A Fight for Human Rights

In “On Moral Grounds:Revisited,”Abigail Quintanilla discusses how a government-issued contraceptive mandate, a law that would require companies to supply woman's’ reproductive health care to their employees, is discriminative towards corporations that are opposed to contraceptives for religious reasons. Abigail highlights Hobby Lobby’s case in particular, stating that it is unfair to impose this mandate when it would cover prescriptions and procedures such as abortions and the “morning after” pill that go against the company founder’s Christian beliefs. While her argument is strongly stated, I believe it is weakened by her supporting links going to religiously charged websites rather than neutral, third party sites that explore the issue as a political argument (as the courts must). I also feel that the idea of the mandate being religiously discriminatory is not a strong argument. The company’s founders themselves may not believe in the reproductive rights of a woman, but that is no reason to refuse healthcare to their employees. Just like companies cannot refuse to hire applicants due to sexual orientation, political doctrine, and religious beliefs (or lack thereof), companies should not be able to refuse a government-mandated healthcare plan. The religious beliefs of the company’s founder do not necessarily apply to all of company employees, and just as they cannot discriminate against new hires, that same truth should hold through in all aspects of the job. It is unjust to refuse healthcare opportunities to employees based on purely religious differences, and for that reason I disagree with the notion that Hobby Lobby has a fighting chance when they bring their case to the courts. This, as much as many would like to disagree, is not a religious discrimination—it is a push for the basic human right to healthcare.

Candy in the morning time, Candy in the hot sunshine.

The primary role of government is supposedly to ensure its citizens are safe in their pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. However, if you look beyond the overt military gestures at the regulations (or lack thereof) on things that directly effect our everyday life, like food, you’ll come to a sobering realization: we are not nearly as protected as we think we are. The quality of food in America, while not as bad as described in Sinclair’s The Jungle, is the lowest its been in many decades. 

In the 1970s and the 1980s, after much pressure from industry lobbyists, the FDA finally allowed the inclusion of aspartame and high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) into the mainstream production of American food. Both chemicals were used as cheaper sweetening alternatives to sugar, with aspartame also simultaneously serving as a “diet” option for the newly weight-conscious nation.  Just after these chemicals were introduced into American foods, doctors across the nation first noticed an alarming rise in both heart disease and obesity. Over 30 years later, scientists the world over have discovered this correlation is no mere coincidence, with countless dozens of studies that show how our higher consumption of both chemicals have direct negative effects on everything from the circulatory system to the brain. Yet, according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC), over one third of adult Americans are clinically obese and a quarter of all American deaths are related to heart disease, and our consumption of both HFCS and aspartame has never been higher. 

If the federal government was really as concerned for our safety as they claim to be, why has there been no effort to impose harsher regulations on food production in our country? While both military an terrorist threats are a real concern, millions upon millions more American citizens are negatively effected by the poor nutritional standards the food industry has coerced our government into accepting. 

Fighting against the Fat Tax

In “The American Right to Super Size,” Ashley Mcintosh discusses the possibility of the government implementing a “fat tax.” She continues to explain that these taxes would affect both the obese in the form of higher healthcare and an overall taxation on foods that have a high content of fat or sugar. Ashley then goes to argue that these fat taxes would not only be ineffective but that it is an American right to be able to purchase food of their choice. She then gives the reader alternative solutions to fighting the fat tax which would still go after the desired results including; mandating better physical education programs in schools, regulating additives & preservatives, and lowering the cost of healthy items. 

I agree with Ashley that taxation is not an effective method in lowering obesity rates and she has made a strong argument with supporting research to show better alternatives. If we want to lower the obesity rate in America we need to make healthier options more acceptable to the public. I full heartedly support the idea of regulating the food industry in regards to additives and preservatives, these substances are not only unnecessary but as Ashley states, addictive. The only thing I would have liked to see Ashley touch more on in her argument would be the importance of educating the public on healthy lifestyles. If we want to see real change I believe that healthy foods not only need to be more accessible but we also need to have better educational programs showing why these are better options. 

