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.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Congressional War on Planned Parenthood or Abortion?
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
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.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
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.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A National Take on an International Issue
The conflict between Libya's national government and rebel forces is something that has garnered attention worldwide. Colonel Muammar el-Qaddafi, who seized power in 1969, is taking brute military action to level the uprising in his country. The United Nations has convened to discuss appropriate action in dealing with the dispute. In recent weeks, the United States of America along with Great Britain has directed missile attacks against the nation at war. The missile assault aimed to "target Libyan air defense missile sites, early warning radar and key communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt, but no areas east of that or near Benghazi" according to Vice Admiral William E. Gortney of Great Britain.
The United States has no business involving itself in foreign conflict that does not directly or indirectly affect the United States. First off, the efforts of the US in Libya are not going to be cheap. The cost to date of mobilization against Libya has been estimated to be $550 million. In the next coming weeks, this estimate is expect to increase by $40 million. There is absolutely no reason we need to be adding to an already mushrooming deficit when there are so many domestic issues that need to be addressed. President Obama was noted as saying that the acts of el-Qaddafi are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. I believe the President should also realize that the unemployment, education, and health standards in America are also unacceptable and should not be tolerated. These issues are much more pressing than conflict in Africa unless, of course, the prices of oil and gas will decrease as a result. If that is the case, bomb away.
Second, el-Qaddafi is now calling for other African and some Middle Eastern nations to help support his cause. Creating new enemies and opposition of America in no way, shape, or form benefits the American people in any way. These actions only set the stage for future military initiatives against these nations, and in effect, more money poured into waging battle abroad. I understand that the US based its decision upon what was agreed upon amongst UN countries, but can they not send help and peacemakers instead of helping Great Britain drop peacemakers? This is the much more frugal and less alienating than our current approach to the situation.
The United States has no business involving itself in foreign conflict that does not directly or indirectly affect the United States. First off, the efforts of the US in Libya are not going to be cheap. The cost to date of mobilization against Libya has been estimated to be $550 million. In the next coming weeks, this estimate is expect to increase by $40 million. There is absolutely no reason we need to be adding to an already mushrooming deficit when there are so many domestic issues that need to be addressed. President Obama was noted as saying that the acts of el-Qaddafi are unacceptable and will not be tolerated. I believe the President should also realize that the unemployment, education, and health standards in America are also unacceptable and should not be tolerated. These issues are much more pressing than conflict in Africa unless, of course, the prices of oil and gas will decrease as a result. If that is the case, bomb away.
Second, el-Qaddafi is now calling for other African and some Middle Eastern nations to help support his cause. Creating new enemies and opposition of America in no way, shape, or form benefits the American people in any way. These actions only set the stage for future military initiatives against these nations, and in effect, more money poured into waging battle abroad. I understand that the US based its decision upon what was agreed upon amongst UN countries, but can they not send help and peacemakers instead of helping Great Britain drop peacemakers? This is the much more frugal and less alienating than our current approach to the situation.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
My Critique of the "Obamacare" Editorial
In the National Review, Senator Tom Coburn wrote the editorial A Physician's Check-Up on the One-Year-Old Health-Care Law. In summary, he presents his point that not only was the passed law a failure, but it is actually made the health-care system worse than what is was prior to the passing of the bill.
Senator Coburn's target audience was clearly those in opposition to "Obamacare." More specifically, he was speaking to middle class American households. He speaks of taxes levied upon middle class families and rubs in the point that bureaucrats benefit from the bill. Interestingly enough, the usage of tone and statistics also told me he also wanted to inform/convince supporters of the new health-care plan. The message was loud and clear though, Sen. Coburn is clearly anti-"Obamacare."
Being a Senator in the United States Legislator alone gives him immediate credibility. But in addition he uses real numbers and knowledge of policy that he is familiar with. I did notice that he did not actually state any current effects (with the exception of Medicare scamming) but just predicted outcomes. So in some ways, Coburn use dramatization and sensationalism to drive his points home to his audience. But he spoke truth and made legitimate arguments in my opinion so I feel his credibility remain fully intact.
