CARS Going Green

Dianne posted a great blog entry detailing how President Obama's new CARS program will help our environment and in particular global warming. The program known as CARS, or car allowance rebate system will benefit our country and hopefully will catch on for countries throughout the world. Dianne points out in her blog that "Today, cars in America contribute to 33% of carbon dioxide emissions, the primary contributor to global warming." With the new plan, automakers are going to be required to manufacture cars that produce at least 35.5 miles per gallon. More money will be required for the research of the vehicles and because of this President Obama has granted millions of dollars to help aid the advances.

I believe this program is a wonderful way to help our economy and help prevent global warming. By pouring more money into research for these new vehicles, Americans will want to buy new cars because they will save them money in the long run by not having to spend so much on fuel. Car buyers will also be helping the environment by purchasing these new vehicles because they will be distributing less carbon dioxide emissions. This plan goes great right along with the Cash for Clunkers program that is currently going on in America.

It is nearly impossible these days to not be in a car at least once every single day. Alternative transportation is not always an option for many Americans. Our Government is doing a fabulous job of thinking about the economic situation for Americans as well as the environment with the new CARS program. Dianne has done a terrific job of explaining both parts of the new program.

The Beginning of the End

The economic recession is a subject most Americans don't like to talk about because it has either affected their family immediately from a job loss or they are afraid that it will in the near future. This may not be the case for much longer thanks to President Obama and his administration. In a recent New York Times article President Obama stated "We’re losing jobs at less than half the rate we were when I took office” This comes after the month of July produced the smallest monthly drop in employment since last August.

I believe that President Obama and is administration are handling our recession with care and are doing everything in their power to try and bring our economy back to where it was many years ago. The recent Cash for Clunkers plan has been such a success, the Government had to commit 2 billion more dollars to help cover the demand for cars being purchased. This program is helping the auto industry sell vehicles, the people by saving them gas money, and the environment by not polluting as much and saving our oil. This type of program is another great step that is being used to try and help in this time of recession.

In conclusion, I believe our Government is doing a wonderful job in attempting to bring back our economy. This is definitely a process that can not happen overnight. The President has many concerns that he is currently dealing with, however I believe the economy should be one of the top priorities on his list. I believe within a year our economy will be back to where it was a few years ago and America will realize that our President understands and has what it takes to lead our nation.

One Nation, UNITED

This blog is in response to Shelby’s Blog entitled Beer Summit: A promising day for American race relations.

After I read Shelby's blog about the meeting President Obama had with St. James Crowley and Henry Louis Gates I could not help but smile. Shelby did an extraordinary job of explaining an area that our country is lacking in. The first part of the article is well put together as it gives a brief background of the definitions of racial diversity in different countries. I was very unaware of how other countries define races by eye color and hair color. I mistakenly assumed that the rest of the world groups races together by the color of their skin and where you are from. I also did not know brothers and sisters can be classified as different races in certain cultures.

I believe that Shelby makes a point that should be heard by citizens throughout our country and the world for that matter. President Bush sat down for a beer and peanuts with members of different races at the White House just a few days ago. Shelby states "This is something that was not even imaginable just decades ago." Unfortunately, she is absolutely correct in her statement. I also would argue that this sort of event does not occur today as often as it should. Races should interact in more ways than just being in the same line at a grocery store or being placed in the same class together. We as Americans should want to learn more about the different races that are a part of this nation. Personally, I enjoy hanging out with all different races and cultures. I have close friends who are Hispanic, Asian, African America, Jewish, and White. Race is one thing I could care less about in a person. Unfortunately, this is not the same way all Americans feel.

America is all about freedom and opportunity. Both of these words should go into the mindset of Americans when it comes to meeting new people. We are lucky that our country does not discriminate against other races. However, millions of Americans are still afraid to approach a person of a different race then their own. We are one of the most diverse countries in the world and we should take advantage of this by getting to know others around us. We have the chance to work, play, and live with hundreds of different cultures and we should embrace the opportunity, not run from it.

T9 Worth the Crime?

"Alright I'll be there in a few, ttyl!" This is an example of an average text message sent by millions of Americans across our country each day. The popular way of communication started off as a trend for college and high school students but has now grown into a common way of contact among friends, colleagues, and families. Parents are now aware of how to text message and often prefer this way of communication rather than a phone call. The problem is texting is now becoming a major problem on our roads.

Parents and kids alike underestimate the dangers of texting while operating a vehicle. A recent New York Times article states "the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute found that truck drivers face a 23 times greater risk of crash or near crash when texting than when not doing so." My question to Americans is this: "Is it worth someone's life to send that text message to your friend while driving?" I'll be honest; I've sent hundreds of text messages while driving in the past. However, after the recent news of deaths on the road because of this, I've become much more aware of the danger I'm putting others in.

