Reponse to Lily Streiff's Second Editorial

Lily Streiff wrote an editorial on US dependence on oil and provided her own alternatives to providing power to our nation.  In response, it was a nice read and her message was clear and concise.  In principle, we both agree that alternative energy/fuel sources need to be researched, refined, and implemented.  There are points she makes that I do not agree with or even understand, but I will touch on that later.

In summary, the editorial stated that the US needs to become self-sufficient in respect to energy.  Lily says that we should not rely on foreign oil and as a result skyrocketing prices will continue to hurt Americans.  She also writes that more renewable sources of energy, such as wind-generated energy and solar power should.  She concludes by saying that although nuclear power is a potential danger, it could provide the best result for powering our cities and an overall lower cost as opposed to foreign oil.

First off, I am unclear on what she means by powering America.  I assume she is referring to electric power because she brings up cities and small towns.  Yes, petroleum products make up a plurality of our supply source but most of this product is consumed by transportation and industrial sectors.  These sectors do not make up the majority or plurality of energy demanded.  Electric power consumes the most from available suppl sources (by a plurality).  In fact, a minority of energy consumed for use by the electric power sector (i.e. cities) is actually taken from petroleum products.  Coal, then nuclear power, then natural gas, then renewable sources all contribute more to the electric sector than petroleum. (See Figure)

Back to the US dependence on oil, there are plenty of oil deposits that are still plentiful and many more that have yet to be tapped.  We cannot be supposedly depleting our domestic oil supply if are drills are at a stand still.  A better solution to weaning the country off of oil is to find alternative fuels.  Transportation and industry are the sectors that demand on petroleum the most.  Find alternative methods to power these sectors and you essentially have no need for oil.  If appropriate alternative fuel sources cannot be found, then cut down on the amount of petroleum consumed.  If that means placing the burden on the suppliers or the consumers then so be it.  Whether that means higher taxes, setting caps, or granting subsidies it can be done.  A secondary effect would be a lowering of prices on the oil we actually do consume.

Anyways, good read but more opinions than facts.  We do definitely need to get away from oil though.  We are killing our planet and our pocketbooks and in both cases are killing ourselves.

Congressional War on Planned Parenthood or Abortion?

Recently, a measure to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding was brought into Congress.  The measure passed in the House but was not as successful in the Senate.  Planned Parenthood provides many services to women (and men).  Those services include, STD testing and counseling, pregnancy testing and counseling, and cancer and other health complication testing and counseling.  They provide these services at little cost to those who cannot afford to go elsewhere.

But this policy had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood.  This policy had everything to do with another service that Planned Parenthood provides: abortion.  Why else would Congress vote stripping much of the resources that Planned Parenthood needs to be able to perform the many great services it offers to the community?  Congress does not actually want to cause those who are pregnant, infected with venereal disease, or stricken with prostate or cervical cancer to go without care (and even awareness) for their situations.  This was another example of anti-abortion legislation being written under the guise of another issue.

In one article written about this issue, Congressmen are quoted using ridiculous statistics to support their case. Rep. Jean Schmidt of Ohio stated that thirty-three out of thirty-four pregnant woman who walk into Planned Parenthood leave with an abortion.  I shall not dispute the validity of the statement, but why else would a pregnant woman go to Planned Parenthood, for contraceptives?  Most women (families) who plan on going through with the birthing process end up dealing with hospitals for the duration of the pregnancy.  Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona said that ninety percent of services provided by Planned Parenthood are abortion (which he later recanted as just a joke).  The facts are that abortions only make up about three percent of services provided with the majority of provided services being preventative care and counseling.

This action being prevented says much about the Senate.  This decision shows that the Senate is actually pro-choice.  Even conservatives voted against this measure.  Actually no, just jokes.  In reality, this speaks more to the quantity and quality of service that Planned Parenthood provides.  In some of the Senators' eyes, the good of the services outweighs the bad of abortion.  In some of their eyes, a generation of healthy children with families to take good care of them outweighs a generation of children born into a life which will most likely see them in the same position as their parents were years before.

Response to Classmate's (Melissa Mason) Anti-Abortion Editorial

This editorial written Melissa Mason dealt with an "Anti-Abortion" law being passed in South Dakota.  This law makes women who go in to have an abortion done wait three days in order to get the procedure done.  The wait is designed to give women (and families) more time to rethink their decision.  Personally, I am Anti-Abortion but Pro-Choice.  In brief I do not believe that abortion is the solution, but I believe that women (or the family) should have the final say without fear of judgment.

Melissa Mason disagrees with this law on the basis of it being Anti-Choice.  Technically this law is Extra Pro-Choice because people are given extra time to choose.  All joking aside, I can argue both sides of the argument.  Personally, I do not dislike the new law.  Three extra days cannot hurt anybody's decision-making process.  A woman who changes her mind clearly was not ready to make that decision in the first place.  Also, the law does not say that women cannot come back four days later, or five, or a couple of weeks.

Melissa makes good points in her commentary, but I do think she tried to apply her views/preconceptions onto women in general.  She says that some women are in terrible situations and need the procedure to be done.  This is true and shows the negatives of the wait.  Some people do not have the time or flexible schedule to be able to make two visits within three days to any place that is not work or home.  She used abusive relationships as her example.  But women who do not have the resources to leave that situation most likely will not be able to have the procedure performed.  She also said that doctor's times are wasted by the law.  That's not true at all.  Most abortions consist of a doctor administering one pill on site and giving a second pill for the woman to take in a comfortable setting to complete the process.

In conclusion, Ms. Mason and I do not agree on many of the points in her editorial but nonetheless it was still a solid post.  Her opinion shines through and her views are very visible to her audience.