The Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to sentence a child rapist to death. Patrick O. Kennedy raped his 8 year old stepdaughter and blamed it on two neighborhood boys. When questioned by the authorities, the girl lied, just as she was coached to do. I heartedly disagree with the Editorial Board, Daily Illini’s opinion that the Supreme Court was being responsible.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the ultimate upholder of rights and liberties; and, in this case, they have failed. By deciding that Patrick O. Kennedy would not get the death penalty because it was “cruel and unusual punishment,” the Justices have set a precedent that rapists, who don’t murder their victims, will receive something less than the death penalty. Even Barack Obama and John McCain came together in disagreeing with the rulings; this could be considered political posturing due to the proximity of the election, however. By coming out against the likes of Patrick O. Kennedy, they cover themselves politically against charges of being weak on crime and punishment.
Personally, I believe that murder can be in self defense, rape cannot. You can’t just decide “Oh, that child was trying to hurt me, so I raped him/her.” Child rapists are a waste of life, and keeping them alive is a waste of tax dollars, as well as a risk to society given the possibility of their release on “good behavior.” It takes a truly sick and twisted person to murder someone in cold blood. Rape, however, though it might not lead to murder, isn’t any less sick or twisted; it’s simply disturbing in a different manner.
As such, the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy’s favor, is basically a slap in the face of Justice. This man raped a child, his own stepdaughter no less, and is getting away with his life, if not his freedom. Now, other rapists can and will use this case as precedent to get away with at least their own worthless life, while they leave their victims often times as mere shadows of their previous selves. So, while rapists are getting easier sentences, their victims spend years recuperating and rebuilding their lives. I see no “cruel and unusual punishment” in death.
The Editorial Board states that the death penalty is too “civilized” a punishment. And perhaps they are right. But at the moment, the only thing that many people see is that a child rapist is getting away with a lesser sentence.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Guns, guns, guns
This comment was in response to Laura's (Politically Provoked) "Supreme Court Rules in Citizens' Favor" post. The Supreme Court recently upheld in a 5-to-4 vote that the Constitution does not allow “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home," which invalidate a ban on guns that was in effect in Washington DC.
It’s good to hear that the Supreme Court is upholding our constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, and must be upheld at all costs, regardless of personal beliefs or otherwise. What people don’t seem to realize is that a ban on guns, besides being unconstitutional, will not decrease crimes. As Laura said, those who follow the ban are law-abiding citizens, but criminals have easier access to firearms in the black market. How are people supposed to protect themselves against a gun, if they have no gun themselves? I don’t know about you, but my skills with a kitchen knife aren’t that great, and I certainly don’t have the range that a gun does.
How I see it is that if someone was interested in robbing a house, and yet nearly every home was known to have someone who owned a gun, then that thief would most likely be discouraged from entering those homes. Bearing arms in and of itself does not increase gun-related crimes. In fact, it should decrease gun-related crimes, because the criminals would be more wary of attacking someone. How are they to know who can fight back effectively and who can’t?
It is the right of the government, state or federal, to require certain qualifications however, before allowing a person to own a weapon. As such, they can require backgrounds checks, certification courses that teach arms bearers how to properly use a gun, as well as safety issues, such as storage, among other things. It’s important to allow only educated and non-criminal people owning guns, for obvious reasons. No one wants a mentally unstable person or someone with a history of violence with an armed weapon in their home or on their person. Also, people uneducated in proper gun usage, and without proper technique training, are mostly likely to be a danger to others as well as themselves, whether intentionally or not.
Whether to own a gun or not is a personal choice, and as such a ban should not be allowed. I, along with everyone else, have the right to feel safe and protect myself, especially in my own home.
