently from government workers, I would say when having a CT scan done, you should be questioning your saftey and asking if its completely necessary. The American Cancer society and American college of radiology feel its ok when the patient is healthy enough which shows that it may be effective for some patients who have no other option and feel safe enough to take a scan. But if risk is not what patients are looking to do, The American college of gastroenterology uses a camera on a tube which sounds safer so I say why not be safe then sorry. More investigations are most likely going to take place and will allow more information about CT scans to be released to the public allowing everyone to know the risks and procedures needed to take a CT scan in safety.

Asbestos

Everyone has probably seen asbestos, whether it be at a construction site or in the back room of your basement covering your pipes. But what exactly is asbestos? Asbestos is a fibrous mineral. Chrysotile is the most common asbestos mineral, and it accounts for about 95% of the asbestos found in buildings in America. Chrysotile is useful because it is sound absorbent, strong, ductile, and resistant to heat, and electrical and chemical damage. It is most commonly used in cement roof sheets typically used for outbuildings, warehouses, and garages. It is also found in flat sheets used for ceilings and sometimes for walls and floors. Some other uses include pipe insulation, ceiling insulation, and fireproof drywall. Chrysotile may also be used for coating concrete, bricks, pipes and fireplace cement because it cannot catch on fire. In addition, there are many other uses for asbestos .

Once the fibers in the asbestos are disturbed, they become airborne. Anyone who inhales these fibers at its airborne state can put themselves at risk for getting diseases such as Mesothelioma and lung cancer. This is because the fibers attach themselves to one’s lung tissues, and the body cannot get rid of them. There are many professions that commonly expose employees to asbestos, such as building inspectors, carpenters, and drywallers. Since January 1, 2005, the European Union has banned all use of asbestos, as well as its manufacturing and processing for safety purposes.

Because of all the dangers brought on by exposure to asbestos, asbestos litigation is the longest and most expensive tort in U.S. history. A study shows that more than 730,000 people in the United States have filed a lawsuit in hopes of compensation for asbestos-related injuries. From the early 1970s through the end of 2002, these lawsuits have been estimated to cost businesses and insurance companies more than $70 billion. In one major case, W.R. Grace and Company was accused of knowingly exposing miners and residents to asbestos. It is said that because of W.R. Grace and Company, 1,200 people became ill and a few even died. They agreed to pay $250 million as compensation to have their mess cleaned up.

Many of the asbestos cases filed by people are often fake and are brought about only to collect false compensation. Asbestos manufacturing companies and other companies that deal with asbestos are going bankrupt because of the thousands of lawsuits filed against them. W.R. Grace and Company is one example of a company that has become bankrupt due to asbestos. Another example is General Electric, which has paid more than $500 million in compensation of asbestos lawsuits.

Asbestos that remains undisturbed has many uses that have yet to be mimicked with a safer alternative. On the other hand, once the asbestos becomes airborne, it causes hazardous diseases and it is causing many companies in the industry to become bankrupt. What is the fate of asbestos? Only time can tell!

Supreme Court Rejects Some Life Terms For Juveniles

According to the Supreme Court it is illegal to give a juvenile the death sentence for committing a non-murder crime. If they were given a death sentence without parole that would be considered unconstitutional. It was decided in court that juveniles have to get “a meaningful opportunity to obtain release" if the crime they committed did not involve murder.

It is hard to say if this is fair or unfair. There was recently a case with a 16 year old boy named Terrence who pled guilty to armed robbery. He had robbed a barbecue with some friends. One of the people he was with hit the store owner over the head with a metal bar. Terrence was given prohibition and 12 months in the county jail. Only six months after he was released from county, he got arrested again, caught trying to escape from a crime scene. Now when he went before the judge, they told him that he was given a second chance when he was given prohibition and now that this happened they aren’t giving him any more chances. He was given the maximum punishment, the rest of his life in jail without parole.

Terrence’s lawyer then went to Supreme Court and made a claim that life in prison with no parole was cruel and unusual punishment for a juvenile offender who did not commit a murder. The Supreme Court agreed by a six-to-three vote. Their reasoning is that it was indeed cruel and unusual punishment which is protected against by the eighth amendment.

