You won't be needing your organs anymore than you'll be needing your rights.

Adriana Arevalo suggests in her recent article "Organ Donations Should be Mandatory By Government", that the US government impose a law on all citizens requiring the donation of at least 1 organ after death. Proponents argue that since the person is dead, they won't need or miss the organ taken. If the donation is after death, what difference does it make if the government's minimum requirement is 1 or 5? If the government is going to force it's citizens to donate organs for the saving lives, why not take all those organs that can be used? For that matter, what's to stop the government from requiring that citizens donate their entire body to science or those in need of transplants? Proposing to force organ donation after death is as dangerous as just taking a peek into Pandora's box. Essentially, stripping away individual liberties is being masked as a charitable act.

Supporters of organ donation are quick to point out that there are currently 99,000 Americans in need of organ transplants who are biding their time on a wait list. With too few actual organs available, up to 19 people die each day while waiting for a match. Currently there are approximately 70 million organ donors in America. While this number is only a fraction of the total population, it is also a number far greater than the number of those in need. Increasing the number of donors would have an impact, but is there evidence to show how substantial that impact would truly be? Organs would only be available upon the death of a donor and even then, only in certain conditions. Proponents of the idea of requiring citizens to be organ donors would say that it is our duty as a society to save the lives of the 99,000 people on the waiting list. Don't we also deserve to be given factual information? The Washington Post discovered that the number of patients on the waiting list for transplants has been inflated by as much one-third. Thousands of patients on the ist are actually considered to be "inactive". Donna Luebke, a nurse who served on the board of directors for the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) "told the Post that the list was 'dishonest'." UNOS responded by saying "None of this changes the fact that there is a significant number of people who die waiting.", however, an organization willing to lie to the public does change things. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that 'dead' seems to be up for interpretation.

Zach Dunlap sustained severe head injuries last November and was pronounced brain dead. Being an organ donor, he was prepped for harvesting when his family members (not the doctors) tested for signs of life. Four months later, this 21 year old man walked out of the rehabilitation unit and appeared on NBC's Today Show. The latest and greatest in technology said this young man was dead, but a simple reflex test with a pocket knife told a different story. In order for organs to be viable for donation, there is a small window of opportunity to harvest. Haste almost cost this young person his life. While Zach's story is probably rare, it is not unheard of. Donating organs is meant to save lives, not cost lives. Zach's story is one with a happy ending. Others are less fortunate.
Transplant surgeon Dr Roozrokh "has been accused of trying to speed the death of Ruben Navarro, a 25-year-old man with severe mental and physical disabilities." Hopes to harvest Mr. Navarro's organs after cardiac death were dashed when the man did not die as 'planned' after his ventilator was removed. Why should Zach or Mr. Navarro get to live when their organs could save so many other lives? Shouldn't the needs of the many outweigh that of the few? I know I don't want to run into the doctor that favors those thoughts. Let's not forget those doctors that have taken harvested organs and sold them for a profit on the black market. Those with enough money and a lack of patience have found doctors willing to sell legally harvested organs for the sake of bypassing the red tape involved in the waiting list and for the extra income.

If a law required all citizens to donate at least one organ after death, what kind of condition would these organs be in? Cancer patients, people carrying HIV, AIDS or a myriad of other conditions fall into the category of all citizens and would be required to donate organs. The ramifications of such things must be considered at great length. Some people may still argue that with a forced organ donor law, there would be an abundance of viable organs and the problems described above would cease to exist. However this is no evidence to back this claim. Despite an increase in organ donors, the list of waiting patients has largely remained the same.

Putting aside various religious beliefs that may be infringed upon, glazing over the fact liberties would be trampled by such an overstepping of boundaries, this proposal is riddled with far too many flaws for it to be considered an option in America. As citizens of a democracy, we simply enjoy our freedoms far too much to surrender them for a cause that, while noble and benevolent, is severely tarnished. Donating organs after death or even while living is often thought to be the most altruistic of acts. Compassion and love for mankind can be witnessed in the gesture of organ donation, until it becomes cheapened by being forced upon citizens. Organ donors are needed, but at what cost?

Who are You?

