Author: Sara Hilbert

Educational inequity is our nation’s greatest injustice. The National Assessment of educational Progress in 2005 found that fourth graders growing up in low-income communities are already three grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities. Even though we all have the same potential to achieve, there are extra challenges these children face, in addition to the growing polarization of social classes. Most of all the schools lack sufficient capacity to meet these extra needs; especially lacking in teachers and leaders who deeply believe their students can achieve at high levels.

Last month Hilary Clinton sponsored the “National Principal Recruitment Act”. This will recruit, train, and support principals for high-need schools who are effective in improving student academic achievement. Clinton’s act aims to create and maintain data-driven, professional learning communities within the new principal’s school. This program will engage the community, involve parents, and leverage addition resources to improve student academic achievement. These schools will have three focuses: teaching and learning, school culture, and management and operations. The real difference that sets this aside is the matching requirement. To receive a grant there has to be an eligible grantee shall contribute to the activities assisted under such grant matching funds in an amount equal to not less than 100 percent of the amount of the grant.

This strategic move will challenge principals to become solid leaders. It also sets them up to have the resources and support to create a successful school environment and focus on outstanding performance from their students. This plan recognizes there are factors greater than the teacher data and student test results that effect performance. This plan will research and analyze both internal and external factors in the particular school and then find solutions to offer the very best way to serve these children.

With nearly 40% of our nation’s principles nearing retirement, our cities are in need of well-prepared and highly motivated principals to lead our schools where every student can thrive and succeed. Education is, unarguably, the key to opportunity. This bill would fulfill our most fundamental obligation, we all have a role we can play to ensure every child has an equal chance.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Feminism has always been belief in women’s rights; actively standing up for the rights of all women to have political, social, and economic equality with men. Over the last few years, the perception has moved from the very limited, very negative viewpoint that included women’s rights to abortion rights only.

This year New Hampshire has become the first state Senate to have a female majority, with 13 female members out of 24. Other lead positions held by women in the state: Sylvia Larson, Senate president; Maggie Hassan, president pro-tem; and Martha Fuller Clark, majority leader.  New Hampshire holds to be the only state to have two female officers. Extraordinary. The state’s legislature totals 424 members, which makes it the largest legislature in the United States and forth-largest (English-speaking) governing body in the world. More importantly, these senators receive no compensation. These are innovative leaders breaking the boundaries and becoming examples to follow.

Both women in this past presidential election have worked to push the cultural limitation and have fought for feminism. Yes, that means I am including a Senator from New York and the Governor from Alaska in the same sentence. Though the definition of feminism remains the same, it is greater depth and dimension created by each of these women that constructs a strong view of the female. Hilary Clinton has pushed the norms to the extreme (finally giving our male-dominated presidency a challenge). Sarah Palin has received harsh criticism for being “under qualified” from both GOP women and along with her Democratic counterparts. Cleta Mitchell, conservative activist and lawyer, gave the best commentary in this matter. “Even if Sarah Palin is as ‘unqualified’ as the left would have us believe, …then former Congresswoman Bella Abzug’s lifelong goal has been achieved. She used to say that she was ‘working for the day when a mediocre woman could get as far as a mediocre man.’”

It is refreshing to see a break in culturally constructed barriers that provide strength and opportunity for women everywhere. These replace the objectivity of empty shadows that have been previous positions for women to fill. The time is almost over where gender will not matter at all when people vote for their leaders. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Atrazine is a pesticide for control of broadleaf and grassy weeds. It has been recognized by the Environment Protection Agency as possibly being, “…found in some public or private drinking water.” In the very same fact sheet this widely used pesticide was further listed as a risk that, “May cause health problems.”

Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council said “Several European countries have banned Atrazine and that it should be prohibited in the United States. We know it accuses irreparable harm to exposed wildlife, it’s a potential threat to human life, and it’s in our water at unacceptable levels.” Surprisingly this statement was made during a long battle between the EPA and environmental groups in 2003. Unfortunately, after hearing the reports, the EPA concluded to keep the product on the market, merely promising to step up monitoring on surface water supplies.

This product is still as harmful as it was years ago and truly is an example of where the EPA is failing the American people once again. Representative Keith Ellison understands this and is fiercely fighting for the complete removal of Atrazine off the market. He is the chief sponsor of H.R.3399, a bill “To prohibit the use, production, sale, importation, or exportation of any pesticide containing Atrazine.”  The EPA has found Atrazine to potentially cause short-term effects when exposed to levels above Maximum Contaminant  Level (MCL is 3ppb): congestion of heart, lungs, and kidneys; low blood pressure;  muscle spasm; weight loss; damage to adrenal glands.  Long-term effects can be weight loss, cardiovascular damage, cancer, retinal and some muscle degeneration.

Atrazine is a dangerous chemical. However, the EPA only asked water suppliers to collect water supplies every three months for a year to find out if Atrazine is present above 1ppb. If it is higher, they will continue to monitor and treat the water. If low or no presence of Atrazine is found they discontinue monitoring for the pesticide. According to Stephen L. Johnson, the EPA’s assistant administrator for prevention, pesticides and toxic substance, 8 out of 200 US water systems have Atrazine levels significantly above the legal limit. Two water systems in Missouri, two in Kentucky, and various sites in Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and Iowa are currently involved.

If you are in one of these areas, you should learn more about how your water is treated.  Contact your state’s Department of Health and Environment for more information. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Most Americans would agree that the FDA has failed us in many ways, from overregulation of products to under-regulation of many more.  On one side, researchers claim bad reactions to FDA-approved prescription drugs kill or seriously injure many Americans every year. On the other side, pharmaceutical companies are quick to push the FDA to approve their new drugs. Without effective research and studies on the long-term effects of these products, the consumer becomes the lab rat under the FDA stamp of approval.

