Original Post: Death Penalty by Pablo Bruno
In this original editorial, my colleague, Pablo, makes some very solid points regarding the death penalty as a punishment for capital offenses. He states that punishing someone to death is not doing justice, but is rather cruel and morally wrong. He goes on to affirm life-long incarceration as a better form of punishment. I agree with Pablo.
Murder is wrong. I believe this statement is something nearly all of us can agree on. However, in some cases it is considered "justified" and legal by the law. This is the capital punishment, otherwise known as the death penalty. To me, the death penalty is counterproductive and hypocritical. It validates the very crime that is desired to be discouraged.
In 1972, there was a criminal case, Furman v. Georgia, in which the SCOTUS held, in a 5-4 decision, the death penalty to be in violation of the 8th and 14th amendments of the Constitution. This resulted in a suspension of capital punishment. Though in 1976, the death penalty was unfortunately reinstated. Since then, 1442 United States' citizens have been executed for the crime(s) they have committed. I also believe the death penalty to be unconstitutional. I understand it to be in violation of the 8th amendment, as the death penalty does fit the criteria as "cruel and unusual punishment."
Just for a second, imagine that you're confined to a solid brick room, 6'x8', twenty-three of the twenty-four hours, everyday for years. With nothing more to do but sit on your bed and stare at the wall. Now, take into account the fact that you're sitting on death row, awaiting your execution. You have your lawyer frantically running around, attempting to get your case reviewed once more before your long anticipated death in hopes of changing the outcome. This right here, is mentally exhausting and truthfully torturous.
This brings me to my next point, while subjecting someone who is guilty to the torture described above, imagine subjecting an innocent person to this type of treatment. There have been several accounts of wrongful execution. Take for example the execution of Claude Jones. Mr. Jones was executed in 2000 for the murder of a liquor store clerk in 1989. From the moment of his arrest to the moment of his death, Mr. Jones claimed he never entered the store and continually professed his innocence. "Proof" that he was the one who committed the murder relied on a strand of hair retrieved from the crime scene, which was said to be his. In 2007, the Innocence Project and the Texas Observer filed a lawsuit to obtain a strand of hair and run it through more modernized DNA testing. In 2010, the results were that the strand actually did not belong to Claude Jones. In conclusion, this is just another reason why the death penalty should not exist. It is unconstitutional and unjust in many ways.
15 December 2016
02 December 2016
Plugging into the Future
In a previous post, I made an argument against the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). Rather than spending the $3.7 billion on a pipeline that would transport fossil fuels (oil and natural gases), I say that the money be directed towards advancing the use renewable resources.
Renewable resources refer to resources that are naturally replenished and thus can be used again, such as solar, water, wind, and biomass energies. Though fossil fuels are also created naturally (through the remains of dead plants and animals), they differ from renewable resources in that fossil fuels take around three hundred million years to be formed. Because of the time fossil fuel development requires, they are interchangeable with nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources are also environmentally friendly, aiding in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Take solar energy for example, "1.5 kilowatt of [photovoltaic] system, will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for the next 25 years" (altenergy.org). This would save approximately 60,000 pounds of coal from being burned. A society completely dependent on solar energy would result in a society entirely free of pollution. There would be no smog or acid rain, allowing for a cleaner and healthier environment for everyone.
However as a community and a nation primarily dependent on fossil fuels (approx. 80%+ of the U.S. total energy), it is going to take a great load of effort to transition to renewable energy sources. Government public policy would need to promote the upgrade of a power grid capable of delivering renewable energy to the public for use. The $3.7 billion would be better spent in upgrading the public power grid to transfer and deliver power from renewable sources.
Right now, energy from renewable sources costs more money than fossil fuel generated energy because the power grid in place was built for fossil fuel use. In order to make renewable energy economically competitive, the government would have to invest in upgrading in the public power grid. The power grid would connect to solar and wind farms (i.e. West Texas, Arizona, and California) to collect and transport the renewable energy to power station. By our government investing $3.7 billion dollars this way, it would bring a return that paid off in clean energy for the rest of time.
