Environmentalism in US Politics

Environmentalism in US Politics Environmentalist Gets Down to Earth Over the past few years, environmentalists had yet to find accountable successes in their campaigns, as people seemingly refused to listen to their plans and ideas. For example, environmentalists constantly alert customers about the contents of common goods, yet despite of the excessive and uncontrolled amount of fat and calories that are unhealthy, there is tendency for the customers to ignore the messages. Or the fact that their campaigns to restrict carbon emissions have failed miserably in 2010, regardless of the obvious warning signs of global warming. Challenged with difficulties, environmentalist’s groups are revolutionizing themselves to the new circumstances. Executives have been changed frequently over the past 15 months. Instead of focusing on global problems that do not seem to attract attentions, or that are too difficult to solve at the moment, environmentalists are sharpening their focus into a more transitional and local anxieties. On top of that, they will als o attempt to draw attention to the relationship between lobbyists and elections. Their most noticeable success, which was the discontinuation of Keystone XL pipeline, is being propelled forward again this year by its defenders in the Congress. Things don’t stop there. With the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico early in 2010, in addition to the defeat to limit carbon emissions globally, the only objective left to save them from collapsing is to carry on with suspending the scheduled pipeline. In order for their organizations to remain practical, they need young leaders that could effectively communicate with younger generations. One example is Mr. McKibben, founder of 350.org, who successfully conveyed the group’s message to the rest of the populations through the means of mass communications, noticeably the internet, and mass protests. Mr. McKibben commented that young leaders often dismisses losses and are more eager to fight even though lucks aren’t in their fav ors. Michael Brune is one of the leaders that are most praised by Mr.McKibben. Michael Brune became the executive director of Sierra’s Club at the age of 38. He does not concentrate on global warming on a international scale, however, cleverly on a much more local scale. For example, he would point out how local coal plant is contributing to asthma attacks in children, which would raise concerns from local parents, and in effect, supporters for his campaigns. Hydraulic fracturing is also one problem that the local has to face. Strictly speaking, natural gas is one of the cleanest source of energy (or as environmentalists call it, â€Å"greenest†). However, it is not natural gas that is causing problems, but the way it is being collected by companies. Primitive regulations around hydraulic fracturing is producing unsuitable ways to collect gas from underground, which is poisoning the underground water supplies. Politically speaking, environmentalists are predominantly Democrats. However, recent voting expenditures on both parties are quite extraordinary and excessive. Hence, this creates distrusts within the people as succeeded candidates are not obliged to complete their promises. Therefore, seeing how both political parties are sailing towards profits instead common good, people are often divided. Consequently, the goal of environmentalists is to unite people to strive for a more prosperous future for humanity. Drilling Critics Face a Divide Over the Goal of Their Fight Hydraulic fracturing or fracking is a controversial matter at the present. It is to extract natural gas by drilling and infusing fluid underground at high pressure. Easier said than done. As mentioned before, natural gas is one of the â€Å"greenest† source of energy available. It is the unregulated ways of extracting the mentioned source that is creating concerns with local and national organizations. Even though there are solutions to the problems, people are undecided as to completely ban the method or enforce on stricter regulations. Of course, there are always two sides to the stories. Needless to say, there are jobs that are involved with fracking, and by banning it, there will be unpredicted consequences. Regulations are similar to laws, which are often different from state to state. It will be very difficult to one simple solution to fix it all. Such that fracking is economically potent, it is emerging as an industry, and a profitable one at that. Landowners are eager to participate to benefit from the process. But the more people come to understand about fracking and how it is practiced, it is difficult to state whether the whole process can be safely handled. Wes Gillingham, program director for Catskill Mountainkeeper, predicted it, â€Å"a disaster for New York State.† The issue is a rather complicated one, such that, the State Department of Environmental Conservation has received 20,800 comments from citizens, which forthrightly exceeds any issues that have ever surfaced. The problem here is the fact that complete banning of the practice is not possible, as any profitable businesses will continue to exist, however, to what extent the government should regulate is questionable. Even though the oppositions see the practice as unethical and endangering to neighborhood, its supporters regard fracking as a cleaner source of energy, which would be on par with renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar power. Environmentalistâ€℠¢s groups themselves are divided, as some regard it as safe and secure while others completely disagree. A possible solution has arisen is to suspend fracking until further studies are completed. The obvious fact is  people do not wish fracking to continue at its state, which is profitably harmful. Chapter 5 Year 2000, Democratic candidate Al Gore received more than 550,000 more votes, but Electoral College decided who win the presidency by a majority. The voting was so that the Florida Electoral College could have given the majority to either George Bush or Al Gore as the next President. It is obvious that when Florida State received too much attention, there will be briberies and cheatings involved. The cheatings could not possibly come from the two candidates themselves, but there were corporations interested in one specific candidate winning. That was the reason why Gore sued Floridas State from having counted the votes manually, and possibly cheated along the way. Gore demanded for a recount, however, Bush prevented from happening. In the end, George Bush won the presidency, yet, it was not clear whether he won by having majority in 537 total votes in Florida or merely on vote on the Supreme Court. Year 2004, Bush easily dominated his opponent. He received 3,500,000 more votes nationwide, and also won a majority of the popular vote in the Electoral College. Bushs victory did not reflect only on his personal achievement, but also on the Republicans new domination. Along with Republicans winning presidency by having both majority in the popular vote and Electoral College, they have dominated the Democratic Party, by having more majorities in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. It is surprising that the United States has one of the lowest rates in turnout in comparison to other industrialized democracies. The rates of turnout reflects upon citizens will of participation and citizens view of the political parties. The United States is a two-party system, whereas other democratic countries have multiparty. The reason is that Democratic and Republican parties have dominated the political systems for a lengthy period of time, and the introduction of any political parties is deemed unnecessary, hence uncovered by any mass media communication, thus, unnoticed by the public. This is noticeably one effect of the media upon the political system. The low rate of turnout indicates the skepticism of the citizens upon the political parties, where they dont trust any of the parties. Some will have to choose the lesser evil of the two, while others decide not to participate. In addition, the turnout was severely suppressed in the South, as voters were required to pay a hi gh fee to vote, took a literacy test as well as a good character test. That was why seventy five percentages of the blacks and poor were eliminated from voting. Political scientist Walter Burnham states that working class citizens dont vote as much the the upper class in society. This can explain by the fact that the working class cannot often sacrifice their time to vote, as voting time is synced with working hours. In addition, their votes dont always matter as candidates can win by having majority in the Electoral College. The upper class citizens vote more often than lower class citizens and they have more chance to influence the outcome through donations to political campaigns. Interestingly enough, the authors of the Constitution never believed in political parties. They condemned political parties as a danger to liberty, and hoped for the government to constantly check and balance the parties. Because of our two party system, there will be diverse and conflicting interests wi thin the same group. For example, in the past, there were people from the Democratic Party that supported the integration and those opposed it. The political parties often ignored the conflicts or any concerns from the citizens, since they will have no choice but to vote for one of the party. The political parties will only response to issues that are beneficial to the elites, since they are the biggest supporters and donors. In a way, the two system party fail to reflect upon the needs of the majority and satisfies a small portion of society. The truth remains that candidates need a lot of money for their political campaigns and ads. For example, in 2004, 91% of the Senate and 96 % of the House of Representatives won their seats because they spent more than their opponents. Candidates dont often have the money readily available, however, these money can come from donations from corporations and firms. These companies often regard these expenditures as investment for their political influence. The truth is, they are. Representative Michael Oxley put it as, it would be difficult to ask people to contribute, and not let us know their opinion. It is hard to conversate with politicians, but with a little bit of money, they might hear us better. It is of course illegal to directly give cash to politicians for political decision, however, contributions are elusive and indirect, thus, making them legal. The benefits of donations can include the motivation for legislator to support a bill and recommendation of amendments to a bill . Seeing how corrosive and elusive these contributions are, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was introduced in 1974 to control contributions and spending. All receipts and disbursement are required to be made public. But on the other hand, the Political Action Committees was also formed to combat with the FECA. There are basically two kinds of contributions, soft and hard money. Hard money has to be reported, yet, soft money, which is meant for educational and building party purposes, is unregulated and unlimited. In fact, 3/4 of the soft money come from business executives. The solution from the FECA was to increase the amount of hard money contributions per person, from $1000 to $2000. Even though money does not guarantee victory, it means one has not spent enough money to achieve what they desired. Political participation in the U.S is namely open, one can know for certain that it is not free.

