Dec 7
Pot, crack, heroin, meth, all of these are drugs. And all of them are illegal in some shape or form. The War on Drugs is an attempt to stop the production, distribution, and sale of these drugs. This has failed.
The first problems rose when President Clinton brought the War on Drugs to bear on Colambia. As the drug market there was slowly choked out, the drug lords switched to land routes through Mexico. Since then, the drug cartels of Mexico have grown amazingly powerful, and the drugs continue to be sold. In the last year, according to AP, 5,000 people have died by the cartels. The cartels, with a monopoly on drugs, have become even more powerful then the government, to the point that police will not enter the Golden Triangle of drug production. Im not seeing much success here. As I have seen and heard myself, the drug market isnt in its death throws here in the U.S. The idea of this forbidden, illegal substance entices people to buy off the streets and only builds power for the criminals. Just as Prohibition only led alcohol to be sold illegally and under the table, the same has happened with drugs.
Some would claim that we are doing the right thing. We are keeping these harmful drugs from becoming socially acceptable. If we legalized the drugs, the addicts would be able to get their fix easier. They would also point to the fact, during Prohibition, alcohol consumption was reduced by 50%. The same can be done with the drugs. We can keep them off the shelves and reduce the amount of lives ruined by drug addiction. Our celebrities are wonderful examples of poor drug usage. The focus would be on the cartels themselves, break them and there is no need to legalize the drugs. Simply burn the fields and destroy the crops. Valid points.
I am, however, in favor of legalization. The power of these cartels is rooted in the fact that they alone can produce it. To make weed available to everyone means that other sources can produce it. I would personally rather buy weed (which I dont anyway) from CVS then risk a drug dealer killing me. Besides that, legalization would make weed taxable. This provides a source of revenue, the same as alchohol. Even more long term, jobs would be required to produce the weed. I am speaking of weed as I consider it the least harmful drug. I am not qualified to say how the other, more dangerous drugs can be safely used. This is, however, the way to win the War on Drugs, control the problem. Eradicating it appears impossible now, the cartels are too powerful and the Mexican people fear the gangs more then anyone else. As they lose the source of their power, they will eventually crumble. To think, people say captialism is bad.
Facts:
1. The cartels have grown so powerful, they claim more then 5,000 lives in a year.
2. According to Anne Coulter, Prohibition reduced drinking by 50%, a point for supporters of non legalization.
3. The War actually made the problem worst, changing the location from Colombia to Mexico.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Afghanistan, Unwinnable
November 22
Since 2001, the United States has been involved in conflict with the Middle East country of Afghanistan. This was a response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The terrorists were linked to the Muslim extremist group al-Quida, led by Osama bin-Laden. Bin-Laden was known to be hiding in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban government, which refused to hand over the terrorist leader. In response, war was declared and the Taliban driven out. It is now 2011, and we are still there. The United States has lost the battle in Afghanistan, and it cannot win.
Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires. The Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, the Soviets, and more have invaded that country and all have left. Like the U.S these were the greatest powers of their time, and they were in some way defeated. The problem is terrian and its people. Every force that has entered Afghanistan is an outsider, and thus does not properly know the terrain and how to work in it. The people do, and they are relentless. While they are easily beaten by the concentrated force of the enemy, they can use the land itself to strike at the invaders in all the right places. In our case, the terrorist forces intimidate and threaten the local population against the U.S, leaving us even less help. The people are driven by nationalism, terror, and religon, and will not stop until we leave.
Our obvious defeat is in the lack of democracy. Afghan Presiden Karzai and his goverment are corrupt, and depend on our soldiers. Should we leave, the Taliban would tear them apart. Karzai has also stated that he would support Pakistan over the U.S, if tension turned to violence. Our soldiers continue to die, and face the prospect of conflict with Iran. Just like the great empires before us, Afghanistan is bleeding us dry of men and resources. We have been defeated, it now comes to how much can we salvage. Or nuke the place into a parking lot, but I dont see that happening.