Senator Judd Gregg is sponsoring S.596, a bill “To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to provide for the regulation of Internet Pharmacies.” Certainly, unlicensed people have web sites that are unregulated and could be contaminated or modified. Some online hoaxes could cause more harm to the patient, and is why this bill would increase enforcement on licensing laws and inspection requirements. However, many more internet pharmacies verify the prescription and prescribing doctor, are more convenient, more affordable, and follow up on the patient than walk-in pharmacies are commonly criticized for.

“The FDA serves as the pharmaceutical industry’s watchdog, which can be called upon to attack and destroy a potential competitor under the guise of protecting the public,” says James P. Carter, M.D. The FDA’s new focus on these internet pharmaceutical providers seems to become interference for competition of pharmaceutical pharmacies than if they were left to their own devices. The FDA’s new focus on these internet pharmaceutical providers not only would cause uproar among online pharmacies, but would also set precedence for a new level of government intervention across the web. This bill would leave the door wide open for other governmental agencies to step-in when deemed most convenient and regulate other areas of commerce, most likely including EPA-related affairs and online tax consulting companies by the ever-efficient IRS. If S.596 were to pass, be prepared for widespread adoption of increased government intervention across the net and yet another example of where the FDA becomes exactly what it claims it claiming to defeat.  

Author: Sara Hilbert

If a national movement against bulk gun purchasing does not pass, Senators Sandra B. Cunningham and Teresa Ruiz M will see it happen within the state of New Jersey. S.1774 prohibits individuals from purchasing more than one handgun within one calendar month. The only exception to the bill is that the purchaser is law enforcement official, a license handguns collector, or involves a transfer of handguns between retail dealers. In an effort to reduce gun trafficking and to keep guns out of the hands of the unstable and criminals, this bill would hereinafter set forth handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card. This card restricts gun purchase from anyone that would not be in the interest of the public health, safety, or welfare. This specifically restricts anyone with a conviction of a crime or domestic violence, drug dependence, institutionalized for a mental disorder, a habitual drunkard, a physically defected person, anyone subject to a restraining order, or a juvenile involved unlawful use or possession of a destructive device.

The Brady Campaign rated New Jersey second for the strength of their gun laws. The Brady scorecards include five major categories of laws: curbing firearm trafficking, strengthening Brady background checks, child safety, banning military-style assault weapons, and making it harder to carry guns in public. Unlike the federal “End Gun Trafficking Act of 2008” this bill is more detailed in relation to the background of the gun purchaser, at times, denying second chances for one with a slightly, questionable past. Is this a common sense law or has it crossed the line?

Author: Sara Hilbert

Obesity is a national public health concern, a serious problem that faces this coming generation with a furry. According to 2006 data by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United States has the highest prevalence of obesity among the world’s developed nations. We need to step up and become more than an advocate – we need a revolution. S.3584, sponsored by Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), is looking for something more than a national e-diet. He is looking for ways we need to “to comprehensively prevent, treat, and decrease overweight and obesity in our Nation’s populations.”

Fast Facts:

o   Obese individuals have a 50-100% increase of premature death

o   Being overweight/obese increases the risk of chronic disease like: diabetes, heart disease, stroke, certain cancers, and arthritis

o   32% from ages 2-19 are obese/overweight

o   66% of adults are obese/overweight

o   About $117,000,000,000 was spent in 2001 in overweight/obesity caused problems

o   70% of adults are getting less than 20 minutes of regular physical activity per day and many are completely sedentary

o   For children born in 2000, estimated lifetime risk of being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes is 40% for females and 30% for males

In order “To comprehensively prevent, treat, and decrease overweight and obesity in our Nation’s populations”:

Bingaman‘s “Obesity Prevention, Treatment, and Research Act of 2008,” will create a council called “United States Council on Overweight-Obesity Prevention” (USCO-OP). Membership will consist of 20 secretaries or representatives from the following departments: Agriculture, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Federal Trade Commission and Transportation. Members may also be selected from other government groups, such as the Federal Communication Commission, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Healthcare Research and Quality, Medicare/ Medicaid, and the FDA. This mega group will work together in an attempt to develop strategies, interagency cooperation, and gain community involvement with one goal in mind: to comprehensively prevent, treat, and reduce overweight and obesity.

If it were to pass, the bill’s specific consumer-choice provisions would help consumers make better choices, empowering the choice of the individual and thereby placing responsibility on one for one’s one health. About 30% of American’s total calorie intake is high-energy dense and low-nutrient dense food. These foods can be over-consumed easily because the brain’s pathways that regulate hunger and influence normal food intake are not triggered by these foods. Over the years, the packaging industry and product placement strategy use more manipulation and encourage consumption at the expense of our health.  Food and beverage labeling reform is necessary because it is a large contributor to the epidemic. In addition, due to such products being made in mass quantities they tend to be significantly cheaper than healthier alternatives.

This bill will also take into consideration eating disorders and related various chronic medical conditions to help better prevent. This committee will involve discussions through varied strategies with patients from at-risk and diverse populations to promote positive behavior change and healthy lifestyles. Discussions will include topics such as weight and the Body Mass Index (BMI) measurement and monitoring as well as appropriate treatment services, medical nutrition therapy services, physical therapy or exercise training and behavioral health counseling. This program will make amendments to the social security act to give Medicare coverage of medical nutrition therapy services for people with pre-diabetes within the system.