His first argument was that there would be a drastic increase in consumer costs. The key components of this spike would be an $813 million increase (to middle-class families) in addition to "directly increasing the cost of health coverage, drugs, and medical devices." I have no choice but to agree with that, there is no disputing these claims. His second argument is that the bill would cause "18 million Americans will be forced onto Medicaid" causing an already struggling social service to become even less equipped to help out increasing numbers of people needing health care. This is also no contest, adding dependents to a system while also cutting funding will only result in a diminishing standard of care. Sen. Coburn also argues that employer - and as a result - the workforce will be devastated by this bill. Fines would be levied on companies with inadequate health care coverage for their employees and would cause cuts in wages and jobs as a whole. This is the only way smaller companies could cover fine or be able to provide adequate health care options for their employees.
Senator Coburn's target audience was clearly those in opposition to "Obamacare." More specifically, he was speaking to middle class American households. He speaks of taxes levied upon middle class families and rubs in the point that bureaucrats benefit from the bill. Interestingly enough, the usage of tone and statistics also told me he also wanted to inform/convince supporters of the new health-care plan. The message was loud and clear though, Sen. Coburn is clearly anti-"Obamacare."
Being a Senator in the United States Legislator alone gives him immediate credibility. But in addition he uses real numbers and knowledge of policy that he is familiar with. I did notice that he did not actually state any current effects (with the exception of Medicare scamming) but just predicted outcomes. So in some ways, Coburn use dramatization and sensationalism to drive his points home to his audience. But he spoke truth and made legitimate arguments in my opinion so I feel his credibility remain fully intact.
His first argument was that there would be a drastic increase in consumer costs. The key components of this spike would be an $813 million increase (to middle-class families) in addition to "directly increasing the cost of health coverage, drugs, and medical devices." I have no choice but to agree with that, there is no disputing these claims. His second argument is that the bill would cause "18 million Americans will be forced onto Medicaid" causing an already struggling social service to become even less equipped to help out increasing numbers of people needing health care. This is also no contest, adding dependents to a system while also cutting funding will only result in a diminishing standard of care. Sen. Coburn also argues that employer - and as a result - the workforce will be devastated by this bill. Fines would be levied on companies with inadequate health care coverage for their employees and would cause cuts in wages and jobs as a whole. This is the only way smaller companies could cover fine or be able to provide adequate health care options for their employees.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
My Critique of a Gun Law Editorial
In the New York Times, Gail Collins wrote an editorial "School of Glock" in which she gets her agenda across of not passing laws which were pro-armament of citizens and passing laws which takes more guns out of the hands of most people. Personally, I agree that by taking weapons off the market and ultimately out of citizens hands the nation becomes safer by default. But, I believe that this nation, which was founded upon the Right to Bear Arms, should give the citizens (who elect the representatives to their respective offices). Collins' audience is clearly intended to be those who oppose guns and laws that make it easier for citizens to bear arms.
She starts off by bringing up the tragedy in Tuscon. And then she brought up a legislative bill being brought up in Florida which had nothing to do with the aftermath of the tragedy. This bill could potentially fine doctors up to $5 million for asking patients if they own guns. I am not sure why she brought this up and even stated that the two occurrences were unrelated. I suppose she wanted to say that insurance companies might use the information about gun owners to potentially raise their rates. Collins highlights bills proposed that would force all adult citizens to purchase firearms. This is a silly bill, Collins knows that it's a silly bill, and South Carolina State Representative Hal Wick, who proposed the bill, knew this was a silly bill. I am almost tempted to think that this article is actually about healthcare reform law and not about gun laws. But I am not an English major so I shall just stick to making points about her arguments. I feel as though Collins does believe that national politics does a lot to make sure that the National Rifle Association remains content with the U.S. Legislative System. Seems to be that the NRA has great influence over national politics if bills have been passed to allow the right to carry into bars (Georgia), the right to carry without the need for concealed licenses (Florida), and designating one's own state gun (soon to be Utah).
Gail Collins seems to me to be a very credible author. She brings up actual bills brought up in legislatures across the nation. But she seems to dismiss them all without any sort of supporting arguments. Collins uses humor to tell the reader that these bills are no good. The only argument she actually makes in the entire editorial was to say that "there is no such thing as a good shot" and to provide a quote from a former New York City police commissioner that trained officer hit target at worse that a 20% rate. This was a good read in my opinion but I would not suggest hanging ones political view of gun control on this article. There just was not enough facts, just jokes, sarcasm, and humor.
