Standing Our Ground... a response to my fellow student

       A recent blog post published by a classmate of mine argues for a repeal of "Stand Your Ground" laws. It is hard to take a stance on this issue without looking into these type of laws. Many citizens are familiar with Castle Doctrine in Texas - which allow citizens to respond with force when they feel threatened. The recent Trayvon Martin case (concerning death by fatal gun shot from a neighborhood watch captain) opened the public's eyes to "Stand Your Ground" laws, though they had little to nothing to do with the actual case. Florida (the state where the Martin case occurred in 2012) passed their version of a Castle Law in 2005, after lobbying from the National Rifle Association. According to the Washington Post,  "...the rate of justifiable homicides in Florida tripled..." in the first five years after this was enacted. Protesters refer to laws like this as "Kill at Will" and not "Stand Your Ground." Clever as they may be, they are incorrect. Citizen's have been able to save their own lives thanks to these laws. The media is fueled by scandals and catastrophes and focuses on these things instead of the reasons why our system is working.
       Upon a first reading of my classmates blog, I was inclined to disagree with him. After further research, my opinion stands. Repealing laws of this magnitude will be a bad idea, not to mention a quite difficult one, proven by a recent failed attempt in New Hampshire. The right to bear arms is clearly established in our country's Constitution and "Stand Your Ground" laws are important.

Whales or Wells?

Picture this: you are having a calm evening at home watching TV or reading a book while you relax on your couch. Life is great and peaceful. Suddenly your neighbor begins to blare his music. The bass is turned up so loudly that all you can hear is the sound of your house's walls vibrating. Welcome to the world of sea animals located in areas that are being seismically tested.

According to the New York Times, the United States' Atlantic coast is home to thirty-four different species of whales and dolphins - six of which are endangered. The home life that these creatures are accustomed to could change, however, and it is all thanks to the oil and petroleum industry in our nation. Experts in this field think that advanced testing will reveal deposits of this liquid gold hiding in the ocean floor. Estimations and propositions have been presented by Atlantic drilling advocates that suggest there could be an average of 3.3 billion barrels of oil waiting to be discovered. However, IF this reservoir was reached, it still would not lower gas prices for U.S. citizens. Consequently, it could actually lower the population and/or life expectancy of the whales and dolphins along our coast.

To be sure that this oil even exists beyond our shores will require seismic testing and then well drilling. Environmentalists are outraged by the suggested developments in such a controversial location. I agree with their arguments. According to the Interior Department, up to 27,000 dolphins and 4,600 whales could be put at risk in their own environments. It is outrageous to think about what the greed of our nation could cause. If not death, then stress and behavioral changes are likely to occur in these magnificent sea creatures. The vibrations from the seismic tests could interfere with the underwater communication that these animals rely on. Even feeding and mating patterns could be altered by this outside stimulus.

The problem with all of this is that once it starts, it will not stop. The Atlantic coast will soon turn into an offshore development that guzzles American funds and drains the life out of natural underwater habitats. Disaster is inevitable if oil production is allowed to commence. This is not a project that will be over in a few years, rather, it will take decades to even begin it properly and the potential negative results far outweigh the possibilities of additional oil reserves. The environment should be more important than the deep pockets of greedy corporations.

The Importance of Little Things

     Income inequality and minimum wage rates have become a growing issue in today's politics. The problem is that the minimum wage rates have stayed the same. That is, however, until Obama signed on to an increase in minimum wage for those employed by federal contractors. According to Mike Lux, this is a big deal and a step in the right direction for our president.
     Lux (co-founder and CEO of Progressive Strategies, L.L.C, and previous Senior Vice President for Political Action at People For the American Way) writes in a way that is easy for an internet pioneer to read and understand. I was drawn to this post because it pertains to finances and economy, which have been touchy subjects in the United States lately. Curiosity kills the cat, but curiosity also reels in a blog audience. I believe that Lux intended for his post to be read by both political enthusiasts and novices alike as they try to form an opinion about this new wage raise.
     Lux supports the minimum wage increase and persuades his readers to agree with him by noting its historical importance. Not only does the minimum wage increase effect these federal contracted employees, but, according to Lux, it resets economic standards and corporate expectations as well. He talks about how it also heightens the possibility for income inequality to raise its head as a larger political issue in upcoming party speeches.The ripple effects of this minimum wage raise could be greater than the direct effects will be.
     I agree with these ideas and perspectives. Though Lux is a Democrat, he presents the places where Obama's fiscal propositions are wrong early in his post and he then chooses to support Obama's decisions that will benefit national budget and economy. Lux shows his readers why the raise in minimum wage will change more than just how much money a certain group of people will make. This little thing is more important than many citizens realize and Lux says Obama has made the right decision this time.

