Kevin, it seems like you're addressing the important topic of immigration in your article After Obama's Immigration Action. Kudos for that. I just have a few questions. Who is the Tea Party? What do they stand for? You spent half your article decrying them, which is passionate and I respect that, but a little more information would be helpful.
The next thing is I have no clue what you are talking about when you mention president Obama's order. You mentioned the 5 million immigrants who are already here, and that it has nothing to do with new immigrants, but I still have no frame of reference for what was intended for them.
I think all my questions might be answered in the link you posted, but it would have been better to at least give the basic facts of the
matter and have the link as a reference in case someone wants more
details. Don't get me wrong, it seems like you are fighting for a good cause, I just want to understand the situation a little bit more.
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Commentary on "What the frack are you thinking?"
I want to start out by saying that this article is extremely well written: What the frack are you thinking? (Cassandra Goodison, The Coffee Party, 10/31/2014) There is substantial information as well as numerous linked sources. I particularly liked how it was passionate and driven; there wasn't any hesitation in arguing against fracking.
I only have a few criticisms, the first one being you mentioned coal in the first sentence, but didn't elaborate on it very much. There is a few interesting things to say about coal; in this video Obama not only is promoting alternative energy sources, but is outright admonishing coal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw . He is basically saying that he's not going to make coal illegal, but will tax the hell out of coal plants until they go bankrupt.
My only other criticism is that I want to know why so many dangerous chemicals are needed to do fracking, and is there an alternative to using these? I just think that you went on and on about how bad fracking is, but didn't provide a solution. Sure it is bad to waste water and pollute the environment, but how are we going to make up for the loss when we get rid of natural gas?
Once again this article was very well done, and my critiques were not because of any major flaw. I actually agree with you that fracking is a horrible thing, we just need to not be one sided when arguing for or against anything.
I only have a few criticisms, the first one being you mentioned coal in the first sentence, but didn't elaborate on it very much. There is a few interesting things to say about coal; in this video Obama not only is promoting alternative energy sources, but is outright admonishing coal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw . He is basically saying that he's not going to make coal illegal, but will tax the hell out of coal plants until they go bankrupt.
My only other criticism is that I want to know why so many dangerous chemicals are needed to do fracking, and is there an alternative to using these? I just think that you went on and on about how bad fracking is, but didn't provide a solution. Sure it is bad to waste water and pollute the environment, but how are we going to make up for the loss when we get rid of natural gas?
Once again this article was very well done, and my critiques were not because of any major flaw. I actually agree with you that fracking is a horrible thing, we just need to not be one sided when arguing for or against anything.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
One Ebola death hardly counts as an epidemic
Ebola is blowing up all over the news as an "epidemic", and an "emergency". News stations like Fox and NBC seem to love riling up fear and panic in people. They use phrases like " spiraling out of control" and the "ebola emergency in America" to convey an extreme sense of panic and immediacy. What are the actual odds of ebola spreading in America? That's what I want to know. I really wish news stations would be objective about they report, or at least change their names to "Fox Editorials", and "NBC's Opinions" to be more accurate of what they give out to people.
The death toll in Africa due to Ebola is somewhere around 10,000. In AFRICA. In 4 different countries. This is about 1% of the total population of these countries. Not a very big number especially considering these are third world countries with extremely low medical capabilities as far as containing fluids and replenishing them. Family members also have to bury their dead on their own by hand without any protective gear. Is it any surprise that this disease could spread in such a place?
There are now 6 reported cases in the US, and ONE death. Sure this may be a gruesome disease, but so is heart disease. This kills hundreds of thousands times more people every year than Ebola has this year so far. Can we please put this much energy into reporting and stopping this as we do for a third world disease? What are the actual odds of this affecting you or me or anyone we personally know? Very slim even considering the majority of Ebola cases are in the same state as us. What a bunch of over-hyped sensationalism.
Obama is now talking about sending the National Guard to contain the ebola epidemic in Africa in this article: Obama Authorizes National Guard Call-Up to Fight Ebola in West Africa (Lucy Westcott, 10/16/2014, Newsweek) Is this really any of our business? If anything is going to infect a large number of US citizens with Ebola, it will be doing this. The US really has an ego sometimes. If anything just send medical supplies and a few doctors to train African medical personnel, then get the hell out of there. We really need to stop overemphasizing ourself and taking so much damn responsibility as a country.
All in all this is a terrible disease with a very minor outbreak that has been blown WAY out of proportions. We would be better off spreading meditation and yoga classes via TV than all this fear sensationalism crap.
The death toll in Africa due to Ebola is somewhere around 10,000. In AFRICA. In 4 different countries. This is about 1% of the total population of these countries. Not a very big number especially considering these are third world countries with extremely low medical capabilities as far as containing fluids and replenishing them. Family members also have to bury their dead on their own by hand without any protective gear. Is it any surprise that this disease could spread in such a place?
There are now 6 reported cases in the US, and ONE death. Sure this may be a gruesome disease, but so is heart disease. This kills hundreds of thousands times more people every year than Ebola has this year so far. Can we please put this much energy into reporting and stopping this as we do for a third world disease? What are the actual odds of this affecting you or me or anyone we personally know? Very slim even considering the majority of Ebola cases are in the same state as us. What a bunch of over-hyped sensationalism.
