Best Intentions mentioned a hot topic of gas prices. He took an unusual stand of supporting the rise in prices. Here is my comment:
I like how you titled your post "don't shoot the messenger" knowing that your statement about rising gas prices would not be taken happily. I appreciate your explanations of why oil was chosen in the first place. Realizing the history of how we became so reliant on oil explains a lot about why our country is still using oil when other countries are moving on to find new ways of fuel. I partially agree with your opinion of it being good that gas prices have risen enough for people to realize we need to save gas and use it as efficiently as possible. Environmental benefits are resulting from trying to save money by not driving unnecessarily or starting to carpool or turning off engines instead of idling them when waiting outside. These types of actions are beneficial, but when you say we are in a boiling pot of water waiting to jump out, how is the increase in gas prices going to solve problems? I know you stated that you don't have an answer to the problem, but are you sure this increase in prices will lead to a better outcome? it seems hard to believe at this moment.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Stage 7: Obama's Tax
Many of us who follow elections have heard of Obama's new plan of taxing the "wealthy" and many of us ignore that "wealthy" part thinking that our average middle class status keeps us out of that category of unfortunate people who's taxes will be raised. Little do you know that Obama's definition of wealthy is actually those who earn more than $250,000. Before you begin complaining about this standard of "wealthy" people, consider Obama's idea in general of taxing the wealthy. He's basically punishing those who work harder to earn their money and supposedly using it to help the poorer families. Now, helping the poorer families is certainly not something bad, but I personally feel like taking it from people who've worked hard for their money seems a bit unfair.
Those families that are more well off usually live a more expensive lifestyle. Their kids may be in sports that require lots of their income to be spent on equipment, seasonal fees, and tournaments. Taxing them more heavily would put their hard earned money at a stretch causing them to give up certain activities or luxuries that they have worked hard to accomplish.
And for those who are not couples, Obama's tax applies to incomes that are higher than $200,000.
At this time, consumers are already complaining about the extremely high gas prices. Implementing a higher tax on the people is only going to make citizens more unhappy.
Most presidential candidates have individual ideas for future plans that are distinct enough to be the deciding factor between voting for them or not voting for them. I believe that this plan to raise the taxes of the "wealthy" is a strong enough reason, especially for people this new tax applies to, to not vote for Obama. Other ideas of healthcare also affect the entire population of the United States, but raising taxes is a huge deal for every family that is in the "wealthy" class.
Who knows how this new tax raise is even supposed to help the poor families? Is it being directly transfered to their accounts? Which families are poor enough to be eligible for this benefit?
There is too much in question for this tax increase to even be considered a reasonable step forward in our economy. Obama's plan of trying to level out the incomes of all families in America is unfair and unreasonable. Those who work hard to go to school for 12 years to earn a doctor's degree should be able to reap the benefits of their long hard hours of studying. Everybody's income should be equal is not the way to go, but with Obama elected president, America's economy may begin to become more communist in that everybody should be equal, even those that work harder than others. Is this the way to go?
Those families that are more well off usually live a more expensive lifestyle. Their kids may be in sports that require lots of their income to be spent on equipment, seasonal fees, and tournaments. Taxing them more heavily would put their hard earned money at a stretch causing them to give up certain activities or luxuries that they have worked hard to accomplish.
And for those who are not couples, Obama's tax applies to incomes that are higher than $200,000.
At this time, consumers are already complaining about the extremely high gas prices. Implementing a higher tax on the people is only going to make citizens more unhappy.
Most presidential candidates have individual ideas for future plans that are distinct enough to be the deciding factor between voting for them or not voting for them. I believe that this plan to raise the taxes of the "wealthy" is a strong enough reason, especially for people this new tax applies to, to not vote for Obama. Other ideas of healthcare also affect the entire population of the United States, but raising taxes is a huge deal for every family that is in the "wealthy" class.
Who knows how this new tax raise is even supposed to help the poor families? Is it being directly transfered to their accounts? Which families are poor enough to be eligible for this benefit?
There is too much in question for this tax increase to even be considered a reasonable step forward in our economy. Obama's plan of trying to level out the incomes of all families in America is unfair and unreasonable. Those who work hard to go to school for 12 years to earn a doctor's degree should be able to reap the benefits of their long hard hours of studying. Everybody's income should be equal is not the way to go, but with Obama elected president, America's economy may begin to become more communist in that everybody should be equal, even those that work harder than others. Is this the way to go?
Monday, June 23, 2008
Stage 6: Gay Marriage?
