Should Employers Provide Benefits to Same-Sex Partners?

Some of the best and most progressive companies are already offering employee benefits for same-sex partners of employees. Others are dipping their foot in the pool by providing those benefits in places where they are mandated to do so, such as Massachusetts. According to an online article on HRhero.com Excerpted from Arkansas Employment Law Letter, written by attorneys at the law firm Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A., Massachusetts became the first state to legally recognize gay marriage in 2004. Same-sex couples are required by law to be treated the same as heterosexual couples in that state. However, there are many other states who do not legally recognize those marriages, so a company with employees in Massachusetts as well as other states would not be required to treat all its employees the same.

This is where the issue becomes murky because the laws are different everywhere across the country. It boils down, most of the time, to the employer's choice of whether to provide employee benefits for same-sex partners of their employees. Most forward-thinking companies have already discovered the richness and unique synergy having a diverse workforce can offer and have embraced the idea of providing the same benefits to all their employees, regardless of sexual orientation.

The major issue is fairness for all. It takes nothing away from heterosexual couples to offer their same-sex counterparts the same benefits they enjoy. As a matter of fact, it's only fair that they should receive the same benefits since they are providing the same service to the companies for which they work. To deny the domestic partner or spouse of a homosexual employee the benefits to which everyone agrees the spouse of a heterosexual employee is entitled is nothing short of discrimination.

Of course, since there isn't an overwhelming consensus on the issue, it is still up for debate and each company must decide where they stand. Those who want to attract and keep the brightest and best of employees will, no doubt, eventually see that rewarding them all equally will only sweeten the pot of a talented and enthusiastically loyal workforce.

Who someone chooses to love and spend their life with has absolutely nothing to do with what type of employee they will be. However, the respect and equality with which one is either treated or not will go a long way toward determining the quality of work they perform for their employer. The companies who are smart enough to figure this out will be the ones offering full and equal benefits for same-sex partners of their employees.

What do you think?

Let's get some discussion going. What do you think about some of the issues discussed here? Speak your mind and let the world know what you think. Any and all comments are welcome and will be respected, even if you completely disagree with what I've written.

Thanks,
Bruce

What's Happening to the First Amendment?

Anyone who's even remotely interested in the erosion of First Amendment rights in this country should take a moment to read today's AP article by Associated Press Writer P. Solomon Banda entitled Balancing free speech with protest rights.

Here's my two cents worth on a related topic...

Should protesters be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US?

Before I state what I'm sure may be an unpopular opinion, let me start by saying that I have a nephew who is a Marine and I am extremely proud of him, as I am of all our men and women serving in all branches of the armed forces. I am thankful for their sacrifices and I applaud them for their courage and bravery.

However, as a person who values my freedom of speech above all else, I have to take the stance that protesters should be permitted to picket military recruiting offices in the US. It is simply a matter of preserving free speech and freedom of expression, which are part of what our brave men and women are fighting for.

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the point the protesters are making is completely beside the point. We must stand beside them as American citizens and vigorously defend their right to say whatever it is they want to say and make their point in whatever way they choose to express themselves, so long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights or break any laws. Peaceful assembly is legally protected in this country and one of the things we should be thankful for.

This does not, however, give anyone the right to resort to violence or to overtly disrupt the operation of those recruiting offices. There are fine lines between being heard and being disruptive which have to be addressed on a case by case basis.

Anyone who supports the view that protesters should not be permitted to picket military recruiting offices should take a moment to think about that position. If we allow our freedoms to be taken away one by one, it's only a matter of time until something you hold dear is under attack. How would you like to be told that you no longer have the right to write any article that supports protesters being permitted to picket military recruiting offices? How about being told that you can't write anything that doesn't show 100% support of the current political administration?

It may sound far out or left-wing, but it's not that absurd to think that we could find ourselves living in a society where we are told what we can and cannot write. That's what freedom and speech and freedom of expression protects. If we allow one form of suppression of those rights, it's only a matter of time until other forms of suppression show themselves. I, for one, value my freedom to express myself, right or wrong, popular or unpopular, too much to see anyone else lose those rights and that freedom.

How many homes do you have?

How many homes do you own? If you're lucky, you might answer one. In this country, there are many who aren't so lucky. We have far too many homeless and people who are living in substandard housing. Most of us are one paycheck away from losing our homes and hardly anyone is safe from the threat of foreclosure.