Voter identification has made the news and headlines yet again, thanks largely to the remarks recently made by Texas Representative Betty Brown in a hearing for voter identification legislation. During this hearing Rep Brown made a few comments suggesting that Asian-Americans change their names to a more Americanized name that makes it easier to “deal with”. Voter identification is a push by Republicans to counter voter/election fraud and a protest by Democrats who feel the legislation is an effort to disenfranchise many elderly, lower income and minority voters.
Democrats, making an effort to appear altruistic, are balking at this latest attempt to require identification when voting, by claiming that a portion of eligible voters may not have any of the required documents handy, thus lose their right to vote.
Republicans, painting themselves to be the protectors of true democracy, dispute the Dems claims and insist they are seeking to eliminate election fraud and increase voter confidence which will only serve to encourage voter turnout.
Laws written into the Constitution specify eligibility requirements for those who wish to participate in the election process by casting their vote. Some of those stipulations include being a US citizen and being 18 years of age or older. Likewise, there are laws that prohibit certain individuals from voting such as the exclusion of convicted felons. Citizens, regardless of political ideology generally agree to the laws determining voter eligibility. Isn’t about time we enforce those laws? What purpose would it serve to have stipulations and exclusions if they are not enforced? Let’s go ahead and out the pink elephant in the room. The Democrats could have a valid point in their argument that many voters may be disenfranchised by this legislation, and the Republicans could be genuine in their claims of wanting to ensure that only the eligible individuals cast ballots, however the complete truth is more involved.
There is a very likely chance that Republicans are aware of and even hopeful for the possibility of provoking the loss of some votes that would normally fall into the Democrats sphere by forcing eligible voters to carry one or more documents with them to the polls.
Just as plausible, the Democrats could be well aware of a large number of duplicate votes or votes cast by those ineligible voters and fearful of the loss of such votes.
I’ve never known either party to act out of true concern for democracy or the well being of the United States unless they felt they could gain something by it.
We have laws governing the voting process and those qualified to participate and it’s time to enforce them rather than just paying them lip service. As seen in this You Tube clip, Rep Brown’s comment, "Rather than everyone here having to learn Chinese -- I understand it's a rather difficult language -- do you think that it would behoove you and your citizens to adopt a name that we could deal with more readily here?" is offensive. Her suggestion that Asian-Americans toss aside their family names for the sake of convenience is reprehensible, however, it should not over shadow the fact that election fraud is an issue that needs to be addressed and the laws implemented.

Here you go, wait a minute...GIVE THAT BACK!

Confidence in our governing officials is dwindling to a dangerous low and with the latest AIG business, is it any wonder why?  The finger of blame is quickly being pointed by the Republicans, who are eager to shout that it's the Democrats in Congress and President Obama who are to blame.  Republicans didn't sign the Bailout Bill, the Dems and Obama did. 

A clause in the bailout bill more or less spells out the right for AIG to dole out bonuses that had been promised on or before Feb. 11, 2009.  According to Republicans, the Democrats put that clause into the bill and they are the ones that voted it through.  Oddly enough, the same politicians responsible for the clause are now claiming outrage at the AIG bonuses paid to executives and the like.  Responding to an outraged public, those truly involved are quickly glazing over or outright denying their role in this debacle.  

In an op-ed article, "American Mob Rule" from the National Review Online, Victor Davis Hanson is quick to point out that while Obama claims to be outraged, he alone signed the bonus provisions into law.  Hanson goes on to site that "Those who shouted the loudest for the heads of the AIG execs had the dirtiest hands."  Hanson makes a valid argument regarding how the bonuses came to exist in the first place.  I can't help but wonder, why don't these outraged politicians give back the money they received from AIG during their campaigns and tenure in Congress?  Keen to demand AIG give back funds they were legally entitled to, why don't these politicians follow suit and give back the funds they were so eager to accept from AIG?  

Instead of doing anything so silly, Congress would rather go to a frightening extreme in an effort to recover a very small fraction of the bail out money.  

The government is now reneging on a promise made and demanding a pay back.  Drastic measures of unprecedented taxation are dangerously close to becoming law.  Likely an unconstitutional law at that.  Richard Epstein of the Wall Street Journal expresses his concern when he notes, "The AIG bonuses were made pursuant to valid contracts entered into before the receipt of the bailout money.  Special taxes on some forms of income (but not others) and retroactive taxes put in place after business transactions are complete both merit strong condemnation."  Responding to what Hanson and others describe as a mob rule, Congress is jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Americans need to take a step back, and look at what is really at stake with this outcry.  Do we really want our government to renege on a legally binding contract?  Is that the message that we want to send to our own people, let alone to the other countries that watch, model and scrutinize our every move?  I don't think so.