Here am I sitting in my tin can far above the Moon; Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do

        The 2013 proposed federal budget for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that was released February 13 cuts funding by $59 million dollars from last year’s budget. The largest cuts will be seen in NASA’s planetary science program, which not only researches the intricacy and depths of our solar system but also observes and assesses global threats from meteors & asteroids, water & energy systems, and atmospheric changes. These cuts are detrimental to United States citizens, yet these same citizens remain ill-informed and inactive due to a lack of media coverage.

If we, as a nation, aren’t going to take responsibility for global climate change—because it points the finger at ourselves and requires reforming our gluttonous lifestyles—then why can’t we at least focus our attention on potentially catastrophic extraterrestrial threats? If nothing else, why doesn’t the government find it important enough to monitor these threats if only to ensure they still have a country to govern? Is it not the job of our federal government to protect us from both national and global threats, and if so why is it not more of a concern to fund NASA when it’s an educational program geared towards protecting the planet? Is it that our government officials are ignorant to these extraterrestrial threats, or are they simply choosing to ignore them for larger political gain?

These budget cuts could very well be a life or death matter, as they make it even more difficult to detect potentially threatening meteors. While a six to nine mile wide extinction-level meteor (the kind Hollywood makes cheesy and laughably inaccurate blockbusters about) only comes around every 100 million years or so, hundreds of smaller but still disastrous threats menace Earth every year. NASA and other space agencies have catalogued over 4,000 meteors with the potential to impact the planet over the past two decades, and over 1,700 of those classified as “large” with a diameter greater than 0.62 miles. Why are these “large” meteors such a threat if they’re barely one tenth the size required for human extinction? If a large extra-terrestrial body were to strike the U.S. or its bordering bodies of water (to say nothing of the rest of the world), it could cause massive tidal waves up to 3,000 feet tall to sweep across the coast and cause catastrophic devastation the likes of which human kind has never seen. Millions would perish, the already tenuous economy would collapse, and we would likely never recover.

The good news is that we have solutions to these threats. NASA not only observes potentially dangerous meteors, but also researches and plans methods for averting an impact disaster. The program has the ability to prevent a meteor from hitting the planet, so long as they are able to spot it in time. So, cutting their funding is not necessarily the best way to go if we plan on protecting not only our nation, but the world at large. We can all help be a solution to these threats by pressuring our government to support space and asteroid watch programs, and becoming independently informed on the threats to society that don’t make news coverage.

Closing time for Climate Control: you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here

The Huffington Post featured a blog post by David Goldstein titled No Option: An Adult Response to Climate Change, a heartfelt plea calling for the citizens of the world to take responsibility and work towards addressing climate change. Goldstein argues that our climate change situation is no different than his personal experience dealing with a liver transplant, an “adult choice” between following expert advice to get better or ignoring said advice and (probably) dying. He urges his Huffington Post audience, generally liberal leaning news conscious individuals, to wake up to climate change by citing the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: “A 4 degrees Celsius world is likely to be one in which communities, cities and countries would experience severe disruptions, damage, and dislocation, with many of these risks spread unequally. It is likely that the poor will suffer most and the global community could become more fractured, and unequal than today. The projected 4 degrees Celsius warming simply must not be allowed to occur -- the heat must be turned down. Only early, cooperative, international actions can make that happen.” Goldstein believes both our resistance to acknowledge facts and refusal to be proactive about the situation can be broken down into three categories: 1) avoidance of reality, 2) inversion of rationality, and finally 3) ignorance and/or lying. The first is evident when you consider that even though scientists have warned the aforementioned 4 degree Celsius warming constitutes a global emergency, carbon emissions continue to rise 3% annually and the US state department has fast tracked the Keystone XL pipeline. When confronted with such facts, many climate change doubters begin to (in Goldstein’s words) “invert rationality,” equivocating accepted science with “blind, inflexible orthodoxy.” Finally, whether it be through outright lying or mere ignorance, detractors will resort to “[broadcasting] misinformation about a topic that is projected to cause great suffering and hardship,” as Goldstein claims Texas Governor Rick Perry did during the 2012 GOP primary. What I admire most about Goldstein is his call to change: “Embracing the reality of 'no option', however challenging the viable option may be, allows us to finally open to new possibilities, to see obstacles as challenges to be overcome not as justifications to delay and dissemble.” It is a way to turn our negative outlook on climate change by shining it in a positive light, without ignoring the fact that it is an obstacle he chooses to look at these issues as opportunities to work together as a global community and find solutions.