It’s good to hear that the Supreme Court is upholding our constitutional rights. The right to bear arms is a right protected by the Bill of Rights, and must be upheld at all costs, regardless of personal beliefs or otherwise. What people don’t seem to realize is that a ban on guns, besides being unconstitutional, will not decrease crimes. As Laura said, those who follow the ban are law-abiding citizens, but criminals have easier access to firearms in the black market. How are people supposed to protect themselves against a gun, if they have no gun themselves? I don’t know about you, but my skills with a kitchen knife aren’t that great, and I certainly don’t have the range that a gun does.
How I see it is that if someone was interested in robbing a house, and yet nearly every home was known to have someone who owned a gun, then that thief would most likely be discouraged from entering those homes. Bearing arms in and of itself does not increase gun-related crimes. In fact, it should decrease gun-related crimes, because the criminals would be more wary of attacking someone. How are they to know who can fight back effectively and who can’t?
It is the right of the government, state or federal, to require certain qualifications however, before allowing a person to own a weapon. As such, they can require backgrounds checks, certification courses that teach arms bearers how to properly use a gun, as well as safety issues, such as storage, among other things. It’s important to allow only educated and non-criminal people owning guns, for obvious reasons. No one wants a mentally unstable person or someone with a history of violence with an armed weapon in their home or on their person. Also, people uneducated in proper gun usage, and without proper technique training, are mostly likely to be a danger to others as well as themselves, whether intentionally or not.
Whether to own a gun or not is a personal choice, and as such a ban should not be allowed. I, along with everyone else, have the right to feel safe and protect myself, especially in my own home.
Friday, June 27, 2008
The right of woman-kind: Uphold it
Americans and other US residents have fundamental rights protected by the Constitution or the Supreme Court. Abortion, in my opinion, is one of those fundamental rights, and in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court declared it so. Together, in a 7-to-2 vote, the Justices decided that the right to an abortion was protected within the right to privacy, which had been recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut.
As such, no state can outlaw abortion within the first trimester. Politics, religious or other moral beliefs should have no influence on that right – as it should be. Morally, many women may make the personal decision to not have an abortion, but those personal beliefs cannot be forced upon others.
Today the abortion debate is centered on the Pro-choice v. Pro-life campaigns. Those who are pro-choice belief it’s unfair, inappropriate, or simply unconstitutional to take the right to an abortion away. Pro-lifers believe that it is murder, and they see the “bundle of cells” being destroyed as human life, regardless of how small that life may currently be. Both arguments have valid reasoning. I, however, am of the opinion that a fertilized egg, or a bundle of cells, is nothing more than just that - it has no consciousness, regardless of potential or not.
For those who don’t care about personal beliefs, here are different sorts of arguments out there for abortion. Women who generally abort are women who are not prepared for the hardships of pregnancy, labor, and, obviously, motherhood. This can be financially, emotionally, or even spiritually. An unprepared mother cannot possibly raise a child wholly – it could lead to permanent damage, or simply a very unhappy home life. Obviously, that may not always be the case, not even the majority issue. But to force an unprepared woman to have a baby is unfair not only to the mother, but also to the child.
The obvious remedy is adoption.
Not all women want to give up their child though. And with some callousness, I must say at least the adoption agencies don’t get more children than they already do. The adoption system is already overrun with children who go from foster home to foster home, and some children never get adopted. Why would anyone want to add to that? But, for the Pro-choicers who don’t believe life starts at conception, abortion is the perfect remedy to both problems.
A third issue is that women who are desperate enough to abort will find a way to do it, and will push their own safety aside to get it done. There have been cases of women overdosing on drugs, throwing themselves down stairs, and using coat-hangers, among other things – all to get rid of that small bundle of cells.
It is the right of the woman to decide her future. Mistakes are obviously made, but abortion is a fundamental right regardless of the reason behind the choice. And I, for one, refuse to give up that right without a fight, regardless of who gets elected to whatever office, or if Supreme Court changes its mind. The government is in place to protect the rights of the people – don’t let them take this right, this oh-so-necessary right, of all woman-kind.
As such, no state can outlaw abortion within the first trimester. Politics, religious or other moral beliefs should have no influence on that right – as it should be. Morally, many women may make the personal decision to not have an abortion, but those personal beliefs cannot be forced upon others.
