LCS Wrap up

This class has taught me about the power of information and the role of our media. The way that we view the world is ever changing. We all have different beliefs, thoughts, ideas, interests and experiences that can influence our beliefs and thought process, and as such we have a duty to ourselves to not just rely on what  we’re told, instead we need to be able to think for ourselves and formulate our own opinions by reading between the lines. This class gave me a better understand of who super PAC’s are and their role in our elections, it’s also made me more aware of the Stand Your Ground Laws giving residents “the right to shoot in defense of their life, if they believe that their life is in danger” and the negative effects this can also have on the public, making it difficult for people in these states with the law to seek help from others for fear that they may be mistaken as intruders and get shot when all they’re trying to do is seek help.

I've learnt to identify the different political viewpoints in reporting which allows me to look at the news in a more objective manner by separating the liberal and conservative viewpoints and concentration on the issue, because of this I've come to realize that although the media can be used as a tool to educate the public it can also be very biased in its reporting. It’s changed my views of journalists, it’s made me realized that I have to start looking at them as people who are not always able to leave their opinions out of their articles and it’s up to me to filter out the facts from their opinions

In terms of politics I've learned that I’m more in line with the independents. There are certain issues that I agree with on both sides of the political spectrum like women’s and gay rights, I believe women should have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, while at the same time I believe people have a right to protect themselves but think we need better gun control laws.  This class has also taught me that there is a difference between news and the power of information.  News is the presentation of facts as it relates to an event or incident that has taken place whereas information is more general, it’s unfiltered and not necessarily important. Everything can be viewed as information but the stories that are beneficial to the public or that’s considered important is news

There isn't anything necessarily about this course that I would change, except maybe setting a time for each person to post his/her initial post on the discussion board. This would make responding to posts easier instead of having to check the discussion board daily only to have to wait until Sunday night to respond and even then you have to keep your fingers crossed when you log on that two other people posted so you can post your response.

This class has taught me the importance of looking at the big picture, that there are many sides to an issue and it’s up to me to decide which viewpoint I believe in. It’s shown me the importance of research, especially on those issues we don’t understand or believe in, because they can offer us new insight which can reiterate or change our viewpoint. It’s also shown me how blogging can be used as a self-portrait of our own experiences; it can be used as an outlet where we can put our most personal thoughts and feelings.

The topic on global warming was one of my favorite topics to write about. It made me realize that we as a society no longer sit outside and gaze at the stars anymore; instead we’d rather sit inside and watch TV or use the computer and text on our phones. It’s made me realize that we need to take a few moments out of our day to enjoy nature as a whole. It also reminded me of when I was younger and how my cousins and I would chase fireflies in the summer, and it made me realize that I haven’t seen any fireflies in a long time; which made me wonder if global warming and pollution is the cause for this.

Drones

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or Drones can be remotely controlled by a pilot who mans the drone’s activities or they can be pre-programmed to carry out certain missions without human piloting on a computer. Predator drones have been effective in eliminating “suspected terrorists, Taliban leader and Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan”. They can record video, capture images and follow militant vehicles, record terrain for the men on the ground, and follow suspects to their safe houses where upon confirmation of identity they can eliminate the enemy with the push of a button by deploying a bomb or missile. They offer a safer alternative to troops walking into ambushes on the battlefield by attacking the enemy remotely. Drones may be changing the face of warfare and how wars are fought but the same people are dying; it may be a weapon of precision, but it still endangers the lives of our innocent men, women and children.

Supporters of drones argue that they can fly unnoticed over and into enemy territory, can monitor and track the enemy and carry out precision attacks all without endangering the lives of military personnel. Drone attacks can be timed and their missiles diverted if any civilian causalities become a factor. Operators are required to verify that the target is in fact an enemy before launching the drone missiles, they must also take the necessary precaution to minimize any civilian losses and ensures the “attacks do not cause disproportionate incidental loses”. Removing fighter pilots from combat zones eliminates the threat to our soldiers’ lives and allows operators to make better targeting decisions without the fear for their own safety.

Supports believe drones offer an alternative to putting our men and women in the military in harm’s way and they’re just as lethal in combat as our fighter jets. They argue that even though these strikes can cause collateral damage in the form of civilian lives and property damage, the same can be said about traditional warfare and air strikes.  Even though drones can effectively eliminates their targets, they also hurt and kills innocent civilians as well, leaving the people in these nations in constant fear of other drone attacks, thereby creating more enemies for the U.S. These countries may decide to retaliate with their own drones, putting more innocent people at risk thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence.