This is the comment I posted on ACC Government:
I also disagree with your opinion. Marriage was originally defined as a legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN as husband and wife. No where was it every defined as a legal union between man and man or woman and woman. This idea only came into our minds later on as society became more and more corrupted. Now that California has legalized same-sex marriage, that only encourages more previous laws to be challenged in order to fit the lives of our changing society. It's leading to the government living by people's law's instead of people living by the government's laws that were first laid down after much thought and consideration. The law of marriage has stood for centuries and was never questioned before. I believed that our society is becoming more corrupted and the legalization of same-sex marriage is not only wrong and disturbing, but it is also encouraging to those who feel like what they did that is defined by the government as wrong, can now be protested with a chanced to be changed in their favor so they no longer have to follow the original rules.
I also disagree with your opinion. Marriage was originally defined as a legal union between a MAN and a WOMAN as husband and wife. No where was it every defined as a legal union between man and man or woman and woman. This idea only came into our minds later on as society became more and more corrupted. Now that California has legalized same-sex marriage, that only encourages more previous laws to be challenged in order to fit the lives of our changing society. It's leading to the government living by people's law's instead of people living by the government's laws that were first laid down after much thought and consideration. The law of marriage has stood for centuries and was never questioned before. I believed that our society is becoming more corrupted and the legalization of same-sex marriage is not only wrong and disturbing, but it is also encouraging to those who feel like what they did that is defined by the government as wrong, can now be protested with a chanced to be changed in their favor so they no longer have to follow the original rules.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Stage 5: Big Oil Companies To Blame?
For those of you who drive, gas prices are a huge problem today. After hitting $4 a gallon, many people are frustrated and even angered at the ridiculous amounts of money needed to fill the tank. Who do most of us blame the extreme prices on? Big Oil companies. CNN's Wolf Blitzer interviewed Cheveron's CEO David O'Reily who claims that "Big Oil is not to blame for skyrocketing gas prices."
O'Reily's main claim throughout the interview is that the market demand and supply is to blame for high prices, not Big Oil companies. This seems an unlikely fact based on the "record profits "the oil companies have had.
O'Reily's main claim throughout the interview is that the market demand and supply is to blame for high prices, not Big Oil companies. This seems an unlikely fact based on the "record profits "the oil companies have had.
O'Reilly: We're investing those record profits.
Blitzer: But billions and billions of dollars in profits, more than ever before.
O'Reilly: Yes, but it's a big business. And on a return-on-sales business, we're right in there with the average of American business today. What we're doing is investing that money. For example, last year, we did make a lot of money, $18.7 billion. This year, our capital investment in new supplies is $22.9 billion, almost $23 billion.
O'Reily admits that they have record profits but he doesn't connect those profits to our wallets. The argument for the lack in supply but high demand for oil does not explain how those record profits were reached this year. What does explain those profits is the ridiculous prices that companies are charging customers who are getting sick and tired of the extreme prices.
Blitzer then moves on to ask what O'Reily thinks of Barack's windfall profit tax that he wants to charge to oil companies and his opinion about it taking place. O'Reily immediately responds with an almost desperate answer in which he gives reasons on why that is a bad idea for oil companies.
He begins by complaining that oil companies are already heavily taxed compared to other industries. This larger tax rate is obviously not affecting the companies enough considering their record profits this year.
Second, O'Reily claims that taxing them will take away the "investments" and cause the " opposite effect of helping the problem that you have referred to." What exactly are the investments for? O'Reily keeps that answer to himself as he talks very generally about those investments. For all we know, those investments can just be towards their pocketbooks. In that case, we don't really care about their investments; we care about gas prices.
Thirdly, O'Reily states that they've been taxed with windfall profit taxes before and it caused a shortage of domestic supply and an increase in dependence on imported oil. This may be true but will taxes really cause a shortage of domestic oil? No.
Given these reasons, Blitz again asks O'Reily who he would rather be elected President, Obama who wants to implement the windfall, or McCain, who supports offshore drilling which will supposedly increase supply of crude oil. O'Reily gives a shady answer by not really straightout saying he wants McCain but he does say, " opposite effect of helping the problem that you have referred to." According to his earlier reasons concerning his reasons against windfall profit tax, O'Reily clearly did not want them, but why doesn't he admit that he would rather have McCain elected President if that would benefit his company more? Maybe it's because most people are already upset at companies like Chevron for gas prices and he would like to avoid upsetting a presidential nominee?
