Environmentalists critical of Obama drilling plan

President Obama has recently expressed that he would like to drill for oil in the key atlantic and golf of mexico. Several environmentalists are very upset with this decision. The main thing that these people are worried about is oil spills. They feel that the environmental and economic risks should be better researched. They also feel that we should take our dependency off of oils and try to find other means of energy.

I think that these people should be protesting. To me it doesn't make sense why we would start drilling here. I think the only reason we should start drilling in the Unites States is if we absolutely have no other choice. Yes, i think it is important to not be so dependent on foreign oil but that doesn't mean that we should just start being dependent on our own oil. I really feel like we should be investing in trying to find an efficient energy source that is renewable and not so hazardest to the enviornment.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/31/energy.environmentalists/index.html

Healthcare blog-5 key things to remember about health care reform

This article explains five things that are important to know about the health care bill. The first thing to know is that the bill does not allow insurance companies to discriminate against people who have pre-existing conditions. Before the health care bill insurance companies would often deny or charge very high rates to people who had a pre-existing condition. Starting in 2014 insurance companies can no longer do that. In the mean time, there will be a "high risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. The second thing is that children can stay on their parents health insurance until they are 26. The child may not have a job that offers them health insurance in order to be on the parents insurance plan and must be claimed as a dependent on the parents taxes.The third thing is that you may be able to get a subsidy to buy insurance. If employers do not provide insurance to you then starting in 2014 you will get a subsidy. This subsidy will depend on your income,whether you are single or have a family, your age, and where you live. The third thing is that companies will be required to offer health plans to its employees if it employees more than 50 people. This plan must cover at least 60 percent of your overall health costs.The company will be fined if it does not offer this. The last thing is knowing what the bill does for seniors.One of the things it will do for them is to give people on medicare new access to free preventive services. Another thing it will do is close the gap in part-d where medicare no longer pays when the senior has spent a certain amount of money.



I think it is good to have an article that explains some of the basics of the health care bill. It seems like most people really don't even know what the bill is about and they are argueing about it. I think it would also be useful to have an article explaining what some of the things are that are making people so bad. As for these five things, I think they are good. It is important for insurance companies to not be able to drop somebody if they have a pre-existing condition or if they get really sick. It is just not fair to the person. I think it is also good that children can stay on their parents plan until they are 26 so they don't have to worry about getting their own insurance until they are out of school and have their own job. I think it is good that companies will need to provide a plan to its employees. That way those employees are not just left by themselves to figure it out. I also think it is good that the bill will allow easier access to prevenative services for seniors. From this information, I think the bill is a good thing. However, I am not aware of the conflicts of the bill.





http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/25/health.care.law.basics/index.html?iref=storysearch

Haitian judge files additional charge against missionaries

10 American baptist missionaries who were previously accused of trying to take 33 Haitian children out of Haiti without proper authorization are now being given an additional charge of "organizing irregular travel". 9 of the accused have already been released on bail and have left the country. What the 10 missionaries are charged with according to this article is :

– Criminal association, 3-15 years;
– Kidnapping of a minor, 3-9 years;
– Organizing irregular travel, 3-6 years.

The main leader of the group has said that the parents were orphaned but CNN found out that 20 of the children had at least one living parent. The parents said that they thought putting their children in the care of the missionaries would give them a better life. Apparently, the group planned to keep the children in a hotel in the Dominican Republic and then later in an orphanage.




I think that this is a very confusing situation. I don't understand why the missionaries would take the children just to put them in an orphanage. I would understand if maybe the orphanage they planned to put the children in was a better place for the children to stay then the current situation that they are in. In which case, why wouldn't Haiti let the group take the children? It doesn't make sense to me why Haiti won't let people take the children in order to provide them with a better life. I'm not sure if they do now or not, but they should make a system that makes sense and is easy for people who have good intentions of taking the children and helping them. Although, I don't think that they should just ship the children off with whoever wants them. They need a better system of communication.



http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/12/haitian-judge-files-additional-charge-against-missionaries/

Kansas City board OKs plan to close nearly half of schools

A Kansas City school board in Missouri, recently decided to pass the "right size" plan. This involves cutting basically half of the schools in the city. The plan was initiated because of falling enrollment of students. It was taking up too many recourses to keep schools open for not many students according to the superintendent. The plan cuts 28 0f 61 schools, cuts 700 jobs, and saves $50 million dollars. Many parents are upset with the idea of mearging students into the same schools, like kindergarteners with seniors. The superintendent wants to focus on keeping the schools that aren't closing much stronger.

I think that it is alarming that the economy has gotten to this point. Education is the last place where things should be cut. I do understand where the superintendent is coming from though. If they MUST cut somwhere out of education I think that this plan is not a bad idea. It allows the remaining schools to get the proper focus and recourses it needs. I don't like that it cuts 700 jobs because they will probably be faces with more problems coming out of unemployment, but thats another issue. Up through 7th grade I was in a school that was K-12 and I didn't see the harm in it. I don't think the parents should be upset students of varied ages are going to the same school, as long as they are not in the same class room of course. I think that it is a good idea, now it all depands how the plan gets carried out. It has good potential.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/11/missouri.school.closings/index.html?hpt=T1

U.S. travel promotion bill signed into law

President Obama has signed a travel promotion act. This act is supposed to promote travel to the United States. This is hoped to act a economic stimulant and to create new jobs. The act will create a corporation that will be in charge of making travel to the United States more appealing. This will be funded by charging visitors a 10 dollar fee, along with a matching program. The U.S has not been spending much on promoting tourism in the past and it is thought that with this bill the U.S will generate an extra 4 billion dollars in tourist spending. They also would like to "improve" entry and exit procedures to make traveling to the U.S more convenient.


I think that this travel promotion act is a little unnecessary. First of all, I don't understand how charging a 10 dollar fee is promoting travel. Also, I think that people are going to travel to the United States if they want to. I don't see how people are going to convince the world to travel to the United States because chances are, people already have their options about the U.S and if they desire to travel there. I don't think the United States is very unknown to many people. Also, from my understanding this act is not giving people money to travel to the U.S, because some people may already want to visit but maybe they don't have the money in the first place. I don't understand how entry and exit procedures are planned to be improved. There is a reason for why the U.S has the systems that they do and I don't understand why they would cut back on security just to make traveling more convenient for people.


http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/03/04/travel.promotion.act/index.html