An extra mouth to feed

     Claire wrote a blog entry about Paid Parental Leave in America that really got me thinking. I agree that parental leave is necessary if we want to advance our nation. Having a baby or adopting a child are both huge lifechangers. I don't understand how we can expect new parents, especially mothers, to function at any job. After carrying an entire person inside of you for nine months and then (more than likely painfully giving birth, how can we not see some sort of (financial) assistance is necessary. I especially don't understand how we can expect new mothers to leave their newborns at home. But it seems without any sort parental leave, many mothers cannot afford not to.

     New fathers are in need of parental leave as well. Raising a child is a full-time job and then some, without pay or benefits! No parental leave in America has mothers stuck at home taking care of the child and fathers overworked and stressed as well. The norm seems to be that women will leave their job after or shortly before having their child; while men will log in extra hours or find second jobs to cover the loss of income. Of course it doesn't stop there, fathers are expected to care for the child as well. The mother has worked all day long, probably without any sort of break and will more than likely need the father to watch over the child so she can grab even 30 minutes of rest.

     With all the progress we have made, it seems a shame that we have not acknowledged the fact that new parents need help (and money) to not only survive, but to also take care of their children. It is unfair that women lose income and sometimes their jobs simply because they have a child and men are expected to cover the lost income somehow and still take on parenting duties. If anything women should be given some kind of paid maternity leave and job security, that would be one step closer to becoming the utopian nation many envision America to be.

May I speak?

     With such uneven demographics in Congress many Americans feel as if their voice isn't being heard. In one blog entry, I discussed the misrepresentation found in Congress and whether or not this mattered. We trust our Congressmen and Congresswomen to govern our nation in the best interest of all of its people. But how can give them the power to make laws that shape our lives and society when so many voices aren't being heard? Many Americans are unhappy with our Congress and the decisions they are making, maybe it is time to vote in people who share our voice and can accurately represent us not only in the Senate, but especially in the House of Representatives.

     Our Representatives serve two-year terms, meaning we are capable to vote in a new Representative every two-years if we so desired. We would even be able to kick out every Representative and replace them the same election if we wanted to. We are able to see the voter's power at work in the House of Representatives because of its more reflective demographics. It more closely reflects our nation giving us a better "snapshot" or "yearbook." This may be due to the fact that this chamber was originally designed to be responsive to the people. The newer demographics reveal we didn't feel our voices being heard in the House and our evolving nation decided that this was not okay. We needed the all of the voices in our nation to be heard to govern and guide America.

     Senators are elected for six-year terms, yet only 1/3 are up for reelection every election period. This makes it arguably more difficult to shape the Senate to be more representative of our country. However, reelection rates show that the incumbent is not always as successful in the Senate as opposed to the House. The biggest challenge a Senator has to face while running for reelection is an opponent. All that is needed to replace out Senators and make them more representative of our country is a new candidate that can satisfy our needs. One that can accurately voice our opinions and make the best decisions for the good of our nation.

     Congress was originally intended to be the most powerful of our nation's government. Shouldn't we the people be accurately represented and have our voices be heard? Maybe voting in new candidates isn't the only way to get our Congress to better represent our nation. Maybe we could try to create a new branch, a "branch of the people." We could try to bring in randomly selected citizens every year or every time a defining or controversial law is being debated, educate them, and have them vote on the issue as well. How much power we should give to them and how much their vote matters in the final decision can be worked out should this become a possibility.

     One thing, however, is clear. Something needs to change. We need to change something so that our Congress, which was meant to refine and enhance public opinion, represents its people so every voice is being heard and every person feels included. We should not feel as if we are being ignored by our Congress, otherwise how could we trust them to solve our problems or generate legislation? Something needs to be done so that every voice in our diverse nation is heard, whether it be done by voting in new Senators and Representative or by adding a new branch. However slow of a process it may be we cannot continue to exclude American voices if we want America to grow and prosper.

From the mind of a Y chromosome

     Nadja's article "My body, my choice" makes some powerful arguments favoring abortions, and more importantly safe abortions. She argues that as a woman, she should have full control over her body and what happens to it. That unsafe abortions should never be an option for women as she may be placing her own life in danger such as the case of a 15 year old girl in 2009.