She starts off by bringing up the tragedy in Tuscon. And then she brought up a legislative bill being brought up in Florida which had nothing to do with the aftermath of the tragedy. This bill could potentially fine doctors up to $5 million for asking patients if they own guns. I am not sure why she brought this up and even stated that the two occurrences were unrelated. I suppose she wanted to say that insurance companies might use the information about gun owners to potentially raise their rates. Collins highlights bills proposed that would force all adult citizens to purchase firearms. This is a silly bill, Collins knows that it's a silly bill, and South Carolina State Representative Hal Wick, who proposed the bill, knew this was a silly bill. I am almost tempted to think that this article is actually about healthcare reform law and not about gun laws. But I am not an English major so I shall just stick to making points about her arguments. I feel as though Collins does believe that national politics does a lot to make sure that the National Rifle Association remains content with the U.S. Legislative System. Seems to be that the NRA has great influence over national politics if bills have been passed to allow the right to carry into bars (Georgia), the right to carry without the need for concealed licenses (Florida), and designating one's own state gun (soon to be Utah).
Gail Collins seems to me to be a very credible author. She brings up actual bills brought up in legislatures across the nation. But she seems to dismiss them all without any sort of supporting arguments. Collins uses humor to tell the reader that these bills are no good. The only argument she actually makes in the entire editorial was to say that "there is no such thing as a good shot" and to provide a quote from a former New York City police commissioner that trained officer hit target at worse that a 20% rate. This was a good read in my opinion but I would not suggest hanging ones political view of gun control on this article. There just was not enough facts, just jokes, sarcasm, and humor.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Church's Right to Hold Anti-Gay Protest at a Funeral
In the initial post of this blog I shall be introducing and summarizing an article. I shall also explain why I think this article is relevant to U.S. government and politics and why I think it is worth reading to anyone who deems themself informed.
This article and corresponding blog post deals primarily with the First Amendment rights and the judicial branch of the U.S. government. It centers around an anti-gay protest held during a funeral.
In summary, Westboro Baptist Church in Westboro, Kansas was under fire for allowing anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members. The family of the deceased sued the church in response. At one end of the conflict, grieving families felt as if their privacy had been invaded and emotional distress had been inflicted intentionally by the protesters. On the other hand, the protesters (members of the Westboro Baptist Church) felt as if their First Amendment rights were being infringed upon due to the suit. At first in 2007, the courts ruled in favor of the family citing intentional causal of emotion distress, civil conspiracy, and invasion of privacy. In 2008, a federal appeals court reversed the original ruling. This court sided with the church's claim of violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the church (8-1).
This article is very relevant to U.S. government because since this nations inception there has always been a battle between interpretation of the First Amendment and what rights are actually given to Americans. Also, precedence on specific "laws designed to protect the 'sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services' " hanged in the balance. Indirectly, gay rights stood to gain substantial ground in their movement if the family were to win this case. Any sort of anti-gay protest case could look to this case and claim precedence.
This article and corresponding blog post deals primarily with the First Amendment rights and the judicial branch of the U.S. government. It centers around an anti-gay protest held during a funeral.
In summary, Westboro Baptist Church in Westboro, Kansas was under fire for allowing anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members. The family of the deceased sued the church in response. At one end of the conflict, grieving families felt as if their privacy had been invaded and emotional distress had been inflicted intentionally by the protesters. On the other hand, the protesters (members of the Westboro Baptist Church) felt as if their First Amendment rights were being infringed upon due to the suit. At first in 2007, the courts ruled in favor of the family citing intentional causal of emotion distress, civil conspiracy, and invasion of privacy. In 2008, a federal appeals court reversed the original ruling. This court sided with the church's claim of violation of the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled in favor of the church (8-1).
This article is very relevant to U.S. government because since this nations inception there has always been a battle between interpretation of the First Amendment and what rights are actually given to Americans. Also, precedence on specific "laws designed to protect the 'sanctity and dignity of memorial and funeral services' " hanged in the balance. Indirectly, gay rights stood to gain substantial ground in their movement if the family were to win this case. Any sort of anti-gay protest case could look to this case and claim precedence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)