No one wishes for his or her child to have low self-esteem or to grow up very sick. No one wishes to spend their life savings on medical bills for themselves. Nevertheless, the actions we are making today are causing every one of these problems. This bill gives us that extra push and support to help us make better decisions. It will regulate marketing strategies to make consistent and accurate labeling. It is never too late begin a healthier lifestyle. Knock it off with the fad diets and quick weight loss strategies. It is time for a transformation. Take the challenge. 

Need a place to start? Try these:

http://www.50millionpounds.com/

http://www.shapeup.org/ 

Find out your BMI:

http://www.obesityinamerica.org/

Author: Sara Hilbert

Representative Cliff Stearns, like so many Americans, has had enough. September 11 of this year, he was quick to express strong dissatisfaction with the situation in Iraq, when he sponsored House Resolution 1431. “Expressing the sense of the House of Representative that the Department of Defense and the Department of State should withhold funds for any new reconstruction projects in Iraq until the Iraqi Government reimburses the United States for previous reconstruction projects, and for other purposes.”

As soon as I type, “withhold funds from Iraq” I feel military families tense up at the idea of leaving their men and women without gear. Then I hear the conservatives rant about American pride and support for our troops. Therefore, lets look at the facts:

Since 2003, the United States has approved huge budgets in Iraq. An estimated $21,000,000,000 spent in the first few years in Iraq, provided by the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund (IRRF). In May of 2005, another fund created by the Iraq Security Forces Fund (ISFF), estimated spending $18,000,000,000. Again the importance of these cost: they were not for our military, but for Iraqi security forces and its’ citizens.

This is the same country that generated $96,000,000,000 in revenues from 2005 to 2007 – 94% of that amount coming from crude oil exports. The Government Accountability Office reports Iraq had a budget surplus of $29,000,000,000 from 2005 to 2007. Most recently, Congress has approved over $4,000,000,000 for Iraq reconstruction in the fiscal year 2008-2009.

What are the reasons we continue to write out checks at this magnitude when Iraq can clearly fund this project without assistance? I know it might be easy to forget this little economic obstacle in front of us, but that alone should make Iraq reconstruction spending a lesser priority for our checkbook.

Cliff Stearns calls for immediate action to be made regarding the situation. The Department of Defense should withhold funds for any new “reconstruction project” in Iraq, unless Iraq reimburses the US for previous projects or Iraq matches future assistance on a dollar-by-dollar basis. The accountability office also said “evidence for higher spending was based mainly on so-called special reports prepared y the Iraqi Finance Ministry- reports that use vague budgetary terms and unclear source material and contain columns and rows that do not add up properly.”

If these were not reasons enough to stop funding, compare Iraq’s budget to its personal spending on reconstruction efforts. From 2005-2007, Iraq devoted only 1% of the operating expenses in its budget to maintaining reconstruction projects that had been built with either American or Iraqi money. That finding raised fresh questions with James Glanz and Campbell Robertson, over whether the huge investment in some of those projects would have any long-term impact.

Enough is enough. Without evidence, solid facts, and convincing reports that make a reliable claim to continue funds to Iraq, enough is enough. The Department of Defense, the Department of State, and all other governmental agencies involved should withhold funds for any new mysterious “reconstruction project” to Iraq. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

After reading through page one of the HeLP America Act, I could not be anything less than an advocate for health care reform.  I have heard the same empty promises for change and reform as you. To be honest, I began the project a little biased, thinking it was going to be another cheap proposal where we still end up short changed. As I read this detailed 173-page proposal I became more and more surprised – it is more than a campaign speech to get votes, it is more than a demonstration chanting about some cause, it is more than a committee to study the problem. Gather round everyone for the long awaited solution.

The Health of the Nation

H.R.2633, the “Healthy Lifestyles and Prevention America Act” seeks to improve the health of Americans and reduce health care costs by reorienting the nation’s health care system toward prevention, wellness, and self-care. It acknowledges the fact that the per capita health spending in the United States is 56 percent higher than the median country that is a member of the Organization for Economic Cooperation. By 2014, America will be spending an estimated cost of $3,600,000,000,000 a year on health care. It is evident these representatives have done their homework. They bring the most recent data and cost compelling facts, explaining that an astonishing 75% of health care costs go directly to chronic diseases like cardio vascular disease, stroke, obesity, cancer, and diabetes. In addition, 65% adults are overweight or obese in America. Everyday there are 4,000 new users of tobacco products, all under the age of 18.  About 25% of adults and 40% college students smoke. For those whom need mental health treatment, only 1 in every 2 people receive it.

As I already said, there is no need to make tee shirts with these facts; the deficient, unsuccessful health care system affects us directly. So where is this new approach to health in America? 

Details of the bill:

Children and schools

This bill begins to tackle childhood problems. First, this bill would generate a task force to decrease childhood obesity with strategy, inter-agency coordination and evaluation. School programs will revise the definition of “food minimal nutritional value” that was set back in 1966 with the Child Nutrition Act. Then enforcing this new definition and a fresh fruits and vegetable program in all school meal programs, any food sold on school campus at anything during the school day, excluding infrequent fundraisers. There will an increase in funds of the Richard B Russell National School Lunch Act and grants for select schools. Initiatives made to push hospitals and programs to be baby friendly and support breastfeeding excellence. By awarding hospitals certified with increased “un-restricted breastfeeding” education with a onetime award of $20,000. This strategy will include a strong partnership with organization or group to focus on families to increase communication, wellness, play, support, and other assistance. Grants issued to support schools that work with families to implement school-wide prevention strategies, based on mental health research, which will support early and intensive interventions. Other grants include promotions of university community partnerships to reduce youth problem behaviors in our communities and early head start programs.