Since 2001, the United States has been involved in conflict with the Middle East country of Afghanistan. This was a response to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. The terrorists were linked to the Muslim extremist group al-Quida, led by Osama bin-Laden. Bin-Laden was known to be hiding in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban government, which refused to hand over the terrorist leader. In response, war was declared and the Taliban driven out. It is now 2011, and we are still there. The United States has lost the battle in Afghanistan, and it cannot win.
Afghanistan is known as the Graveyard of Empires. The Persian Empires, Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the British Empire, the Soviets, and more have invaded that country and all have left. Like the U.S these were the greatest powers of their time, and they were in some way defeated. The problem is terrian and its people. Every force that has entered Afghanistan is an outsider, and thus does not properly know the terrain and how to work in it. The people do, and they are relentless. While they are easily beaten by the concentrated force of the enemy, they can use the land itself to strike at the invaders in all the right places. In our case, the terrorist forces intimidate and threaten the local population against the U.S, leaving us even less help. The people are driven by nationalism, terror, and religon, and will not stop until we leave.
Our obvious defeat is in the lack of democracy. Afghan Presiden Karzai and his goverment are corrupt, and depend on our soldiers. Should we leave, the Taliban would tear them apart. Karzai has also stated that he would support Pakistan over the U.S, if tension turned to violence. Our soldiers continue to die, and face the prospect of conflict with Iran. Just like the great empires before us, Afghanistan is bleeding us dry of men and resources. We have been defeated, it now comes to how much can we salvage. Or nuke the place into a parking lot, but I dont see that happening.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Other Wes Moore
Nov 5
1. Wes Moore 1 grew up without a father. His dad had died due to a medical problem at an early age. Wes was left with his mother and sisters, so he didnt really have a male model aside from his extended family. Wes didnt treat school too seriously, he prefered spending time on the streets with his friends. Despite getting into trouble for things like defacing a wall, Wes never entered the drug business. He also continued to care for his family, even if he did become annoyed with them over what he viewed as small things, like school. This can be understandable, since he had no father and was in his pre-teen to teen years.
Wes Moore 2 also had no father. Unlike Wes 1's father, 2's was a deadbeat and didnt stay around to raise Wes. That left him to seek out a male role model in his older brother Tony, a growing drug dealer. Unlike Wes 1's siblings and mother, Tony was a horrible influence on Wes. Wes took school even less seriously then Wes 1, and soon chose the drug trade to make quick money. This led to his involvment in gangs that were far worst then Wes 1's friends. Wes also became detached from his mother for flushing some of his product down the toilet.
2. A turning point for Wes 1 is military school. There, among strict rules, Wes didnt have the same influence of the streets he did at home. Wes also saw the marked respect that students gave higher ups, also different from the street life. The school forced Wes to take responsibility for himself and grow up. He took the lesson seriously and realized how much trouble he had caused others, including his mother.
A turning point for Wes 2 came far later in life, and too late. In order to find a job and pay support for his children, Wes enrolled for trade courses. The sheltered atmosphere and order of the school made Wes feel at ease, and he found he had some skill as a carpenture. However, once Wes was out of the courses, he broke down again. He couldnt find work as easily as he had hoped, and soon joined his brother Tony in a robbery. Wes did not learn his lesson, and prefered the easy way out. Well, easy until he ended up in prison.
3. Wes 1's mother raised him, as his father was dead. Wes' mother was constantly angry and upset about his antics and low grades in school, but she didnt give up on him. She used 'tough love' to teach him the lessons of life. When she saw that Wes was at the point were he could go either way in life, she sent him to the school where he could grow up. This was not an easy choice for her, but she realized what needed to be done, and she did it rationaly. The point eventually came through to Wes.