Renewable resources refer to resources that are naturally replenished and thus can be used again, such as solar, water, wind, and biomass energies. Though fossil fuels are also created naturally (through the remains of dead plants and animals), they differ from renewable resources in that fossil fuels take around three hundred million years to be formed. Because of the time fossil fuel development requires, they are interchangeable with nonrenewable resources. Renewable resources are also environmentally friendly, aiding in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Take solar energy for example, "1.5 kilowatt of [photovoltaic] system, will keep more than 110,000 pounds of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere for the next 25 years" (altenergy.org). This would save approximately 60,000 pounds of coal from being burned. A society completely dependent on solar energy would result in a society entirely free of pollution. There would be no smog or acid rain, allowing for a cleaner and healthier environment for everyone.
However as a community and a nation primarily dependent on fossil fuels (approx. 80%+ of the U.S. total energy), it is going to take a great load of effort to transition to renewable energy sources. Government public policy would need to promote the upgrade of a power grid capable of delivering renewable energy to the public for use. The $3.7 billion would be better spent in upgrading the public power grid to transfer and deliver power from renewable sources.
Right now, energy from renewable sources costs more money than fossil fuel generated energy because the power grid in place was built for fossil fuel use. In order to make renewable energy economically competitive, the government would have to invest in upgrading in the public power grid. The power grid would connect to solar and wind farms (i.e. West Texas, Arizona, and California) to collect and transport the renewable energy to power station. By our government investing $3.7 billion dollars this way, it would bring a return that paid off in clean energy for the rest of time.
18 November 2016
Global Warning Masked By Denial
Original Post: Us Government hates the Earth (sadface) by Yada Garcia
In this original editorial concerning climate change, Yada presents some very compelling points to her readers, all of which I couldn't agree with more. Climate change and global warming are real and an ongoing issue. We human beings, as capable inhabitants of planet Earth, need to acknowledge this as a fact and take action. We are destroying our own future.
Climate change is a controversial issue, though it shouldn't be. There a multitude of reasonings behind the denial of this issue. Large-scale companies and corporations like Exxonmobil and the Koch brothers have a firm financial incentive to ignore the facts. However, Michael Ranney, a professor of law at UC Berkley believes the denial of global warming is due to a "wisdom deficit," meaning there is a lack of comprehension in the mechanism of global warming. People genuinely do not understand what is happening when scientists say the Earth is warming. It is actually a misconception that light energy is trapped in the atmosphere because it bounces between greenhouse gases and the Earth's surface. What is actually happening is that Earth transforms visible light to IR light energy, which happens to leave the Earth slower because it is being absorbed by the greenhouse gases. We increase the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere by doing the most simple things, such as driving to school, heating our homes, etc.
Polls, specifically the Gallup poll (as of March 2016) approximates that 65-70% of people believe and show a fair amount of apprehension about global warming. This percentage is greater than it has ever been in the past, still however, it is not 100%. Some of the [approximate] 30% that deny the occurrence of this issue include those who help regulate and create legislation for our country. Like Yada stated in her post, even government officials (including president-elect Donald Trump) refuse to accept climate change as a truth, even though there is clear evidence as provided by scientists and those who study climate. This problem draws a thick line dividing the two parties. The majority of those who believe in climate change are liberals, whereas conservatives lie on the opposite side of the spectrum. Again, similarly to what Yada asserted, participation in elections other than presidential elections is crucial. By electing officials who will vote to implement or create regulations on decreasing toxic emissions and by even cutting back on our own emissions, we have the ability to fix the problem surrounding global warming.
In this original editorial concerning climate change, Yada presents some very compelling points to her readers, all of which I couldn't agree with more. Climate change and global warming are real and an ongoing issue. We human beings, as capable inhabitants of planet Earth, need to acknowledge this as a fact and take action. We are destroying our own future.