Communities and the workplace

In an attempt to support healthier communities and workplaces this bill will include tax credits to employers with wellness programs, and campaigns to help employees. These wellness programs motivate employers to implement awareness, education, screening, and employee engagement. The whole idea supports prevention and behavioral change assistance for a long list of issues: tobacco use, obesity, stress management, physical fitness, and more. A national worksite health policy, facilitated by the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, would e created to improve existing employer-based health programs or implement new ones.

Other:

By working through administration, this bill shapes public policy and awareness. It also requires the Secretary to establish a National Advisory Committee on Community Sports Programs for Individuals with Disabilities. Another part provides incentives for states to ensure the safety and convenience of all users of a transportation system, including pedestrians and bicyclists. The most important use of this proposal lies within the details of the research and development to help prepare and improve the future.

Conclusion:

Health is far more important than the absence of disease. When you take this plan and look at ways to prevent and cure diseases, you are creating and maintaining optimal health. Our current system waits for illness, and then spends huge amounts of money to solve the problem, sometimes ignoring the underlying lifestyle related to the problem. This is like waiting for a leaky roof to destroy the infrastructure of the house, then going in to repair the damage without fixing the leak. There will not be a change unless we can convince all involved that this “rescue” medicine is killing us and strive to work from a true picture of the status quo.

This bill takes the initiative to convince doctors and professionals, government, organizations, research and other companies through education and structural reforms for a widespread adoption and smooth transition to a healthier America. Most of all, this new mindset empowers patients to take responsibility for their own health. When you move the power out of hands of those profiting from our illness and rescue medicine society, you are giving America a stronger future and a healthier life. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

College students are being pushed to new levels of creativity, not in their studies or community involvement, but merely for survival with the frustrating costs of textbooks. USPIRG has studied the rise of textbook costs, claiming that students spend as much as $900 a year on textbooks. In a technical field, this expense can increase by as much as double. Largely due to insufficient communication about the textbook market, publishers can get away with these rising costs. These lofty expenses result from new editions constantly produced every three and a half years, even with subjects that have not changed significantly. These same publishers also”bundle” study guides, CD-ROMs, and extra materials with a textbook that significantly increase a textbook without the option to purchase the textbook only.

To put it all in perspective, a Government Accountability Office study shows that textbook prices have been rising at double the rate of inflation over the past two decades.

The cost challenges force students to share textbooks, hunt for bargains online, set up book fairs, or, worse, do without. When given enough time, students can find the very same textbook and class material overseas for almost 90% less (Michelle Singletary Washington Post column “The Color of Money” interviewed on NPR). The only downfall with buying internationally is the longer shipping time. This option is less valuable because most colleges do not give out book lists in a reasonable time to purchase online. Worse, some college bookstores do not make the International Standard Book Number (ISBN) available, restricting students from purchasing low-cost textbooks.

You can imagine the support when Representative Julia Carson sponsored “College Textbook Affordability and Transparency Act of 2007″(HR 3512). The proposal was introduced only 3 months before Julia tragically passed away from cancer. Julia’s bill would ensure that college textbooks and supplemental materials are available and affordable. Carson hoped , and her long list of cosponsors are still pursuing, to inform students about the costs of textbooks before registering for classes in order to be aware of the full cost of higher education. This bill has three main points. First, to encourage students to purchase early and always look for used editions. Second, this bill would require universities and faculty to review materials and editions that are required, without compromising high quality course materials or purchase unnecessary editions. The third point H.R.3512 emphasizes is timeliness. Timing truly is everything; schools would be required to disclose textbook lists, costs and ISBN numbers soon enough to students to give them a fair chance at accessing textbook costs in time. Despite the fact that it may not be the most effective way of cutting down costs, the bill interestingly enough seeks to give out a full history of revisions for the college textbook and/or supplemental materials that helps explain the real difference and what will be missed between editions.

While entailing a comprehensive list of objectives, H.R.3512 marks the beginning of what should become one of the most important objectives in reforming our higher education system. It is unnecessary in its entirety to keep such a costly, unneeded structure for such necessary materials in place. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

An emotionally rousing debate has long swirled around the purchase and use of handguns and rifles. On one side, the National Rifle Association and its loyal members strongly claim their right through the constitutional rights to keep arms and secure one’s home. On the other, crime statistics and anti-violence organizations view the problem as unregulated gun use. Whichever side you stand on equal resistance is between both parties, leaving this issue no solutions for compromise as of yet. Frank R. Lautenberg, senator from New Jersey, is sponsoring a bill that could finally bring some reconciliation.

Lautenberg’s bill, S.3634, seeks to “to reduce gun trafficking by prohibiting bulk purchases of handguns”, officially cited as the “End Gun Trafficking Act 2008.” It is the prohibition against multiple handgun sales or purchases that has been shipped both from within the states and abroad. It would also make only one handgun purchase during any 30-day period legal, unless a person has a license as outlined by US Code Section 923. The Attorney General for gun and/or ammunition manufacturing, dealing, and/or importing, thereby prevents most people from buying “bulk purchases”, issues these licenses. With the exception of an exchange of one handgun for another, the transfer of a handgun by a state entity, this includes United States government agencies, all law enforcement officials, and rail officers. Additionally, the bill would increase imprisonment from one year to five if a person found making false statements in connections with firearms. Another interesting part, the retention of records (922(t) (2) (C) of title 18, United States Code) would be amended “by inserting not less than 180 days after the transfer is allowed, before destroy.”