Supports argue that the risk to civilian and military causalities is minimal, but we need to take into consideration the effects it can have on those who supply the information about potential targets, or the innocent civilians in the area around the target. Even though drones can be operated remotely, and there is little personal risk if it is shot down, there’s still a risk to those informants on the ground who gathers intelligence about these so called terrorists targets and their movements. These men and women risk their lives to supply information that can be used to carry out these drone missions, and even though they’re not the ones carrying out the elimination, they’re still subject to physical or psychological risk and despite our best efforts to limit civilian causalities, civilians are always at risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

By sending unman drones into other nations without their knowledge, the US is in fact infringing on these nation’s sovereignty, they’re using these unmanned drones to fly into Pakistani airspace without permission and are carrying out targeted aerial assignations often at the expense of innocent civilians.  These drone strikes may result in the death of the targeted suspect, but their “explosion can also kill neighbors, children, animals, and by-standers”. These drone strikes may be taken as an act of war against these nations, leading to an escalation in violence and more bloodshed. It can also be used as a recruitment tool by terrorist groups which can lead to more insurgent wars.

Drone attacks is easy and cost effective, but drone strikes can also “create backlash that feeds blow-back”, facilitating the killing of innocent civilians. “This type of warfare is fundamentally dehumanizing and reduces to almost nothing the value of innocent life that happens to be in the vicinity of the target”. The lives of these people have been reduced to the push of a button or the programming of a computer. The men and women operating these drones who view their action on a monitor can become desensitized to the fact that they’re taking another person’s life, thereby reducing their targets and other causalities to those of a character in a video game. By killing the target, we’re eliminating any chance we have of gathering additional information from them through interrogation,

 Facts:

• Predator drones have been effective in eliminating “suspected terrorists, Taliban leader and Al Qaeda operatives in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan”
•  “attacks do not cause disproportionate incidental loses”
• drone strikes can also “create backlash that feeds blow-back”
•  Their “explosion can also kill neighbors, children, animals, and by-standers”
• “This type of warfare is fundamentally dehumanizing and reduces to almost nothing the value of innocent life that happens to be in the vicinity of the target”

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Israel and Palestine has been engaged in conflict since Israelis were able to reclaim the land promised to them by God. The Jews who were enslaved, persecuted, tortured, murdered and exiled from their homeland at different times throughout history by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans and Nazis, but despite these hardships they still dreamed of one day returning to their homeland and were willing to accept the partition. The Palestinians refuse to acknowledge the Israeli people as a race and so fighting broke out between these two groups over sovereignty of their people in the Middle East. Rather than accept the proposal of two separate sates, one for Jews the other Arabs, the Palestine’s declared war on the Israeli people with the aim of eliminating “Zionism in Palestine”. In war, there’s always two sides, with each side believing that they are fighting for a cause, to right some wrong they perceived the other side committed against them, and Israel and Palestine is no different, each side has a different version of events leading up to the conflict and in their beliefs that they are being wrongly persecuted by the other.  Society teaches us to hate those whose views we oppose, but too often we forget the real victims in our conflicts are the innocent men, women and children who just want a chance for change.

The Palestinian and Israeli people have been engaged in conflict for many years. Both sides lay claim to the ancient “holy land of Israel” and are fighting over the rights to control this land. The city of Jerusalem, considered a “holy city” by both Jews and Palestine Arabs, has been a major source of the conflict as both sides wants control of this city.  Israel which is considered to be the “historic land of the Jewish people” has been considered sacred by both ancient and modern cultures. Although Jews were exiled from their land over the centuries, some Israeli’s remained in areas in the Middle East and they still dreamed of one day returning to their home. The Ottoman Empire, who had been ruling Israel for centuries, was defeated during the First World War and during the Second World War both the British and French started dividing up the areas along in the Middle East, as a way of creating allies within the region which they later colonized for oil. It wasn't until 1917, after 1,878 years of being exiled, that Jews living in Britain began lobbying politicians to help establish “a Jewish national state in the holy land” then called Palestine”.

 Many Jewish people began immigrating to Palestine and began living among the Arabs who has made the Holy land their home. Outraged and appalled by the abuse Jews suffered at the hands of the Nazis many people wanted to help create a state where Jews would be able to live peacefully, away from the dangers of anti-Semitism they were facing, so after World War two the U.S and the British aided the Jews in their fight of reclaiming their sacred land, the land they believed was promised to them by their God, thereby angering those Palestinians that had made the land their home during the centuries the Jews were exiled and as well as the surrounding Arabs. Today most of the conflict arises over Palestine’s refusal to acknowledge the Jewish people and their rights to the “holy land”, border disputes, security because "Israel controls checkpoints and trade in Palestinian territories", water rights, control over the city of Jerusalem, Israeli’s control over international aid into Gaza and Israeli settlements in Palestinian territories.

Israel has had to defend its people and their borders from attacks in the years since it reclaimed its land, they continually face threats against its people from the Arabs who oppose their existence.  Supporters argue that Israelis want peace and hat the “two state solution is a threat to Israel's security, since it will allow the Palestinians to encroach on their land, thus making it harder to defend Israel if any of its neighbors start another war”. They argue that the Jews just want to reclaim their home after centuries of exile and persecution, a place where they can live freely. Israel believes that it needs to maintain strict sanctions when it comes to Palestine, since many of their allies are Israeli enemies who can attempt a coup at any time. Israeli supporters also believe that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hamas attacks, since this group hates all Jews and would like nothing better than to eradicate them.