Just recently “The Supreme Court ruled that juveniles who commit crimes in which no one is killed may not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.” There are a lot of people who think this is unfair because they commit the crime so therefore they should know the punishment. However for the people on the other side they think it is very fair and that they should not be that severely punished if they don’t even commit a murder. A lifetime in prison they believe is a little extreme for robbing a store or a mugging. It gives all juveniles a chance to obtain parole and not spending the rest of their lives in jail.

I think that the Supreme Court made the right decision by declaring life sentence for a non-murder crime unconstitutional. It clearly goes against the eighth amendment. In some cases however I think that this new ruling wouldn’t be so great. I think they should be able to go case by case and see how each crime should be punished based on the extent of the crime. For example if someone commits a crime with intent to murder but no one ends up being killed, how should this be handled. According to the law, they would still get the option of parole because they didn’t actually kill anyone. I think this is unfair because they shouldn’t have to just necessarily kill someone to get a lifetime prison sentence. I think that it depends on the severity of the crime if they can get jail for life, it shouldn’t only be if they kill someone. I also think that juveniles should be treated the same as adults when it comes to punishments because they are old enough to know what’s right and wrong and what they should and shouldn’t do. They should be given the same punishment as an adult would get. There is no excuse for their behavior because of their age. I think that the life sentence law can be a good thing and a bad thing depending on the people involved and the crime committed.

Images Courtesy of Flikr

Class Action Lawsuit Against eBay for Deaf Woman

From what I have heard and from personal usage of eBay the site has bad communication. If you have a problem on eBay.com it takes a while to get your call through and they cannot always help. Melissa Earl was trying to sell her collection of rare books on eBay.com. She was having no problem with the website and it was easy for her to use. Anyone over 18 has the right and is allowed to use eBay. The big issue with this came when Melissa was required to fill in a password online. Where would she get this password?...via telephone of course. The problem here is that Melissa is deaf and is incapable of doing that.
When she had to hear the password, there was no way for her to get it. Earl contacted eBay for two months in 2008 for eBay to use alternate methods in order for her to sell her items. In 2009, Melissa Earl tried to register again and is still did not work. They did not change anything and it was still the same system. eBay would pay the consequences. This violates the rights and what the ADA stands for.
Melissa Earl along with the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) would file a class action lawsuit against eBay. The lawsuit would require eBay to make deaf sellers capable of selling items. When quoted, one of eBay’s spokesperson stated, “eBay strives to equally serve all of our users in an appropriate, lawful and responsible manner.” This is clearly untrue as told by Melissa Earl’s case. I have not been able to find out how the case ended but I’m guessing it was in favor of the ADA.
Even if she is deaf the ADA states that someone should have to help her access the website. Even though it’s a different situation, if someone was blind they still should be able to use the site. Especially after they contacted eBay about it. If eBay does not respond to messages, you should sue. Another case with eBay was when they were limiting people to methods of payment. Three guys sued eBay under the antitrust act. eBay limits what buyers and sellers can use for transactions. For example, they do not let people send money or money orders anymore. One of the guys suing about this claimed eBay has a monopoly which I believe is true. A judge ruled against the case but eBay does have a monopoly as it is the biggest auction website.
Overall, eBay should reconsider how they treat the people using the sites. They should treat their users well unless they want more and more lawsuits.

The 18,000 Dollar Phone Bill

Bob St. Germain received a bill in the mail back in 2006. This was no ordinary bill, it was one for $18,000. The unpaid bill went onto Bob's credit history because he refused to pay this incredible sum. Amazingly his son racked up this much money in 1 week of internet access on their Verizon phone. He has been on an ongoing battle with Verizon for the last four years and now after several lawsuits Verizon is dismissing all charges. "Nice to see Verizon dismiss all the charges," Germain said. "But it's still on my credit report. Someone has to take the next step." This is true, because it is a huge black mark when trying to purchase something big, such as a house, car or rentals on anything. Verizon in the mean time after St. Germain complained reduced the bill to $9,000 and sent it to a collection agency. The agency deemed the amount "not collectible" and then the amount shrunk to a surprising 0. The lesson here learned is, learn your companies plan and be smart about your choices.