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a strong force in the political realm to protect these second amendment rights. This group has also gone to dramatic lengths to raise funds that heavily influence members of congress to ensure gun rights for Americans largely while lying relatively low under the public’s eye. One of their campaign slogans, “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”, puts the responsibility into the hands of the owner claiming if a ruling made to take guns off the street or heavily regulated licensing on gun trade it would only hurt the law-abiding citizens. These same supporters push that criminals are insane, and if they wanted to hurt someone these types of laws would only push them to use another weapon or steal a gun – not preventing any crime what-so-ever. Richard Feldman, author of “Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist” exposes the NRA “as a cynical, mercenary political cult obsessed with wielding power while exploiting member’s fear in order to maximize contributions.”‘

NRA Headquarters located in Fairfax, VA

People are beginning to realize the need for gun control, as of this past election, a surprising18 out of 26 US Senate candidates backed by the NRA lost their race. Our country is beginning to realize the glamour associated with hyper-violence and use of guns as a way to get revenge and take control. Whatever the cause school shootings, murder, or suicide the idea is clear. Guns intend to level the playing field and serve as a symbol to equalize the situation at hand. The United States is the only civilized country that does not have gun restriction laws. Therefore, the myth prevails, guns are power and power is justice.

This legislation does not kick down your door to seize your gun that you clutch in your arms like your first-born. This is sensible regulation for necessary licensing, awareness, and lawful-restriction. Since the recent election there is strong anxiety in the air; a myriad of people are running around stockpiling handguns and rifles. It makes one question the difference between the appreciation for gun ownership and irrational limits others take for gun ownership. If a situation pushes you to accumulate a surplus of guns out of fear or need for power, it reinforces and normalizes the lie that guns have become the idealized way for solutions.

Author: Sara Hilbert

Last week, the Huffington Post’s David Reynolds rejoiced in the progress that America has come a very long way from its racist past. Barack Obama, the first African American, now holds the highest political position in the United States. As we celebrate this groundbreaking achievement, we must keep in mind just how far we still need to go.

As revealed on Election Day, 52% of America’s most trend-setting voters supported the most monumental ballot measure in history, proposition 8. Now, the state of California has eliminated the rights of same sex couples to marry (after awarding over 16,000 same-sex couples the right to wed).This article, unmistakably tagged with a photo showing a heterosexual couple, proves a bigger point.  It is no mistake; a marriage of a mixed race couple was once illegal. This same state once held an irrational view with anti-miscegenation law, stating, “All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race or mulattoes are illegal.” Once our law denied legal recognition to mixed race couples simply because it made others feel uncomfortable. Since these times, we corrected our unfair behavior towards this issue. However, our mindset still remains the same. The implications of the success of proposition 8 rings loud and clear: justice is second to our own comfort levels.

Legalization of same sex marriages, as many claim, destroys traditional family values and emotionally cripples children. That sounds more like the dreadful effects of divorce, not an effect from same-sex marriages. Current statistics show that 50% of first marriages, 67% of all second marriages, and 74% of third marriages end in divorce. This shows we are not teaching our children to respect any type of commitment, nor traditional family values. What we are showing them is that the real way to deal with relational dilemma is serial divorce. Leaving marriage to one man and one woman is not an argument, but an excuse for a prejudice.

California, a modern place of innovation and forward thinking, has been defeated. The scare tactics that the conservative organizations used entangled themselves into the California constitution. Over the years, the fight for equality has been so successfully strong. However, this recent set back, draws a line that that separates us from them. This generation is supposed to be more open and hopeful to the solution to end discrimination. Many have internalized these conservative messages that play on irrational fears.  Instead of noble and just laws throughout our country, we have a social disease. Homophobia, it is a cancer eating away at every chance of freedom and equal rights. Get back up, California, and dust yourself off. It is time to get organized and pass laws that no longer desire to exclude any longer. 

Author: Sara Hilbert

Time has passed since her health reform campaign in the nineties, but Hillary Rodham Clinton is still fighting for change. Hillary is trying to claim that her newest plan is not a new bureaucracy, but would build on the good parts of system while improving parts that are failing. (I wonder who’s writing the checks that might have changed those opinions from her first plan.) Either way, the results would look the same as herfirst proposal ten years ago with S.3674, “The 21st Century Wellness Trust Act.”

The Looming Crisis

Predictions in the introduction of the bill say that by 2025 nearly half of the United States population will suffer from at least one chronic disease. Currently, 70 percent of deaths and health costs in the United States are attributable to chronic diseases. These are preventable diseases! The United States has the highest rate of preventable deaths among 19 industrialized nations and lags behind 28 other nations in life expectancy. Unarguably, our health care system is dysfunctional.

This bill claims that, “If effective risk reduction were implemented and sustained by 2015, the death rate due to cancer could drop by 29 percent. Improved blood sugar control for people with diabetes could reduce the risk for eye disease, kidney disease, and nerve disease by 40 percent. Similarly, blood pressure control could reduce the risk for heart disease and stroke by 33 to 50 percent.” It also deems the workforce to deliver prevention as insufficient. In addition, the supply of health care providers trained to emphasize prevention is shrinking. Between 1997 and 2005, the number of medical school graduates entering family practice residencies dropped by 50 percent. There is an acute shortage of community health workers. Between 25 and 50 percent of the existing Federal, State, and local public health work force is eligible for retirement in the next 5 years. As of 2008, more than 75 percent of the existing public health workforce has no formal public health or prevention training. There is no national, uniform credentialing system for public health or prevention workers that would ensure that these workers are trained in the basics of preventive care.