In the midst of all this, Senator John McCain dares to admit that he has no idea how many homes he owns. He said in a recent interview that he would have to have his staff get back to the interviewers with the answer. The true answer has since been reported to be around seven.

The man owns seven homes. No wonder he had to have someone else do the math and answer for him. Does this really sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to struggle to make a house payment, put food on the table and keep the gas tank filled so you can make it back and forth to work? No. It doesn't even sound like a person who has any idea what it's like to be one of us regular, working folks. So, how could he possibly be able to do anything for us as President?

Should we boycott the big oil companies?

In many ways, consumers are already boycotting the big oils companies without even realizing it. Evidence of this comes in plant closings by automobile manufacturers who were producing large, gas guzzling trucks and SUVs and increased sales of hybrid vehicles.

More should be done to protest these insanely high gas prices, especially in light of the nation's largest oil company once again posting record profits and calling it a fair return on their investment while most of us are having a hard time feeding our families and our gas tanks at the same time.

A skyrocketing unemployment rate, retail price increases the highest in 30 years and other distressing economic news that indicates the United States is slipping further and further into recession are, at least in part, due to out of control gas prices.

Politicians and those involved in big business whose biggest decision is what size personal jet to buy may not have to wonder how in the world they are going to afford to get back and forth to work on a daily basis and also be able to afford school clothes and supplies for their children. Common, everyday working people are being faced with these decisions, however, and it's becoming increasingly difficult for them to even survive financially.

Anyone who hasn't noticed the effect of high gas prices on their personal bottom line need only take a trip to a grocery store. Look at the prices you were paying for items 6 months or even a month ago opposed to what you're paying for them now. You will notice drastic increases in the prices of every item in the store. If you ask the store owner or manager why the prices have gone up, you will more than likely be told that the prices were raised by their suppliers. Tracing this even further, the suppliers have raised prices to cover increased transportation costs because of high priced gasoline.

The effects of the high gas prices reach us in more ways than just the grocery store. Every retailer has been forced to raise prices because of the higher transportation costs. This is an artificial and dangerous form of inflation caused by something other than demand. It has thrown our economic system into disarray which is obvious from the roller coaster stock market. It has no idea how to react to the strangeness of the current economic climate because things are simply out of whack.

Nationwide one day boycotts on gas stations have proven ineffective in the past because enough people simply will not participate and, even if they did, one day is not going to make a significant difference to get the attention of the big oil companies. Someone somewhere needs to be organizing some type of boycott of big oil that will be effective in at least sending a message that we as consumers are not simply going to lie back, shut up and take it up the gas tank anymore.

The Olympics

The Olympics are a truly wonderful thing, uniting the world in good sportsmanship and friendly competition. However, I always have to wonder if they don't wind up being exploited as a purely political spectacle wherein the competing countries try to assert their superiority and world domination.

It was part of Hitler's plan in designing his master race to develop super athletes who would dominate the Olympic games and thereby prove to the world that Germany was in a position to conquer it's enemies.

There is always political intrigue surrounding the Olympic games themselves, including where they are hosted. This year's games were certainly no exception as all eyes were on China and how they would handle opening their country to foreign influences.

Though there is undoubtedly a great deal of politics and posturing involved with the Olympics, the good far outweighs the bad. The world unites for moments of triumph and cheers together each victory. Though some countries clearly dominate certain sports, it's usually pretty equally distributed throughout all the various sports and events represented, giving each country their own unique opportunity to shine.

This year's Olympics will be remembered for many things, including the phenomenal, almost superhuman Michael Phelps, the murder of a former Gold Medalist's father on Chinese soil and the unrest between Georgia and Russia. Hopefully they will be remembered primarily as a time when the world set aside it's differences and came together as spectators for one of the most thrilling competitions of our time.

Is truth absolute or conditional?

That depends. Your definition of truth determines whether it is absolute or conditional. Online reference Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) gives 12 different definitions of the word truth, which leaves a lot of room for gray areas as far as a definitive answer goes.

Anything that is so hard to define would logically be conditional, depending on a person's perception of what it even means. One definition given by Dictionary.com is "an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude." Obvious to whom? Accepted by whom? If it's not obvious to 100% of the population and not accepted by 100% of the population, does that mean it can't be the truth? That definition in and of itself imposes a conditional quality on truth.