Bittman's World

     According to Mark Bittman, our president has a problem with saying no. He writes in the New York Times that the farm bill should be vetoed upon presentation to Obama. The last two years have apparently agonized supporters and protesters alike. The bill in question alters the food stamp budget, but claims to cut subsidies to wealthy farmers. In reality, the bill benefits farming millionaires and disfavors the poor citizens of America that qualify for financial outreach programs. Later in this article, Bittman writes about the Keystone XL pipeline and its effects on the well being of the environment.
     This editorial caught my attention because it deals with policies that negatively affect the smaller man and pay off big corporations and large farming industries. Both topics tackled in this article are intended to appeal to an environmentalist audience. I support our planet and our people, so I agree with Bittman's statements regarding the farm bill and the implementation of the Keystone pipeline. Bittman has written for the NY Times for the past 13 years, with expertise in food columns, and now writes about the politics behind the delicacies we take for granted. He addresses issues that could influence food production and pollution levels in our nation. Bittman states, "...subsidies to wealthy farmers should actually be eliminated or at the very least capped..." and talks about finding  "...support for would-be new farmers and small farmers..." The farm bill does no such thing, and actually reduces funding that goes toward sustainable agriculture and other aspects of the environment ("...smart land and water usage..."). The Keystone pipeline, according to Stockholm Environmental Institute, "...could lead... to an increase in global GHG emissions four times as big as prior analysis have concluded and potentially counteract some of the flagship emission reduction policies of the U.S. government." Both the physical and financial health of our nation should compel political leaders to reconsider some of their decisions before it is too late.
     I believe that Mark Bittman expresses his opinions well in his article, titled "Just Say No." However, his information is somewhat hard to follow and covers two different topics without thoroughly connecting the them. He was effective in presenting his opinions, but provided little room for interpretation of his logic. However, I find him to be one who stands firmly by his anti-big-wig ideas and concern for the environment, which will appeal to many readers, especially those that concern themselves with controversial national policies.

Left to Their Own Devices

     After Obama's State of the Union Address, his own party members began to criticize his opinions. Thanks to Time, readers can see multiple Democratic points of view in one article. The fun part is that it shows controversy between politicians in the same party.
     Apparently our president is planning on utilizing his executive powers to step around Congress. This article tells us how Alaska Senator Mark Begich feels about the whole thing, including why Obama's policies toward energy are wrong. Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor is disappointed with the lack of specifics in the State of the Union Address. It has become obvious that Obama's once bombastic ideas have deflated, and even the people in his own party are beginning to find fault with him. A few Democratic Senators have even avoided making public appearances with the Democratic president.
     This Time article shows that political parties are not entirely cohesive. I chose to read it and blog about it in order to raise the veil that has clouded my own mind and stop myself from thinking that members of the same party are all on the same page. It is especially interesting to read about internal strife among the opposite party.

Opening a Can of Worms: The Political Biography of a High School Senior

Growing up in a conservative household, I picked up right-sided political values and claimed them as my own. However, as I got older I began to realize that there are two sides of every coin. Strangely enough though, and unlike many rebellious teenagers, I still hold to the conservative ideals rooted in my family's history. A recent online quiz served only to confirm my suspicions about my true political orientation. I am hoping that this government course will provide me with substantial proof and reasoning behind my conservative opinions. As I approach the age of eighteen and will soon be able to vote, I want to be able to make informed decisions based on a knowledge of how the United States government is run. Freedom is a unique concept in today's world, so living in a nation founded on such liberating principles is quite a learning opportunity. I want this class to be the flashlight I can carry with me into the dark world of politics as I inch closer and closer toward my own independence.