Whats up with the whole new blogger account, being forced to get one? Just joshin ya. Anyways, on to the articles.

Acticle 1: "Who's to say an older person's five years of life are any less important than a younger person's nine years?" she said. "The length of time doesn't necessarily determine what's best, and we have no right to judge. That's playing God and people aren't going to like it."

This quote was what i was thinking while reading this article. How can you judge someones worth by simply putting a date on them? In a years time someone could win a nobel peace prize, or give money and volunteer hours to organizations in need, and in 10 years someone could live to do nothing but drink beer, eat food, get fat, and buy things for their selfish, undesearving family. You get the picture. This new "proposal" is wrong.

Article 2: I like that governor Doyle is trying to get state worker's partners to get benefits, but at the same time, the argument at the end made a lot of sence too. We don't want people only going for goverment jobs for health care benefits, or workers only getting affordable health care from those jobs. It's an odd argument.

Article 3: This one's a no brainer. They shouldn't have such a huge fine. A good $200 - $300 fine would be just, fine. But playing an instrument, come one, of course you should do that. Drinking coffee is a little overboard. So is eating a tasty scone on the way to pilates classes, ( i do not take pilates classes or eat scones, it was mearly for refrence).

Article 4: Singleing out need through race alone is hard to tell. I need to think about this one further. Hear other opinions, open minded and closed minded.