Energy Crisis (stage 5)

Today, President Obama announced his plan to reduce dependence on foreign oil by one third by the year 2025. This means a heavier reliance on alternative sources of energy, further development of alternative fuel technologies, and methods for obtaining theses fuels must be advanced to meet increased demands. Obama has begun his push towards alternative energy by promising that all federal government vehicle purchases will be some form of higher efficiency vehicle (hybrid, electric, etc.) by the year 2015. Steps have already been taken in the past, involving slowly rising fuel efficiency ratings, more of which will be coming later in the year in a greater leap of miles per gallon than usual. Even with all of this, more domestic oil drilling is needed to meet the energy needs of the time, we are still too heavily dependant on oil to just cut ourselves off from it. Apparently we need it bad enough that even while reducing imported oil by one third, we still need enough to quantify a need for more oil wells domestically. It appears that while attempting to reduce the permits for domestic oil drilling after the spill in the Gulf of Mexico, some republicans see these attempts as a way to slow down energy development. It seems, however that continued reliance on a fuel with a finite amount that is quickly dwindling is a much stronger factor halting innovation.



I really have no clue what this particular assignment is asking for except for the one sentence instructions.
I didn't really know where we were supposed to find our story so essentially I just summarized, rephrased, and added a little personal conjecture to an article I found on the CNN website. http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/30/obama.energy/index.html?npt=NP1

The Anniversary of "Change" in Healthcare

In Jon Perr's article for the Crooks and Liars blog, he writes about how much the health care crisis has gotten worse since the Affordable Care Act was approved. Not because of it's approval, but rather because the act isn't taking full effect until 2014 but in the meantime, those in need of help continues to increase. I could not find any information about Jon Perr himself, so his credibility is a little questionable, he just seems to be one of the many bloggers for the Crooks and Liars site, which seems rather common among the blog "reporters". It appears that those that would be most interested in this article are those currently without health care or those in the health care industry due to the information included within the article regarding how much funding is proposed to go to certain groups. All in all, the article is mainly a report of facts rather than an opinionated statement. The article also goes into the efforts that Republican states used to try to slow and reverse the progress in healthcare reform, such as challenging the act in the courts. The article also reports that findings from the Commonwealth Fund noticed a trend with where Republican states tended to have worse healthcare than Democratic states. Also included in the blog post are a few tables and a pie chart showing how funding will be implemented, percentages of those uninsured and various other statistics related to healthcare and related costs. The blog entry could use more context to specific points and maybe a little less statistic related bombardment. There could be a little more substance as well, I can't help but read it and think that there isn't much actual information. It is mostly quotes and charts from other sources and it is rather short itself, but among the other posts, it had the most actual input from the actual author rather than the sources their information came from. I found that a larg chunk of the political blogs did not fit the criteria of being about national issues or were just posts of mainly a link to a news site.
You can find this blog post at on the Crooks and Liars site through this link http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/year-later-health-care-reform-cant-come-soon-enough.

The Competition for Innovation

Dr. Adam Segal, the Ira A. Lipman Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, claims that the United States have no need to worry about the threat of China surpassing us in the field of innovation. Segal brings up points including the fact that China’s main focus in the coming years will not be on Innovation, but rather Research and Development, as well as filing patents. A point to support this conclusion is the state’s want to shy away from reliance on other nations. This leads to the need to copy available technology instead of creating something new, innovating. Many of the patents are made simply in an attempt to sue later when someone has a similar idea in the future instead of innovative ideas. Segal argues that on the other side of the fence, the United States values “openness” and that is one of the great advantages that we have over the Chinese as far as innovation because of our ability to get ideas across a wider variety of cultures, time, and distance. Some of Segal’s points for improving the U.S.’s chance at remaining the top dog for innovation include the need to find an easier way highly skilled immigrants can become citizens, remain open to cash flow from foreign investments, the skills of scientists must be broadened. I think that Segal has a point, that it would be tough to try to compete in a game where sheer numbers would be an advantage so the idea to rely on cultural and social differences to create innovation sounds like an area we would have the upper hand. China’s political structure seems to be a rather large hindrance on the creativity as well as funding side as far as development. I found it ironic that the state’s dislike of using foreign technology in turn caused the researchers to need to use old technology instead of move on and innovate. As it is, I see China as mainly a nation of manufacturers, not a place where new technology is developed. Adam Segal seems to know what he is talking about, he is certainly in a position to find the statistics more easily than the average person. You can find Adam Segal’s article here: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/10/why-american-innovation-will-beat-out-china/

The Right to Protest Upheld, Even for the Despicable

An interesting story caught my eye at the top of the page on the CNN site, http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/02/scotus.westboro.church/index.html. A group of protestors from a small baptist church in Kansas, known for their picketing at funerals for fallen military members, have won their appeal to the Supreme Court. The protestors use beliefs that God has killed these members of the military because they fight for a nation that condones homosexuality to fuel their protests. The main debate in the case was which had presedence, freedom of speech, or freedom of privacy. Apparently, freedom of speech does, even in a case where those doing the speaking have some convoluted ideas of right and wrong. But at least this shows us that freedom of speech is, and will be protected, no matter the cost. It is an interesting read mainly because of how, although the Supreme Court upheld their right to free speech, they still showed disdain for their methods and beliefs.