Climate change is a controversial issue, though it shouldn't be. There a multitude of reasonings behind the denial of this issue. Large-scale companies and corporations like Exxonmobil and the Koch brothers have a firm financial incentive to ignore the facts. However, Michael Ranney, a professor of law at UC Berkley believes the denial of global warming is due to a "wisdom deficit," meaning there is a lack of comprehension in the mechanism of global warming. People genuinely do not understand what is happening when scientists say the Earth is warming. It is actually a misconception that light energy is trapped in the atmosphere because it bounces between greenhouse gases and the Earth's surface. What is actually happening is that Earth transforms visible light to IR light energy, which happens to leave the Earth slower because it is being absorbed by the greenhouse gases. We increase the amount of greenhouses gases in the atmosphere by doing the most simple things, such as driving to school, heating our homes, etc.
Polls, specifically the Gallup poll (as of March 2016) approximates that 65-70% of people believe and show a fair amount of apprehension about global warming. This percentage is greater than it has ever been in the past, still however, it is not 100%. Some of the [approximate] 30% that deny the occurrence of this issue include those who help regulate and create legislation for our country. Like Yada stated in her post, even government officials (including president-elect Donald Trump) refuse to accept climate change as a truth, even though there is clear evidence as provided by scientists and those who study climate. This problem draws a thick line dividing the two parties. The majority of those who believe in climate change are liberals, whereas conservatives lie on the opposite side of the spectrum. Again, similarly to what Yada asserted, participation in elections other than presidential elections is crucial. By electing officials who will vote to implement or create regulations on decreasing toxic emissions and by even cutting back on our own emissions, we have the ability to fix the problem surrounding global warming.
03 November 2016
Pipe Dreams vs. Sustainable Future
In 2014, Dakota Access, LLC, announced plans to build a $3.7 billion pipeline that would stretch from North Dakota to Illinois, about 1,170 miles across four states. The pipeline while being built is to create 8,000 to 12,000 jobs and once completed, predicted to haul approximately 470,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration advocate pipelines to be the safest option for transporting oil and natural gases because unlike rail cars and trucks, there is not a possibility of wreckage, therefore no chance of large spread fires.
However this has brought light to another frequent issue, that of leakage and ruptures. For example, in 2013, an Enbridge Energy pipeline broke open and spilled 843,000 gallons of oil into the Kalamazoo river in Michigan, which resulted in a cleanup that cost millions and took years.
Over the past several months, the DAPL has received national attention and attracted thousands of protesters. Worried of the potential health hazards the pipeline could bring to the surrounding inhabitants, environmentalists and tribe members (primarily from Standing Rock Sioux Tribe) from all around have begun peaceful protests. The Sioux object because part of the pipeline is to be built on sacred burial lands, but the overwhelming majority of the pipeline is built on private property. Only a small portion of the pipeline is slated to be built on federal land. Therefore the Federal Government has very limited options on what it can do to help the Sioux Nation oppose the construction of the DAPL.
I believe fossil fuel is the fuel of the past and the United States government should not support a private industry major investment in the infrastructure of the fossil fuel economy. Furthermore, as a government and a nation, we should not jeopardize the environment or waste money and effort to maintain a diminishing and inefficient fuel source. I believe the U.S. government should respect the wishes of the Sioux Nation and support them in their opposition to the construction of the DAPL. I would rather see private industry, with government support, use the $3.7 billion to build an energy infrastructure that furthered the production, delivery, and use of alternative and sustainable energy sources. The way of the future.
20 October 2016
Men's Pregnancy Would Not Abort Men's Rights
In the third and final U.S. presidential debate of 2016, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump discuss their stances regarding the landmark 1973 supreme court case, Roe v. Wade.
The National Review blog post by Alexandra DeSanctis, shortsightedly discredits Hillary Clinton's defense of the supreme court decision in Roe v. Wade, in spite of the fact that the U.S. court system has upheld Roe v. Wade in hundreds and hundreds of legal challenges over the last 43 years. DeSanctis makes the argument that democrats defend a woman's right to make health choices for her own body over the rights of citizens not yet born. She claims the partial birth citizen has more of a right to life than the woman giving birth, whose life may be endangered by the pregnancy. DeSanctis justifies defunding Planned Parenthood (PP) because their clinics might offer this option to women even though, less than 3% of Planned Parenthood funding pays for abortions. The other 97% of PP funding goes to pay for STIs/STDs testing/medication, contraception, cancer screenings and other women's health and family planning services.