     Personally I agree with Nadja's stance in the sense that I agree with safe, legal abortions. However I do not believe I am truly pro-choice. Nadja makes the argument pro-choice is not synonymous with pro-abortion just as pro-life does not necessarily mean pro-birth. As a Catholic I believe I am pro-life. I wholeheartedly support abortions in cases of rape and when the mother's life is in danger. I do believe adoption is an option, however I do not completely rule out abortion as an option as well. I know orphanages are packed and many foster homes are nowhere close to being ideal environments for raising even a single child; my main concern is not necessarily the ability for a woman to do what she wants with her body but the welfare of the mother and of the child. If the mother's health is in danger, I support abortion. If the mother would not be able to care for the child, I support abortion. Many people fighting to make 100% of abortions illegal would not spare even a single penny to support the child.

     Abortions, however, are not the solution I would propose to combat unwanted or teenage pregnancies. I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on free birth control. I believe taking this proactive measure would be much safer and cost-effective than abortions. Having access to free birth control would be largely beneficial to our society, not only would we see a decrease in the number of illegal abortions and the deaths associated with them but we would also see a higher quality of life. This would be due to a decrease in the amount of unwanted children ending up in orphanages or abusive (or equally non-ideal) foster homes.

     In conclusion I support safe, legal abortions in many cases but I also support birth control as the primary tool for preventing unwanted pregnancies. I do not believe that abortion should be an issue of women's rights but about the health and well-being of the mother and especially the child. If a mother knows she will be unable to care for the child or provide them with a decent life, then she should have the option of abortion along with adoption.

Do I matter?

     Many Americans find themselves asking this when discussing politics with others specifically with regards to Congress. Consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives our Congress takes on the challenge of solving our nation's problems by generating laws. They are meant to "refine and enhance" public opinion. But to do that [enhance public opinion] wouldn't they first need to be representative of our nation? How can Congress know the wishes and needs of America if some American voices aren't being heard?

     There are 432 members in our House of Representatives and 100 in the Senate. According to the demographics found on Roll Call both houses are roughly 80% male yet according to the U.S. demographics in 2012 our nation was 50.8% female. Assuming a plague hasn't wiped out most of America's female population between then and now; women are grossly underrepresented with about 17.82% in the House of Representatives and 20% in our Congress. But the gender difference isn't the only way Congress misrepresents our diverse nation.

     Using the 2012 estimates again we can see how one-sided our Congress appears in accordance to race. The U.S. population estimate for 2012 was 313,873,685; out of them about 63% were white (not Hispanic/Latino) while our current House of Representatives is almost 82% white and our Congress an overwhelming 94%! African Americans consisted of about 13% of the U.S. population in 2012 while only having about 9% representation in the House of Representatives and a measly 2% in the Senate. Hispanics made up almost 17% of the population yet only consist around 6.5% of the House of Representatives and 3% of the Senate. The Asian population made up about 5% of the population and less than 2% of the House of Representatives and only 1% of the Senate, meaning 1 senator represents approximately 16,007,560 people. Pacific Islanders were found in about 0.2% of the population and are probably the most accurately represented in the House of Representatives at 0.23% yet have no senators to speak of. While the American Indian population was six times more than Pacific Islander's they share the same amount of representation in Congress. With numbers like these is our House of Representatives truly living up to its name? And are all American voices being heard in the Senate? Can we trust that these men and women honestly have America's best interest in mind when making the laws that govern our country? Interestingly enough, the women in the House of Representatives most accurately represent the diversity of America. This more representative House shows a better "snapshot" of our nation as it were with about 63% white, almost 17% African American, almost 12% Hispanic, around 6.5% Asian, and about 1% Pacific Islander.

     It's amusing to see how women are so exceptionally misrepresented in our Congress yet do a much better job of representing our nation as a whole in the House of Representatives. But the bigger question we need to be asking is does is it matter? Why can't our pale, male, and stale Congress do as good a job governing our nation as one that is truly 100% representative of our country? Why should these numbers matter? Do race and gender affect the decisions Congress makes? Are all American voices being heard? As an Asian male, is my voice being heard, do I matter? Yes I matter, but I why can't a white congresswoman represent me and act in my best interest. Maybe the answer is that I simply don't matter, in the grand scheme of things what may be best for me may not be best for the nation. I may matter as a person but if our Congress is worried about one person or even a handful of people and isn't thinking about the good of the whole of the nation then they aren't doing the job we, the general public, entrusted them with. Of course a white congresswoman would lead a very different life than I do with very different experiences but that shouldn't stop her from acting in my best interest. We have given all of our Congressmen and Congresswomen and important task: generating laws governing our country, and we need to trust that they will make the best decision for the good of our diverse nation, however underrepresented the different races seem to be. And should we find they are unable to, we must fulfill our duty as a citizen and vote those who are capable refining and enhancing the public opinion of America to advance our nation.

Yes I can!