The problem has gotten so bad the Government is now taking action. Text messaging while driving is currently illegal in 14 states, including California, New Jersey, and Washington D.C. The bill is currently awaiting a signature from the Governor of New York to become a mandate in the nation's third most populated state. I believe all states should acquire this law in order to protect the safety of our citizens. New York Senator Charles E. Schumer stated "Studies show this is far more dangerous than talking on a phone while driving or driving while drunk, which is astounding." Schumer makes a logical and scary point. To know that texting while driving is legal in the majority of our states and that it is more dangerous than drunk driving should make Americans afraid to get behind the wheel. The Government has declared that states who choose not to ban texting could owe "hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funds under legislation." This type of enforcement is a great start to solving the problem we are faced with. Every American must be informed of the dangers of texting while driving. If the message is that important, pulling over to the side of the road to finish your sentence should be your decision rather than putting others lives at stake.

Loving Your Neighbors

Community service is an area our Government often overlooks. A great example of my point is on display in this editorial from the New York Times. A few months ago Congress approved the Serve America Act, a program designed to let Americans participate in community and national service. However, after the budget for next year was released it was shown that $90 million dollars was missing from what President Obama was promised for this program. After reading this article I’m left to believe the editor of this New York Times blog is speaking directly to the American public. He is calling for our voices to be heard and challenging us to let the Government know that we will not stand for this sort of behavior. Although the author of the blog is not given, we must give the editor a great deal of credibility simply because of the newspaper he or she writes for. The New York Times is one of the most accredited newspapers in the world.

The editor is trying to explain to the American public that despite the hard times of our economy, it is crucial that our Government does not shortchange U.S. citizens when it comes to national and community service. The editorial states “Most egregious, the House omitted $41 million sought by Mr. Obama to expand AmeriCorps next year by 10,000 members, who would be put to serious tasks like mentoring at-risk students, cleaning up parks and responding to emergencies.” These are just a few areas the Act is continuing to help. It is clear our President has called us to serve our country from this article as well. The editor of the New York Times article makes a valid argument in his piece. His call for the House to provide the money they promised our President makes logical sense. We as American citizens must now act on what the editor is trying to tell us and let our Government know that we care about our community. Without community service we will simply let millions of people live their lives without an opportunity to be able to achieve their goals. A little help from each person will go a long way into improving the nation that we live in today.

Hold Your Fire

A recent article from the New York Times Opinion section argues over a gun law that is trying to be passed in the senate. Senator John Thune, a Republican of South Dakota, is trying to get an amendment passed that would “force states with more restrictive standards to accept concealed carry permits from states with less stringent rules — in effect giving the lax rules national reach.” The editor of this column strongly disagrees with the purposed amendment for public safety reasons and police officer confusion. Evidence has shown that in the past two years people holding concealed handgun licenses have killed more innocent civilians than in any other two year span. Also, with the new law being passed, it would cause confusion among policemen because it would be harder to determine who is carrying a legal or illegal firearm.

The author of this editorial is targeting the general adult public. He wants the readers to understand the danger the purposed amendment could cause. He respects what the senator is purposing, however he strongly disagrees with the law he is trying to have passed. Although the editorial does not mention an author, I give a great amount of credibility to the composer because of his well formed arguments and use of credible sources. The author is not against the purposed amendment simply because it is his opinion; he gives evidence as to how the past two years have been the most deadly for concealed gun holders and how loosening up the gun laws between states will only cause more problems. The claim the author makes is that the less intense gun laws between states would make our country less safe than it currently is. I have to agree with this statement because it makes since logically. Making it easier to acquire concealed gun licenses and transport firearms between states will only cause more people who are not qualified to purchase and possess a gun. This will cause for more unnecessary violence and possible deaths. The article states “Between May 2007 and April 2009, people holding concealed handgun permits killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens, according to a new study by the Violence Policy Center, a gun control advocacy organization.” This evidence is enough to convince me that if anything we should be stricter about our gun control policies in the United States. Loosening the policies on firearms is the opposite of what we need in our country.

Is Sotomayor Fit for the Supreme Cour

The Supreme Court is a vital piece of our American Government and has been for over the past 200 years. One would think the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices would consist of the greatest judges our country has to offer. However, after reading an article from the Los Angeles Times I'm beginning to question our President's latest Supreme Court nominee.
Sonia Sotomayor was questioned on Wednesday about her opinions on many different subjects including gay rights, abortion, and gun rights. The federal judge simply avoided answering the questions that were thrown her way and would not let the Republicans gain any new information from her. Sen. Tom Coburn asked about a woman who was 38 weeks pregnant and discovered the fetus had a "small spina bifida sac . . . on the lower part of the back." He asked: "Would it be legal in this country to terminate that child's life?" Sotomayor responded with "I can't answer that question in the abstract."
Sotomayor also avoided questions about gun rights. "Sotomayor refused to say whether she thought the 2nd Amendment's "right to bear arms" applied to state and local laws." Finally, Sotomayor wanted nothing to do with questions involving same sex marriage. The article states "Sotomayor also steered clear of questions involving the federal Defense of Marriage Act and bans on same-sex marriage."

This article is worth a glance for a number of reasons. The officials elected into the Court make thousands of important decisions for the citizens of our nation. It's crucial to have members of our Supreme Court that are not afraid to speak about what they believe in and not be intimidated by what others will think. Sonia Sotomayor does not appear to have the confidence required to take a position in the U.S. Supreme Court.