Clinton argues women have the right to make their own health care choices in private discussions with their own doctors and families without the government interfering. She appropriately acknowledges these as difficult and highly personal decisions where government has no right to intrude. She also notes that no government funding pays for abortions (see Hyde Amendment).
Although Alexandra DeSanctis is a graduate of Notre Dame and credentials as a journalist for the National Review, she overlooks the second class citizenship of women in the world, while defending the priority rights of unborn fetuses. Imagine if a man who impregnated a woman had to decide if he would risk his life if his unborn child threatened his health and well being, rather than just letting the woman take all the risk. I do not think we would be talking about Planned Parenthood's ability to provide abortions or birth control, we would be talking about enhancing Planned Parenthood's family planning services, which mandated men's inclusion. If men got pregnant instead of women we would be having a completely different discussion now. Abortion would probably be legal everywhere, under all conditions.
DeSanctis, Alexandra. "Hillary's Appalling Defense of Partial-Birth Abortion." Web log post. National Review. N.P., 20 Oct. 2016. Web.
The National Review blog post by Alexandra DeSanctis, shortsightedly discredits Hillary Clinton's defense of the supreme court decision in Roe v. Wade, in spite of the fact that the U.S. court system has upheld Roe v. Wade in hundreds and hundreds of legal challenges over the last 43 years. DeSanctis makes the argument that democrats defend a woman's right to make health choices for her own body over the rights of citizens not yet born. She claims the partial birth citizen has more of a right to life than the woman giving birth, whose life may be endangered by the pregnancy. DeSanctis justifies defunding Planned Parenthood (PP) because their clinics might offer this option to women even though, less than 3% of Planned Parenthood funding pays for abortions. The other 97% of PP funding goes to pay for STIs/STDs testing/medication, contraception, cancer screenings and other women's health and family planning services.
Clinton argues women have the right to make their own health care choices in private discussions with their own doctors and families without the government interfering. She appropriately acknowledges these as difficult and highly personal decisions where government has no right to intrude. She also notes that no government funding pays for abortions (see Hyde Amendment).
Although Alexandra DeSanctis is a graduate of Notre Dame and credentials as a journalist for the National Review, she overlooks the second class citizenship of women in the world, while defending the priority rights of unborn fetuses. Imagine if a man who impregnated a woman had to decide if he would risk his life if his unborn child threatened his health and well being, rather than just letting the woman take all the risk. I do not think we would be talking about Planned Parenthood's ability to provide abortions or birth control, we would be talking about enhancing Planned Parenthood's family planning services, which mandated men's inclusion. If men got pregnant instead of women we would be having a completely different discussion now. Abortion would probably be legal everywhere, under all conditions.
DeSanctis, Alexandra. "Hillary's Appalling Defense of Partial-Birth Abortion." Web log post. National Review. N.P., 20 Oct. 2016. Web.
07 October 2016
ObamaCare$ for the People
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, is a law that was enacted by Congress in March of 2010. The act was aimed to increase the availability of health insurance by providing subsidies to lower income families so they could afford to have health insurance. However, there is much controversy on whether it has actually worked or not.
Margot Sanger-Katz is a domestic reporter for the New York Times, who focuses on health policy. She completed a Knight-Bagehot Fellowship in Economics and Business Journalism at Columbia University. She has appeared as a policy analyst on MSNBC, PBS, To The Point and Here and Now, and several articles in the Columbia Journalism Review.
In the New York Times, Margot Sanger-Katz argues that since Obamacare "people have become less likely to have medical debt or to postpone care because of cost." She cites several studies which support her argument, including one recently published by the Journal of American Medical Association. The JAMA study compared Arkansas and Kentucky, which expanded the availability of medicaid health care, with Texas, which did not. Their survey found that people in Arkansas and Kentucky were 5% more likely to feel better about their health. As Sanger-Katz notes, when you ask people about their health, they pretty accurately report the truth.
Sanger-Katz also addressed the financial aspects of health care, historically the leading cause for working class people not to have health care. The JAMA study findings support Sanger-Katz financial argument as well. The study found that the people of Kentucky and Arkansas weren't struggling near as much with medical bills.