Palestinian supporters argue that the Palestinians have a right to live on the “holy land” since they have been occupying that land for over two thousand years. They argue that they no longer have a voice, their lands are being confiscated by the Israeli’s, their people forced to live in poverty and "continued military occupation and confiscation of privately owned land in the West Bank, and control over Gaza” has left Palestinians feeling oppressed and so has launched rockets and sent suicide bombers into Israel.  Supporters argue that Israel has continued to push its way into Palestinian territories, and has continued to build settlements on land promised the Palestinian people. They've “imposed sanctions on territories where supply is needed” thereby forcing many Arabs into poverty. They believe that the greed of the Jews has forced the Arabs to retaliate to these injustices through the only way they know how, and that’s through what the Jews refer to as terrorism and that the Israeli army which is far more superior to their own has killed far more innocent Palestinians than Israeli’s killed at the hands of the Arabs.

After the Jewish settlement in 1947, many Arabs fled for fear of Jewish rule; today Jews continue to acquire territories by taking lands promised to the Arab people forcing “millions of Palestinians into exile and poverty”. Israel has a state of the world army, compared to the Arabs who depend on terrorist groups such a Hamas to aid in their cause and help defend the Arab people. Terrorism can be a loaded word, used to instill fear in us by those in authority, to arouse our anger towards those we deem a threat and often triggers memories of pain and loss. Terrorists fight for and are loyal to their cause; they go to war with an enemy they perceived had wronged them.  So why are the actions of the Israelis who have a “very strong military retaliates with heavy-handed assaults, which kill many civilians including children” right and the Arabs, who have no army and is also fighting for their cause wrong? Just like the Israeli’s, the Arabs are also fighting for their freedom from persecution and their own perceived injustice against their people. Like the Jews, the Palestine’s fight to have their voices heard; they believe they’re fighting injustices committed against them and their people.

Instead of sharing the land that has so much value to both the Israeli and Palestinian cultures, they each want sole ownership of the land. The Palestinians refuse to “recognize Israel  to exist as a Jewish state” or their importance to the land while  the Jews are trying to push the Arabs out by taking over their lands, refusal of any Palestine state West of the Jordan and restricting their access to supplies.  This conflict will continue with innocent losses on each side, unless both sides can come to a compromise about the land and with each other’s culture.

Facts:

• Palestine’s declared war on the Israeli people with the aim of eliminating “Zionism in Palestine”
• The Palestinians refuse to “recognize Israel  to exist as a Jewish state”
• Israel has been known as the "historic land of the Jewish people”
• “a Jewish national state in the holy land” 
• "Israel controls checkpoints and trade in Palestinian territories"
• “two state solution is a threat to Israel's security, since it will allow the Palestinians to encroach on their land, thus making it harder to defend Israel if any of its neighbors start another war”
• Israel  has "imposed sanctions on territories where supply is needed”
• "continued military occupation and confiscation of privately owned land in the West Bank, and control over Gaza”
• “millions of Palestinians into exile and poverty”
• Israel has a“very strong military retaliates with heavy-handed assaults, which kill many civilians including children”

Obama Care

The president has been under fire for the promises he made the American people regarding his Affordable Care Act. The Act is designed make medical insurance affordable to those who don’t already have health insurance as well as to offer quality care for those who purchase their own insurance. It’s geared towards providing quality care at an affordable price for all Americans despite any preexisting medical conditions and to ensure comprehensive care would now be accessible to the “48 million Americans who don’t have any coverage”. Today the system is under criticism, from problems logging on to the Obama-Care website, to insurers discontinuing insurance policies of those who privately buy their own insurance. The president promised the public that those “who liked their health insurance plans won’t lose them once Obama care kicks in”, but it turns out that many of these people are now being forced to change plans often at higher premiums.  In light of these setbacks, in interview with Chuck Todd of NBC news, the President apologized to those Americans who were forced to switch plans, assuring them that he would do everything he could “to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened”. Despite his promises we need new guidelines put in place to protect those people, who are being dropped from their insurance companies, so that these people are not left without any insurance protection if they get sick.

Prior to the Obama Care Plan being enacted, the President promised the people that those who were “content with the plan they already had would be able to keep them” (npr.org), but so far this has not always been the case. Many have been forced to sign up for more expensive plans and those who buy their own insurance may not be able to keep their plans if they don’t meet the Obama-Care’s standards of care. David Simpson of CNN tells us: that Insurers are: “sending cancellation notices to some of the 12 million Americans whose individual policies don't meet Obama-Care requirements for more comprehensive care”. Today insurance companies are also cancelling people’s policies and withdrawing from states with fewer subscribers to save money, but despite these problems the President is still optimistic, “Ari Sharprio of NPR tells us that, “The president insisted that people losing their plans would get better and, in some cases, cheaper ones”.