Another definition given in the same reference is "agreement with a standard or original." Who determines the standard by which we judge whatever is in question? Did everyone agree on that standard or just the majority? And what about those things to which the original is long gone and cannot be qualified or quantified? This definition is particularly troubling for those who would say that truth is absolute because it implies that everything true requires proof. Some things that the majority of people hold to be true can clearly not be proven in any way, shape or form. Not to open up a religious debate, but what about the existence of God? What standard or original can be offered to determine the truth of His existence? People either believe or disbelieve in the truth of the existence of God by faith which cannot be scientifically measured or proven, therefore making it conditional.

Yet another definition of truth is "conformity with fact or reality." This leaves room for the gray areas of things that do not conform, fall outside the norm or "defy reality." If things that are outside the norm and do not correlate to our shared concept of reality cannot be considered truth, then that creates a whole other set of conditions on it. Who decides what is normal and conforms? In the past the definition of normal was what fell within the majority. That leaves the minority unaccounted for, yet that minority still exists.

By definition, truth is conditional. If it weren't we wouldn't ever have to apply common qualifying terms like "absolute truth" because that would be the only kind. Those who argue that truth is absolute, therefore, are actually making just the opposite argument without even knowing it. And that's the honest truth.

Should books have ratings like movies to warn parents about inappropriate content?

What is inappropriate and who will decide? If we allow a ratings system on books, we will be accepting yet another nail in the coffin of freedom of speech in this country. It is the responsibility of parents, not the government, to decide what is and is not acceptable for their children.

Books and other forms of writing are part of the free exchange of ideas that make this country great. Our liberty relies on our ability to put forth opposing ideas so that people can decide for themselves which of those ideas make the most sense to them. We do not always agree on what ideas are "right," but we must agree that our freedom to express any idea we choose is one of the underlying foundations of a free, democratic society.

If parents are so concerned that their child could possibly read something that they feel is inappropriate, they have several options that do not include a rating system on books to make it quick and easy for them. Parenting is not quick and easy and it is not the government's responsibility to do the parenting. When parents chose to bring children into this world, they did so with the full knowledge that they would then be responsible for those children for at least 18 years. This includes being responsible for shielding their children from any influences they feel inappropriate.

Instead of a rating system, parents can take a look at what their children are reading. If they're too lazy to read the whole thing, they can skim it to make sure they feel it's appropriate. They can also suggest and provide books they have read, guiding the child toward the ideas they feel appropriate. Since small children aren't going to be reading books with a lot of big words and lofty ideas, it seems we're talking probably more about teens here. A novel approach toward parenting might be to let your children read something you don't necessarily approve of and have a mind of their own. Discuss it with them and see how they feel about it. You might just find that the child has enough sense to take a positive message from even something you feel is negative.

With Homeland Security and various other assaults on our civil liberties, a book rating system would just be one more surrender of our freedom. It's horrifying to think that some of the great classics we all grew up on could possibly be deemed inappropriate for young readers, denying them the chance to explore new and different ideas.

In a time when reading and writing skills are deteriorating rapidly, the rating system also seems to be a sure way to discourage reading and exploration of ideas and philosophical concepts. We, as a society, should encourage all our citizens to hunger for knowledge and to gain some of that knowledge by reading books of any kind, not arbitrarily narrowing the list of what is acceptable.

Many of the greatest works of American literature would more than likely be restricted to young readers by such a system. After all, couldn't "Moby Dick" be considered a little violent? There is a murder in "Of Mice and Men." Will we ban anything with the slightest bit of sexual content? What about swear words? Surely children will need to be protected from "The Holy Bible" for all of these reasons, as well.

These may seem like radical views, but these are the things you need to consider before you jump on the bandwagon of support for implementing a ratings system on books. Books have always been one of the purest forms of expression and the way the marketplace of ideas is expanded and enriched. We may not always agree with the content or the message, but we must fight to the end to protect the rights of those who write and those who read books of all kinds.

Some of the greatest lessons we have learned are from reading books filled with vile, revolting content. Think of the works of Hitler. We read these not to become like him, but to get a glimpse into the inner workings of the mind of a madman and learn important lessons on how to keep history from repeating itself. If we are forced into ignorance, we will also surely be damned to repeat the mistakes of the past.

