Coroner: Murphy appears to have died of natural causes

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/12/21/brittany.murphy/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29

Brittany Murphy, who was 32 years old, was pronounced dead at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, in Los Angeles, at 10:04 a.m. pacific time, on Sunday (Dec. 20). Currently, as of Sunday night, an autopsy has not yet been scheduled. However, John Kades, a spokesman for the coroner's office, said there was no sign of foul play or trauma. He also said that naturally occurring dieseases could be found in any person that could lead to death. So, Brittany Murphy's death is currently being ruled 'natural.' Her family has just requested their privacy at this point, but many of her peers have expressed their sorrow on Murphy's Facebook page and on their Twitter pages. Brittany starred in many movies in her lifetime, many of which were romantic comedies. A final report of her medical history could take up to eight weeks.

In my opinion, I think there are many possible reasons as to why Brittany Murphy died at such a young age. Did she ever have a drug addiction? Was she recently sick with anything? Did she have a pre-existing medical condition? People 32 years old don't just die. As of right now there is no autopsy scheduled, and I think that is a good thing. But because she is a member of the "Hollywood Limelight," it is pretty much guaranteed that there will be one done on her body. However, if I was her family, I would not allow one. Yes, I would want to know what really went wrong with my beloved Brittany, but, knowing would not change the fact that she is dead. And if anything I think it would only create guilt within myself and/or my family because then we would be thinking, "okay, so what should/could we have done that we didn't?" I think it is just a thing that should be left unknown in my opinion.

Lieberman opposes Medicare at 55

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/14/health.care.lieberman/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29


As part of the healthcare bill, the Democratic Senators are trying to pass a section in it that says medicare benefits will be available for Americans that are 55 years of age and older. However, in order for them to do that they will need 59 or 60 of their 60 Democratic Senators to vote in favor of the bill because all Republican Senators oppose the bill. Senator Lieberman, a member of the Democratic party, also opposes Medicare benefits at age 55. Though, the Democratic party still has a hope in convincing a moderate Republican Senator, Senator Snowe of Maine, of voting in favor of the bill and being the one vote that they need in order to pass the bill. Most Democrats support the public option of healthcare as a nonprofit competitor to private insurers that would expand coverage and bring down prices. Republicans and some moderate Democrats, along with the health insurance industry, oppose the public option, saying it would be a first step toward a government takeover of the entire health care system.

Personally, I do not want government run healthcare. I think they have enough say in our lives as it is, why should they control our healthcare as well when they already take 40% of our paychecks. If we had government run healthcare our paychecks would just get hit that much more. And yes, they are many people out there that do not have healthcare, but I think there should be some other way for them to get it rather than literally forcing all Americans to have healthcare through the government. Maybe make government run healthcare available to those who need it or want it and let the rest continue on how they choose to be with either private health insurance or none at all. Also, I think it is very brave of Senator Lieberman to stand up and openly oppose the Medicare at 55 bill, knowing that every other Democratic member of the House is in favor of the bill. By Senator Lieberman standing up and openly opposing the bill it goes to show that the "One man, one vote" quote holds true. Senator Lieberman, one man, could stop a whole bill from passing; one vote could take the bill right off the table. Also, I think having Medicare available at age 55 would only hurt the American economy more at this point rather than benefit it. Were already struggling to fund such programs and if we make the age 10 years lower than it is, that's how many more people the program would have to provide for. I think it would be too much and would result in too many tax spikes.

Issue #2: Boosting the Minimum

Not everyone in the United States earns enough money to live comfortably. According to the federal government's definition of poverty, any U.S. family of four whose annual income in 2006 was less than $20,444 was considered poor. In 2005, 12.6 percent of Americans—about 37 million people—lived below the poverty line. For a significant number of the poor, the condition is temporary, resulting from job loss, divorce, or unexpected and dramatic changes in living circumstances. But for some Americans, poverty is a chronic condition. Although many poor people are unemployed or employed only part-time, nearly 3 million full-time workers also live in poverty. The reason 3 million full-time workers live in poverty is because the minimum wage is set how it is. The minimum wage sat at $5.15/hour for more than ten years before it was finally raised to $7.25/hour. That poses a problem because the cost of living changes but the wage that many American workers were earning was not changing along with the cost of living. This is why many Democrats in Congress were pushing to get the minimum wage raised. They believed the increase would raise the take-home pay of millions of Americans, allowing full-time work­ers earning the minimum wage—and with the assistance of food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)—to rise above the poverty threshold. It's a moral outrage that a full-time worker earning the minimum wage would still live below the poverty line, protest those who support the minimum wage increase. They argue that the wage hike will positively affect the lives of millions of American workers, including single mothers, a group at high risk of severe and ongoing poverty. More people with more money to spend will boost the economy and counter any nega­tive effect from businesses raising prices to cover increased wages, say supporters. Finally, some proponents say that new tax cuts should not have been tied to the increase in the mini­mum wage because businesses have already received generous tax cuts in recent years. They fear the additional tax cuts will remove needed revenues from government coffers. Raising the minimum wage is counterproductive, declare opponents to the increase. These critics argue that the mini­mum wage is a weak weapon for fighting poverty because it affects only a small percentage of the workforce, and nearly half of workers receiving the minimum wage are teenagers, not people living in poverty. Raising the costs of doing busi­ness, opponents continue, will lead to higher prices and job cuts, which will hurt businesses and low-income workers alike. Critics insist that the market works best for the economy when the laws of supply and demand determine wages. Finally, many opponents suggest that a better way to help the working poor would be to expand the EITC, which rewards work with­out interfering in the market.