Starbucks Sued Over Hot Tea

Caution Contents Hot. It should be common knowledge that when one orders hot tea or coffee that the beverage tends to be hot. That is why when handling hot beverages one should be extra careful and not take a sip right away, or drive with coffee between one's legs. Retailers are getting "burned" with the amount of negligence cases regarding the beverage being too hot. This issue first became public knowledge in the case Liebeck v McDonalds in 1994. Liebeck was an 81 year old woman who was burned from the scalding temperature of her coffee. McDonald's claimed they were not liable, more that Liebeck should not put the coffee in her lap while driving. However, in the end of her trial Liebeck was granted $2.9 million.

Now a Starbucks in New York is being sued for selling hot tea. The New York woman claimed the tea was "unreasonably hot in containers that were unsafe". Just a side note, on the lid of Starbucks products there is a warning labeling "Caution Contents Hot". The woman suffered "great physical pain and mental anguish" in addition to the burns. Currently the woman seeks unspecified charges.




The list continues for the amount of negligence cases piling on top of various food companies. Society has become so accustomed to suing, that rarely do individuals reflect on whether they were the cause of their dispute. When a person is dealing with an ironing board, a straightener, a bowl of soup, they typically know how to handle these objects without getting burned. Same goes with beverages. Be careful with how you handle the drink. Touch the side, if it is too hot then wait a few minutes for it to cool down. The precautions one can take are self explanatory. Just be careful, wait for it to cool down or stick to iced coffee.


(All photos courtesy of Flickr)

The death penalty is an issue that politicians and regular people have kept their distance from, because it is very controversial. With the myriad ways to be executed, Ohio has adopted a new way to carry out executions: A single injection of a large dose of anesthesia. Lethal injections have been delivered through a three-drug coctail of chemicals. This way of execution is seen by critics as inhumane. However the single shot method is seen as more humane because it is similar to animal euthenasia.
Whether or not this new method is humane or not, the officials and executioners must be trained to use it correctly. In a botched execution of Romell Broom, one of the executioners did not show up to his required rehearsals, and that caused the inmate's execution to be called off.
This is not the first botched execution in our history, there have been many more.
So all together, is continuing the death penalty a worthwhile endeavor? Even with Ohio's new single injection, executions are still being done incorrectly. The cost of the trial, and execution of one person is tremendous. Keeping a prisoner in jail is sereveral times cheaper than executing one. On the other hand though, the death penalty provides closure in the fact that, the murder i.e. of a loved one will be gone, and is not a threat to anyone else. As I said earlier, this is a controversial topic, and an important one. An issue that stands in the greyer areas of the law, and one we must as a country find a solution to.

The Top Secret iPhone Theft

21-year-old Brian Hogan found an iPhone one night when he was in a bar with his friends. According to Hogan, he was in the bar with his friends when somebody handed him a phone after finding it on a nearby stool. The patron gave Hogan the phone, asked Hogan if the phone belonged to him, and then the patron left the bar. Hogan asked the people around him if the phone was theirs, but when no one claimed it, Hogan left the bar with the phone.


It turns out that the phone that Hogan left with was a prototype for a new version of the iPhone. Hogan claims that the phone immediately shut down and was un-useable for the duration of the time that it was in his possession. This being the case, Hogan thought of things that he could do with the phone.

The tech site Gizmodo offered to pay Hogan $5000 for the phone,in order to give the site exclusive access to review the phone. Gizmodo emphasized to him that there was nothing wrong in sharing the phone with the tech press. On April 19, 2010, Gizmodo published a bombshell story about the iPhone prototype.

Meanwhile, the man who lost the iPhone prototype and the Apple company contacted the San Mateo County District Attorney’s office to report the phone stolen. The investigation has led them to Hogan, but also to Gizmodo editor Jason Chen, who received and reported on the phone. Law enforcement officials raided Chen’s home and seized computers and other equipment. Gizmodo and others have argued that the search warrant violated state and federal laws protecting journalists from searches and seizures without a subpoena. The San Mateo County district attorney’s office said this week that investigators will not examine the seized materials until the legality of the warrant has been resolved. Hogan has been interviewed by law enforcement investigators but has not been charged with a crime. Hogan’s lawyer states that Hogan regrets his mistake in not doing more to return the phone.