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have introduced multiple bills to abolish the Affordable Care Act during the past few years.
I believe Margot Sanger-Katz makes a compelling argument for the success of the Affordable Care Act aimed at the U.S. Congress as well as the millions of remaining uninsured American people. It seems unacceptable for our elected representatives to insist on eliminating health care legislation (ACA) when it has proven to improve peoples' health. Sanger-Katz argument to this effect is supported by one of the most credible sources, the Journal of the American Medical Association. It seems to me the JAMA knows more about health care than the average congress person. Since the Affordable Care Act has helped regular Americans to seek preventative care and avoid going deeply in debt from catastrophic medical bills, I believe the ACA also helps people access health care before their medical needs become catastrophic.
Sanger-Katz, Margot. "Obamacare Appears to Be Making People Healthier." Web log post. The New York Times. N.p., 9 Aug. 2016. Web.
Margot Sanger-Katz is a domestic reporter for the New York Times, who focuses on health policy. She completed a Knight-Bagehot Fellowship in Economics and Business Journalism at Columbia University. She has appeared as a policy analyst on MSNBC, PBS, To The Point and Here and Now, and several articles in the Columbia Journalism Review.
In the New York Times, Margot Sanger-Katz argues that since Obamacare "people have become less likely to have medical debt or to postpone care because of cost." She cites several studies which support her argument, including one recently published by the Journal of American Medical Association. The JAMA study compared Arkansas and Kentucky, which expanded the availability of medicaid health care, with Texas, which did not. Their survey found that people in Arkansas and Kentucky were 5% more likely to feel better about their health. As Sanger-Katz notes, when you ask people about their health, they pretty accurately report the truth.
Sanger-Katz also addressed the financial aspects of health care, historically the leading cause for working class people not to have health care. The JAMA study findings support Sanger-Katz financial argument as well. The study found that the people of Kentucky and Arkansas weren't struggling near as much with medical bills.
Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have introduced multiple bills to abolish the Affordable Care Act during the past few years.
I believe Margot Sanger-Katz makes a compelling argument for the success of the Affordable Care Act aimed at the U.S. Congress as well as the millions of remaining uninsured American people. It seems unacceptable for our elected representatives to insist on eliminating health care legislation (ACA) when it has proven to improve peoples' health. Sanger-Katz argument to this effect is supported by one of the most credible sources, the Journal of the American Medical Association. It seems to me the JAMA knows more about health care than the average congress person. Since the Affordable Care Act has helped regular Americans to seek preventative care and avoid going deeply in debt from catastrophic medical bills, I believe the ACA also helps people access health care before their medical needs become catastrophic.
Sanger-Katz, Margot. "Obamacare Appears to Be Making People Healthier." Web log post. The New York Times. N.p., 9 Aug. 2016. Web.
22 September 2016
Wells Fraudgo
Wells Fargo, an American banking and financial services company, has been caught amidst a massive five-year long scam. Over the course of those five years, employees of Wells Fargo fraudulently opened 1.5 million bank accounts and applied for 565,000 credit cards without their customers' consent or knowledge. The bank pushed its employees to engage in this fraudulent behavior through impractical and strict quotas under the threat of losing their jobs. The result? Thousands of Wells Fargo low level employees have been fired. And the fines received by the company amounted to over $185 million, $100 million of that 185 being from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
This article is an essential read because Wells Fargo, a large, well-known, and credible corporation, has gotten away with cheating their customers for five years. This could happen to anyone. As the L.A. City Attorney Mike Feuer said, "Customers must be able to trust their banks." People look to banks to keep their money secure. There is a great deal of trust in that. The last thing they suspect is for their bank to be stealing and deceiving them. This speaks to the very stability of our economy and the health of our country.
This article is an essential read because Wells Fargo, a large, well-known, and credible corporation, has gotten away with cheating their customers for five years. This could happen to anyone. As the L.A. City Attorney Mike Feuer said, "Customers must be able to trust their banks." People look to banks to keep their money secure. There is a great deal of trust in that. The last thing they suspect is for their bank to be stealing and deceiving them. This speaks to the very stability of our economy and the health of our country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)