Opposers argue that depending on the state in which one lives, the cost associated with the Affordable Care Act will increase to cover the new requirements such as caps on out of pocket expenses, quality coverage at a lower price, and preexisting conditions. The Kaiser Family Foundation wrote that the premiums for families and members “will be somewhat higher under reform than they are today” (cnn.com). They argue that these high premiums can prevent people from being able to pay the monthly cost associated with the plan, while ensuring others do everything in their power to not get sick. Since “people who make 138% of the poverty level, or about $31,300 for a family of four” (cnn.com) qualify for subsidies for medical insurance, the opposition believe that our low income families would fall into a coverage gap, whereby many of them would be unable to qualify for Medicare since they make more than the median, while at the same time don’t make enough money to qualify for the federal subsidies in the Affordable Care marketplace, making purchasing insurance under this plan cost prohibitive. 

Supporters of the ObamaCare Act argue that the Act is geared towards ensuring the American people has access to the minimum standard of care, such as access to maternity, and mental care, something they were not privy to before the Act was passed. ObamaCare will create new competitive markets among insurers leading to lower prices and those who qualify would receive subsidies in the form of tax credits to help offset the cost. ObamaCare helps to eliminate the cost Americans have to pay to offset those who need health care but have no insurance. It eliminates the cost of those uninsured who receive treatment from shifting to the people into one of shared responsibility, as Ezekiel Emanuel from the University of Pennsylvania tells us “We all share in the costs so that everyone can get it". Even though there are problems with the health care law, Bill Maher tells us, we “should work together to fix it” and that in those “States where they want the plan to work, where they’re cooperating, it is working”. Instead of fighting with each other, and shutting down our government because we’re against ObamaCare, we need to stop filibustering and repelling this law, instead we need to work together to find ways to improve the system so that our poor and uninsured, our mentally ill and our pregnant mothers can receive the quality care they need

 

Under the Affordable Care Act, Americans suffering from mental health disabilities and addiction will now be provided with the same care as those suffering from regular illnesses. These men and women will now have access to rehabilitation and outpatient services. Kathleen Sherbas tells us” the Affordable Care Act will expand and protect behavioral health benefits for more than 62 million Americans”. Those persons who have been denied coverage and/or has no insurance coverage because of a mental illness diagnosis, will now be able to get the medication, treatment and care that they need to help deal with their illness. Mental illness, is not a choice and these people deserve to be treated with the same respect and care as the rest of society, yet critics argue that “mental health treatments are often drawn out and costly, with some patients requiring a lifetime of treatment” (America.aljazeera.com). Too often society focuses on the symptoms and not on the victim and what they have to deal with on a daily basis. We don’t consider the struggles these people face every day to cope with their delusions, instead of worrying about the cost we need to offer these people and their family the resources they need to understand, treat and cope with their mental disease.

ObamaCare takes us one step closer towards improving our health care system, so that our poor and our overlooked mentally ill citizens can get the care they need so they have a chance to live improved lives, be able to cope with their illness and have an opportunity to move up the social and economic ladder.

Facts:

•  “48 million Americans don’t have any coverage” (cnn.com)
• The President assured the people that he would do everything he can “to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened
• Insurers are: “sending cancellation notices to some of the 12 million Americans whose individual policies don't meet Obama-Care requirements for more comprehensive care” (cnn.com)
•  “The president insisted that people losing their plans would get better and, in some cases, cheaper ones” (Ari Sharprio of NPR)
• The premiums for families and members “will be somewhat higher under reform than they are today” (the Kaiser Family Foundation, cnn.com).
• “People who make 138% of the poverty level, or about $31,300 for a family of four” qualify for subsidies (cnn.com)
•  “We all share in the costs so that everyone can get it" (Ezekiel Emanuel, Univ. of Penn)
•  “Should work together to fix it” (Bill Maher)
• In those “States where they want the plan to work, where they’re cooperating, it is working” (Bill Maher)
• ” The Affordable Care Act will expand and protect behavioral health benefits for more than 62 million Americans” (Kathleen Sherbas)
• “Mental health treatments are often drawn out and costly, with some patients requiring a lifetime of treatment” (America.aljazeera.com)

The Gun Debate

Gun control is an ongoing debate in our nation with both congress and the people on opposite sides of the spectrum. Some wonder if implementing gun control would reduce crime and protect citizens or is it merely an infringement of our second amendment rights to bear arms.  Guns can be used as a tool to defend and protect or as a weapon of destruction, to threaten and inflict harm or as a tool to kill. Although many people believe gun control will limit crimes, others argue that implementing gun control would have no effect on safety and crime because if someone wanted to obtain guns they would find ways to do so.  Supporters for gun control believe that more regulation and restrictions are needed. They believe that gun violence is plaguing our urban areas and we need to take action to ensure the safety of our children in these areas, while those against gun control view gun regulations as an infringement of their second amendment rights to bear arms. They believe everyone has a right to defend themselves, their family and their property; they view gun control as a way for government to control its people, and open new doorways for gun laws. Some might argue that the real problem is the amount of guns that are available in the country, especially since the “United States has more gun ownership than any other nation on Earth”, making us the most heavily armed nation in the world. It’s time to change the laws that make it possible for our innocent children to die by making it more difficult for our guns to end up in the hands of those who should not have access to them.