But was it a mistake? There are many interesting issues raised by this case. First of all, are Hogan’s actions an example of “stealing”? Hogan had no way to return the phone to its owner since he had no way of knowing who the owner was. Perhaps Hogan could have done more by giving the phone to the bar owner so that it could be placed in the bar “lost and found”, but was that really Hogan’s responsibility under the law? Or is this “theft” considered more serious because of the nature of what was stolen or missing? For example, if someone in a bar finds a missing money clip, and no one in the bar claims it, is it a crime for the person to leave the bar with the money clip and not take further efforts to return it? It may be unethical but ethics are not what determine the law.

Second of all, it seems unreasonable that the GIzmodo editor had his house raided and his computers seized. What crime did Gizmodo commit? Is it illegal for a website or magazine to report on new technology once that technology is discovered? It is not as if Gizmodo was attempting to reproduce the iPhone. They were merely reporting about the new technology that had become available. Perhaps this is considered a more serious “crime” because it involves a huge company like Apple which has a lot of money at stake. Even if this is a serious matter to Apple (which makes sense), it seems peculiar to involve the police in raiding someone’s home and seizing their computers just because of someone’s questionable ethics.

Hogan’s lawyer states that Hogan’s family has relocated to an undisclosed location because “This thing has gotten completely, completely out of control”. It makes sense that finding top secret Apple technology is a big deal, but it may not be right for the law to bend simply because of the unique circumstances.

Airline Merger Creates Unfair Advantage Yet Good

The biggest merger in the airplane industry. Two companies, United and Continental Airlines, joined together to create the biggest airline company, surpassing Delta. This merger costs more than 3 billion dollars. The two companies have decided to keep United's name but the Continental logo. This merger has made United an overpowering airline over other airlines, which just isn't fair.

With this merge, United is almost given the control of a monopoly. Although they can't set fares without looking at competition, they will be able to set higher fares on international flights where there are less competitors that can offer the same service that this new company will have.

This merge creates an unfair advantage to United as other companies will not be able to compete with the new overpowering company. Airline companies are going to be forced to either cut back costs or pull out all together. This new company will be bringing in a lot more customers than usual, taking customers away from some of the smaller companies that they used to fly with.

This also creates unfair fares for customers that would like to fly internationally. Because of this merger, fares for flights will be increased, since there won't be anyone else who will be able to produce the same amount of flights going out to all parts of the world. People will be forced to fly with this company if they would like to get to their destination on time with more flights going out from this single company.

In my past experiences, I have flown with United and found that their customer service has been awful. One time when I was trying to fly to the Dominican Republic, we had to stop in Philadelphia where our flight was cancelled due to weather. They weren't able to give us compensation and we had to pay for tickets to go to Miami first and then go from Miami to the Dominican Republic.

Hopefully, this merger will help the airline become more successful with customer satisfaction because of the increased intelligence when combined with another airline.

Another good thing about this merger is that it will increase the amount of flights produced by the airline company. This will help many travelers get to where they need to be at the right time.

Although this merger has given United much more power in the airline industry, this merger will help United become a better company that will serve people more easily and better.

Click here to watch the two CEOs of the companies talk about the merger.

BP Oil Spill

The 40-foot-tall steel chamber BP hoped would capture the oil gushing from a damaged offshore well was another fail. It has now been over two weeks since BP's off-shore well exploded a mile down into the ocean. The explosion occurred after a blast on the Deepwater Horizon rig near Louisiana, killing 11 people who were on the well. This explosion has caused roughly 5,000 barrels of gasoline to leak into the ocean daily. This could soon become the worlds worst ever oil spill, reaching the coast of the US in the next week. When it does reach, 40 percent of the US wetlands may perish, threatening shrimping and fishing grounds, tourism and wildlife along the U.S. Gulf Coast. so what is BP doing to stop it?

Yesterday, BP lowered a 40 foot-tall steel chamber a mile down to the sea flour. Their hope was that the structure would capture the oil spilling from the offshore well and funnel it to a ship at the surface. This hope was blocked by an icy mixture of gas and water causing hydrate crystals to form. Since that didn't work, BP is drilling a relief well aimed at relieving the pressure, later leading to the stop of the spill. According to BP's COO, the well is "ahead of plan", already reaching a depth of 9,000 feet. That would be ahead of plan if the well exploded in the last few days, not weeks ago.