Where's my money, man?

Extortion used to be a crime.  These days it's another mark on the "To Do" list appearing after lunch and just before cocktails in the busy daily calendar of many corporations.  Of course they don't use the word extortion.  They like to call it Lobbying.  Private jets, luxury cars, mansions and personal chefs cost money, and who better to foot the bill than the government (taxpayers).  We wouldn't dream of expecting the wealthy to suddenly live without the necessities in life.  

Banks need money because people can't pay on their loans.  Car manufacturers need money because people aren't purchasing cars. Credit card companies need money, and the list goes on. What seems to be ignored in all these instances is the fact that these corporations should only exist as long as the American public can afford them to.  

Is it really the corporations that need billions of dollars?  Of course not.  Homeowners, drivers, shopping fanatics, the general public...these are the people that need the bailout.  

Rosa Brooks, an op-ed columnist for the Los Angeles Times and author of "We need a bailout too.", estimates that each household in America would receive nearly $80,000 if the 8.7 trillion dollars that's being given to the corporations, was instead given to the public.  Give a person thousands of dollars and what are they going to do with it?  Choices are relatively few when it comes to what a person will do with their money.  They'll either spend, save or invest.  

Spending means an investment back into our economy.  Perhaps people can afford to pay on their loans, purchase a car or pay down their credit card debt.  Any and all of these activities directly aide the public, the corporations and the economy.  

There are those that will be more cautious with their money.  Saving instead of spending still leads to the use of a bank in most cases.  Give me $80,000 and I'll show you a bank account that just got $70,000 richer and  car note that was paid in full.  Voila, the bank gets some money and my car lender closes an account as paid.  

Investing doesn't seem to be a big pay off now, but there are always those that will buy low now in the hopes of selling high later.  Again, the money still benefits the people that need it the most while also providing a trickle up effect for corporations.

As a frequent guest and panelist of MSNBC, a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center and member of several political and economic boards, Rosa has been exposed to the ugly truth when it comes to policy and politics.  After doing some digging, I was disappointed to see that Rosa's figures were fairly accurate.  Clearly appealing to the general public, Rosa couldn't have said it better than when she noted, "...don't think Congress is going to hand out huge wads of cash to the hungry or newly homeless.  In America, we only bailout banks and big corporations.".

If you're wondering why it is imperative to be involved...

We find ourselves in yet another economic recession.  Some might say, "That's just the cycle of things."  I say, it doesn't have to be.  Is there any wonder why our economic activity is declining?  As obedient citizens, we pay our taxes.  We responsibly invest our money in stocks, retirement programs and our trusted banks in the hopes we will see a return.  Instead, we catch our political and corporate leaders cheating the system, in fact, cheating the people.  We angrily watch our retirement accounts and stocks lose money.  At the same time, the powers that be continue to pocket millions.  Poignantly put by Victor Davis Hanson (February 12, 2009) "Hardly the Best and Brightest" Retrieved 2/12/09, accountability did not exist for these offenders until the media brought it to the attention of the public.  Self-serving characters such as these thrive in a political world where the constituents remain largely apathetic.  People ask, 'Where did our money go?'  I answer, those million dollar bonuses had to come from somewhere.  Mr. Hanson reveals an appalling list of people caught cheating their country.  Unfortunately, the list is only a sampling of the dreadful truth.  Our "Best and Brightest", our leaders, need to be held accountable for their actions.  This can only happen when the people make a point to be knowledgeable and active in politics and their government.

Congress

The picture above is an accurate depiction of how I used to think of Congress.  It's even a part of my screen saver at work.  Years ago, I came to the conclusion that politics would forever impede democracy and allowed myself to become disaffected toward our system of government.  I felt that since I wasn't wealthy or some huge corporation, my voice really wouldn't be heard.  This year, I was shown that I was wrong.  I did vote in the elections this year and for the first time in my life, I personally knew one of the candidates I was voting for.  Not the President or Vice President, but a Congressional candidate.  A friend of mine from high school was on the ballot and he was serious about his efforts.  He also felt that politics was getting in the way of Democracy, but instead of taking a defeated attitude, he got involved.  He ran on the Libertarian ticket and though he did not win the seat, he showed me that it is still up to each of us to decide how we want to be governed.  Success may not be overnight, but it is not out of reach.  So do I still feel that the picture above is a good description of Congress?  Yes.  Now however, I have hope that it doesn't have to stay that way.