Today the abortion debate is centered on the Pro-choice v. Pro-life campaigns. Those who are pro-choice belief it’s unfair, inappropriate, or simply unconstitutional to take the right to an abortion away. Pro-lifers believe that it is murder, and they see the “bundle of cells” being destroyed as human life, regardless of how small that life may currently be. Both arguments have valid reasoning. I, however, am of the opinion that a fertilized egg, or a bundle of cells, is nothing more than just that - it has no consciousness, regardless of potential or not.
For those who don’t care about personal beliefs, here are different sorts of arguments out there for abortion. Women who generally abort are women who are not prepared for the hardships of pregnancy, labor, and, obviously, motherhood. This can be financially, emotionally, or even spiritually. An unprepared mother cannot possibly raise a child wholly – it could lead to permanent damage, or simply a very unhappy home life. Obviously, that may not always be the case, not even the majority issue. But to force an unprepared woman to have a baby is unfair not only to the mother, but also to the child.
The obvious remedy is adoption.
Not all women want to give up their child though. And with some callousness, I must say at least the adoption agencies don’t get more children than they already do. The adoption system is already overrun with children who go from foster home to foster home, and some children never get adopted. Why would anyone want to add to that? But, for the Pro-choicers who don’t believe life starts at conception, abortion is the perfect remedy to both problems.
A third issue is that women who are desperate enough to abort will find a way to do it, and will push their own safety aside to get it done. There have been cases of women overdosing on drugs, throwing themselves down stairs, and using coat-hangers, among other things – all to get rid of that small bundle of cells.
It is the right of the woman to decide her future. Mistakes are obviously made, but abortion is a fundamental right regardless of the reason behind the choice. And I, for one, refuse to give up that right without a fight, regardless of who gets elected to whatever office, or if Supreme Court changes its mind. The government is in place to protect the rights of the people – don’t let them take this right, this oh-so-necessary right, of all woman-kind.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Public education continues to rot...
Posted as a comment to 'Stop, Children, What's that sound?'s post "Education Crisis!":
Both your and "Government of the people? Lol"'s statements were correct. Public education is something that needs considerable revamping. So many good teachers can't stand having to teach for TAKS. The fact that their pay depends on their students test scores may seem fair, but in reality it's not.
While it may be true that failing test scores can correlate to failed teaching skills, many times bad grades are because of the student, not the teacher. Bad scores could be because of lack of interest in school and education, or simply a fear of tests - because yes it's true that some students don't do well in a structure testing environment - as well as different ways and paces of learning.
To show how messed up at least one school district has become: I had the most amazing pre-AP and AP chemistry teacher in high school - Mrs. D, let's say. She, and one other Mrs. E, were considered the best science teachers, and Mrs. D was not only the sole AP chemistry teacher, but was department chair as well. Mrs. D put in all her love and dedication in teaching us what we needed to do well in chemistry and any future science class we possibly chose to take. Because of that, many of my friends became science majors.
However, to prove how the system is flawed - she was demoted from department chair because she refused to treat the regular class like morons, and thus teach solely for TAKS. The school board wanted her to teach only the necessary information to get her students to pass TAKS with good scores, but she refused. Mrs. D nearly quit, but when Mrs. E retired, Mrs. D stayed because she honestly worried about how the students' education would fare without both of them.
In fact all my AP teachers are unhappy with the direction of the school board and system. Some want to quit, some already have. When the good teachers run away, that's when you have a problem. I keeping asking myself why students realize this, but not the school boards.
Both your and "Government of the people? Lol"'s statements were correct. Public education is something that needs considerable revamping. So many good teachers can't stand having to teach for TAKS. The fact that their pay depends on their students test scores may seem fair, but in reality it's not.