And BP knows they are in trouble, they are offering residents $5,000 to give up their right to sue the company. According to a few sources, the waiver read, "I hearby agree on behalf of myself and my representatives, to hold harmless and indemnify, and to release, waive, and forever discharge BP Exploration and Production Inc., its subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, regular employees and independent contractors..." Instead of paying to not get sued, they should spend the money on a way to stop the leak, then they wouldn't have to worry about anyone suing them.

I can't seem to figure out how the company responsible for so much off-shore drilling, doesn't have a plan in place in case something like this happens. They should have a procedure in place in case anything like this happens, not wait weeks to decide on the right solution well the hazardous gas eats away at the ecosystem. And how is the president or the EPA not putting extreme pressure on BP to act considering how its affecting the US coast. The day they found out gas was pouring into the ocean, they should of acted on it. If I was the EPA, I would make sure these off shore wells have a procedure in place to follow in case a spill occurs, it would save the ecosystem a ton. After all, the week the spill occurred, the EPA had a full out website with data on the spill’s impact on the environment and the health of nearby residents. But over all, i think BP has handled this whole situation wrong, and before they go back to drilling, a plan should be implemented to prevent this from ever happening.

Stem Cell Research

Stem cells are immature cells found in embryos that can develop into any kind of specialized cells, meaning even any cell of the human body.

There are many benefits of Embryonic Stem Cell Research. By observing these cells, scientists can get to know the development of the embryo very well. With this knowledge it is possible that in example birth defects can be prevented in future. Even cures for so far incurable diseases like the Parkinson´s Syndrome, may be developed and can save many lifes.

Scientists would be able to grow cells from the embryo´s stem cells, which could repair spinal cord damage. Considered is also growing nerve cells to cure Alzheimer’s and other common diseases. Scientists even believe that they will be able to clone with the help of stem cells and plant organs which can be transplanted into a human body.

In March 2009 Barack Obama signed an executive order which funds embryonic stem cell research through taxes. Many people do not agree with his decision because it is not guaranteed that scientist will be successful, but the citizen´s money will be used. Instead this kind of research should be funded by charities or other organizations. However, the opposition argues that otherwise there would not be enough money for the research from which future generations will highly benefit.

Yet, funding is not the biggest issue about the research of embryonic stem cells. It is more the apparently never ending argument about killing human life, similar to abortion. Pro-life advocates consider embryos human beings, therefore they do not approve of this research.

It is much discussed if an embryo is supposed to be considered a human being or not. Questions like: "Do embryos have a conscience?" are raised most commonly.

Prosencephalon- Forebrain

Mesencephalon- Midbrain

Rhombencephalon- Hindbrain

Research proofs that an embryo is a developing human being. The fact that its consciousness is only vague does not change that fact. The images above show four months old embryos. The brain parts are obvious and that proofs that an embryo is a human being, even if it is still developing.

The state law of Illinois permits research on embryonic stem cells, embryonic and adult stem cells from any source. However, a written consent from the female and male is necessary in cases other than an abortion. Illinois´state law prohibits the creation of embryos for the sole use of it for research. Furthermore it prohibits the sale of embryos for research.

Most embryos used for research are being frozen after a woman or couple is satisfied with their fertility treatment. In these cases more than one embryo is produced and when a woman´s treatment was successful, the spare ones are donated for research.

This controversial topic provides reasonable pro as well as con arguments. Apparently not even the President Barack Obama and his advisors were completely certain about a justly and justifiable solution concerning embryonic stem cell research. Two days after President Obama had signed the above mentioned law, he signed another law, which bans federal funding of any "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death".

Fortunately, latest research proofs that similar procedures like they have been performed with stem cells from embryos, can be done with stem cells from adults or children. However, it is not as easy and probably not all kinds of organs are going to be able to be grown with these cells.

Scientists do everything they can to make a difference, invent something new or become famous with their ideas. These goals should not be viewed as anything negative, since that is what keeps scientists working and inventing all those great things like artificial insemination for couples whose dream it is to have children but do not have the ability or even cell phones, which Americans do not seem to be able to live without. The donated embryos would die anyways because in example in cases of fertility treatment, more than one embryo is produced. Therefore it is the best solution to donate the spare embryo and use it for research to improve our and our children´s future, because isn´t that what all this is about? Children! It should be a federal law though, that stem cell research is allowed on aborted and donated embryos. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that embryos are human beings and have the right to live.