Marriage versus living together Essay

Marriage is considered to improve well- being and the health of the world’s population. Findings from researches indicate that, in general, married couples are healthier physically, happier, experience better mental health, live longer, feel more contented and rarely suffer from physical abuse (McGowan, 2006). However, impacts of living together before legal marriage which is known as premarital cohabiting are very detrimental. Cohabiting is associated with increased aggression and conflict thus increasing the probability of separation in later marriages. It is noted that direct negative effect is created by living in pre marital union on later marital stability whereby living together before marriage undermines the legality of formal marriages thus reducing the required marriage commitment. This results to shifting from one partner to another by cohabitants seeking for the ‘right partner thus an average cohabitant is considered in a lifetime to have several partners. Young people nowadays consider living together then marrying later instead of marring then live together (McGowan, 2006). It is noted that most of the people who decide to live together before marriage their communication skills with each other are very poor which most likely leads to separation. This is as a result of failure for the partners to discuss their concerns or personal problems since they don’t feel that their partner has a right to hear about them or it’s none of their business. In marriage, your partners concerns and problems are yours too hence the relationship is strengthened through effective communication. The reason why conflicts are difficult to resolve in people cohabiting is that, they try to use a kiss or hug instead of establishing the capacity to talk through them. Marriages are considered to be held together through trust, openness, spiritual intimacy, true friendship, and honesty which need effort and to stand the test of time in order to develop. Extra marital affairs are more likely to increase in people who cohabit before marriage. Premarital behaviour and attitudes concerned with sex continue even in marriage whereby the probability of partners cheating in marriage is high if they used to live together before marriage (McGowan, 2006). The reason behind it is that, cohabiting is not founded on lasting relationship but it is based on momentary romance. Romance without relationship is known as the brief most excellent encounter. However, marriage has excellent relationships built upon enjoying and knowing each ones partner not only on sexual but also on recreational, social, divine, openness and intellectual levels. This explains why always married partners have higher levels of loyalty regarding to faithfulness in marriage. Cohabiting is considered as a private business founded on an emotional bond whereby there is no hope for the future, no public obligation and no official decree of responsibility and love. The partners stay together so long as their self driven interests are met in the relationship otherwise the obligation of the relationship is a month to month leasing contract and one can quit anytime. On the other hand, marriage is more than a love agreement (McGowan, 2006). Marriage encompasses societal and legal responsibilities thus it’s a public event. It unites not only two people but also families and communities. That is the reason all newlyweds vow â€Å"till death do us part†. In summary, cohabiting is a marriage of convenience which can be disposed any time. Married couples have marriage of commitment which never comes to an end regardless of challenges experienced. Work cited McGowan, J. (2006). Marriage versus Living Together. USA: Oxford University Press.