Stage 4: Debate Over Energy Policy
In the Carpetbagger Report, Steve Benen comments on an article regarding a debate over energy policy. Benen introduces this editorial by connecting his review to something all drivers can relate to: gas prices. He sets apart this topic as in important issue of discussion the public should be debating about. Benen conveniently quotes from the article on yahoo news for easy access to readers. He criticizes Bush's strategy to drill more oil calling it "quick, do something, whether it works or not."
Bene then lists arguments from both sides of citizens that agree and disagree with Bush's idea. He lists the arguments by way of dialogue which makes the connections between the arguments very clear and concise. He lists the important information and nothing more. This is an easy way to be bias because limited information gives readers only one perspective. Although Benen is doing a good job of giving arguments from both sides of the issue, he is selectively choosing information which he can base criticism on Bush. Benen is obviously critical of Bush's ideas because of his negative diction he uses: "How foolish has this bizarro-world debate become?" and "Not only is this a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy of logic, but Bush’s comments about ANWR aren’t even consistent with his own administration’s estimates about what’s possible in Alaska." Benen supports his claims of Bush's inconsistency with links. Benen then moves on to further his argument against Bush's ideas by using rhetorical questions like "Gas prices are high because Congress opposes coastal drilling? Wait, wasn’t it Bush’s father who helped protect the coasts through executive order? Is this his fault, too?" This is a very effective strategy that feeds information to readers by asking a question but in reality, it really suggesting a comment. After criticizing Bush's ideas, Benen concluded with a new strategy that he thought was much better, John Kerry's idea of " a serious long-term energy strategy that reduces our dependence on oil and promotes affordable clean energy sources to address the urgent threat of climate change and help consumers.”
I like how Benen concluded his editorial with an idea that he thought was better instead of just strictly criticizing Bush's and McCain's idea of drilling for more oil. He offered an alternative which gives readers a new opinion of possibilities for lowering gasoline prices. Benen did a good job on this editorial.
Bene then lists arguments from both sides of citizens that agree and disagree with Bush's idea. He lists the arguments by way of dialogue which makes the connections between the arguments very clear and concise. He lists the important information and nothing more. This is an easy way to be bias because limited information gives readers only one perspective. Although Benen is doing a good job of giving arguments from both sides of the issue, he is selectively choosing information which he can base criticism on Bush. Benen is obviously critical of Bush's ideas because of his negative diction he uses: "How foolish has this bizarro-world debate become?" and "Not only is this a post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc fallacy of logic, but Bush’s comments about ANWR aren’t even consistent with his own administration’s estimates about what’s possible in Alaska." Benen supports his claims of Bush's inconsistency with links. Benen then moves on to further his argument against Bush's ideas by using rhetorical questions like "Gas prices are high because Congress opposes coastal drilling? Wait, wasn’t it Bush’s father who helped protect the coasts through executive order? Is this his fault, too?" This is a very effective strategy that feeds information to readers by asking a question but in reality, it really suggesting a comment. After criticizing Bush's ideas, Benen concluded with a new strategy that he thought was much better, John Kerry's idea of " a serious long-term energy strategy that reduces our dependence on oil and promotes affordable clean energy sources to address the urgent threat of climate change and help consumers.”
I like how Benen concluded his editorial with an idea that he thought was better instead of just strictly criticizing Bush's and McCain's idea of drilling for more oil. He offered an alternative which gives readers a new opinion of possibilities for lowering gasoline prices. Benen did a good job on this editorial.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Stage 3: AMERICAblog-Washington Post editorial inaccurate
John Aravosis from Americablog intensely criticizes Washington Post's claim concerning errors made about "American soldiers are dying from Iranian-supplied roadside bombs... " Aravosis uses an extremely harsh tone through the editorial, demonstrating the frustration with the incorrect information that was published. I think Aravosis's reaction is justified based on the magnitude of importance of the information that was wrongfully portrayed. If the Washington Post published a few minor errors in stories that were not significant, Aravosis would have most certainly reacted too fiercely, but since it was false information regarding the war in Iraq, the harsh tone is justified.
