Black Gold

Certainly, if one were to flip on their television they would be greeted with terrifying images, scary statistics and talk of several unstable situations. From the awful events occurring in Libya to the still staggering economic uncertainty, the United States seems to be suffocating; U.S. citizens can sense this, too. President Obama recently stated that he plans to cut one-third of oil imports into the United States. In this article posted by the New York Times, Mr. Obama has stated that he is turning his attention to the sky-rocketing gas prices. He  "pointed to the continuing upheaval in the oil-rich Middle East to argue that the nation must end the long political bickering that has stymied progress toward energy"; Obama continues to assert that his administration is not the cause of the gas prices rising. I agree with this. From an economic perspective, the chaos in Libya and the constant unrest in other oil-rich countries definitely impacts how much oil can be imported into the United States. I believe that Obama and many other officials are trying to explain to the rest of the country that as long as we rely on foreign oil, they will have the upper hand. Furthermore, it is ignorant to depend on other nations for oil when there is so much turmoil in other regions of the world. Now, I'm not saying that we should start drilling in the United States or that we need to become one-hundred percent, completely independent, but I do think that the gradual weening from dependence on foreign supplies will strengthen the United States as a whole. Mr. Obama's plan involves not only decreasing our dependency on imported oil, but also a green movement that focuses on fuel-efficient cars; He would like to build new refineries to create billions of gallons of bio fuels and increase fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. I appreciate the President's attempts to use unorthodox methods to decrease the amount of resources we use. Drilling in the U.S. would surely have its advantages, but it is wise to leave domestic pumps as a back up plan rather than hastily use up our only sources of oil. It is wise to try and solve the problem by slimming down the amount of fuel we need to operate successfully, as opposed to tapping into what could be our last resort. I say that Obama's movements are progressive and should be adhered to, not dismissed because it is challenging.

Happy Anniversary!

Typically, anniversaries are celebrated and recognized as a light-hearted and happy event. Well, that is not the case for the anniversary of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Republicans are holding a public hearing in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania exactly one year after the law was established. In this very upfront blog, Ethan Rome expresses his disgust with the Republican Party and their decision to host this event. He talks about a family that ended up going bankrupt because both of their daughters were diagnosed with leukemia. Rome states that Republicans "don't care" about families like this and are only interested in turning back the progress that the Democratic party has since created with this law. He seems extremely disgruntled, as am I, by the fact that Republicans want to repeal the part of this act that forces insurance companies to cover patients with pre-existing conditions, arguably one of the most valuable provisions. It does not make sense to me for the Republican Party to fight so avidly to stop something that does so much good for the sick and even dying. I understand that there are economic repercussions, but the Health Care system undoubtedly needed reform, and almost everyone agreed about that when Obama ran for President. I do not, and probably will not ever, understand how a human being can look at all the facts and see that this act will help so many desperate families and still want to prevent it from fulfilling its intended purpose. To me, that is pure selfishness and lack of compassion. I would like to say to those people who want to stop the Affordable Care Act, "How would you like to look your child in the face and say, 'Oh sorry, we don't have the money to make you better. We did have a chance, but the Republican Party decided that we do not deserve extra help.'" Yes, it is expensive. What does saving a life cost? How do you live knowing that someone could have been saved with the help of this law? For me, I would rather be on the team that was behind the law, supporting something that saves lives as opposed to trying to get rid of someone's only chance of survival. Rome seems to agree with me on this point. I feel like he is targeting Republicans with this article by trying to explain the ways that this law helps individuals in need. However, one could argue that he is trying to reach a Democratic audience; emphasizing that the Affordable Care Act is something that needs constant reinforcement, or else it will fail.

The Right to Bear and Health Care

The Second Amendment has stirred up much controversy, especially following the recent shooting in Tuscon, Arizona. In this article, Gail Collins expresses her opinion not only about gun control but also about how it relates to the also controversial Obamacare. She briefly describes the legislation that has since come about post the Tuscon incident, and states that the majority of pro-right-to-bear-arms officials are afraid that the "'overreaching federal government,' insurance companies would learn who has guns from the doctors and use the information to raise the owners’ rates." This is actually prevented by provisions in the health care bill which protects gun-owning citizens from being punished for owning a firearm. She states throughout the article that Obamacare is catching a lot of grief, and that "the gun lobby will never be happy, unless the health care law specifically requires every American to have a pistol on his or her person at all times". I couldn't agree more. It seems as though people who want fewer gun control regulations are unsatisfied no matter what steps are taken to please them. Her tone in this article is filled with sarcasm as she goes on to give examples of how many states have changed laws, hoping to assuage the excited gun-lobby individuals. Her article can be to any audience, pro gun-lobby or against, young or old. I believe that she was reaching out to both sides of the spectrum because she states her opinion very clearly, but she is not trying to persuade the audience that her side is correct. I agree with her position on the issue although I do not affiliate myself with a specific party. I do not understand the argument the NRA makes about how having guns in a situation is more likely to prevent violence. To me, that seems completely backwards; adding a weapon in a chaotic or stressful situation can ONLY heighten tension and can cause unnecessary harm. She writes, "Concealed Carry on Campus envisions a female student being saved from an armed assailant by a freshman with a concealed weapon permit. I see a well-intentioned kid with a pistol trying to intervene in a scary situation and accidentally shooting the victim", which summarizes the entire argument. I understand that there is evidence indicating that where gun control is limited, there is less crime. However, when a situation is void of guns, I'd like to think that the likelihood of a death occurring, accidental or intentional, is much lower.

Obama & Libya

Recently, turmoil and violence in Libya have rapidly spread, causing the citizens of many nations to ask political leaders "What now?" Colonel Moammar Gadahfi, after stomping out protesters via gunfire, has put a halt on oil transportation on an effort to gain control of civilians. CNN posted this article which detailed President Obama's reaction to Colonel Moammar Gadhafi's aggressive moves, such as employing resources such as special forces, regular army troops and, rebels said, fighter jets. The crisis in Libya has put a strain on economies across the world, and the American economy has taken a severe beating as well. In the article posted by CNN, Obama refused to address the issue until a later time. He did, however, say "the violence must stop". Although Obama has put off speaking on the issue, he will make a statement tomorrow addressing his course of action. This article is important because it emphasizes Obama's decision to take time to consider all options, as opposed to making a choice that could damage our nation's relationship with other countries. It is vital that our leaders pause befor leaping into action and making rash decisions. I approve of the patience and deliberance Obama is using, however I belive that a decision needs to be made in good time so that the world can reach peace and stability.

Bio and Links

5 Mainstream Media Sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.npr.org/

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.usatoday.com/

5 Political Political Blog Sources:

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/sanity-sentinel

http://www.aplagueonbothyourhouses.com/

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/promise-of-america

http://blog.usa.gov/roller/

http://www.blogcatalog.com/blogs/the-democratic-daily-blog

 Political Biography:

With a Conservative Republican mother and a Liberal Democrat father, I suppose a Moderate Liberal daughter was bound to be the turnout. I find that as I explore the beliefs of each political party, I am torn. On one hand, I agree with the social policies of the Democraatic party, and on the other hand I side more with the economic principles of the Republican party. I believe that there are two sides to every arguement, and the inability to listen and try to understand the opposition's view point will only hinder the ability to gain valuable knowledge about an unfamiliar subject. Everyone should learn to open their minds to the ideas and opinions of others, because this can lead to innovations and movements that shape history. I value the free flow of communication and I know that I have much to learn, so I appreciate hearing others opinions. I'm hoping that this will help me firm up the parts of my belief system that are unsure!