     Igor Volksy recently posted an article on Think Progress favoring an increase in the minimum wage using real world examples. One of the main arguments Republicans have against the increase is the fact that doing so would cost jobs. However Volksy, using hard evidence, has proved them wrong.

     The minimum wage in Washington is $9.32, and in the 15-year period since the raise they have experienced a steady increase in employment. In 2004 San Francisco raised minimum wage finding similar results. While he brings up the argument that the Bay Area in San Francisco experienced a decrease in employment he goes on to mention the employment rate for restaurant workers increased and states that have raised the minimum wage generally show a decrease in unemployment rates. He argues that the increase shows people stay with their employer longer, exhibit an increase in productivity, and force businesses to find other places to cut costs. It is clear he is writing this to persuade Republicans, those opposing the increase, and the undecided/uninterested that an increase in minimum wage on the national level would be beneficial for people and their employment opportunities.

     I agree that it would be beneficial to increase the minimum wage. It would help out lower income families not only financially but also in the workplace. Because workers would be able to live on their own or at the very least support their families, they would in turn be generally happier at their jobs therefore increasing productivity. Lower wages are a huge factor workers take into consideration when deciding whether or not their job is "worth it." If workers are paid more/fairly they are more likely to stay with their current employer. Also as a retail worker I highly believe in and encourage companies to find other ways to cut costs other than lowering (or paying low) wages. One way to cut costs, in my store, would be to make the most out of shipment boxes. For example, some days we will receive a single children's clip-on tie in a box that can easily hold around 50 pairs of denim. There are many other ways companies could minimize costs and still turn a profit should an increase in minimum wage happen without letting go of their current employees.

Can I afford it?

     A question on many of our minds as we first step out into the "real world" and get that first job as a teenager in food or retail, or maybe as a child mowing lawns or babysitting. Another biting question would be: is it worth it? Too late do we come to realize our minimum wage job makes the dream of being independent and living on our own just that, a dream.

     President Obama and congressional democrats have proposed to raise the minimum wage to $10.10/hour by 2016, a substantial difference to the current $7.25/hour. The editorial board of The New York Times have posted an editorial in favor of the increase despite the lack of support from Republicans. It is clear they intend to garner support mainly from U.S. workers currently earning low wages. Despite many negative opinions floating around the proposal (due to a theoretical loss of 500,000 jobs), the editorial board writes why the proposal would be an overall good by bringing 900,000 workers out of poverty, also by increasing wages for those earning above the minimum wage ("ripple effect"). The fear of job loss may not have any substance behind it as the number 500,000 is a median chosen from the predicted range of zero to one million. These figures coming from a report by the Congressional Budget Office, a report that in itself speaks highly of the increase. In respect to the job loss, we cannot be completely sure as to how companies would react to such an increase; would they fire current workers? Or simply find another way to cut costs and make ends meet? While it is true that many jobs may be lost with an increase in minimum wage, it is also true more jobs may be created as a result of people having more spending power and being able to declare yes, I can afford it.

     I agree with the editorial board in saying that an increase in minimum wage would be an overall good. As written in the article most of the workers benefiting from the increase wouldn't be teenagers (maybe saving up for a new phone or a car) but adults 20 or older, possibly living paycheck-to-paycheck, struggling to afford rent and keep up with the rising cost of living and more than half of them employed full-time.

"Against Their Conscience"

     Conestoga Wood and Hobby Lobby have both filed cases wanting an exemption from including contraceptive services in their employee's health plan based on religious grounds. The New York Times posted an editorial anticipating the "showdown" on March 25.

     The editorial states the Supreme Court will have to decide whether or not this contraceptive condition breaks an act passed in 1993 granting more religious freedom. Both companies argue that including cost-free contraceptive services infringes on their religious liberty by forcing them to act against their conscience (beliefs). However the Obama administration argues the condition does not go as far as to violate the act as it does not rise "to a 'substantial burden' on religious expression." Another argument being whether corporations can be considered the "persons" protected by the act. Though a separation between church and state may prove a decisive factor in the case (as it would argue religious freedom for employees) it appears as though this argument has taken a backseat among the back and forth between the parties.

     I am personally for the use of contraceptives even though it goes against my religious beliefs. I feel we need to take interest in this case as it could spell out how much power religion may gain over government again. I understand the religious stance against birth control but in a world ruled by sex and its consequences (disease and overpopulation) I honestly consider birth control as a valid service needing to be fully covered by health plans. We are granted religious freedom by the Constitution and these companies are infringing on this right by trying to invalidate the coverage of contraceptive use from their health plans thus forcing [the companies] religious views onto [its] employees.