Wes 2's mother was not so strong. Wes' lack of responsiblity also comes from his father, who abandoned them. The mentality of giving up or not being accountable passed over to Wes. His mother made all the wrong choices. She didnt seperate him from Tony, and suffered from denial about Wes' drug involvment. She also did a rather stupid move of flushing Wes' drugs down the toilet. She prefered to toss the drugs and pretend it didnt exist. Destroying that much product could have also put Wes in danger with his suppliers. Her lack of control and resolve allowed Wes to become so out of control.
4. The book displays two parts of human nature. Wes 1 started off abit wrong, being drawn into street activites and disregarding school. When some life changing moments arrives, however, he learned them and tried to change. Not just that, he kept working at it to earn real respect.
Wes 2 was drawn to the streets, and stayed there. Wes prefered the 'easy way' of life, no school, and illegal work. Despite being arrested several times, Wes never actually took responibility for it. He always blamed it on someone else, from his mother to the girls he slept with. When Wes was given a chance to change, it was to hard for him and he ended up even worst off.
5. I like the book. The perspective is clearly documented and interchanges between both Wes Moores well. Wes 1 writes it in a way that trys to be unbiased about his success against Wes 2's life. The story of both boys growing up is very human, as you can both feel for and dislike certain parts of their life. For Wes 1, you can feel satisfaction at his achievments. For Wes 2, you can feel upset when he makes every wrong move. The Other Wes Moore is a pwerful book.
1. Wes Moore 1 grew up without a father. His dad had died due to a medical problem at an early age. Wes was left with his mother and sisters, so he didnt really have a male model aside from his extended family. Wes didnt treat school too seriously, he prefered spending time on the streets with his friends. Despite getting into trouble for things like defacing a wall, Wes never entered the drug business. He also continued to care for his family, even if he did become annoyed with them over what he viewed as small things, like school. This can be understandable, since he had no father and was in his pre-teen to teen years.
Wes Moore 2 also had no father. Unlike Wes 1's father, 2's was a deadbeat and didnt stay around to raise Wes. That left him to seek out a male role model in his older brother Tony, a growing drug dealer. Unlike Wes 1's siblings and mother, Tony was a horrible influence on Wes. Wes took school even less seriously then Wes 1, and soon chose the drug trade to make quick money. This led to his involvment in gangs that were far worst then Wes 1's friends. Wes also became detached from his mother for flushing some of his product down the toilet.
2. A turning point for Wes 1 is military school. There, among strict rules, Wes didnt have the same influence of the streets he did at home. Wes also saw the marked respect that students gave higher ups, also different from the street life. The school forced Wes to take responsibility for himself and grow up. He took the lesson seriously and realized how much trouble he had caused others, including his mother.
A turning point for Wes 2 came far later in life, and too late. In order to find a job and pay support for his children, Wes enrolled for trade courses. The sheltered atmosphere and order of the school made Wes feel at ease, and he found he had some skill as a carpenture. However, once Wes was out of the courses, he broke down again. He couldnt find work as easily as he had hoped, and soon joined his brother Tony in a robbery. Wes did not learn his lesson, and prefered the easy way out. Well, easy until he ended up in prison.
3. Wes 1's mother raised him, as his father was dead. Wes' mother was constantly angry and upset about his antics and low grades in school, but she didnt give up on him. She used 'tough love' to teach him the lessons of life. When she saw that Wes was at the point were he could go either way in life, she sent him to the school where he could grow up. This was not an easy choice for her, but she realized what needed to be done, and she did it rationaly. The point eventually came through to Wes.
Wes 2's mother was not so strong. Wes' lack of responsiblity also comes from his father, who abandoned them. The mentality of giving up or not being accountable passed over to Wes. His mother made all the wrong choices. She didnt seperate him from Tony, and suffered from denial about Wes' drug involvment. She also did a rather stupid move of flushing Wes' drugs down the toilet. She prefered to toss the drugs and pretend it didnt exist. Destroying that much product could have also put Wes in danger with his suppliers. Her lack of control and resolve allowed Wes to become so out of control.