Support for gun control is at an all time low, of the millions of people in our nation only “twenty six percent of Americans support a total ban in the United States”. Advocates of gun ownership believe guns are a deterrent to crime. They claim that the more people who own guns the more crimes that can or will be prevented. They view gun ownership as a way to prevent violence in our nation; they believe that the more people with handguns the less likely people would be to commit crimes. Gun supporter believe people should have a right to defend themselves, their family and property against all perceived threats and that it’s not the gun themselves that kill people it’s the person carrying the gun, because if someone wanted to kill another person they will do so regardless of if they have a gun or something else.  They argue that if we ban gun ownership then only criminals would own guns putting innocent or good people at a disadvantage but who decides who among us is good or bad. Gun in the hands of anyone have the capacity to unnecessarily escalate any situation whether there is an actual crime or a perceived crime. True criminals will still find ways to gain access to weapons leaving non criminals at a disadvantage, but we’re forgetting criminals don’t abide by the law anyway, but that does not mean that we should stop making laws just because they won’t be followed by some.

Conservatives believe citizens have the right to protect themselves and their property and as a result many states have enacted the Stand Your Ground Laws giving residents “the right to shoot in defense of their life, if they believe that their life is in danger”. This law grants person’s immunity from persecution if they kill another in self defense because they felt that their life was threatened, even if the person could have retreated to safety and called for help under this law s/he could be exonerated from prosecution. This law was adopted so people can protect themselves, their property and their families from any harm that can befall them from criminals, and proponents of the law argue citizens should be able to defend their homes and person from intruders, rather than having to flee or wait for the police who may be too late. Those against this law argue that it would be very difficult to prove if the person was acting in self defense or dispensing vigilante justice ex: Trayvon Martin. Stand your ground laws promote more violence and put us at more risk of trigger happy gun owners.

The ease with which one can obtain guns toady
 is troubling and since background checks on guns are not mandatory to all sellers, anyone wishing to buy a gun and avoid checks can do so at gun shows, street corners, the internet, or through private dealers with no questions asked. Even our children have access to guns today, especially those who live in low income areas where gang activity is prevalent has access to guns. Those who are bullied or abused may feel that having a gun is the only way they can protect themselves, because of the security it offers, these teens are now finding ways to obtain guns illegally, they can now buy them off the street or internet for cheap, they can steal them from family or friends, and in areas with no gun laws they can pay someone to buy one for them. This calls for a system that can record and keep track of these gums through sales and registrations. We may not be able to prevent all death, but we can do something to prevent our citizens from dying unnecessarily, these checks will prevent those convicted of felonies, abusers (drug and domestic), and those suffering from serious mental illnesses from obtaining weapons which can go a long way in ensuring people feel safe in their communities.

In light of the Sandy Hook killings, President Obama and other proponents of gun control are now calling for stricter gun ownership laws. They argue that the more guns that are made available to the public the more chance there is for violence. Obama is calling for stricter legislation aimed at banning assault weapons, and high capacity ammunition and armor piercing bullets from the public, as well as an increase officer presence in our streets, new school emergency pans, first responder training, etc. these new legislations are aimed at improving our mental health system and access, as well as school safety so that our children don’t become the new targets of this increasing cycle of gun violence. As of March 2013, mere months after the Sandy Hook shootings “2268 Americans have been killed with guns, including 158 children and teens” (slate.com).  We owe it to our children to do everything we can to prevent gun violence by ensuring our gun owners are law abiding, responsible people.

Anti gun supporters believe gun control would reduce the amount of accidental deaths in the US. They believe even when guns are kept at home they still have the capacity to inflict harm. Statistics taken from the National Institute of Justice and surviorsclub.org tells us that in 2008, there were “680 accidental shooting deaths, 15,500 accidental shooting injuries’ and Huffingtonpost.com tells us that there are “53 suicides per day using a gun”, these are staggering numbers. If we continue to make more guns easily accessible to the public, the mere presence of guns in the home and how accessible it is increases the likelihood of someone committing suicide or accidentally shooting themselves.