Aravosis uses short, blunt sentences that cut deep to the point:"Powerful sentence. Only problem? It's not true." Sentences like these show little sympathy for the writers of Washington Post. Apparently, this isn't the first time erroneous posts were published on Washington Post. This may have caused Aravosis to go overboard this final post may have been the last straw before unleashing his emotional frustration with the inaccuracies of the Post. Aravosis organizes his argument very clearly and presents his information in a very clear and concise manner. By listing the "acts that the Washington Post just couldn't seem to handle," Aravosis plainly lists evidence of the falsehood of the Washington Post's article. This allows for readers to easily agree with the facts that are presented. Embedded links are also provided for quick and easy access to links that are referred to in the given reasons. The links help to convince readers of the accuracy of the proof that Avarosis is referring to in his editorial. Towards the end of his criticism, he concludes his argument towards the unacceptable inaccuracy's of the Washington Post by using even stronger diction like "journalism at its worst" and even takes a step further to degrade "FOX News and the Washington Times" by setting Washington Post equal those supposedly careless sources. Aravosis' condescending tone continues to increase as he calls the writers of Washington Post "children" and accuses them of "whoring for the Bush administration in order to get us into another lie of a war." This increasing disprovement finally reaches a point of even referring to Katherine Graham herself "turning over in her grave at what [they] have done to her newspaper."
Aravosis even ends on a humorous note by stating a PS note about the British covering the same story and proving it to be a hoax.
I find this commentary by Aravosis very engaging and convincing. It was presented in a clear and concise way that was to the point and very supportable by links and other news sites. He used humors remarks to insult the Washington Post that kept the reader interested and held the attention as well.
Aravosis uses short, blunt sentences that cut deep to the point:"Powerful sentence. Only problem? It's not true." Sentences like these show little sympathy for the writers of Washington Post. Apparently, this isn't the first time erroneous posts were published on Washington Post. This may have caused Aravosis to go overboard this final post may have been the last straw before unleashing his emotional frustration with the inaccuracies of the Post. Aravosis organizes his argument very clearly and presents his information in a very clear and concise manner. By listing the "acts that the Washington Post just couldn't seem to handle," Aravosis plainly lists evidence of the falsehood of the Washington Post's article. This allows for readers to easily agree with the facts that are presented. Embedded links are also provided for quick and easy access to links that are referred to in the given reasons. The links help to convince readers of the accuracy of the proof that Avarosis is referring to in his editorial. Towards the end of his criticism, he concludes his argument towards the unacceptable inaccuracy's of the Washington Post by using even stronger diction like "journalism at its worst" and even takes a step further to degrade "FOX News and the Washington Times" by setting Washington Post equal those supposedly careless sources. Aravosis' condescending tone continues to increase as he calls the writers of Washington Post "children" and accuses them of "whoring for the Bush administration in order to get us into another lie of a war." This increasing disprovement finally reaches a point of even referring to Katherine Graham herself "turning over in her grave at what [they] have done to her newspaper."
Aravosis even ends on a humorous note by stating a PS note about the British covering the same story and proving it to be a hoax.
I find this commentary by Aravosis very engaging and convincing. It was presented in a clear and concise way that was to the point and very supportable by links and other news sites. He used humors remarks to insult the Washington Post that kept the reader interested and held the attention as well.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Stage Two: Nader Calls for Bush-Cheney Impeachment
This is a story from ABC News' Yunji de Nies who reports about Nader's call for Bush and Cheney's Impeachment. He stood with a crowd of supporters outside the White House holding signs which read "From Katrina to Iraq, Colossal Failure," and "Resign Bush-Cheney, Like Nixon-Agnew." Obviously, Nader is fed up with Bush's strategies but the difference between Nader and other Bush complainers is that he has specific reasons why Bush should be impeached. Nader lists five offenses that both Bush and Cheney are committing: "criminal use of offense against Iraq; condoned and approved systematic torture; arresting thousands of Americans -- denying them habeas corpus and violating attorney/client privilege; signing 800 signing statements, precluding the president from actually having to follow the laws he signs; and systematic spying on Americans without judicial approval." Nader also announced that he would be running again (for the fourth time) for the presidential election.
This article is worth reading because it's interesting how people have complained about Bush's actions for so long but no action was taken to fix the problem. Instead, all that is heard is complaints and whining about the situation the US government is stuck in. This article shows Nader's strong stance against Bush and Cheney's actions. The strange part is: why now? now that Bush's term is reaching it's end. Why didn't Nader bring this up earlier when it could have mattered more?
This article is worth reading because it's interesting how people have complained about Bush's actions for so long but no action was taken to fix the problem. Instead, all that is heard is complaints and whining about the situation the US government is stuck in. This article shows Nader's strong stance against Bush and Cheney's actions. The strange part is: why now? now that Bush's term is reaching it's end. Why didn't Nader bring this up earlier when it could have mattered more?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)