4. The book displays two parts of human nature. Wes 1 started off abit wrong, being drawn into street activites and disregarding school. When some life changing moments arrives, however, he learned them and tried to change. Not just that, he kept working at it to earn real respect.
Wes 2 was drawn to the streets, and stayed there. Wes prefered the 'easy way' of life, no school, and illegal work. Despite being arrested several times, Wes never actually took responibility for it. He always blamed it on someone else, from his mother to the girls he slept with. When Wes was given a chance to change, it was to hard for him and he ended up even worst off.
5. I like the book. The perspective is clearly documented and interchanges between both Wes Moores well. Wes 1 writes it in a way that trys to be unbiased about his success against Wes 2's life. The story of both boys growing up is very human, as you can both feel for and dislike certain parts of their life. For Wes 1, you can feel satisfaction at his achievments. For Wes 2, you can feel upset when he makes every wrong move. The Other Wes Moore is a pwerful book.
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Are Corporations in the U.S people?
Oct 30
People dont like corporations. The Occupy movements are apparently about fighting corprate greed, even as they use phones, Ipods, and laptops. Movies and video games cast corporations as evil. In the game Saints Row 2, the main antagonist is the Ultor Corporation, which seeks to use gang violence to ruin the city so Ultor can buy the property. In the hard economic times, people are upset at stories of corprate bailouts and the pay that CEOs make. So the question comes, are corporations people?
Propenents argue yes. A corporation should be free to spend its own money however it likes, so long as it does not break a law. There is no law against unlimited money, so it can spend it. Like any voter, a corporation is using the money on a candidate so that, if he wins, the corporation can have representation for the offical. A person can email or call their politician, a corporation has its own needs that need addressing. Ed Rollins, a Republican consultant, claims that there will now be more transparncy and competitive. Supporters also point to the freedoms of the First Amendment as proof that they are right.
by promoting gang warfare.
Opponents argue no. Politicians, such as John Kerry and John McCain, claim this will lead to increased corruption and special interest influence. The New York Times claimed that the Court has 'handed the lobbyists a new weapon'. If a group does not like a candidate, they can spend unlimited amounts on his opponent. The lack of checks on money also means the corporation can dangle even more money over an offical to get their way. Add to the fact that a corporation is a collective of people with different interests and shares, a corporation can hardly be seen as a person. In a poll, 80% of the people opposed the ruling.
I believe that a corporation can spend its money however they like. I dont absolutely love the idea, but they have that right. I would prefer it if the corporation leaves it to its members to either take a vote on who they support, or simply let indiviuals within the corporation make their own donations. I do not believe that corporations themselves are people, but they are made up of people, thus bringing it under the First Amendment.
Facts:
1. Supporters claim that this provides more transparncy, while opponents expect a flood of corruption and special interest.
2. In an ABC-Washington Post poll, 80% opposed the idea of unlimited corporate spending in elections.
3. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel claims the ruling "Struck a blow for the First Amendment."
People dont like corporations. The Occupy movements are apparently about fighting corprate greed, even as they use phones, Ipods, and laptops. Movies and video games cast corporations as evil. In the game Saints Row 2, the main antagonist is the Ultor Corporation, which seeks to use gang violence to ruin the city so Ultor can buy the property. In the hard economic times, people are upset at stories of corprate bailouts and the pay that CEOs make. So the question comes, are corporations people?
The question comes after a ruling but the Supreme Court in Citizens united vs Federal Electoral Commisson, in which corporations were permited to spend whatever they pleased in supporting a candidate. The Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, corporations could not be sensored in how much they advertize for a candidate. This sparked the debate over whether or not corporations are considered people in the United States.