We need to implement tougher laws for gun control. We need to do a better job when it comes to screening people for gun permits, especially since it’s so easy for people to gain access to guns nowadays. Huffingtonpost.com tells us that: “There are

45,000 applications for background checks on gun purchases per day”, but even if these men and women don’t pass this check they can still obtain guns at gun shows, the internet, ask family members to buy it for them, etc.  I understand that people have a right to protect themselves, but as a nation we have a duty to make sure that these guns are not going into the hands or household of people with a history of mental diseases, or criminal backgrounds. Not only do we need to perform criminal background check but to find a way to test for any psychological tendencies a person may have, even if it’s not detectable on the outside, to prevent them from hurting the innocent and themselves. We need to create laws banning military grade type automatic guns or at least put restrictions on who can own these types of weapons. . These guns do not belong in our communities. Stricter legislation also has to be put in place for gun sellers and manufacturers to make sure they’re actually following procedure and keeping track f the people they sell guns to, so we can ensure that they are following the law and not cutting corners. When it comes to gun control we as a nation need to come together to stand up and demand change and not wait for more of our children to die before we decide to act.

Global Warming

 Climate change is the change in climate patterns as a result of increased temperatures. These changes can be caused by increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of the use of more burning of fossil-fuels, deforestation, etc. Greenhouse gases soak up the suns heat thereby ensuring the temperature of the earth remains at a stable level to support all living organisms; but as more gas is released it traps more heat causing temperatures to rise, which affect precipitation, length of seasons, sea level, etc. Scientists believe that our dependence on fossil fuels like coal for energy production, oil which is used to make gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity, to power industry, dates back to the industrial era.  They believe this fuel produces harmful gases like carbon-dioxide which is released into the air, and as it’s burned plays a part in today’s energy crisis and since we use oil either in gasoline for our cars or for heat and electricity we’re consuming large amounts of fossil fuels which is then released into the air in large amounts leading to the change in temperatures.

When it comes to the issue of climate change, scientists, government officials and even the people are divided as to its cause and possible solutions.  Proponents of global warming believes that the greenhouse gas that’s being released into the atmosphere through burning fossil fuels has contributed to the rise in our temperatures which has led to warmer winters, hotter summers, rising sea levels, melting of our arctic, as well as increased hurricanes, etc. the article President Obama’s Climate Action Plan’ tells us that: “Last year alone, there were eleven different weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding one billion dollars each across the United States”. Not only is climate change an environmental problem it also has economic consequences as well. Those who oppose argue that “carbon-dioxide is not a pollutant, it results in more plant growth and less water required for plants to grow stronger and it results in a greener earth and that life cannot exist without CO2” (The truth about Global warming: science and distortion –Stephen Schneider). Opponents believe that the warming we are experiencing is a natural phenomenon.

Conservatives as well as some scientists challenge the exact cause of climate change. They argue that it’s not all man and instead blame it on changes in our atmosphere, in the sun, our ocean and the clouds, but what about the impact of overpopulation. Doesn't this also contribute to the energy crisis? As our population continues to grow, it may soon reach proportions where our resources will not be able to sustain life as its known today.  Overpopulation can lead to climate change due to the increase in greenhouse gases, this can create flooding, heat waves, droughts, and storms affecting food production in some regions that would be unable to grow food staples, fishes will migrate or their stock diminished. Environmental, economic and social factors are all impacted by overpopulation and in many parts of the world there are not enough available resources to feed their growing populations. Population growth can lead to resource depletion, environmental deterioration, fishery depletion, heath issues, soil and water contamination, poverty, etc, thereby creating an increased burden on our limited natural resources.  

 Overpopulation creates the need for more space thereby putting pressure on the need to use our limited resources; more and more forests will be cut down to create homes, jobs, etc thereby displacing many animals from their habitat causing these species to become endangered,  and more animals and fishery will be killed for food. Population growth would create a demand on our water supply. Fresh water which is already scarce in some parts of the world will become an issue creating more and more shortages before it disappears forever. Overpopulation can also lead to climate change due to the increase in greenhouse gases, this can create flooding, heat waves, droughts, and storms affecting food production in some regions that would be unable to grow food staples, fishes will migrate or their stock diminished. Environmental growth can lead to water and soil pollution. As the demand for more food grows, farmers may start cultivating and growing foods in lands that are poor in nutrients leading to soil degradation and as more trash is thrown away, this leads to more waste in our landfills creating soil pollution.

 Many conservatives claim that shifting over to renewable energy would actually “cost more money for the US and consumers”.  They argue that the cost associated with going green is too expensive, that it would slow down production, and even though business would be able to save on energy and production costs in the future, they’re not willing to make that investment. These conservatives care more about big business and the bottom line than the energy crisis we’re currently facing. Schneider tells us that: “People frame this problem by looking for exceptions to the conventional wisdom and claim, until the exceptions are resolved, it isn't proof and it’s premature to act”. Conservatives know that we have an energy problem, yet believe global warming is not a crisis, and that by switching to green energy would not only slow down our production but our economy as well. They believe more jobs can be created by increasing oil and gas production by opening more oil drills, gas refineries, pipelines, etc. They’re not concerned about the long term effect this can have on the environment. .