Hilary’s Proposal

This is a loud call for preventative services that reduce these unnecessary costs and improve the quality of life and health of Americans. In quick reaction to these harms, Ms Clinton would create a “trust fund board” composed of seven president appointed members to oversee improvement and change. First, this board would spend their first year examining and researching the system and then attempt to find the best plan to develop. After the first year, these select seven would report on broadening prevention in the workplace, “payment methodologies,” connecting incentives with goals to increase community organization involvement with prevention, and present funding spent on prevention.

After which they will then organize “delivery systems” to provide finances for prevention priorities and implement pilot programs. This group would become the central for prevention information. If by this time, there were no nationwide electronic medical record systems already in place, this bill would create an electronic prevention record. Most importantly, plans would oversee the additional training and credentialing prevention of health workers.

Funding would come no later than January 2011 from the “Wellness Trust Fund”, increasing by a percentage for each subsequent year, as seen fit by the board of trustees.

After assuring prevention priorities are in place this bill would approve “eligible individuals the prevention services to the uninsured.” It seeks coordination with Medicare and other private insurers, but again only to make sure that they receive funds for the health workers that are providing the prevention-oriented health care option.

Why Hilary Would Find Failure 

At reviewing the bill’s provisions, it is clear that Hilary’s elite group of seven would not have the capacity to make decisions that bring about the best outcome for all. Furthermore, with little support and authority, they do not have the ability to carry out all the necessary improvements. It just feels like an organized list of boxes to check for our overwhelmed health professionals. Reform will not take place when you tack on a longer working week for our nation’s overworked nursing staff. It will not happen if you ask our doctors to require more training and qualifications. We have yet to admit a larger problem: the intense control of insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry and the American Medical Association. We have certified health care employees. What we do not have is a system that allows patients complete access to these opportunities. True, moving the focus onto preventive care will be the best solution. However, the mindset associated with this plan has a very limited picture of the system as a whole and still allows these problematic groups to stand in the way of a greatly needed solution.

Author: Sara Hilbert

The time is now. Early voting is steadily streaming in and by mid-week America will know the end of this long presidential race. Until then we wait in high anticipation for this highly historical election. According to Real Clear Politics, the average polling data shows Obama leading by 6.3 points, while others show Obama leading by even more.  Despite the fact that the general public thinks Obama will win, Senator McCain predicts a late-night win on Election Day, believing that the American public will choose him in the wee hours of the day.

Dr. Frank Newport editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll explains in the video below that 1980 proved to be the biggest example of the polling change, where Jimmy Carter was ahead with registered voter by eight points before Ronald Reagan won the popular vote by 10 points. With the lead that Obama has on McCain, it can narrow, but it would be highly unusual occurrence. 

There are so many behind Senator McCain who feel that these numbers unjustly show the reality and strength the candidate has for victory on Tuesday. Jeffrey Lord is one of them, a former Reagan White House political director and author, who claims the answer was clear back in August: McCain. Billy Kristol also gave his predictions of the election in favor of McCain this past Friday on The Daily Show. Lastly, Andy Martin, legendary author and Internet columnist, spoke against Obama’s intense advertising to then praise McCain for taking command saying, “John McCain is going to win the presidency, (but only) by a whisker.”

Republicans need not to cross their fingers, The Mack is back!

Author: Sara Hilbert

Election Day is here California, and you have been hit with the second most expensive campaign. Next to the presidential race, the combined efforts of committed individuals in favor and against Proposition 8, have raised over $65 million. This has resulted in the most expensive social issue campaign in the history of the nation. Californians are not the only ones concerned. Millions of campaign funding has come from groups and individuals out of state. Those donors know the reality; California is the front lines of the war for equal rights regardless of sexual orientation.

Here are some quick facts before you head to the polls:
The official title description of Proposition 8 is “eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry.” This constitutional amendment changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Prop 8 defines marriage to be recognized in the state of California between one man and one woman. In March 2000, California voters passed Proposition 22 to specify in state law that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. In May 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that the statute enacted by Proposition 22 and other statutes that limit marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. It also held that individuals of the same sex have the right to marry under the California Constitution. As a result of the ruling, marriage between individuals of the same sex is currently valid or recognized in the state. If proposition 8 is enacted, it would revoke the 16,000 same sex couples their marriage agreement that have already taken place since June.

If you check this box that would mean it would over ride the California Supreme Court decision for legalizing same sex marriages. This bill is strongly supported by many groups including: Focus on the Family, the Church of Latter Day Saints, and the Knights of Columbus. These groups feel family and marriage values are threaten by a few opinionated judges. Dr. James Dobson, of Focus on the Family wrote, “Quite literally, the institution of the family is hanging in the balance. If homosexuals are permitted to marry, then the entire legal basis for the family will be undermined.”

John McCain has spoken for marriage to be between a man and a woman. Throughout his campaign, McCain has stated that if something were to change, public opinion would have to dramatically change equal civil rights within state and local governments first. Only then should allow congress be allowed to legally consider amending the constitution. He feels like everyone should be included, but it is unclear about his plans to directly reserve rights for same-sex couples.

By reinforcing the rights of these 16,000 couples this monumental moment would set the stage for many other states to follow, which some hope would then pave the roads to be recognized under federal law. Many famous celebrities actively speak against this proposal such as Brad Pitt, Ellen DeGeneres and Steven Spielberg.The newlywed, Ellen DeGeneres and her same sex partner, Portia De Rossi, begs people stop the discrimination. On her show, she compares this unfair treatment to withholding voting rights from blacks and women. She says, “There is this old way of thinking that we are not all the same. We are all the same people. All of us. You are no different than I am. Our love is the same…. My hope is someday it won’t be called contract it will be called marriage.”

