The counterculture of the United States took the Western world by storm in the late 1960s. It was a cultural progression against the political and social establishment that emulated bohemianism. The movement achieved common goals underlying issues interpreted in a unique way. It was during this time that the unconventional lifestyle that had taken root long before Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock ’69 finally became orthodox.
I was born in Maine in 1990, making me 28 years old. I was raised in Maine, went to high school in Maine and love my home state.
As I packed my bags to head off to college in 2009, I was going to live outside of Maine for the first time in my life. I planned to spend four years away, then return (better educated) to live and work in the home I love.
That was the plan.
Almost a decade later, however, I still have not moved back.
In December of 1973, the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial (and worst) rulings, Roe v Wade. It declared that the Constitution protects abortion; therefore, the states could not pass restrictions on it. However, states could pass laws to limit abortions in the third trimester.
Despite this, Republicans in numerous states have recently passed laws with very strict restrictions on abortion. Clearly, this is an attempt to get a lawsuit and with it, a case to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, this will lead to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade, once more leaving the issue to the states.
Individuals from all corners of the political spectrum have been rilled up by the recent bannings of various figures from social media platforms including Alex Jones and Louis Farrakhan. Some have praised these bans for providing good restrictions on what they deem “fake news” or “hate speech”. Others have attacked these bans for being influenced by nefarious motives that are contra free speech. The debate regarding the extent to which social media sites may regulate speech has been going on for years now. Perhaps it is time for a reassessment.
Warren Albrecht | United States
We frequently hear that the cost of healthcare is increasing. But we rarely hear anyone define why despite the reason being so obvious: government intrusion. Neither Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Medica, nor Anthem was ever on business programs complaining of the cost of healthcare. Instead, the mainstream media gave platforms to the representatives of Medicare and Medicaid, debt providers for taxpayers. Meanwhile, the Obama administration stopped the mergers of health insurance companies.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch said the deals “would leave much of the multi-trillion dollar health insurance industry in the hands of three mammoth insurance companies, drastically constricting competition in a number of key markets that tens of millions of Americans rely on to receive health care”.
So one has to ask anyone supporting single-payer health care: why would government control (socialized medicine) be work without any competition? In short, it wouldn’t.