To read more of my articles, click below:

Easy ways your family can go green - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium

Easy ways your family can go green - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium



Concerned about your environmental impact? Looking for a few easy ways to "go green?" Here are a few no-nonsense tips that won't crimp your style but will help you be a little more eco-friendly.

Should consumers boycott the big oil companies? - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium

Should consumers boycott the big oil companies? - by Bruce W. Coffman - Helium

Why can't politicians keep it in their pants?

According to an Associated Press report today, John Edwards has admitted having an extramarital affair. While I personally don't care who anybody sleeps with, It does make me wonder why politicians in general just can't seem to keep it in their pants?

Click here to check out the article. Then, give your thoughts. Let's get some discussion and debate going on this. What do you think about it?

Do people tend to base election votes more on emotion or reason?

The vast majority of people tend to base election voting decisions on emotion, rather than reason. This is an unfortunate reality that both political parties have figured out and tap into in their political advertising and campaign speech messages.

If you are in any doubt of the fact that emotion is a key factor, think of the millions of dollars in advertising that go into political campaigns. Then take a moment to think about the political ads you have seen. Did they talk about the issues or did they make emotional appeals to voters by either showing the "good guy" with his wife, kids and dog and talking about what a wonderful, church-going family man he is? Or, perhaps they showed a particularly unflattering picture of the "evil" opponent and tried to scare you with talk of his "radical views" or "reckless spending history."

You hardly ever see a campaign ad or hear a campaign speech that is purely factual rather than emotionally charged. This is partially because all advertising is geared toward the lowest common denominator and kept to about a 6th grade level. The people behind the advertising seem to think that none of us is capable of making an informed decision based on information alone, so they need to prod us along with emotional appeals.

If you don't think political speeches are a form of advertising, listen closely to one the next time you hear it. It is an extended advertisement meant to influence the way you will vote and nothing more. Here are where the emotional messages become especially charged. You will hear the politician patting himself on the back in subtle ways about what a good person he is and throwing spears at his opponent on usually personal issues that have nothing to do with politics but much to do with painting a picture of him as a "bad" person.

Though there are many of us who are intelligent enough not to rely purely on emotion, the sad fact is that the majority of people will resort to "gut instincts" or emotional responses which have been colored by the advertising messages they have been fed. This is no way to choose a political candidate, especially one as important as a President, but it happens in this country every four years.

If these emotional approaches didn't work so well and influence so many voters, they wouldn't be used so widely. So, in a way, we've done it to ourselves by responding to them. It's time we started demanding the facts and actually finding out what the candidates' stands are on important issues instead of voting based on fear or who has the nicest family picture.

Freedom of speech does not mean not getting offended

Freedom of speech almost certainly means that someone somewhere at sometime will be offended. This is because we are free to express any opinion, however contradictory to the norm it may be. When people discuss views, opinions and beliefs openly and freely, there is sure to be disagreement and there is always the risk of offending someone.

The offended party, fortunately, has the right to express his or her moral outrage and put forth their own opinion. That is the beauty of freedom of speech and why it must be vigorously defended. If we didn't have it, we would be forced to conform to one way of thinking approved and endorsed by one particular group, usually the government.

The risk of being offended is a small price to pay for such a basic and essential freedom. There are messages we see every day that we don't necessarily agree with, but we must stand up for the individual rights of others to put forth even those, or we run the risk of losing our right to express our own thoughts.

Think for a moment about a time when you have been most outraged about a form of expression. What did you do? Odds are, you expressed your indignation and spoke about why you disagreed with the message. You may have even thought to yourself that the party who expressed the offending message shouldn't have had the right to put it forth in the first place. If you stop to think logically about that, it would mean that you would likewise not have the right to express your opinion on the matter.

Free and open discourse is the only way that civilized, rational people can resolve problems and issues that affect everyone. It is because of contradictory ideas being expressed in the marketplace of ideas that social change ever has the opportunity to occur. When two opposing ideas are expressed, it opens up a forum or debate where others are free to give their input, often resulting in a clear resolution of the issue or even compromise. Someone is likely to propose an idea that appeals to both schools of thought and gives them some common ground on which they can agree.