In my opinion, I believe that any person working full-time should be earning enough to live comfortably. I don't think it's right that a person can work 40, 50 or 60 hours a week and still live below the poverty line. And most likely they are working a minimum wage job that is not the most pleasant of all jobs. They could very well be working at McDonald's, or Wal-mart, or even as a factory worker. These are all very undesirable jobs, but someone has to do them. And yes, a lot of minimum wage workers are teenagers, but it wouldn't hurt to pay them more either. I mean I work at Menards and I get paid minimum wage during the week and an extra $2.50 an hour on the weekends, but it still doesn't seem like a lot. One week I put in over 50hours and I only get paid $350 for it. Only $350 for 50 hours of hard work. That just doesn't seem right to me. And the fact that there are people who work that much every week, and are only getting paid that when they have a family to support and way more living expenses then I have as a teenager, just doesn't seem right. I do understand the reaction effects of raising the minimum wage of prices at those businesses increasing for the consumer, but that contradicts the whole reason of raising the minimum wage. If the minimum wage gets raised, and then the price of consumer products also raises, that defeats the purpose and only continues on with the problem that we were trying to solve by raising the minimum wage in the first place. And it would be a lot to expect of businesses to not raise their prices for the consumer if they have to pay their workers more because that is extra money that the business owners don't have. So by the government providing tax breaks or some kind of financial aid to those small businesses who need time to adjust to the change financially, that help would be provided. Also, if the wages that workers were paid were determined by the laws of supply and demand, the workers of our country would not be in this financial crunch that they are finding themselves in right now. So, I believe that the minimum wage should be raised so that all working Americans are able to live comfortably, but I believe that it needs to be done in a way that keeps the cost of living in a realistic proportion with the wages that workers are being paid.

An article that supports my opinion: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ideas/2008/06/060608.html

Issue #1: All Things Being Unequal

Issue #3: Putting Welfare to Work

Texas escapee recaptured

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/07/texas.escaped.prisoner/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29
Arcade Comeaux Jr. was being transferred from a prison in Huntsville, Texas to another one in Stiles last week when he pulled out a weapon and demanded that the two correctional officers drive to Baytown, Texas. He did fire the weapon, but no one was harmed. He then cuffed the two guards together in the back of the van, took one of their uniforms, both of their weapons and ran away. Surprising thing is, Arcade Comeaux Jr. was suppose to be wheel-chair bound, but evidently not. At the time of his escape he was serving time for aggravated sexual assault and two counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. This amounted to being three life sentences. Now, however, he will face more. Not that it will change much though.

In my opinion this man is a psycho. His past consists of raping a child, aggravated rape of a child, burglary of a building with the intent to commit theft, indecency with a child, mulitiple parol violations, and while he was in prison the attempted stabbing of his wife and another visitor. And now, he runs off, but gets caught. Yet antoher thing he has that he can add to his on-going list of violations. It was the first time in several years that a criminal has been able to slip such a distinct weapon past the prison security and into the transfer vehicle with themselves, and it was lucky that no one got hurt. I think the prison security got a wakeup call and is probably a little bit more conscientious about checking for weapons now. I think checking for weapons and prisoners having weapons probably hasn't been a huge concern lately and not very common that prisoners have had them lately. But, now I think that prison in particular will be more conscientious of what is happening in their prison. I think since Arcade Comeaux Jr. already had the equivalent of three life sentences going into this ordeal, that he probably thought he didn't have anything to lose. So I think our justice system needs to better set itself up for people like Arcade Comeaux Jr. who really don't have anything to lose.