Obama is now talking about sending the National Guard to contain the ebola epidemic in Africa in this article: Obama Authorizes National Guard Call-Up to Fight Ebola in West Africa (Lucy Westcott, 10/16/2014, Newsweek) Is this really any of our business? If anything is going to infect a large number of US citizens with Ebola, it will be doing this. The US really has an ego sometimes. If anything just send medical supplies and a few doctors to train African medical personnel, then get the hell out of there. We really need to stop overemphasizing ourself and taking so much damn responsibility as a country.
All in all this is a terrible disease with a very minor outbreak that has been blown WAY out of proportions. We would be better off spreading meditation and yoga classes via TV than all this fear sensationalism crap.
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Obama's Apparent Ambiguity
In this article titled Obama's mixed messages on war (Jonah Goldberg, LA Times, 9/29/2014), Obama is criticized on his taking responsibility for the war in Syria. The author notes that while the president uses words like I, and me when talking about his victories, he will cast the blame on others when the situation is less than perfect.
He implies that the act of taking troops out of Iraq and moving them to Syria was a mistake. That's the issue Obama is criticized about in this article: What's more important? Fighting in Iraq? or Syria? While it is true that Obama seems to be avoiding responsibility when he said this quote about Iraq: "What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision [to withdraw U.S. troops]," I think the author is focusing on a minor issue in comparison to what the president should be held accountable for.
He (the author) acknowledges in the last paragraph of his article that the US is constantly called upon for assistance in world affairs, almost always concerning war. Given this role of our country, if the president sees fit to move troops from one war zone to another, it would be best to refrain from excessive or thoughtless condemnation. I mean how much experience do you actually have as a war commander? How do we know that Syria would not have been worse of than Iraq had we kept troops there?
Maybe it is true that the president is neglecting some accountability in his decision, but as far as I am concerned he is still more competent than Jonah Goldberg in managing a war.
He implies that the act of taking troops out of Iraq and moving them to Syria was a mistake. That's the issue Obama is criticized about in this article: What's more important? Fighting in Iraq? or Syria? While it is true that Obama seems to be avoiding responsibility when he said this quote about Iraq: "What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision [to withdraw U.S. troops]," I think the author is focusing on a minor issue in comparison to what the president should be held accountable for.
He (the author) acknowledges in the last paragraph of his article that the US is constantly called upon for assistance in world affairs, almost always concerning war. Given this role of our country, if the president sees fit to move troops from one war zone to another, it would be best to refrain from excessive or thoughtless condemnation. I mean how much experience do you actually have as a war commander? How do we know that Syria would not have been worse of than Iraq had we kept troops there?
Maybe it is true that the president is neglecting some accountability in his decision, but as far as I am concerned he is still more competent than Jonah Goldberg in managing a war.
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
U.S. To Support Syrian Rebels With Weapons
Violence continues in Syria, as ISIS keeps pushing for Islamic power in the Middle East. In this article: Congress Gets Ready to Arm Syrian Rebels, we learn that Obama has proposed a plan to arm Syrian rebels to fight against the terrorist group, and that the US House of Representatives is now debating it.
The Senate being mostly democrats is expected to approve of the plan as well as the majority of the House of Representatives. One House speaker, Boehner, says that he agrees with Obama's plan but argues that we need to take it even further. He thinks Obama's plan is not strong enough, and we need more than just dropping bombs and training a few Iraqis and Syrians.
Despite everyone in favor of sending weapons to Syria there are a few who are worried this will blow up into a fully-fledged war, requiring large numbers of US troops. Maryland State Representative Steny Hoyer says, "I don't think train and equip is the principal concern. The principal concern is deploying American men and women, spending a large sum of money, prosecuting a war."
This is article is definitely relevant to the interest of anyone who lives in the US seeing as our tax dollars and loved ones are at stake. I personally know someone who is joining the military soon, and may have to fight in this "war". It's a tragedy to see so much violence in this part of the world and to see so much money being used to kill one another. Let us think carefully about these kind of political events.
The Senate being mostly democrats is expected to approve of the plan as well as the majority of the House of Representatives. One House speaker, Boehner, says that he agrees with Obama's plan but argues that we need to take it even further. He thinks Obama's plan is not strong enough, and we need more than just dropping bombs and training a few Iraqis and Syrians.
Despite everyone in favor of sending weapons to Syria there are a few who are worried this will blow up into a fully-fledged war, requiring large numbers of US troops. Maryland State Representative Steny Hoyer says, "I don't think train and equip is the principal concern. The principal concern is deploying American men and women, spending a large sum of money, prosecuting a war."
This is article is definitely relevant to the interest of anyone who lives in the US seeing as our tax dollars and loved ones are at stake. I personally know someone who is joining the military soon, and may have to fight in this "war". It's a tragedy to see so much violence in this part of the world and to see so much money being used to kill one another. Let us think carefully about these kind of political events.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)