Propenents argue yes. A corporation should be free to spend its own money however it likes, so long as it does not break a law. There is no law against unlimited money, so it can spend it. Like any voter, a corporation is using the money on a candidate so that, if he wins, the corporation can have representation for the offical. A person can email or call their politician, a corporation has its own needs that need addressing. Ed Rollins, a Republican consultant, claims that there will now be more transparncy and competitive. Supporters also point to the freedoms of the First Amendment as proof that they are right.
by promoting gang warfare.Opponents argue no. Politicians, such as John Kerry and John McCain, claim this will lead to increased corruption and special interest influence. The New York Times claimed that the Court has 'handed the lobbyists a new weapon'. If a group does not like a candidate, they can spend unlimited amounts on his opponent. The lack of checks on money also means the corporation can dangle even more money over an offical to get their way. Add to the fact that a corporation is a collective of people with different interests and shares, a corporation can hardly be seen as a person. In a poll, 80% of the people opposed the ruling.
I believe that a corporation can spend its money however they like. I dont absolutely love the idea, but they have that right. I would prefer it if the corporation leaves it to its members to either take a vote on who they support, or simply let indiviuals within the corporation make their own donations. I do not believe that corporations themselves are people, but they are made up of people, thus bringing it under the First Amendment.
Facts:
1. Supporters claim that this provides more transparncy, while opponents expect a flood of corruption and special interest.
2. In an ABC-Washington Post poll, 80% opposed the idea of unlimited corporate spending in elections.
3. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnel claims the ruling "Struck a blow for the First Amendment."
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Capital Punishment
Oct 10
Capitol Punishment in the United States is a very important issue. It is the execution of an individual and has been used for ages. Some claim it is fair payment for whatever crime warranted death. Others point out methods that are overly cruel and the executed may be innocent. The execution itself can be quite expensive depending on the method.
Supporters bring up several claims in favor of the death penalty. If you have been sentanced to die, you have commited a horrible crime against the public. In a country that values freedom, taking a life would require an act that we simply cant forgive. Murder, rapists, and other such acts warrant death. They also claim that killing the guilty person is cheaper in the long run then keeping him in a prison and feeding him with taxpayer money. In the case of rights to life, it can be said that by commiting a death-worthy crime you have lost the rights of society, and that death can only be paid in death. Simply killing them also ends any possibilty of the guilty escaping. It also frees up space in prison for less serious offenders. The promise of death is usually enough to keep normal people from commiting such crimes.
Opponents have their views. A society that decries murder cannot kill a person. Since the law that decided who dies is man made and so flawed, there is always an innocent who is executed. That tends to sour views of the law and the government that allowed the death. Methods of punishment, like the electric chair and hanging, are extremely painful and do not always kill the person. Failure means more cost and pain. Excessive use not only brings into question how many deserved it, but can also raise some disgust among the general public. As of September 2011, Texas has executed 1,226 people. While many of them may of deserved it, such a number brings into question the number of innocents caught in the web.
Capital punishment is needed. There are some people simply to dangerous to keep alive. Rapists, serial killers, child molesters, and such are all great dangers to the public. Many of them cannot be reformed. Killing them frees up space, saves money in the long term, and removes the threat for good. The victims and their families may also have peace of mind knowing the person who harmed them is gone for good. A firing squad would be my choice for exectuting people. The only person in Nevada to be executed by shot, Andriza Mircovich, was shot by a machine. Using a firing machine to execute the convict is better, it spares the firing squad and moral qualms they may have. When a person is convicted, they should be given a period in which they, under watch, will work to prove their innocence. This will hopefully reduce the number of innocents killed. Even then, capital punishment should only be used on the worst offenders and the unrepentant.
Facts:
1. As of September 21, 2011 Texas has executed 1,226 people.
2. The death penalty is given by humans, and therefor is flawed. Of a 1000 people executed, it is unknown how many were innocent.
3. How come life in prison doesn't mean life? Until it does, we're not ready to do away with the death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of "punishment" for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible murderers.
Capitol Punishment in the United States is a very important issue. It is the execution of an individual and has been used for ages. Some claim it is fair payment for whatever crime warranted death. Others point out methods that are overly cruel and the executed may be innocent. The execution itself can be quite expensive depending on the method.