Taunting Mother Nature and Mr. Market

    A week before Obama’s second inauguration, Thomas Friedman wrote an article for the NewYork Times titled “The Market and Mother Nature” which outlined his proposal on tackling what he considers to be the United States two biggest domestic issues: national debt and climate change.  Friedman, a three time Pulitzer Prize recipient, previous chief economic correspondent for the Washington bureau, and a White House correspondent, argues that both financial and carbon debt are reaching a point of no return.  On the status of the United States emissions Friedman comments, “For thousands of years up to the dawn of the industrial age 200 years ago, the Earth’s atmosphere contained 280 parts per million of the heat-trapping greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Today, that number is nearly 400 p.p.m., with 450 p.p.m. routinely cited as the tipping point where we create the conditions for out-of-control acceleration.” Friedman cites the melting of Earth’s icecaps in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia, which causes the release of frozen methane. Methane as a greenhouse gas is more hazardous than CO2 and therefore causes sea levels to rise at a much quicker pace. As for the status of the United States financial debt he says, “We’re on a similar trajectory with our debt. Mounting deficits have driven America’s debt-to-G.D.P. ratio from 36.2 percent in 2007 to 72.8 percent today. In their widely hailed book on credit crises, “This Time Is Different,” the economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff argue that countries that allow their debt-to-G.D.P. ratios to exceed 90 percent experience slower growth and greater instability — much like hitting a climate tipping point.” 
   Friedman offers a solution to solve both simultaneously, saying that we can slow the progression of climate change and help lower the U.S. Financial debt by implementing small carbon taxes. He backs up his argument with a study conducted by the Congressional Research Service that states “a small carbon tax of $20 per ton — escalating by 5.6 percent annually — could cut the projected 10-year deficit by roughly 50 percent (from $2.3 trillion down to $1.1 trillion).” Friedman ends his article asking his NewYork Times audience, generally those who would be categorized as the educated upper-middle class, “what would [they] rather do to help solve our fiscal problem: Give up [their] home mortgage deduction and wait two more years for Social Security and Medicare, or pay a little extra for gasoline and electricity?” 
    Personally, I find Friedman’s solution of implementing a carbon tax a step in the right direction, and I also love that he has chosen not only to highlight the economic issues we are facing but the environmental problems as well. Many of today’s pundits are fixated on solving the economic problems and seemingly refuse to believe that environmental issues hold the same weight. Friedman has a strong voice and I’m glad that he’s chosen to use his platform to bring awareness to climate change. He makes his argument easy for the reader to understand, not only offering his educated opinions, but also supporting his opinions with facts on the status of our carbon and economic debt. By keeping his argument accessible and limiting the amount of jargon his readers have to wade through, Friedman ensures that the public has the tools to stay informed on these important issues.

Obama on Climate Control: you're hot then you're cold you're yes then you're no

Joel Pett cartoon for USA Today

      When then Senator Barak Obama first ran for president leading up to the '08 election, his platform held many environmental promises towards creating a sustainable future for America. Unfortunately, during Obama's first term he disappointed environmentalist when he did not address global climate change as vigorously as they had hoped. Environmentalist are once again looking for change during Obama's second term in office, and although there is still skepticism from his shortcomings last term, many are hopeful now that the president seems to be more prudent this time around. Salon reports that Obama's inaugural speech brought many environmentalists back on board. Citing Andrew Hoffman: "He finally had the courage to acknowledge the words 'climate change,'" as opposed to the past when the president seemed to beat around the bush with using terms such as "green jobs or clean energy to describe energy policy, instead of the more politically charged term." 

      Similarly, the article talks about Obama's decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, a pipeline purposed to run from Canada to Texas, and how crucial it is for environmentalists view of Obama. If he does reject the pipeline, environmentalists will believe that he is ready keep his promises from his inaugural speech and make global climate change a priority this time around. 

       I find the Salon article to be important because it raises awareness about climate change as an issue. This is important because striving for a more sustainable planet, which is still a taboo topic, should be something that the world is more informed on because as Obama states: "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it."

For more information on our nation's environmental impact watch The Story of Stuff: