New Policy

So there is a new Climate and Energy Bill in the Senate. This bill is designed to limit climate-altering emissions, reduce oil imports and create millions of new energy-related jobs. However, does this bill go far enough? I would have to say no. The bill calls for reduction of greenhouse gasses by 17%, compared to levels in 2005, by 2020 and 83% by 2050. For many Americans, this is just not fast enough. On top of that, there are many parts of the bill that would allow, for example, "exemptions from emissions caps for heavy industry, [and] generous pollution permits for utilities for years." These measures were put in the bill to win industry support. Now it is obvious that the government cannot over-regulate to the point it puts these companies out of business, but it is ridiculous that these short cuts are needed to get anything through Congress. We should not have to compromise to get this bill passed. For instance, if we compromise on saving the environment, what will the world become? Scenery would only be so pretty, and water would only be so clean. We the people must support for climate and energy change now and imply reasonable measures to cut greenhouse gasses. Fixing the problem halfway does not solve it.

I Concur

In Shannon's Blog, it seems that things might head in the right direction if this concept is adopted in every school. This new style of evaluation seems to be a better and more thorough system that will help improve our understanding of how to improve teaching in America. I agree that this new system can significantly help; however, I think that it is incomplete. Evaluating teachers this way does provide more information but other data is needed. If this were a science experiment, perhaps statistics of grades of the students for several years, or grades for the students assessed after the respective level of study can be involved to also evaluate the teacher. I do agree that this concept will provide improvement in helping teachers, but I see that more can be added.

Bombs Away!

So very recently, United States President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed an agreement to limit each nation's nuclear capability to its lowest point in decades. But is this a good idea? With the Cold War over, the biggest threat of nuclear attack is through terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and rogue nations such as Iran and North Korea. I would have to say that this is a great first step in taking control of the world's nuclear stockpile. Although the agreement does not mention what to do about "loose nukes," which I see as the most immediate threat of nuclear attack, it shows our two nations, as does it show the rest of the world, that nuclear weapons should not be the future. While taking control of "loose nukes" is a priority, the destruction of nukes by the former powers of the Cold War is a great start. We have the opportunity to begin down a road that will lead to the end of nuclear warfare. There will always be a chance of nations and terrorists developing nuclear weapons, but zero chance of acquiring them through corrupt politics if we eliminate the current stockpile of nuclear weapons.
After all, we have the capabilities to build more nuclear weapons if it comes down to a last resort. But setting the example will help lead the world out of the age where the threat of nuclear apocalypse is an ongoing question. Our children should learn of nuclear weapons in history class and not from the evening news.

The Race is On!

Well elections are still months away, but the race is going strong. We now know who will represent each party. In the editorial, Editorial: Perry, White must hone messages for November , we are given information on Perry's victory over Hutchinson and what each candidate must do to help them win. The author is targeting voters to help inform them of issues the author thinks is important. So what do they need to do to win? In the article, the author points out how they have run so far and what they need to change. Perry relied heavily on his "Texas good, taxes bad" mentality and spoke little about education, energy and social services. If Perry can lay out a specific plan to help solve these problems, he could gain a lot of support. Even if it is not a strong solution. I agree these are important issues that could help decide the election. White has had ideas that were good for both business and environment. To help him compare himself to Perry, he must build an argument on taxation and then building on environment and business. He is not as experienced as Perry when it comes to tough opponents. He must build a strong coalition to give him a good chance in a Republican state. I agree with the author on the points that must be improved upon by both candidates. It shall be an interesting November.

I know nothing!

Many people throughout history have always used silence as a way to protect themselves. America's version would be the Fifth Amendment. But this is used many times in a dishonesty way to further their agenda. This is very prevalent in politics. The most recent example of this would have to be Nancy Pelosi's testimony that she knew nothing of the harsh interrogation of prisoners under the Bush Administration after 9/11. But it is always very tricky to figure out whether someone is lying or not. So, further research was needed. In the editorial, http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/05/todays-debate-congress-and-the-cia.html#more, I found that current speaker of the house had "struggled to offer a consistent theory" for whether she was appraised of the situations regarding the interrogations or not. Nancy Pelosi was trying to create a truth commission to investigate the interrogating procedures tolerated by the Bush Administration. What was exposed was that she had known of these procedures as early as 2002, making no protest about them until years later. I believe that Nancy Pelosi did keep quiet and knew about these procedures. However there is some evidence that the CIA was not briefing entire committees as an oversight law requires. In some cases they had briefed as few as four lawmakers. This would give little support to Nancy Pelosi's position but help in criticizing the Bush Administration. This USA today editorial offered good insight into how information is communicated or not communicated to congress. However how congressmen or women use this information might backfire as with Nancy Pelosi. Giving an inconsistent testimony will only strengthen the case for its defendants.

Exceeding the Investigation Line

In today's war-time community, it is hard not to make a judgement on suspicious looking people. Escpecially foreigners. So, it is extremely practiced by the government when presented with employee applicants. In a recent article I found from Time.com, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,802922,00.html, John Jones was "inspected" by his potential employer. He claims, "that FBI and Civil Service investigators-asked his friends and neighbors: 'Has Jones ever agitated for labor unions? . . . Does he seem to have too many Jewish friends?- ... Is it true that he reads The Nation and The New Republic? . . . Does his face light up when the Red Army is mentioned?'" If these allegations are proved to be true, then these agencies are unfairly checking backgrounds of potential employees. There would be a concern for national security, but the applicant's privacy must be recognized and respected. A line must be drawn.