Without our freedom of speech intact we may have a life of less conflict and find ourselves offended less often, but we would lose our ability to think and reason on our own. Plus, we would have to rely on someone or some group to decided what messages are appropriate and approved. There is no one in the world qualified to make those decisions for us. What we think, feel and believe must not be dictated by a single individual or group, but rather determined by our ability to sift through all the conflicting messages available and find those which which we agree and disagree.

Communist countries without freedom of speech and without a free press rely on their governments to distribute information. They are told what the government feels they need to know and are not allowed to express any opinions that do not totally agree with and support the ruling party. They may live their lives without being offended, but they are also living in the dark, their minds dulled by ignorance and controlled by a handful of people who decide what's best for them.

I would much rather stand the risk of being offended by what you have to say than to give up my right to either agree or disagree and have a frank, open discussion with you about it. Since, fortunately, we are still free to express ourselves, I was free to write this blog post. If you have been offended in any way or if you disagree, you are free to make that known by expressing yourself through freedom of speech.

Why a "made in the USA" label is better than a "made in China" label

We did it to ourselves. As consumers, we demanded everything and more, and we didn't want to pay much for it. So, our factories closed and our retailers started getting items from China because they could get them much cheaper and sell them at lower prices here. We could buy more and more stuff and everyone was happy.

That is, until we found ourselves either unemployed or with low paying service industry jobs because there were no production jobs left. Then, we suddenly couldn't even afford so much of the cheap junk that was being imported from China and somebody suddenly looked up and said, "Hey, how did this happen?"

There are so many reasons a "made in the USA" label is better than a "made in China" label that I couldn't even begin to list them all here. We have discovered some of those reasons recently and I, for one, can only hope it's not too late to do something about it.

Jobs and economic impact:
The main reason a "made in the USA" label is superior to a "made in China" label is that if the product was made here, somebody had to make it. That means jobs on American soil. The person who made that item worked at a production facility. That means that person was employed, had money to spend that would stimulate the American economy and was able to pay taxes to keep the American government running. It also means that the production facility was paying taxes and more than likely purchasing raw materials here in the United States to make the items they produce. That's a whole lot of economic benefit from one baseball cap or similar item being made in the USA rather than China.

Health and safety:
One reason the things being imported from China are so inexpensive is because their costs to produce them are lower. One reason their costs to produce them are lower is the fact that there aren't nearly as many rules and regulations on health and safety in China as there are in the United States. With all the news lately of toys with lead paint, poisonous food and similar horrors, we have finally begun to discover that you get what you pay for. Had those items been "made in the USA," they would have been thoroughly inspected by government agencies whose jobs it is to ensure public safety. They don't do that with the stuff that comes into our borders from China. We find out about it after a child chews on a toy car with lead based paint and has to be hospitalized for lead poisoning. Yes, it's a little more expensive to put systems and proper equipment

in place and to provide workers with good training. Yes, that raises the costs of goods made in the USA. No, a child's life isn't worth saving a few cents on a toy car.

Improved quality:
Because of less regulatory activity in China and because of a workforce that will work for much less than Americans will accept for the same work, the quality of items we import From China are much cheaper. That means, of course, in all ways. They are cheap as in inexpensive, and they are cheap as in poor quality. We were willing to accept this for years because we were gobbling up more and more lower quality stuff and loving having so much. Then, we began to take a look at what we really had. Slowly, people have begun to realize that it doesn't matter what a super low price you pay for something if it's potentially dangerous or falls apart in a week. We are moving back from a disposable society to a society that values craftsmanship and we are hungry for well-made items that will last a while. This is partly because we don't have the money to keep buying the "made in China" crap over and over.

The bottom line is that "made in the USA" is good for the USA in more ways than one and we, as consumers, need to start truly demanding it. We need to get good jobs back on our soil and not have to worry that the things we buy might kill us or fall apart the first time we use them. If these things matter to you, start looking for the "made in the USA" label the next time you go shopping. Odds are you're not going to find many, but if you stop buying so many of the "made in China" items, retailers will eventually get the message. Another way to give them the message, of course, is to step up and make your voice heard by telling them that you want a better selection of items that proudly carry the "made in the USA" label.

Will the minimum wage increase help or hurt the US economy?

In the current economic climate, with so many other issues already chipping away at the US economy, the 70 cent minimum wage hike will have absolutely no effect whatsoever. Independent of skyrocketing gas prices and retail price increases the highest in 30 years, the increase may have had an impact one way or the other, but it won't even cause a blip on the economic radar now.