While it may be true that failing test scores can correlate to failed teaching skills, many times bad grades are because of the student, not the teacher. Bad scores could be because of lack of interest in school and education, or simply a fear of tests - because yes it's true that some students don't do well in a structure testing environment - as well as different ways and paces of learning.
To show how messed up at least one school district has become: I had the most amazing pre-AP and AP chemistry teacher in high school - Mrs. D, let's say. She, and one other Mrs. E, were considered the best science teachers, and Mrs. D was not only the sole AP chemistry teacher, but was department chair as well. Mrs. D put in all her love and dedication in teaching us what we needed to do well in chemistry and any future science class we possibly chose to take. Because of that, many of my friends became science majors.
However, to prove how the system is flawed - she was demoted from department chair because she refused to treat the regular class like morons, and thus teach solely for TAKS. The school board wanted her to teach only the necessary information to get her students to pass TAKS with good scores, but she refused. Mrs. D nearly quit, but when Mrs. E retired, Mrs. D stayed because she honestly worried about how the students' education would fare without both of them.
In fact all my AP teachers are unhappy with the direction of the school board and system. Some want to quit, some already have. When the good teachers run away, that's when you have a problem. I keeping asking myself why students realize this, but not the school boards.
Motivation and critical thinking are the keys
My comment to 'United we stand, Divided we fall's post "The future of America is "lazy": Who is to blame???":
I completely agree with you! Part of the reason why voters ages 18-29 pay so little attention is because they feel that government has little to do with them. But they are so completely wrong. Government influences gas prices, wages, taxes, and - for those college students that don’t seem to care enough to vote, despite the many voting booths on campus – tuition and financial aid, among many other things. All of these things affect our everyday lives regardless of how old you are, and without that education in government, economics, and history it would be difficult to fully appreciate the expanse of government influence.
I too remember my classes. In middle school we merely brushed upon Texas and early American history. In high school, we did exactly as you described (in regular classes anyway) – sat there, read the chapters, and completed “busy work” worksheets. There was only one teacher in the 5-6 regular classes that I took who actually motivated us with group discussion and in class activities. I remember for nearly two weeks each class became its own government, each with its own executive, judicial, and legislative branch. Each class was required to discuss policy, attempt to debate on proposed bills, and eventually pass them, unless of course the President vetoed. It was wonderfully educational – it’s moments such as those that you realize how many different opinions there are in a class of 30 people. Imagine the complications in the national government.
All in all, I truly believe that the education provided in regular classes is a joke, for the most part. Few teachers bother to provide a sound education, in order to make each student an educated member of society. Instead they tell us to read, and fill out worksheets, and take tests. Where is the critical thinking in that? Or the challenging of opinions and beliefs? Without the skill of critical thinking few students learn to apply their textbook knowledge to everyday lives, including how government affects our lives and whether they should or not, constitutionally, or equitably.
Texas is disgustingly behind in terms of public education, for many reasons. But why let one of those reasons be because of a lack of good, motivated teachers who truly care about their students’ education rather than just getting them to pass. I for one, am all for putting our tax dollars to good use. Otherwise, we should probably fight to get our money back if public education isn't going to educate students as it should. Why pay for inefficiency and mediocrity, when the money we put into public school systems could be used to put our children in private schools? There, each parent would not only have more of a say on the policies of the school, but also on the quality of the teachers.
I completely agree with you! Part of the reason why voters ages 18-29 pay so little attention is because they feel that government has little to do with them. But they are so completely wrong. Government influences gas prices, wages, taxes, and - for those college students that don’t seem to care enough to vote, despite the many voting booths on campus – tuition and financial aid, among many other things. All of these things affect our everyday lives regardless of how old you are, and without that education in government, economics, and history it would be difficult to fully appreciate the expanse of government influence.