Supporters bring up several claims in favor of the death penalty. If you have been sentanced to die, you have commited a horrible crime against the public. In a country that values freedom, taking a life would require an act that we simply cant forgive. Murder, rapists, and other such acts warrant death. They also claim that killing the guilty person is cheaper in the long run then keeping him in a prison and feeding him with taxpayer money. In the case of rights to life, it can be said that by commiting a death-worthy crime you have lost the rights of society, and that death can only be paid in death. Simply killing them also ends any possibilty of the guilty escaping. It also frees up space in prison for less serious offenders. The promise of death is usually enough to keep normal people from commiting such crimes.
Opponents have their views. A society that decries murder cannot kill a person. Since the law that decided who dies is man made and so flawed, there is always an innocent who is executed. That tends to sour views of the law and the government that allowed the death. Methods of punishment, like the electric chair and hanging, are extremely painful and do not always kill the person. Failure means more cost and pain. Excessive use not only brings into question how many deserved it, but can also raise some disgust among the general public. As of September 2011, Texas has executed 1,226 people. While many of them may of deserved it, such a number brings into question the number of innocents caught in the web.
Capital punishment is needed. There are some people simply to dangerous to keep alive. Rapists, serial killers, child molesters, and such are all great dangers to the public. Many of them cannot be reformed. Killing them frees up space, saves money in the long term, and removes the threat for good. The victims and their families may also have peace of mind knowing the person who harmed them is gone for good. A firing squad would be my choice for exectuting people. The only person in Nevada to be executed by shot, Andriza Mircovich, was shot by a machine. Using a firing machine to execute the convict is better, it spares the firing squad and moral qualms they may have. When a person is convicted, they should be given a period in which they, under watch, will work to prove their innocence. This will hopefully reduce the number of innocents killed. Even then, capital punishment should only be used on the worst offenders and the unrepentant.
Facts:
1. As of September 21, 2011 Texas has executed 1,226 people.
2. The death penalty is given by humans, and therefor is flawed. Of a 1000 people executed, it is unknown how many were innocent.
3. How come life in prison doesn't mean life? Until it does, we're not ready to do away with the death penalty. Stop thinking in terms of "punishment" for a minute and think in terms of safeguarding innocent people from incorrigible murderers.
JESSE VENTURA, I Ain't Got Time to Bleed
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
The U.S Energy Crisis
Oct 3
The United States is currently experiencing an energy crisis. The country relies on oil from other parts of the world, and much of the oil in the U.S is in areas that would be ruined by digging for it. The Gulf disaster with BP hasnt helped that road much either. Some are calling for an increase of fracking, collecting natural gas by breaking the rocks in the ground using chemicals. This method would reduce dependency, but its current method endangers the water of homes near the fracking sites. The solution to energy is simple.
The solution is green energy. Solar panels, wind turbines and such. The current attempts to promote green energy has failed do to the promoters, the government. Two government sponsered (with taxepayer money) green energy companies, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar have failed or fled abroad. Why? Government. The extreme regulation by government on the private sector is the cause of the problem. Their taxes and rules here make places like China look far more attractive to businesses. A reason other energy compaines havent fled is probably due to America's vast amount of fossil fuels and offshore oil. If the goverment would scale back its taxes and regulations, the private market would breath. The private sector, seeking to make more money, would invest in the green, clean, and more infinite energy. Business from abroad would then return to a more business friendly U.S. It must also be considered that the population may run through natural gas and oil too quickly to develop proper green industry in the current conditions.
Opponents to this view would disagree. They would claim that developing green energy business would take to much time, and that oil and fracking are already available. This is true. Despite its current danger, if fracking was refined it could provide energy for some time. In that time, green energy could be built up. Opponents would say it is not absolute that the solution I listed would happen. What is not considered is the fact that private business exist to make money, and money is to be found in green energy. Oil can only last so long, wind blows almost every day and the sun shines everyday. Thats why its DAY. Fracking will eventually end as well once the natural gas is used up. It can be said that the Chinese government is subsidizing their green industry. The Chinese have been Communist, a different form of society then the capitalistic America. Add to the fact that industry is fleeing to China for cheap labor and to escape taxes, the reason why the Chinese government has more control is clear.
