Broader term of 'disabled'

Congress passes bill with protection for disabled
By: Robert Pear
Published: September 17, 2008

In this article it talks about a bill just passed that will protect people with disabilities. This new bill makes a broader definition of the term “disability” than the Americans With Disabilities Act, created in 1990. In the new bill it specifically states, ““The definition of disability in this act shall be construed in favor of broad coverage.”

In this article it states, “The voice vote in the House, following Senate passage by unanimous consent last week, clears the bill for President Bush…The White House said Mr. Bush would sign the bill, just as his father signed the original Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990.” This is an example of one of the necessary steps in order to pass a bill.

"Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law."

In this paragraph from the constitution it states that in order to make a law, the bill must be signed by the president. If the president doesnt sign the bill, it will be sent back and reconsidered by the House of representatives. If 2/3's of the House agrees that it should become a law, then it will become a law.

The Stock Market

the stock market crash

By Stephen Lapaton

Published: September 15, 2008

My advice to the Federal Government on how to solve the current financial issues with Lehman & Merrill Lynch & the Stock Market, are that the government should take responsibility because it is their job to protect the U.S. and its citizens. I don't think that they should take full responsibility though. The government should find a way to loan the banks the money that they need and have the banks pay the government back.

Opinion on A.I.G. bailout

The candidates on A.I.G. bailouts

September 17, 2008, 12:15 pm

By Kate Phillips

In this article it discusses Obama and McCain's opinions on the A.I.G. bailout. In this article, McCain states, "The focus of any such action should be to protect the millions of Americans who hold insurance policies, retirement plans and other accounts with AIG. We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess". This point of view is more anti-federalist because he states that the business should not be protected but the people should. Although McCain claims to be federalist, he has more of a mixed opinion of federalist and anti-federalist.

On this issue, Obama states, "It should bolster our economy’s ability to create good-paying jobs and help working Americans pay their bills and save their money. It must not bail out the shareholders or management of A.I.G." This statement is very similar to what McCain stated. The two candidates are both a mix of the federal and anti-federal points of view. This to me is very reassuring, because it shows that either way, our country will be much more balanced than it currently is.

I think that the federalists and the anti-federalists came to a good common ground in the agreement and signing of the constitution. The government didn't get complete power, they got a constitution, but it listed the rights of all the citizens of the United States. This was interesting to me because it showed how two groups of opposing opinions can come to an agreement to create something that is much better than it would have been without the conflict. This is very similar to what is happening today. The balance of the two views on how a country should be run is the best way to please the country as a whole.

ER confusion

E.R. Patients Often Left Confused After Visits

By LAURIE TARKAN

Published: September 15, 2008

In this article it talks about a study where they talked to about 140 E.R. patients after they left the E.R. and measured their understanding of 4 areas; their diagnosis, their E.R. treatment, instructions for their at-home care and warning signs of when to return to the hospital. The study found that about 78% did not understand one area or more and about 50% did not understand more than 2 areas.

I found this incredible because I didn't think that doctors could be so ambiguous about how a patient should take care of themselves. It is scary because it is part of a doctors job to make sure the patient know how to take care of themselves. If they don't do this, it could cause a patient to get worse.

Relive your old memories

Innovation in Observing Brain Cells
Benedict Carey
nytimes.com, september 4, 2008

Have you ever watched a t.v show that you had loved when you were younger and had gotten a familiar feeling? A similar feeling to what you had had before? Scientists are on the verge of discovering that when recalling a memory the same neurons react in the same way as they had in the original experience. This experience almost takes you back in time to relive the moments that happened in the past.

Things that you found more interesting, and that you had more of a connection to, are going to stay in your memory longer than something that you don't have a connection to. This is because your connection to the experience causes neurons to react with more activity because of emotion and personal interest.

In this article, scientists did an experiment in which they threaded electrodes into the brains of 13 people with epilepsy and had them watch several 5-10 second film clips and observed the active cells during the clips. Every person they examined had at least one film clip in which the neurons responded with lots of activity. They also all had at least one film clip that the neuron activity was weak.

After a short distraction the researchers asked the patients to recall the memories on some of the clips, and they noted that the initial cell reaction to the clips was the same as the reaction when recalling the clip. The cells reacted 2 - 3 seconds before the memory was recalled so the scientists could predict the memory before the person got it.

In class we discussed the enlightenment, and some of the concepts that came about in that period of time. One concept was that a theory should be tested and evidence gathered before it was accepted as "true". In the article it states, "...these spontaneous memories reside in some of the same neurons that fired most furiously when the recalled event had been experienced. Researchers had long theorized as much but until now had only indirect evidence. " This made me think that before the enlightenment because before this proof concept, indirect evidence may have been enough for people to accept this concept as true, and that experimenting may not have been necessary.

Mother spared death for microwaving baby

mother spared death for microwaving baby
no author, CNN,

28 year old China Arnold was accused of microwaving her month-old infant Paris Talley, in 2005. In this article it tells about Arnold being spared the death penalty because they said that Arnold was drunk and had no motive.

It's hard to believe that people who do things like microwave their kids deserve their "natural rights". I believe that by being born you earn your natural rights; but I also believe that once you take away someone else's natural rights to such an extreme, your natural rights should be taken away.