Obamacare and the American Business

At first glance the average consumer would think that the new health care law is great. It opens up health insurance to people with pre-existing conditions, and creates competition in the insurance market, lowering prices. However, the ramifications to the corporate world are looking much bleaker. The people who see the most of these changes, would be the doctors. For starters, opening up more affordable health insurance would drive up the demand for primary care doctors by as much as 29%. this would in turn increase the waiting list for an appointment. An example of this is Massachusetts current health care system is almost identical to the new law passed. Some clinics face waiting lists that are 1,600 people long. Investors Business Daily refer to the law as a contradictory strategy that insures Americans will enjoy less health care, of poorer quality, and from fewer doctors.

One of the most overlooked parts of the law is the taxes put on businesses. If an Employer does not provide insurance to their employees, and has more than 50 employees, they get hit with a heavy fine. Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar gives a good example in his article. "A company with 100 employees, that fails to provide coverage could face a fine of $140,000." This cost would likely destroy a company that was unable to pay for their employees insurance.

One of the industries that will most likely get hit the hardest, is the private insurance companies. The new law introduces a public option to health insurance. Since this is government (tax payer) funded, it will be able offered at a very low price. Thus creating a competition, for the insurance market, and in turn lowering the prices for the other companies. Unfortunately, insurance companies will have a very hard time keeping up with a company that has unlimited assets. The prices will be low for the consumer, but will inevitably drain the insurance companies. On top of their price issues, they will be losing thousands of customers to the new public option.

This bill can do nothing but hurt the current market. The government is pushing for people to get insurance, but at what costs. The hypocrisy of this law is in the fact that Obama believes, forcing people to get insurance will stimulate the economy. On the contrary, his public option, and fines will slowly force employers to cut out employees for the burden they put on the company. This can unfortunately lead to more unemployed, uninsured people who we will put further in to debt by requiring them to go out and purchase health insurance. Why not save money and not buy health insurance? Well anyone who is not insured, living above the poverty line will be taxed %750, or 2% of their income, whichever is higher. This is evidence that the health care law has an inimical effect on the economy, and the employers of America.

Cell Phone Companies Driving to Improve their Image

Cell phone companies will be receiving a huge blow to their industry because of laws that will limit the public to not use cell phones while driving. Not only will the cell phone industry lose money from the lack of call time and texting, they will gain a negative image. With cars becoming even more prevalent along with cell phones, cell phone companies will have to learn to deal with the face of a new age of disaster.

A person may not use an electronic messaging device while operating a motor vehicle while on the road. Illinois is not the only state to impose law against texting and driving; many states across the nation are addressing this issue. With the prohibition of cell phones while driving, cell phone companies will lose the obvious, revenue. Additionally, cell phone companies will lose money based on society's new outlook on cell phones. The issue of texting and driving has taken the national podium. With the major media networks publishing and broadcasting stories about the dangers of texting and driving , how will the cell phone industry maintain a positive image when so much negativity surrounds this issue? This new epidemic is being compared to the drunk driving problem which is considered one of the main issues that the police must enforce. Based on statistics, driving while intoxicated creates a slower reaction time than someone who is texting and driving. With more notoriety being placed upon this issue of texting and driving, people will look negatively on the phone industry.

AT&T has responded with its own public service ads on their website. On the website, it advises people to not engage in texting while driving and wait until a later time to send the message. I believe that cell phone companies can make a negative situation seem to have a positive outcome like the current AT&T website has done. There is no denying that cell phone companies are viewed as the culprit of the problems with texting and driving. However, the phone companies can take the same approach that the alcohol companies take. How many commercials have you seen where at the end of the commercial a voice arises and says, "Drink responsibility"? Alcohol commercials air that same line constantly because alcohol companies know alcohol will lead to accidents. Cell phone companies could bandwagon onto this same aspect and maintain a national campaign repeating a line saying, "Don't text and drive". A simple recognition by the companies would acknowledge their opinion of the issue and put the American public at ease.