Barack Obama, personally, feels stronger for traditional marriages but fully supports the same sex lifestyle and their civil rights; from emergency visitation rights, health coverage, employee benefits, property and adoption rights. He also wants to expand federal hate crimes and the Employment Non-Discriminatory Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Author: Sara Hilbert

It’s those hot summers days in July where everything is dressed in red, white and blue it is hard to feel anything but overwhelmingly patriotic. However, for the rest of the year, what does it really mean to show your love and appreciation for your country? The freedom that is so prevalent in America would make you think of the limitless possibilities to show your American Pride. Surprisingly, though, some in Washington irrationally view patriotism to one right way of expressing it, their way.

Chief sponsor, Paul C. Broun (R-GA) introduced HR 6783 in August of this year that would punish all who do not follow his line of thinking. This bill will withhold Federal funds from schools that permit or require the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem in a language other than English. Mr. Broun feels this is a guillotine-approach will “protect” American culture and patriotism. In addition, he is gathering a large crowd of followers; there are currently 12 co-sponsors to this bill. All with the same message: get rid of all your pro-diversity programs and anything else that might suggest these sub-cultures are anything more than below “American.” I give them a little credit for recognizing “that the vast majority of Americans are immigrants or the descendants of immigrants, respectful of their ancestral home, but also proud to be American.” However, everything about this bill unjustifiably denies equal ground for unity.

I liked Scott Summer’s a fresh comparison on the subject. He said:“Does [HR 6783] consider the needs and abilities and requirements of those who rely on American Sign Language? Are we to deny federal fund to school’s for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem through ASL rather than English?”

If this bill passes and our institutions omit minority content in curriculum, I fear the repercussions that will follow. This is indeed oppression, unjustified discriminatory treatment of one group. Where is our responsibility for the truth that all men are created equal?

Ask yourself, what makes us American? Is it through our race, ethnicity, religion, traditions, or language? Does our shared unity encompass something bigger? Is it an idea even bigger than a free-America? Richard M. Ebeling a professor of Economics at Hillsdale College in Michigan feels that being an American has lost its meaning. He wonders what happened to the time when we could say, “I’m proud to be American,” and it did not have seem “arrogant, domineering, and stupidly chauvinistic.”

Pride in being an American meant pride in a belief in and respect for the freedom of the individual. It meant believing in a self-governing nation, in which the primary self-government was the liberty of each person to manage his own life in peaceful and voluntary cooperation with others for mutually beneficial improvement of their material, intellectual, and spiritual lives. It meant the hope that through the practice of freedom, America and Americans would serve as an example for other peoples in other parts of the world to want to emulate. That was a noble idea. It was a bright ideal to offer as a hope for the world. It is too great a loss to bear. We can regain it. We can, if we want it and are willing to try. Will we?

Author: Sara Hilbert

It is an undisputed change from the day and age where smokers used to light up in hospital rooms, in the office, and in your favorite restaurant. It used to be a choice – a trend, smoking or non, now turns have increasingly shunned them to very limited sections outside. (What’s next, make them stand in the back of the bus?) Nevertheless, there are those who feel that the battle against smoking isn’tover yet.

Henry Waxman (D-CA) is the Chief Sponsor of HR 1108, known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. Waxman, along with a massive team of 287 co-sponsors, support this bill to protect public health by providing the Food and Drug administration with certain authority to regulate tobacco products.

Supposedly, by stretching article I, section 8 of the Constitution, which states “the Congress is vested with the responsibility for regulating interstate commerce” congress claims the right to overpower individual freedom. This bill claims, “The only way to effectively protect the public health from the dangers of unsubstantiated modified risk tobacco products is to empower the Food and Drug Administration.” In addition, “to require that products that tobacco manufacturers sold or distributed for risk reduction be approved in advance of marketing, and to require that the evidence relied on to support approval of these products is rigorous.” If they have already made you forget, let me remind you, tobacco is still a legal product. This bill will also “impose appropriate regulatory controls on the tobacco industry” when it comes to advertising and stricter rules to keep from selling to minors. Flavored tobacco products are prohibited with this proposal, from the wide range of artificial and natural flavorings like menthol to clove. Tobacco companies might remain in business if they compromise and sell a reduced risk tobacco product.

Smoking, as we are well aware, gives the user a quick fix, gives tobacco companies enormous injections of cash and in the end becomes a burden to the rest of society. We can all agree that we must protect the younger generations and increase the overall health of America. However, smoking is, ultimately, a choice and our freedom as Americans ensures that.

In comparison, and I will not mention names, but some supporters of this bill could be a bit bulky on the scales. Our obese and overweight country is just as much, if not more, of a liability to society than smoking. Where is the bill aiming to monitor supersized food portions, chase down those who do not exercise and create cessation programs for those who overeat at work? Smoking and obesity are both linked to increased health risks at a high cost to the general public. We need something to better America and the answer does not lie in heavy regulation or putting corporate interests in place of our health needs. Find the balance that gives us more incentives, protects our rights and works towards prevention, not punishment, to reduce these negative behaviors.

Author: Sara Hilbert

For many years, both parties have focused their energies to work towards building free-market capitalism. More recently, larger companies and taxpayers alike seem to be more receptive to government regulation. With the scare of the current market situation, opinions dramatically swing, my advice, think carefully. Some bills are engaging those fears to gain re-regulation rights. I will say it again: think carefully.

The aviation de-regulation era began when Carter signed the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 with one goal in mind: less regulation, more growth. This one act rippled through many other sectors including energy, trucking, telecommunications, and financial services. Now we are entering the era of re-regulation. There are several pending proposals on the table that demonstrate this but, again, aviation started it all.