The answer is clear. The government cannot pick and choose in a free market, and the natural resources of the earth are finite and, in some cases, dangerous. To solve our energy crisis, we must turn to green, renewable energy.
Facts:
1. The Obama Administration gave Solyndra $353 million under the promise to create more jobs in 2009. Solyndra is now bankrupt as of 2011. It is also known that Solyndra stockholders and executives had donated to Obama's campaign. An example of why government must stay out of industry.
2. The BP oil disaster and the cases were fracking caused water to become laced with flammable gas shows the dangers of using natural resources. While green energy may have its dangers, I would take a sunburn at a solar panel over gallons of crude oil in the Gulf.
3.Ours is the most wasteful nation on Earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan, and Sweden.
The United States is currently experiencing an energy crisis. The country relies on oil from other parts of the world, and much of the oil in the U.S is in areas that would be ruined by digging for it. The Gulf disaster with BP hasnt helped that road much either. Some are calling for an increase of fracking, collecting natural gas by breaking the rocks in the ground using chemicals. This method would reduce dependency, but its current method endangers the water of homes near the fracking sites. The solution to energy is simple.
The solution is green energy. Solar panels, wind turbines and such. The current attempts to promote green energy has failed do to the promoters, the government. Two government sponsered (with taxepayer money) green energy companies, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar have failed or fled abroad. Why? Government. The extreme regulation by government on the private sector is the cause of the problem. Their taxes and rules here make places like China look far more attractive to businesses. A reason other energy compaines havent fled is probably due to America's vast amount of fossil fuels and offshore oil. If the goverment would scale back its taxes and regulations, the private market would breath. The private sector, seeking to make more money, would invest in the green, clean, and more infinite energy. Business from abroad would then return to a more business friendly U.S. It must also be considered that the population may run through natural gas and oil too quickly to develop proper green industry in the current conditions.
Opponents to this view would disagree. They would claim that developing green energy business would take to much time, and that oil and fracking are already available. This is true. Despite its current danger, if fracking was refined it could provide energy for some time. In that time, green energy could be built up. Opponents would say it is not absolute that the solution I listed would happen. What is not considered is the fact that private business exist to make money, and money is to be found in green energy. Oil can only last so long, wind blows almost every day and the sun shines everyday. Thats why its DAY. Fracking will eventually end as well once the natural gas is used up. It can be said that the Chinese government is subsidizing their green industry. The Chinese have been Communist, a different form of society then the capitalistic America. Add to the fact that industry is fleeing to China for cheap labor and to escape taxes, the reason why the Chinese government has more control is clear.
The answer is clear. The government cannot pick and choose in a free market, and the natural resources of the earth are finite and, in some cases, dangerous. To solve our energy crisis, we must turn to green, renewable energy.
Facts:
1. The Obama Administration gave Solyndra $353 million under the promise to create more jobs in 2009. Solyndra is now bankrupt as of 2011. It is also known that Solyndra stockholders and executives had donated to Obama's campaign. An example of why government must stay out of industry.
2. The BP oil disaster and the cases were fracking caused water to become laced with flammable gas shows the dangers of using natural resources. While green energy may have its dangers, I would take a sunburn at a solar panel over gallons of crude oil in the Gulf.
3.Ours is the most wasteful nation on Earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan, and Sweden.
-Jimmy Carter
Monday, September 26, 2011
WikiLeaks and secrets.
September 26
In this world there are many secrets. The point of a secret is it is a fact that is hidden from others. Everyone has secrets, some of which no one wants let out. The governments of the world perhaps have the greatest secrets. How the military moves, who talks to who, how involved in an event were they really, those kinds of things. And for every government secret, there are people who want to know them. The website WikiLeaks, lead by Julian Assangue, is that kind of group. They recieve information from informants, then publish them for the world to see. These actions have drawn both praise and denouncments. The governments and banks are certainly NOT fans of the group.
