Transparent Or Opaque

If you are not familiar with the EPA “Environmental Protection Agency” of the U.S., it was officially started in 1970 by President Nixon as an agency to provide expert advice to the president on environmental matters.  Since the birth of the EPA we have hit several milestones in not only our environmental history but also in protecting the common health of the population. Over the years with the use of science the EPA has researched and helped protect the American people from destroying our environment and health by ways of water and air pollution, pesticides used in farming our foods, cleaning up land waste and combating and bringing awareness to the silent killer Radon along with a lot more environmental and health threats.  Currently the EPA is conducting scientific research towards the Clean Air Act, Climate Change, and Production of safer chemicals, radiological contamination due to homeland security threats and the mailing of anthrax.

This all sounds like very important work right? Well Administrator Scott Pruitt who was nominated to the EPA by President Donald Trump recently moved to pass a rule limiting what science and research the EPA can use.  He is claiming that the rule is to enable “transparency” in the in the “secret” science used by EPA making all data available to the public and discrediting past long-standing landmark studies that are unable to provide this information. The problem with this is studies such as the harmful effects of air pollution and pesticide exposure involve confidentiality from physicians on medical history with proof of the harmful effects. Pruitt feels the science and testing should be reproducible and that’s another problem. The problem is ethics it is unethical to expose humans to these dangers in order to reveal the side effects. The past studies were one on individuals seeking treatment for these things before we knew they were harmful, that’s how we learn from our past mistakes.  This rule could make decades of studies unusable. Not cool!

It’s interesting that the word “transparent” is the one chosen by Pruitt. The man who is under scrutiny by congress for using America’s credit card for several questionable purchases, one being a $43,000 soundproofs phone booth. A man making secret phone calls then questioning the EPA’s “transparency” seems a little hypocritical don’t you think?

What is the agenda here? I think money could be a huge possibility considering the EPA’s pull for restrictions on fossil fuel industries.  Trump has already lifted several restrictions put in place by the Obama administration to protect our environment.  It all sounds like a bunch of shady business to me. The public's opinion and comments as of April 25th are limited by 30 days before the rule is officially in effect. What do you think?

Call It How You See It!

In blogger "Are you My Government" post  “We The PeopleCall B.S.” he detects fear in the words of President Trump when he tweets that "THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED". I also agree that our President is scared. I think he is scared on both sides of the spectrum, worried that his statement could possibly be untrue with the up rise of young peoples voices who will undoubtedly vote to repeal the Second Amendment of our constitution. Also scared that if the amendment is not repealed that the only direction our number of mass shooting in the United States is going is up. Either way this falls back on him. The control is already lost what we need is someone with the courage to gain it back and the only way to do so is to change. Change undoubtedly means the loss of high dollar donors, which is a price Trump isn't willing to pay.

When the blogger points out the sub-message of the movement being that the students have a voice and they are learning to use it. I agree and it took something happening in their generational era to spark and interest and motivate action. But if we really think about it this is wear all of our actions begin, usually starting with something happening to us or our families, our friends, our money, our taxes, our jobs. These students experienced tragedy and they are fighting back.

I also agree with the statement "young people have always had a voice but rarely use it." Its not that they don't realize they have a voice it’s that they are waiting to find something to stand up for and I believe they have now found that reason. When Emma Gonzalez makes the comment in her speech about elders looking down on them thinking "That us kids don’t know what we're talking about, that we're too young to understand how the government works, we call BS." This is so powerful and as a young adult I feel that what she is saying is that the government mistakes our silence and ignorance and that’s where they've made their mistake.

What to say when your neighbor comes over uninvited?

There are boundaries... 
When it comes to our states sovereignty I am in agreement that the United States, Mexican border is a threat. These boarders threaten our territory, safety and population by allowing thousands of illegal immigrants to pass from the Mexican side onto United States soil every year. In the 2016 presidential campaign Trumps main focus points was the building of a huge wall that covered the remaining 1,409 miles of unsecured boarders left over from president Bush's fence that was voted upon in 2006. 

Though in agreement to protect our sovereignty, I don't believe building a wall is the way to do so.

There are far more cons to building the wall than pros. These cons include strains on government resources and money, looking to cost anywhere from twelve to seventy billion dollars. There are ways around the wall not to mention the will power of the desperate and needy that will find a way to cross decreasing its effectiveness.  The wall without a doubt will disrupt and interfere with nature and wild life. And what about the message this wall sends to our neighbors? It’s not a good one! When Mexico was asked to pay for the wall President Enrique Pen Nieto said not "Mexico doesn't believe in walls".

