What to do with the Environment (Environmental Policy)

As science has become more adapt, it is becoming clear that humans have changed the environment in which we live. Even if one does not believe in global warming, trees are being cut down, c02 emissions are much higher than ever, and levels of pollution are rising. The question is how to make policy in what to do with these new issues. The policy has to slow or stop these problems, without damaging the economy severely. Some say to just ignore the environment, that global warming is just junk science that should be ignored. They want to protect the industry that in fact causes many envirnoment issues. There are the others that say that there needs to be cleaner energy immediately, and many reductions need to occur but this will have a major inpact on the economy, and the betterment of the environment may not make up for the loss of economic stability. I have come up with a more moderate position on how to take care of the environment without causing the decline of the economy. I first believe there needs to be an alternative fuel source, one that is much cleaner but can still be used as part of the economy. If it can be cheaper and cleaner, but still sold, it can create a new sector of the economy to flourish. In the end, solar power will need to be used as a renewable resource, but currently hydrogen or other fuel sources can be used. Even though the use of hybrids are nice, I do not think they will catch on or create enough of an impact. Furthermore, a policy of reduction needs to occur. I think there should be taxes on our depleting water supplies, because this will immiedietly cause conservation that will aid dry parts of the country. Overall, the policy needs to be reduction now, and on the move to a more sustainable environment. I believe a slow move in this direction will not cause the collapse of the economy, as it will adapt if we move slowly enough in the aid of the environment. Just like the clean air act was one step in this direction that did not destroy the economy, I believe certain taxes to cause reduction and later the introduction of different fuel sources and stopping certain pollution factors will eventually aid the environment and propel us in the direction of a better future where the economy can still have power.

Union Problems in Nevada

With the Nevada caucuss coming up, unions are becoming divided on the democratic side while trying to determine whether they should vote for Obama or Clinton. Both sides are claiming that the other is acting unfairly. For example, some say that voting booths are being held in buildings that are at heart pro-Obama, and that supporters are running negative ads. The democratic unions have always been strong, because they have always been able to vote together on the democratic side. However, with a split that is already occuring, this could create problems on the democratic side further in the election process. The unions have always been able to go against the Republicans, especially in the last few elections. However, this split could discourage some democratics for voting for the Democrat that wins the nomination. This could gain votes for Republicans, and take some away from the Democrats. I think this is actually good, because people are not teaming up just for one democrat, the issues obviously matter. This means a closer race, which will encourage more people to vote.

The Evidence on "Inhanced Interrogation"

It has been in the news for a while about the enhanced interrogation, basically a light word for water boarding and sleep deprivation. Bush and his crew have been accused of using torture to get information from their prisoners, which of course, is illegal. However, Bush has admitted that they have interrogated, but have done nothing to shock the conscience. The question is if simulating drowning really is a shocker, to me it is. When asked for security tapes, they somehow were destroyed by the CIA, a real coincidence. Now though, Bush has enabled for Congress to receive some testimony and evidence of the interrogation of two prisoners. I believe that this new information really wont be that much help to discover the truth. Bush will only give enough to make it seem that they have not done anything bad, when they probably have because the disappearing video tapes and other evidence is just stupid. If our own CIA cannot hold onto a couple of tapes, then how are they supposed to find Osama or other terrorists, they definitely are not as good as we though, or, their just covering it up. Basically, Bush is just trying to cover, he knows just saying it doesn't happen wont do enough, so hes going to release some info, but its going to be so censored it will not be able to prove enough.

Do Cancer and Politics Mix?

Cancer is a disease that in many different forms attacks people all over the world. This disease often times is terminal, and annually kills about 560,000 Americans. Cancer has even been a factor in many of the presidential candidates lives. It is public news of what John Edwards wife has gone through with breast cancer, as well as Giuliani’s prostate cancer, McCain’s skin cancer, Thompson’s lymphoma, Brownback’s melanoma, Huckabee’s wife’s spinal cancer, Obama’s mothers ovarian cancer, and finally Clinton’s mother in law’s breast cancer. If all this cancer has been present in their lives, then it is strange that cancer has not been used in politics or campaign. The last time that cancer was used was with Nixon in 1971, where he tried to rush to find a cure for the disease. However, this may change, in the coming election, politicians may try using cancer to push them to the presidency. It actually has already started, as six candidates, Edwards, Clinton, Kucinich, Richardson, Brownback, and Huckabee spoke in a forum on cancer sponsored by Lance Armstrong’s LiveStrong foundation and MSNBC. However, cancer is hard to use for politics, and will probably be removed as an issue in the campaign. Cancer is hard first of all because the cure for cancer may be a long way off, most likely after the campaign, meaning that putting a war against it would most likely fail, resulting in the failure of an issue of a candidate. Next, there is no strong political organization against cancer, because there are so many sub divisions of cancer that there is no unified fight against it. Lastly, it is a sad fact that only a couple organizations fund basic cancer research, making finding any support a hard task. Overall, I think that the pursuit of using cancer, as a method for winning the presidency will soon be dropped. It may put one candidate in the limelight for a short time as a good person, but after a while it will be overlooked and forgotten. Candidates will shift their focus on their policies, speeches, etc, and forget about using cancer as a force. Furthermore, the most they would be able to do is help fund cancer, in no way will a cure come around directly from their own actions.