Democrats believe that although we can’t reverse the effects of global warming, we can take steps to protect the environment for future generations. They believe investing in green energy like solar, wind, tidal, and hydro can slow the effects of global warming and are even offering programs aimed at giving citizens tax breaks when they buy energy products. In 2009, President Obama pledged that by 2020 “America would reduce its greenhouse emission in the range of seventeen percent below 2005 levels” (President Obama’s Climate Action Plan”). They believe by cutting down on the use of fossil fuels can lead to new innovations which can help modernize power plants, create jobs and reduce our dependency on foreign oil. This clean energy will reduce the amount of energy consumed by families resulting in lower gas and energy bills, and also more fuel efficient cars.

In order to decrease the current climate crisis we need to stop or reduce our fossil fuel consumption. Today, only “8% of US energy consumption is from renewable energy” while we consume “37% from oil and 21% coal” proving more change is needed. we can start by using alternative energy like, solar, water and wind energy, driving fuel efficient cars, carpooling, reducing our dependency on fossil fuel, use energy saving appliances, recycling, organic farming, planting trees, using reusable bags, etc.; we also need to stop deforestation since the cutting and burning down of our trees is causing more CO2 to enter the atmosphere. If change is to occur governments has to invest more in these life and earth changing efforts because it’s not just our plants and animals who will suffer but us humans as well.

The US can strengthen the economy and preserve the environment by investing in alternative energy like tidal turbines which can be built into the ocean and can be used to harness ocean currents, wind power which can be used to produce electricity, pump water, etc., since wind energy is produced by wind it’s clean energy and does not pollute the air like fossil fuels, the downside is it can endanger birds which can be killed if they fly into the rotors, we can use geothermal energy to harvest the earth’s energy to generate electricity, and solar energy captured using solar panels captures the sun’s rays and converts and distributes it as power, we can use it to heat water, the home, lightening, for cooking, electricity, etc. Solar energy does not harm our environment and since the sun’s energy is free and constant, we don’t have to worry about it running out which makes it very dependable. We also need to increase our fuel efficiency standards, this can “reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons and save 530 million barrels of oil” (Obama’s Climate Action Plan, pg 8). This can help save drivers hundreds of dollars in fuel costs.

We need to invest in and support renewable energy projects like Cape Wind, a proposal to house an offshore wind farm off the coast of the Cape in Nantucket Sound and would house close to a hundred and thirty wind turbines. These turbines will harness the winds energy and provide clean, renewable energy which would significantly cut down on tons of carbon-dioxide emissions and other green house gasses”. Supporters the project believes that it would create jobs which would help boost the economy and would help ignite the offshore wind industry. It would also create cleaner air by reducing greenhouse gas emissions thereby reducing global warming effects on the environment and the project will be able to provide about seventy-five percent of the Cape and surrounding island power every year. Opponents argue that the turbines would threaten air and sea travels, commercial fishing, endanger birds and other marine animals in the Sound. They’re also afraid that it would impose a hike in their electrical rate, and that it would affect he resale value of their property and could pollute their beaches. As humans we’re the ones responsible for the destabilization of our ecosystem, so we should be the ones to fix it. I believe most people take the approach of if I can’t see it then it doesn't affect me approach, but simple steps as installing energy efficient appliances or turning off lights in our homes can make a difference. Solar energy is clean, dependable energy which can be used in a number of ways from heating the home to providing electricity for cooking and the tax breaks that are being offered is great incentive for homeowner who want to improve that home’s energy efficiency.

 Facts:

• Last year alone, there were eleven different weather and climate disaster events with estimated losses exceeding one billion dollars each across the United States”.President Obama’s Climate Action Plan  <http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/25/us/obama-climate-action-plan.html?ref=globalwarming&_r=1&>.
• “Carbon-dioxide is not a pollutant, it results in more plant growth and less water required for plants to grow stronger and it results in a greener earth and that life cannot exist without CO2” (The truth about Global warming: science and distortion –Stephen Schneider)
• "People frame this problem by looking for exceptions to the conventional wisdom and claim, until the exceptions are resolved, it isn't proof and it’s premature to act” (Schneider)
• “America would reduce its greenhouse emission in the range of seventeen percent below 2005 levels” (President Obama’s Climate Action Plan”).
• "8% of US energy consumption is from renewable energy” while we consume “37% from oil and 21% coal”
• "reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 270 million metric tons and save 530 million barrels of oil” (Obama’s Climate Action Plan)

Works Cited:

“Cape Wind”.  27 Oct 2012. boem.gov. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

<http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Studies/Cape-Wind.aspx>.       

“Cape Wind Project – The main pros and cons”.  globalwarming360.net.  27 Oct 2012.

<www.globalwarming360.net/cape-wind-project-the-main-pros-and-cons.html>.

“President Obama’s Climate Action Plan”. NewYorkTimes.com. 25 June 2013. 26 Oct 2013.

<http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/25/us/obama-climate-action-plan.html?ref=globalwarming&_r=1&>.

April 15, 2013 Reflections

On April 15, 2013 around 2:49 pm two bombs exploded on Boylston Street during the Boston Marathon killing three people and injuring many. I found out about the attacks on my way home from class when an alert came on my phone and then as breaking news on the radio. When I first heard of the bombing, I was shocked then angered, not so much shocked that there was another terrorist attack but where it took place; it made me realize that this can happen anywhere and that I've become complacent from the lack of terrorist activity after 9/11. In the past when I thought of a terrorist attack I thought about big cities, embassies, government buildings, etc., so the fact that it happened in a marathon was surprising. Like many Bostonians and the rest of the US I was stuck to my television during the manhunt until both suspects was captured.

The generosity of civilians present at the event was awe inspiring. Yes we had police and firemen, EMT's helping but the majority of the people helping to carry victims, stop bleeding were bystanders there to watch the marathon, marathon volunteers, the runners and their loved ones who were there to cheer them on. These people raced into the chaos to help save those present, risking their lives for stranger. It made me proud to be a part of a community of such self-less people. Being a Bostonian and watching the way everyone united after the bombing has showed me that terrorism breeds unity. When calamities strike, people unit and that whenever the bombs explode or some other event occurs (naturally or otherwise) we’ll watch each other’s backs.

As a nation I believe that it’s important to remember that no amount of planning or strategizing can truly prevent an attack, that terrorism attacks don’t always come from sources outside our nation but that it can also occur within. These terrorists use violence as a way to carry out their preconceived political and religious beliefs. Too often because of their religious beliefs these organizations or person assume they know what God wants, or what his intentions are, they justify their actions by blaming their faith, but the truth is no one knows what god’s intentions are, we don’t know what he has in store for us. Just because something may seem like the right thing to one person or even a country, does not always make it the right in the long run. We need to stop justifying our actions with our beliefs and realize that God did not tell us to go to war with each other, nor did he tell us it’s okay to hurt and kill innocent people in his name; we made those decisions on our own, and it’s only end up hurting the innocent.

It showed how training, planning and attentiveness can help us mitigate disasters. After 9/11 this attack showed me how much more prepared we are when it comes to dealing with terrorists attacks. Listening to stories from medical and emergency personnel on how quickly they were able to ready emergency rooms in preparation of surgeries, in making sure they had enough staff on hand and the willingness of the staff to do their part to make these patients comfortable and how quickly and efficiently emergency responders were able to communicate and work together is astounding. The countless training in disaster preparedness after the 9/11 attacks has made us a nation that’s more prepared to deal with the fall out of such attacks.

We also need to be realistic in our expectations of our leaders. It’s unrealistic of us to expect them to make promises that another terrorist attack will never happen again in the future. The Boston Marathon attack has showed that our abilities to predetermine those capable of planning and carrying out terrorist attacks is very limited. Higher levels of security is also needed at those events that may not rise to the level of a major security event, but since large groups gather and draw national attention at these events the Boston attacks proves that these attractions are now becoming more attractive for terrorist group; more security is needed at these kinds of events.

 We move on by showing the world that even though these brothers wanted to instill fear in us, we banded together, they wanted to create fear and instead fueled our fire. We need to be able to show that we won’t let anyone keep us from competing or celebrating; that we refuse to become victims and are willing to fight back, if they knock us down we’ll rise up stronger than before. We continue to live our lives without fear while continuing to be vigilant. We can’t allow these terrorist groups to win; we have to show them how resilient we are as a nation, by working together and supporting each other in our time of need. Our world leaders need to unite against terrorism, they teach us that when it comes to defending terrorism, they are willing to explore every avenue to ensure the enemy knows that their actions will not be tolerated. They teach us to be outraged by terrorist actions but to applaud our own when it’s time to retaliate. As society we need to find ways discourage terrorism. We need to avoid violence when dealing with the enemy, to find out the root of the cause and find ways to solve them. We also have to accept that there will always be those who want to harm us, in the name of freedom.

The Boston Attacks has taught me the meaning of true resilience and persistence and it has given me a sense of pride and honor to be a part of a community that values human life above all else. It’s showed how we as a nation can come together and unite as one in the face of tragedy, yes we may be divided politically, and religiously but once we’re threatened there is no stopping our dedication to one another. I learnt that we don’t live isolated lives only committed to their own freedom and lives as I thought, but that when a community cares about its citizens our individual fate becomes linked. The relentless dedication, grit, endurance and bravery of our emergency responders were inspiring, from our police officers and firefighters, to military personnel and civilian bystanders who ripped down barricades to get to those who were injured in the blast. Our medical service staff of EMT’s, nurses, doctors, etc who worked tireless to help save the lives of the injured, as well as those in our community who showed their support to those who lost loved ones or was injured in the blast.

This attack also showed how we as a nation can unit and work together. It showed how by banding together as a nation we can make a difference. We saw how tragedy can unit even self proclaimed rivals, this was apparent when those hated Yankees and their fans sang the “sweet Caroline” song demonstrating our unity, and the patriotic atmosphere at the Bruins hockey game. We may be a diverse group but when it comes to supporting each other in times of distress, we’re very much united.