I too remember my classes. In middle school we merely brushed upon Texas and early American history. In high school, we did exactly as you described (in regular classes anyway) – sat there, read the chapters, and completed “busy work” worksheets. There was only one teacher in the 5-6 regular classes that I took who actually motivated us with group discussion and in class activities. I remember for nearly two weeks each class became its own government, each with its own executive, judicial, and legislative branch. Each class was required to discuss policy, attempt to debate on proposed bills, and eventually pass them, unless of course the President vetoed. It was wonderfully educational – it’s moments such as those that you realize how many different opinions there are in a class of 30 people. Imagine the complications in the national government.
All in all, I truly believe that the education provided in regular classes is a joke, for the most part. Few teachers bother to provide a sound education, in order to make each student an educated member of society. Instead they tell us to read, and fill out worksheets, and take tests. Where is the critical thinking in that? Or the challenging of opinions and beliefs? Without the skill of critical thinking few students learn to apply their textbook knowledge to everyday lives, including how government affects our lives and whether they should or not, constitutionally, or equitably.
Texas is disgustingly behind in terms of public education, for many reasons. But why let one of those reasons be because of a lack of good, motivated teachers who truly care about their students’ education rather than just getting them to pass. I for one, am all for putting our tax dollars to good use. Otherwise, we should probably fight to get our money back if public education isn't going to educate students as it should. Why pay for inefficiency and mediocrity, when the money we put into public school systems could be used to put our children in private schools? There, each parent would not only have more of a say on the policies of the school, but also on the quality of the teachers.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Everyone wants equality.
"Steal from the rich to give to the poor." It seems like a worthy cause - why not take some from those who have "too much" in order to assist those who don't even have enough to live "comfortably?" This sentiment seems to prevail in today's society. However, who is to decide who is rich? Who is to decide who should be assisted? I also ask, why should the rich be more responsible for the well being of others, as well as this nation, than those who are less well off?
Obama has stated that one of his goals if he were to become president would be to increase the income tax of those who make more than $250,000 per year to 39.5%.
That's ridiculous!
What is wrong with people who believe that it's fair to tax someone nearly half of their income? And that's only in income tax. There's still social security tax, Medicaid/Medicare tax, sales tax, gas tax, and the list goes on. Everyone wants equality, but I see no equality in taxes. If people want equality, then everyone should pay the same in taxes - that way each person pitches in their fair share.
It's, of course, been said that the rich are paying "their fair share." And yet, they are the ones who receive the least in return. When heating becomes expensive, the government isn't there assisting them; when their children go to college, they won't receive any federal aid (other than a few thousand from Stafford which they end up paying back with interest) because their parents make "too much money".
Why should the so called "rich" give up so much of their money when the majority of people being helped are those who are well able to work? Those who make more money use the same roads, same school systems, same police and firemen forces, and are governed by the same government and yet the privileged are those who make less.
What people don't seem to realize is that those making $150,000, $200,000, $250,000, etc are not "rich", especially when they get taxed at least a quarter of their income to income tax alone. They're high middle class. And, most likely, they worked hard to get to where they are, by going to college, or opening a business, or providing a service, and working hard to make the money they have.
Like I asked before, why should the "rich" be more responsible, when they receive the least for their efforts and dedication, and get taxed the most for it in return? Rather than reward those who can work but choose not to, or those who made bad decisions in the past, the government should leave them to lay in the bed they made. The government isn't there to support people who don't help themselves.
Everyone needs a little help sometime. It's during those time that the government should help cushion the harsh blow of real life. But those who choose to not go to college, or choose to not save money for their personal retirement, or choose to have children when they can't support them, do not have a right to be assisted, they have a privilege, and they need to realize that. Assistance should be given to those who help themselves, so until those people start dedicating themselves to making their own lives better, the government shouldn't aid them whatsoever.
As a college student who's paying for her own college because my father "makes too much money", I must say I'm appalled. I worked hard in school to do well and get into the University of Texas. And yet I receive no government help, when those who didn't work as hard get free rides because their parents are poor. Why should I work to get my diploma, dedicate myself in order to ascend the proverbial ladder in order to make more money and provide more for my family, when the more I make, the less I receive, and on top of that I have to pay for the mistakes of others? And that is what the government teaches its people. Rather than pushing the citizens of the United States to work hard and provide for themselves, the government is willing to accept and coddle mediocrity, laziness, and irresponsibility.