Sport

German Language Spelling With a Double S or Eszett (ß)

A unique feature of the German alphabet  is the ß  character. Found in no other language, part of the uniqueness of ß—aka eszett (s-z) or scharfes s (sharp s)—is that, unlike all other German letters, it exists only in the lower case. This exclusivity may help explain why many Germans and Austrians are so attached to the character. Since being introduced in 1996, spelling reform (Rechtschreibreform) has shaken the German-speaking world and caused raging controversy.  Even though the Swiss have managed to live peacefully without the ß in Swiss-German for decades, some German-speakers are up in arms over its possible demise. Swiss writers, books, and periodicals have long ignored the ß, using double-s (ss) instead. Thats why its all the more puzzling that the International Working Committee for [German] Spelling (Internationaler Arbeitskreis fà ¼r Orthographie) chose to keep this troublesome oddity in certain words while eliminating its use in others. Why not just toss out this troublemaker that non-Germans and German beginners often mistake for a capital B, and be done with it? If the Swiss can get by without it, why not the Austrians and Germans? Double S Reforms From Rechtschreibreform The rules for when to use the ß rather than ss have never been easy, but while the simplified spelling rules are less complex, they continue the confusion. German spelling reformers included a section called  sonderfall ss/ß (neuregelung), or special case ss/ß (new rules). This section says, For the sharp (voiceless) [s] after a long vowel or diphthong, one writes ß, as long as no other consonant follows in the word stem.  Alles klar? (Got that?) Thus, while the new rules reduce the use of the ß, they still leave intact the old bugaboo that means some German words are spelled with ß, and others with ss. (The Swiss are looking more reasonable by the minute, arent they?) The new and improved rules mean that the conjunction formerly known as  daß or that should now be spelled  dass  (short-vowel rule), while the adjective groß for big adheres to the long-vowel rule. Many words formerly spelled with ß are now written with ss, while others retain the sharp-s character (technically known as the sz ligature):  Straße for street, but  schuss  for shot.  Fleiß for diligence, but  fluss for river. The old mixing of different spellings for the same root word also remains  fließen for  flow, but  floss for flowed.  Ich weiß for I know, but  ich wusste for I knew. Though reformers were forced to make an exception for the oft-used preposition  aus, which otherwise would now have to be spelled  auß,  außen for outside, remains. Alles klar? Gewiss! (Everything clear? Certainly!) German Response While making things slightly easier for teachers and students of German, the new rules remain good news for the publishers of German dictionaries. They fall far short of true simplification, which many disappointed people had anticipated. Of course, the new rules cover much more than just the use of the ß, so its not difficult to see why  Rechtschreibreform  has sparked protests and even court cases in Germany. A June 1998 poll in Austria revealed that only about 10 percent of Austrians favored the orthographic reforms. A huge 70 percent rated the spelling changes as nicht gut. But despite the controversy, and even a Sept. 27, 1998 vote against the reforms in the German state of Schleswig-Holstein, the new spelling rules have been judged valid in recent court rulings. The new rules officially went into effect on Aug. 1, 1998, for all government agencies and schools. A transitional period allowed the old and new spellings to coexist until July 31, 2005. Since then only the new spelling rules are considered valid and correct, even though most German-speakers continue to spell German as they always have, and there are no regulations or laws that prevent them from doing so. Perhaps the new rules are a step in the right direction, without going far enough. Some feel that the current reform should have dropped ß completely (as in German-speaking Switzerland), eliminated the anachronistic  capitalization of nouns  (as English did hundreds of years ago), and further simplified German spelling and punctuation in many other ways. But those who protest against spelling reform (including authors who should know better) are misguided, trying to resist needed changes in the name of tradition. Many counterarguments are demonstrably false while placing emotion over reason. Still, though schools and government are still subject to the new rules, most German speakers are against the reforms. The revolt by the  Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung  in Aug. 2000, and later by other German newspapers, is yet another sign of the widespread unpopularity of the reforms. Time alone will tell how the spelling reform story ends.