I feel there are others ways to handle the problem of illegal immigration. Having a national database of authentic citizenship that works could allow us to determine citizenship. Not allowing illegal immigrants to obtain jobs until proof of citizenship, and penalizing businesses that hire without proof and be vigilant about it. 

Another way is to make obtaining citizenship easier. America needs immigrants they make up a large portion of our workforce not only taking jobs like some fret over but creating lots of jobs as well. Immigrants contribute to the livelihood of America and what we stand for. I feel like the wall sends a message saying stay out, you are not welcome. Instead we should welcome immigrants who have no criminal background and can pass specific screenings and drug test. If legal immigration were easier it would deter illegals from risking their lives to sneak in.

Lastly increasing security along the borders. Leaving the fence left from Bush's administration in the most threatened places and doubling the security. Not only would this decrease illegal immigration but it would also create government jobs for citizens. Win, Win!

Love Thy Neighbor 

Misinformation Outrage

A blog on Media Matters

"Radio stations across North America have repeatedly spreadfake news."

By: Alex Kaplan on March 9th, 2018.

Alex Kaplan is warning us to the misinformation and fake news problem that has grown immensely. He engages us by insisting that since the 2016 presidential election fake news is at an all time high. He tells us that certain platforms such as on-air and social media have largely escaped our scrutiny in the past but shouldn’t have. Kaplan points out that Media Matters where he does research at has encountered an extreme amount of fake news stories between December 2016 and February 2018. These stories were flagged by credited fact-checking websites such as Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org and even mentioned in a Buzzed study of most viral fake stories of 2017 (a post focused on fake news articles specifically). These fake stories were spread by various radio stations- talk, sports and music. Kaplan informs us that the talk radio industry has had a misinformation problems for a while now but that the problem isn't limited to just talk radio. Music and sport stations are also trapped in made up content. 

Kaplan establishes his credibility by giving exact numbers of fake stories shared on North American and American on-air and social media platforms compared to Canadian platforms. He detects that out of 7,100 fake news stories shared that only about 9% of the cases were later issued acknowledgment of being misinformation. Kaplan includes over thirty imbedded links to fake news articles making it very hard to ignore the accusations he is reporting.

Media Matters is a left-leaning blog site. Kaplan's view is geared towards a liberal viewpoint. He states that most of the talk radio stations misinformation platforms are "popular with conservatives".

I agree with Kaplan that is has become a major problem. I feel that reporting stations have become lazy and lost integrity. It seems like one station airs false news and instead of researching the information before spreading it other stations jump on the wagon out of competition. Therefor, false news ends up spreading like wild fire and it could have all been avoided with a little research. These stations are to prideful to backtrack and honestly don’t mind spreading this misinformation because in their eyes it seems false information is better than no information. I feel like there is too much competition in our media and that is possibly a cause for the reason we are being so misguided. Kaplan has very realistic concerns in my opinion.

Guns First?

An article in the Wall Street Journal

“Responding to Parkland: The one solution that works is shooting back at the shooters.”

By: The Editorial post on February 15, 2018

This article starts by adding “19-year old Nikolas Cruz to the list of disturbing young men who have committed mass murders against other young men and women in their communities.” Going on to name shooters involved in other awful incidents alike. Pointing out that all of these events have had two things in common: guns and mental illness. They give us three solutions to these issues. Speaking on behalf of what they call the do-something demand: They reassure us that gun control is not the issue here. The issue is the federal bureaucracies for fighting not to involuntarily institutionalize violent mentally ill patients who refuse treatment. Encouraging states to enact civil-commitment laws.  For the second half of the issue the post simply says, “Shoot back”. They back this statement by giving two examples, one from last November when “a rifle instructor, with an AR-15, shot a suspect about to open fire on a church full of people.” The other example in “Garland, Texas when a security guard shot and killed two gunmen about carry out an ISIS inspired attack.” The third possible solution is to train and arm individuals in institutions and schools.

            I think that the authors intended audience is geared towards supporters of the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Rifle Association. One point they make is that when a situation like Parkland happens Liberals say gun control, but nothing ever comes of this. What they give us is a very right winged standpoint.

            I do not personally agree with these resolutions. The idea of conquering a war of weapons with weapons feels like the age old saying of, “Don’t do as I do. Do as I say.” I feel instead of arming teachers we would be wise to have policemen patrolling schools; highly trained individuals who are dedicated to protecting the lives of civilians. Not putting more guns in the hands of inexperienced citizens. Secondly Instead of detaining mentally ill patents we should implement stronger gun laws that don’t allow guns to wind up in the hands of the mentally distraught.

This article is strictly opinion based and didn’t have enough evidence to back its theories.

To read the article Responding to Parkland click here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/responding-to-parkland-1518740966