What should we do with Iran?

This author has decided to make a statement, that basically, the US should keep the ability to produce and use nuclear arms away from Iran. He saw this is Iraq four years ago as a threat, and had agree to enter the country in order to stop it. The author believed that the Iraq war was caused by “competition for the region's abundant reserves of fossil fuels, (b) demographic pressures arising from the region's high birthrates, (c) the growth of radical Islamism and (d) the determination of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons”., however he sees the nuclear weapons as a huge threat to the safety of the US. Iran is starting to develop the technology and the resources that it could be assumed to be used on one target, Israel, a hated enemy but a great US ally. An attack of this nature could make a huge problem occur between these two countries, and the US would be stuck in the middle of it and become a threat. Furthermore, the United Nations has decided to not allow force or intervention to stop the nuclear arms development, which the author believes is the wrong decision. He thinks that diplomacy on this great of an issue between the great of rival nations will never work, force behind however could produce results. He wished that the US gets immediately involved in this issue either by examining the facilities and not letting their production continue, or but battleships close enough to where their air missiles can pin point and destroy nuclear facilities, removing the danger of this threat. The author even criticises Bush for not doing this, only because he is worried about his own reputation.
Personally, I would not like to use force, because we are already spread insanely thin, no like we were before the Iraq War. However, if we saw that development was clear and that a clear launch against Israel could happen, I would not use force, but show off my power. I would place battleships near and let Iran know that if they do decide to launch against Israel, we would quickly respond to them, hopefully detering a massive loss of life.

Whats up with education

A while ago, Congress passed a series of bills in order to aid education in the dismal schools that report bad scores in order to boost the children’s future. The deal would be that if test scores went up, the schools and area would receive federal aid. This would therefore encourage state politicians and schools to amp up their education program. They may only be doing for the money or just do to embarrassment, but at least the children would be better off in the end. However, the states have found a couple of loopholes around this system so that they could receive aid without having to provide increases in education. The state education system has done this by “devising weak tests, setting low passing scores or changing tests from year to year to prevent accurate comparisons over time.”, and to voters this all looks great and believe the system is working when it is actually not. These practices have been uncovered by research done by “Stanford University and the University of California, that analyzed the testing practices of a dozen states between 1992 and 2006. States that performed swimmingly on their own weak math and reading tests tended to score dismally on the more rigorous federal National Assessment of Educational Progress, often referred to as NAEP.” Also, they will oppose any national test so that the true scores cannot be discovered. The question is how to find out how to implement money for real scores. One way to do this would be to provide a free national test that is more rigorous to show the true scores, and then distribute money according to those scores. This is because of the very weak tests the states give, “In nearly all of the states studied, students did noticeably worse on federal tests than on state tests. In Oklahoma, the gap in scores was a shocking 60 percentage points in math and 51 percentage points in reading. In Texas, that gap was 52 percentage points in math and 56 points in reading. The state that came closest to the federal standard was Massachusetts, where there was a modest 1 percent gap in math and 10 percent gap in reading.” This is awful in my opinion, that instead of trying to fix a system, people would just try to dupe the voters just to get money at the expense of children. It really shows the possible corruption in the local governments. This is not how it should work, states should try to increase scores regardless of rewards; they should just do it for the children. It is truly disgusting that this level of greed exists in the government, and I myself fell used as a voter.

Clinton Fires Back

For a while now, Edwards and Obama have been attacking Clinton mainly due to her lead in the Democratic polls, and both have teamed up in bringing her down (even though Obama said he would refraim from negative campaign). However, Clinton has not seemed to care or redirect the insults on political policy or capabilities until recently. Most likely due to the nearing Iowa vote for their Democratic candidate, each has stepped up their campaign, and Clinton has decided to fight back. Clinton is now accusing Obama of having little experience and will not be able to run the office. This is actually very important because right now there is about a three way tie in Iowa, with Clinton and Obama right next to each other and Edwards right behind. If Clinton wins Iowa, then there might be no stopping her because she has a big lead in most other places. Personally, I knew Clinton could not just sit there with her head held high for too long, it was just time until she fired back. Since the attacks on her actually have lowered her a little in polls, maybe this backfire will bring them back down or actually reduce them further. In Iowa it is so close, it could go either way. It will be interesting to see how much more mud is going to be thrown as the Iowa decision comes closer and closer.