The only effect the 70 cent minimum wave hike has noticeably had so far is to contribute to higher unemployment rates and higher retail prices. So, the money the people who received the pay increase could have used to put back into and stimulate the economy is being negated by these two things. When you adjust for inflation, spending is actually down, even though you're paying more at the grocery store. So, if you brought home an extra 20 dollars on your paycheck by it was eaten up because of the fact that the same groceries you bought last week cost you 20 dollars more this week, the effect on the economy, as well as on your personal line, is a big zero.

The nation's employers and retailers did exactly what we knew they were going to do. They whined and moaned about how the increase was going to devastate their bottom lines. Then, when they became effective, they cut workforce and raised prices to offset what they considered huge payroll expenditures, effectively shooting themselves in the foot. Had they had the courage and foresight to weather a brief storm of a potential dip into their significantly deep pockets, they could have regained even more later because those working people who have been struggling for so long may have actually started spending some of that extra money and stimulated the economy.

Instead of allowing it to be a good thing for them in the long run, employers and retailers have effectively dashed the hopes of the pay increase doing anyone any good. They raised their prices to recoup perceived losses, making that extra 70 cents no longer extra, but necessary for people to stay at the same stagnant economic level they were at before. We have no more discretionary income than we did before the minimum wage hike went into effect, so we have no way of effectively stimulating the economy. This will cause the retailers to see even further drops in sales after adjustments for unnecessarily high inflation levels.

The answer to this question may have been much different before we dropped into the recession that no one will call a recession. However, this nation's employers and retailers have created their own self-fulfilling prophecy by setting into motion a series of job cuts and price increases that will cause the 70 cent minimum wage hike to do absolutely nothing.

Ways to protest high gas prices

High gas prices are hurting the American consumer in numerous ways. The obvious ways are the fact that it is costing us way too much to fill up our cars. However, the not so obvious ways it is hurting us are by causing prices on nearly everything else to go up rapidly because of delivery and transportation costs. It's amazing that there hasn't been some sort of organized protest of these high gas prices because something needs to be done.

There are numerous ways we, as consumers, could protest the high gas prices, but very few that would have any real effect. There have been numerous calls for one day gas boycotts, but these have proven completely ineffective because not enough people participate and one day isn't enough to put a significant dent in the pocketbooks of big oil.

More effective uses of our time and resources would be to write letters to our elected officials explaining the effects the high gas prices are having on us and asking that something be done. After all, the political powers that be have much more control over economic matters than we average citizens do.

We need to also start taking a good, hard look at our elected officials before we elect them. If we put people in positions of power who have strong ties to large oil companies and whose wealth arises from them or whose campaign funding comes from them, we wind up in the situation we are in now where the average person has to think long and hard before deciding between purchasing a gallon of milk for his family or a gallon of gas to get to work.

As average citizens, about the only thing we can do that would make a serious impact is to reduce our overall use of gasoline significantly. We need to go back to the concept of carpooling and do things like utilize public transportation to put fewer vehicles on the road. In addition to helping lower gasoline use, these things would be beneficial for the environment as well by reducing vehicle emissions.

Other ways to reduce our individual use of gasoline are to plan out where we have to go in a day's time and combine as many errands into one trip as possible. Perhaps you can pick up your dry cleaning on your way to pay electric bill. And, maybe you can delay doing both of those things until it's time to pick up your kids at soccer practice. Also, avoid unnecessary trips altogether. If you can wait until tomorrow on your way home from work to pick up that loaf of bread, don't run to the store tonight to pick it up. Instead of wasting gas in a long drive through line, park, shut the car off and go inside. These may seem like small things, but if each of us did them, they would amount to significant decreases in gasoline use.

The best way to make an impact on a corporate giant is to impact their bottom line. If their high priced product is suddenly not selling as well, they will usually lower the price as an incentive to sell more. It's the simple law of supply and demand. We need to all band together and start using it to demand more reasonable gas prices.

Does Wal-Mart have any business telling its employees how to vote?

I personally think the obvious answer is a resounding no, however they are doing it. Wal-Mart has been trying to "persuade" their employees to vote Republican in the upcoming Presidential election by scaring them with inaccurate information about a Democrat plan to unionize the monstrous company.