Bad, bad.
To end this, I'm not saying to stop taxing or to stop assisting those who truly need help, like the disabled, or people who fall into hard times for whatever reason. Everyone needs help sometime. I simply think that those who worked hard to get to where they are shouldn't be used as the scapegoat of the government, and the people who choose to not help themselves. It's not the government, and thus the tax payers, who should be responsible for the mistakes of those who don't plan for the future.
Everyone wants equality. Why not make each person equally responsible for their own futures? ...Naw, those rich bastards will take care of it.
Obama has stated that one of his goals if he were to become president would be to increase the income tax of those who make more than $250,000 per year to 39.5%.
That's ridiculous!
What is wrong with people who believe that it's fair to tax someone nearly half of their income? And that's only in income tax. There's still social security tax, Medicaid/Medicare tax, sales tax, gas tax, and the list goes on. Everyone wants equality, but I see no equality in taxes. If people want equality, then everyone should pay the same in taxes - that way each person pitches in their fair share.
It's, of course, been said that the rich are paying "their fair share." And yet, they are the ones who receive the least in return. When heating becomes expensive, the government isn't there assisting them; when their children go to college, they won't receive any federal aid (other than a few thousand from Stafford which they end up paying back with interest) because their parents make "too much money".
Why should the so called "rich" give up so much of their money when the majority of people being helped are those who are well able to work? Those who make more money use the same roads, same school systems, same police and firemen forces, and are governed by the same government and yet the privileged are those who make less.
What people don't seem to realize is that those making $150,000, $200,000, $250,000, etc are not "rich", especially when they get taxed at least a quarter of their income to income tax alone. They're high middle class. And, most likely, they worked hard to get to where they are, by going to college, or opening a business, or providing a service, and working hard to make the money they have.
Like I asked before, why should the "rich" be more responsible, when they receive the least for their efforts and dedication, and get taxed the most for it in return? Rather than reward those who can work but choose not to, or those who made bad decisions in the past, the government should leave them to lay in the bed they made. The government isn't there to support people who don't help themselves.
Everyone needs a little help sometime. It's during those time that the government should help cushion the harsh blow of real life. But those who choose to not go to college, or choose to not save money for their personal retirement, or choose to have children when they can't support them, do not have a right to be assisted, they have a privilege, and they need to realize that. Assistance should be given to those who help themselves, so until those people start dedicating themselves to making their own lives better, the government shouldn't aid them whatsoever.
As a college student who's paying for her own college because my father "makes too much money", I must say I'm appalled. I worked hard in school to do well and get into the University of Texas. And yet I receive no government help, when those who didn't work as hard get free rides because their parents are poor. Why should I work to get my diploma, dedicate myself in order to ascend the proverbial ladder in order to make more money and provide more for my family, when the more I make, the less I receive, and on top of that I have to pay for the mistakes of others? And that is what the government teaches its people. Rather than pushing the citizens of the United States to work hard and provide for themselves, the government is willing to accept and coddle mediocrity, laziness, and irresponsibility.
Bad, bad.
To end this, I'm not saying to stop taxing or to stop assisting those who truly need help, like the disabled, or people who fall into hard times for whatever reason. Everyone needs help sometime. I simply think that those who worked hard to get to where they are shouldn't be used as the scapegoat of the government, and the people who choose to not help themselves. It's not the government, and thus the tax payers, who should be responsible for the mistakes of those who don't plan for the future.
Everyone wants equality. Why not make each person equally responsible for their own futures? ...Naw, those rich bastards will take care of it.