Those who support WikiLeaks claim that they have a right to know what is happening. Are governments really working in the best interest of the citizens? Are the banks cheating the customers? Is the military gunning down civilians as well as the enemy? and if so, is it intentional? Anyone would want to know that. It helps a person feel safer about who they work with. Such an action is also protected under the 1st Amendment of free speech. In the case of WikiLeaks, they never actually did anything illegal. They themselves never hacked servers or stole files, it is all sent to them by outside contributers. People have a right to know.
On the opposite side is those who think WikiLeaks is dangerous. Releasing all that information puts a strain on alliances in the Middle East. A leader there who secretly opposes Iran suddenly has that fact put out in the open. Terrorist groups are also given a greater view of who their enemy is. Informants, spies, all of them are in danger if such information is posted where anyone can see it. Some people say these actions are attacks against the U.S and other nations. Governments and banks who may be involved in less then moral actions obviously dont want others to know about it. This can earn groups like WikiLeaks some powerful enemies, as well as being labelled spies or terrorists.
Ideally, secrets should remain secrets only so long. After a set number of years after a war, for example, the information about that war should be made public. After a leader dies, release cables and other hidden details about him. Secrets only erode trust between a government and the people they are keeping secrets from. As useful as they are at the time, a secret can become a detriment in later years. An organization that refuses to reveal secrets only shows how untrustworthy they are.
Facts:
1. "Camouflage is a game we all like to play, but our secrets are as surely revealed by what we want to seem to be as by what we want to conceal."
2. WikiLeaks has published over 3,890 diplomatic documents.
3. A lack of trust in a goverment leads to lack of loyalty, which can lead to revolts.
In this world there are many secrets. The point of a secret is it is a fact that is hidden from others. Everyone has secrets, some of which no one wants let out. The governments of the world perhaps have the greatest secrets. How the military moves, who talks to who, how involved in an event were they really, those kinds of things. And for every government secret, there are people who want to know them. The website WikiLeaks, lead by Julian Assangue, is that kind of group. They recieve information from informants, then publish them for the world to see. These actions have drawn both praise and denouncments. The governments and banks are certainly NOT fans of the group.
Those who support WikiLeaks claim that they have a right to know what is happening. Are governments really working in the best interest of the citizens? Are the banks cheating the customers? Is the military gunning down civilians as well as the enemy? and if so, is it intentional? Anyone would want to know that. It helps a person feel safer about who they work with. Such an action is also protected under the 1st Amendment of free speech. In the case of WikiLeaks, they never actually did anything illegal. They themselves never hacked servers or stole files, it is all sent to them by outside contributers. People have a right to know.
On the opposite side is those who think WikiLeaks is dangerous. Releasing all that information puts a strain on alliances in the Middle East. A leader there who secretly opposes Iran suddenly has that fact put out in the open. Terrorist groups are also given a greater view of who their enemy is. Informants, spies, all of them are in danger if such information is posted where anyone can see it. Some people say these actions are attacks against the U.S and other nations. Governments and banks who may be involved in less then moral actions obviously dont want others to know about it. This can earn groups like WikiLeaks some powerful enemies, as well as being labelled spies or terrorists.
Ideally, secrets should remain secrets only so long. After a set number of years after a war, for example, the information about that war should be made public. After a leader dies, release cables and other hidden details about him. Secrets only erode trust between a government and the people they are keeping secrets from. As useful as they are at the time, a secret can become a detriment in later years. An organization that refuses to reveal secrets only shows how untrustworthy they are.
Facts:
1. "Camouflage is a game we all like to play, but our secrets are as surely revealed by what we want to seem to be as by what we want to conceal."
2. WikiLeaks has published over 3,890 diplomatic documents.
3. A lack of trust in a goverment leads to lack of loyalty, which can lead to revolts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)