Peer Critique

While reading the blog from classmate Emma King "Whales or Wells?" I find myself morally torn between the exploration and drilling of our coastal waters and the conservation of sea life.  I myself am working towards a degree in Hydrogeology and hoping to pursue a career in the oil industry.  I am about to marry into a family of men who have or are currently working in that industry.   In a perfect world the two sides could come to a compromise or invent a new way of oil and gas exploration that is less damaging to the environment.

While reading Emma's blog I find myself agreeing with her passion to protect our wildlife, however, I do stand more firmly on the side of the oil industry in finding ways wean our country off of foreign resources.  According to an article written by the Wall Street Journal if America were to continue our explorations for natural resources we could halve our reliance on foreign countries. It goes on to state that the U.S. Energy Information Administration claims that by 2020 more than 82% of our crude oil would come from the Atlantic Basin. Offshore drilling explorations could not only find oil and gas but could potentially help determine the best places for wind turbines and other renewable energy.  

Environmentalists are screaming about the danger to sea life should seismic testing be approved, however a collation of scientists have published a type of "go-to" manual on how best to protect the sea animals.  It states that the first step in conducting any offshore testing should be to plan according.  Companies should gather baseline ecological data about a region and learn about what animals might be present. The published manual also states that companies can plan the testing around the animals migratory pattern and test when they are not present  

The bottom line is that while Emma is right to be concerned about the preservation of our most precious sea life, there are ways to continue the battle to draw away from foreign oils and gases all the while being cautious and safe.

Editorial Review of Michelle Malkin Blog

My review this week is on a blog written by Michelle Malkin titled Standing up against wealth-shaming.  In this blog the author is talking about how the War on Wealth has escalated with the current administration and has done nothing more than continue to divide this country.  Her blog was written in response to a mini -manifesto written by Silicon Valley millionaire Tom Perkins that was submitted to the Wall Street Journal.  Both Perkins and Malkin believe that the idea of "income inequality" is absurd and damaging to America.   Because of movements like Occupy the majority of the opinions of Americans are that the rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer.  I agree with Malkin that yes the rich do keep getting richer, but I say "good for them".  It should not be the job of the government to make sure that we are all equal with our incomes.  That responsibility lies only with the individual.  You get out of life what you pay for. This blog caught my attention because I am by no means a rich woman and I still struggle from time to time;  however, I am fully aware that if I want more out of life then I need to give more.  I do not want anything handed to me that I didn't earn. I believe that Michelle Malkins blog was intended for those who are out there crying about how little they have and instead of looking within themselves for the blame place that blame on the "Haves".  Rappers are writing songs about how to kill a CEO, and  corporate executives are receiving death threats.  Is this what our country that was founded on individual freedoms has come to?  Wake up America and stop crying about what you don't have and go work for what you want.

Editorial Review of Presidential Power

In the February  Washington Post  article Obama has a pen, a phone and a precedent author Ruth Marcus is notably trying to convince her readers that President Obama is not only fully in his right to exercise his weight as Commander in Chief by signing laws into effect without congressional approval, but that compared to history is following in his predecessor's footsteps.  Ms. Marcus is clearly trying to sway the people's personal opinion away from those of  Republican Randy Weber  who views the president as a "social dictator". There has been a lot of Americans angry over words spoken during the recent State of the Union address when President Obama stated that he had no issue bypassing the path thru Congress and using his executive actions more frequently. I, myself, was one of those Americans sitting on my couch, yelling at my T.V. during the State of the Union when this was announced.  I thought to myself  "how dare he" and "who does he think he is?".  While its clear to me in my opinion that Ruth Marcus is herself a  Democrat and readily agrees with the Presidents choices, on this matter I now have to concede and agree as well.  Ruth Marcus has pointed out in her article times when past presidents have acted in the same manner as our current president is.  Thomas Jefferson signed the Louisiana Purchase despite having doubts as to whether it was constitutional or not.  Our great President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation  into effect knowing full well the Constitutions recognition of slavery. I could make a list of every other past President doing the same thing that I was quick to judge the current administration on.  While I do not believe in the President's "Action Agenda" or his view on immigration, I can readily admit that there does not seem to be enough bipartisanship these days. In closing, I am reluctantly agreeing with a liberal Democrat.  Well done Ruth Marcus! 

The problems with immigration

Immigration has always been a major topic point for those of us in the bordering states, but now its becoming a topic that all of America is concerned with.  In today's article in USA Todayhttp://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/26/sessions-immigration-reform-obama-gop-column/4917095/  it was stated that tomorrow during the presidential state of the union address President Obama is set to tell Americans his plan to support increased immigration to 3 million a year.  That's an increase of 2 million a year.  What is the big deal some would ask.  How about the fact that our elected officials who support this are not listening to the people they represent.  Resent polls show that the majority of Americans do not want increased immigration with the highest numbers being those who earn $30000 or less with a margin of 3-1.  Also in a 13 year period from 2000-2013 the number of jobs for U.S. born Americans decreased by 1.3 million.  That's alot of people who are struggling to feed their families and stay afloat.  This article caught my attention because I personally know alot of people who are skilled and talented but unable to find jobs.  The government is talking about increasing the length of unemployment.   Wages have not been raised in years and more and more families are on food stamps than years past.  Why can our officials in Washington not do the right thing and take care of the Americans that are here now?  Help us heal as a country, make it possible for people to get jobs that pay enough to cover the basics needs in life, give us a reason to have faith in the people we vote for.  While I know that this country was founded by immigrates I also know that closing our borders is in the best interest of this country. This is an opportunity for Republicans to take a stand for the public and fight back against the President.  Why not put this proposed policy change up for a vote to the public and take the choice out of our representatives hands? 

My political view

Hello All!!

My name is Shauna Conner and my political view point has always been and will always be Republican.  Now please allow me to explain.  I was raised in a military, very old fashioned family.  We have always leaned more towards the conservative side. Because in my family if you weren't Republican you were a "hippy".  I believe that you get what you put into life and in my opinion the Democrats are working very hard at shaping America into a "welfare state".  I believe wholeheartedly in protecting our freedoms to make our own choices (One of the reasons why I do not agree nor support the Affordable Care Act). I have always voted Republican because I believe that they have our military and their needs in their best interest.  Having come from a military family and prior Navy myself that matters a great deal to me.  As I've been reading the first three units in our textbook Ive become familiar with quiet a few new words.  Equality of Outcome. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this one.  While I do believe that there is a purpose for federally funded programs like Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. I, however; do not believe that those said programs should be used as "crutches" for people who just plain do not want to work for their own. I agree 100% in our freedom of the right to bear arms.  As a Republican I do not see my party trying to restrict those rights.  So while I apologize to anyone reading this that I might have offended, I do not apologize for my beliefs.