The fact that this huge corporation is abusing it's power in such a way as to try and influence a Presidential election is scary and shouldn't be taken lightly. Please take just a few moments to read the information on the following website which explains this in further detail and also shows the "Wall Street Journal"* article about it: http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/s/voters

*This edit corrects New York Times to Wall Street Journal

Do mainstream media outlets favor bad news over good news?

If it bleeds, it leads. That is the stereotypical mantra of the media and, to a certain extent, it's true. While we'd love to blame the media for airing only bad news, we have to realize that in the world of television especially, ratings rule and giving the viewers what they want is the most effective way to get increased ratings and, in turn, advertising revenue. Since America is a capitalist society and the majority of news venues are for profit, there is the unfortunate reality that those advertising dollars are the bottom line.

If people didn't tune in to watch the horrors on the nightly news in such vast numbers, those responsible for the content would change it to meet the wants of the viewers. So, we are actually in control of what we see more than we might be comfortable taking responsibility for.

Another reason it seems all we see is bad news is the fact that, unfortunately, bad things are news. The fact that something went well or turned out right is as it should be and is therefore not newsworthy. Something going wrong or turning out badly is outside the norm, making it worthy of a headline in a newspaper or a segment on a news program.

The media even takes steps to counteract the overabundance of bad news by throwing in human interest stories that are meant to be uplifting and inspiring. You've not doubt read or seen stories of brave, courageous people who have overcome obstacles in their lives, or stories about organizations that are doing good in the community. This is good news. While viewers would more than likely get bored and tune out or put a newspaper down if this was the only content, it is there.

We as Americans tend to spend a lot of time analyzing and putting down the media in this country, but one thing to remember the next time you're watching a particular bit of bad news on television is this: at least you're not watching a state-run "news" broadcast which is made up of nothing more than government propaganda. You are free to see and read about what is really going on in the world around you. A lot of the time, those are bad things. It is those bad things we need to pay attention to so we can learn from them and learn to rise above them.

If you want to only hear how wonderful everything is and that there is nothing to worry about or fear and that the government will take complete care of you so there's no need for you to think on your own, move to a country that doesn't have a free press. If, on the other hand, you want the good, the bad and the ugly so you are free to form your own opinions and think and discuss freely important issues, thank God you live in the United States and lighten up a little on the media.

Are doctors motivated by high pay or healing patients?

The majority of American doctors are clearly motivated by high pay rather than healing patients. If this weren't the case, this country would at least be closer toward moving toward a system in which health care was affordable and accessible for all people instead of just those who can afford it.

While doctors themselves aren't completely to blame for the fact that we do not have universal health care in this country, they share the blame equally with politicians and the medical lobbying groups which have prevented us from moving toward a system which nearly every other civilized country has.

The arguments have been made for years that if American went to a system of universal health care that the quality of health care would suffer. Tell that to someone with an illness who cannot afford to have it treated at all or to an elderly person living on a fixed income who has to choose between eating and getting the medication they need to survive.

Did Canada lose all its qualified doctors when they switched to the universal health care system? No. Did everyone move away because the health care became so horrible? No. Did people who were unable to afford proper medical treatment in the past become able to get it? Yes. Is it cheaper to import the exact same medicines from Canada than it is to purchase them in the United States? Yes. This clearly indicates that the Canadian system of universal health care is working.

One of the biggest arguments offered against universal health care is a back log in the system and being forced onto waiting lists for medical procedures. I believe a poverty-stricken individual would rather be placed on a waiting list for a medical procedure than to know there was no way they would ever be able to receive it or that, even if they did, they would spend the rest of their life in debt for it. The waiting lists provide everyone an equal opportunity to receive life-saving medical procedures without pushing those with enough money to buy their way into the operating room to the front of the line while pushing those without the money out the door.

There are, of course, American doctors who are motivated more by healing patients and saving lives than they are by money. Those are the ones who are offering their services at free clinics and in similar ways. However, those free clinics are far and few between, especially in rural areas, and are usually painfully understaffed and struggle to stay afloat. This is where a system of universal health care would help out tremendously.

Some say that you would only attract substandard doctors if they didn't receive such high pay, which is basically unlimited income potential as it stands. That may be true, but if money weren't such a consideration, then you might attract more compassionate doctors motivated by what doctors are truly supposed to be all about, which is healing people.