After reading a classmate's blog on oil it is clear our country is not focusing on being proactive to solve a solution, it is furthering our dependence on oil. Instead of focusing on alternative energy options we are ignoring the obvious problem of the limited supply and still consuming more than ever. The blog is well written, researched, and compiled in a effective way to highlight a very important issue facing our nation. If we look at other developed nations many have converted or at least established other main sources of energy and are eliminating their dependence on oil. The main issue here is money, which my colleague addressed briefly. The oil industry is a huge money maker for the U.S. and I believe the truth is that the government wants us to be dependent on oil and not exhaust other resources because this strengthens their control over the citizens.
The article is reinforced by facts and common sense statements that aren't argueable, which helps emphasize the point that our government needs to stop spending so much on oil and use that money for research for alterntive fuels and energy sources. The whole idea just makes sense, so why isn't it happening? If more citizens cared and made this the pressing issue in politics then the politicians would have to respond. There could be more elaboration in the article about what we should do in response to the issue and options that are currently available. It would be interesting if the subject of government subsidies and how much the oil industry makes a quarter werementioned. The issue of oil is extensive, controversial, and pertinent to today's society and was well covered in the blog. The important thing here is that we as citizens need to be proactive to eliminate our dependence on oil and force our government to follow in our foot steps.
1 comment:
Mendolyn I agree partly with you but I think that it depends on the offense. My personal guideline has always been will this person hurt themselves or someone else? Although hurt is a very broad definition so, it is up to the investigators personal judgment and they should be able to show the court worthy reasoning for their decision.
In the article Bait and Snitch by Alexandra Natapoff of the Slate, it points out the cost to law enforcements for using snitching in crime solving. The author of the Slate and you point out it creates more criminals because it causes a “slap on the hand” punishment. This may be true in drug abuse cases but, when it comes to a kidnapping case the stake changes. Would you rather an accomplice help police find who has kidnapped someone and save their life maybe? The police sometimes have to rely on inside information to get their foot in the right direction. They don’t always have the time to investigate fully. Sometimes that resorts to doing things you don’t want to do. I would rather the accomplice get off with a shorter jail sentence, than anyone gets killed. There are certain situations that I feel it is worthy of using. Some argue it brings a more social strain on an already bad neighborhood, that it undermines loyalty. I would rather criminals feel singled out and paranoid than be able to organize and conquer. I do believe that snitching is the main detective tool in drug cases. This does undermine police investigation making them depend on someone to snitch. This indirectly dulls a detective’s skills for police investigation and can cause wrong arrests. I do agree with the author that nobody should be punished for not snitching. Unless they are a direct accomplice to a crime, they shouldn’t be punished.
In any case snitching should only be used to save someone’s life and not become a new investigative procedure. It hurts the reliability of cases and dulls the skills of investigators on solving crimes.
Post a Comment