Monday, June 9, 2008
Hindsight is 20/20
The soaring gas prices are a heavy burden on all Americans. Everyone wants gas prices to come down to affordable levels. The question is: How do we accomplish this? New York Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer believes that Saudi Arabia should increase its oil production by one million barrels per day. By the laws of supply and demand, the increased supply of oil would decrease the current price of gas. However, what incentive does Saudi Arabia have in doing this? Well, according to Schumer, the US should block all arms sales to the kingdom until it does as he wants.
However, Chuck Schumer, doesn’t seem to remember that Saudi Arabia is currently a US ally – and its kingdom is also currently in the hands of moderate Muslims. By no longer receiving US weapons, Saudi Arabia might be hard pressed to protect itself against the Muslim extremists. So not only do we risk losing our most powerful ally in the Middle East, but we’d also risk a complete takeover by Wahhabi fundamentalists, in which Saudi Arabia would become the new safe haven for Islamic terrorists.
As stated in the commentary “Will: What is oil really worth to us?” by George F. Wills of the Washington Post, 97 senators, including Schumer, “recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the SPR also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” Despite that drilling would be confined to an area about one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport, ANWR’s currently estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil is being kept off the market.
The issue with oil is one that will plague society until a substitute for oil can be found. Stopping the flow of oil into the SPR lacks foresight. The SPR is there to protect Americans for a short period of time in case of disaster or major shortages of oil in the future. There is a limited supply of oil, and already the world is feeling those effects. In the long-term, it’s important to continue reserving oil, as well as, allocating our resources into finding other sources of fuel and energy, so that one day we will no longer be dependent on a scarce resource.
Schumer, and those who vote with him, have no right to complain about rising gas prices, not when there are steps that can be taken closer to home to meet our short-term needs. While it’s important to protect the ANWR, oil is also currently a necessity. Current technologies are so advanced that no harm would come to the Refuge except in that small drilling area, and even that would be minute. However, the ANWR is not our only source of national oil. We also have potential drilling areas in our off-shore territories. Eighty five percent of those territories are currently off-limits to drilling as well, despite containing an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – “10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in year.”
As George F. Wills put so beautifully: “America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.”
However, Chuck Schumer, doesn’t seem to remember that Saudi Arabia is currently a US ally – and its kingdom is also currently in the hands of moderate Muslims. By no longer receiving US weapons, Saudi Arabia might be hard pressed to protect itself against the Muslim extremists. So not only do we risk losing our most powerful ally in the Middle East, but we’d also risk a complete takeover by Wahhabi fundamentalists, in which Saudi Arabia would become the new safe haven for Islamic terrorists.
As stated in the commentary “Will: What is oil really worth to us?” by George F. Wills of the Washington Post, 97 senators, including Schumer, “recently voted to increase the supply of oil on the market by stopping the flow of oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which protects against major physical interruptions. Seventy-one of the 97 senators who voted to stop filling the SPR also oppose drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.” Despite that drilling would be confined to an area about one-sixth the size of Washington’s Dulles Airport, ANWR’s currently estimated 10.4 billion barrels of oil is being kept off the market.
The issue with oil is one that will plague society until a substitute for oil can be found. Stopping the flow of oil into the SPR lacks foresight. The SPR is there to protect Americans for a short period of time in case of disaster or major shortages of oil in the future. There is a limited supply of oil, and already the world is feeling those effects. In the long-term, it’s important to continue reserving oil, as well as, allocating our resources into finding other sources of fuel and energy, so that one day we will no longer be dependent on a scarce resource.
Schumer, and those who vote with him, have no right to complain about rising gas prices, not when there are steps that can be taken closer to home to meet our short-term needs. While it’s important to protect the ANWR, oil is also currently a necessity. Current technologies are so advanced that no harm would come to the Refuge except in that small drilling area, and even that would be minute. However, the ANWR is not our only source of national oil. We also have potential drilling areas in our off-shore territories. Eighty five percent of those territories are currently off-limits to drilling as well, despite containing an estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – “10 times the oil and 20 times the natural gas Americans use in year.”
As George F. Wills put so beautifully: “America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