The Aviation Investment and Moderation Act of 2008, S.2972 is under chief sponsored by Senator Kay Hutchison (R-TX). The senator feels that pulling back the reigns of these companies will force airlines to focus on the customer service and economic impact of its surroundings, instead of consolidation of companies. Introduced to congress 2007, the committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has it under review.

S.2972 would reinstate the supervision of the Federal Aviation Administration, who will then add use their research and development plans to increase airport planning, decrease noise, and negative environmental output. This plan would put a spotlight on developing plans to provide passengers with necessities when undergoing a substantially delayed flight departure by giving clearer timeframes for delays. In addition, it would give consumers the option to deplane for a three-hour period delay and would require air carriers to publish and update monthly on its website a list of chronically delayed and canceled flights prior to the customer purchasing an airline ticket. It also would attempt to make Afghanistan-Iraq war veterans eligible for the veteran’s hiring improvement project, like construction parking pads for mobile re-fuelers.

This bill requires a minimum discretionary funding level of $520 million for airport improvement programs per fiscal year. The government will also share in almost the entire cost for an airport improvement projects at a medium hub airports. Other funding will come from Passenger facility charge. Others bills that are very similar are S.1300 The Aviation Investment and Moderation Act of 2007 and H.R.2881 FAA Reauthorization Act of 2007. Both of which reinstate the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration.

A better solution would be a little innovation and an adjustment of internal management. Let us remember Southwest Airlines in the early 2000’s. A powerful example of employee relations and out of the box thinking that took the company off the ground when competitors were folding; they were one of the only airlines that made a profit. Perhaps instead of giving regulation a second chance with the airlines the companies at hand should try to embrace the “Southwest Spirit.” When de-regulation began, the airlines lowered airfare and improved their services. As with any industry, it experiences highs and lows, but in general, de-regulation has shown real progress.

This moment in time has never been more fundamental for education reform. Innovative information is opening up to parents and their communities in order to compare public school rankings and overall student performances among school districts. As these changes occur, more and more failing schools are being reformed. But at what cost should the price be on change? According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, US citizens are paying more per student for K-12 public education than nearly all other economically advanced countries. The importance of education is indisputable. Still, we doubt increased spending because we it does not significantly improve performances of students in the American public schools system. Looking into the future, combined with the current economic downfall and the increasingly fierce international competition happening around us, it has never been as important to embrace education reforms in our collaborative efforts to create a well-educated society.

There are two pending bills that have a great impact on the interest of education; the Head Start for School Readiness Act (S.556) and SPEAK – Standards to Provide Educational Achievement for Kids Act (S.224). The first, under Chief Sponsor Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), provides a plan to increase children’s knowledge in language, preliteracy, premathematics, emotional, and physical skills through Head Start programs. It also provides adequate training and programs to include children with limited English proficiency and those referred by child welfare services. The SPEAK Act, sponsored by Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT), is an amendment to add science to the mandatory biennial national and state academic achievement assessments. The information included on these assessments will increase content standards in mathematics and science to reflect the knowledge students need to enter college and apply in the workforce to compete in the global economy. Whereby, recent statistics have shown that the United States education significantly lags behind their industrial peers. This is more than a need to reform, this is a call for serious analysis of stagnate results, overreliance on standardized testing, and a new combination of successful programs. It is striking to see other countries like China, South Korea, and Japan score higher in education; maybe we should start taking some lessons.

While the powerful combination of these two bills using head start programs and effective goals for assessments are strong enough to move forward, it is only the beginning to a long road ahead.

Author: Sara Hilbert

The McCain Campaign not only recently announced their vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin this Friday, they shocked us with it. Over these last view days America has searched, googled, and gossiped about the life of this Alaskan Governor.

Sarah Palin was born February 11, 1964 in Idaho and raised in Skagway, Alaska. Palin received a Bachelor of Science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho and married a lifelong commercial fisherman Todd. Nevertheless her most important role is being a mother of 5 children; Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, and Trig. Her involvement in the lives of her kids lead to her first major political move. Beginning at local PTA meetings, then moving on to city council, where she served two terms in 1992 and 1996 in the small town of Wasilla, Alaska. She was then elected Mayor of Wasilla for two consecutive terms in 1996 and 1999. In 2006, Palin was elected Governor of the state of Alaska, becoming the states youngest and only female governor. But how will Palin handle the change of small town responsibilities to leading a country of 300 million? Once sworn in office, will Sarah Palin be following McCain around wondering what to do? This is not a sexist comment, but rather a question regarding her experience. The stage lights are a lot brighter in Washington than Juneau. Regardless of her good judgment and morale, Sarah Palin will be silently sitting in her inexperience at the defense meetings. Instead of bringing solid expertise and knowledge, she will try to take her backwoods data and weigh it to the country.

An additional point of question is the relationship between John McCain and Sarah Palin. The president and vice president don’t have to be the best pals; however, in order to be the most effective, they must be a comfortable and highly compatible combination. Compared to other choices like Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, and Joe Lieberman, it is hard to convince us that this is a running mate that John McCain desired.

This claimed maverick reformer exploded this week at the GOP convention with a strong confidence. Palin made sure we knew she was not here to get a good opinion column from critics, but to stand up for the American people. With little known about her past records and law making, I wonder if she knows that she can’t clean house in Washington when they do not agree with her.

Does the Republican party really believe in her? Do they hope her small business background and same-as-us attitude will bring a more balanced approach to the candidate? Or has this become a poor strategy to win leftover Hilary votes? We have to look further down the road and ask, if in Washington will Governor Sarah Palin be ready?