We have oil, but that doesn't mean we should use it.

From the online blog, Redstate, dhorowitz3 posts a commentary on the United States utilization, or rather lack of utilization, of fossil fuels. This article titled CRS Report: U.S. is Leader in Fossil Fuel Resources is directed towards republican readers to discuss the recent findings of the Congressional Research Service (CSR), and how their findings relate to and will affect the reader. The writers name, nor position, is provided giving no immediate credibility. On top of that the writer is very biased towards the right making sweeping statements such as "Barack Obama is eager to deride our ‘addiction to oil’ as some sort of pejorative.  We wear that label as a badge of honor.  If there is a prudent and meritorious addiction in the world, it is our patronage of fossil fuels." which does not lend to his credibility as a source fo unbiased opinion. The writer discussed the findings that the United States has vast oil reserves and goes on to say that we should use these reserves and begin drilling saying that "Either way, history has shown that the more we drill, the more oil there is to discover.  And, the more we drill, the more efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly the technology becomes." Although I am a conservative republican I do not agree that we should use the oil reserves we have. I agree with Obama's statement that oil is the energy provider of the past. The environment is truly suffering from our oil use and the ignorant views of this writer truly disappoint me. I think these pro-oil people need to come to grasp with the fact that eventually, we WILL run out of their beloved oil. If there is one thing worth spending government money on it is for finding efficient, environmentally friendly alternatives to oil.

Perhaps They Should Stop and Listen to Each Other

The editorial Wrong In Wisconsin discusses the current turmoil in Wisconsin over legislation dealing with public employee unions. Republican state lawmakers in Wisconsin are currently trying to strip public employee unions of the right to collective bargaining in an attempt to bridge the gap in the state deficit. The editorialist in this editorial takes the position that the lawmakers are wrong and that the unions rights should be maintained, but that overall neither side is listening to the other adequately enough to come to an agreement. They go on to say that while perhaps raising the workers contributions is necessary, taking away the unions collective bargaining rights isn't the answer. The editorialist goes on further to suggest that perhaps a solution that both sides could agree on would be the creation of panels to represent taxpayers interests in setting pension obligations or just cutting union influence on elections. The editorial is directed at any audience that would be following union issues or perhaps even towards the lawmakers themselves. The author gives no personal information to gain credibility but by mentioning facts and forming an educated opinion, comes off as someone with thoughts worth considering. Personally, I don't think that cutting collective bargaining is the answer, but I also don't think that the Republicans are in the wrong attempting to cut the budget and shouldn't be vilified for trying to do so. I agree with the editorialist in their idea that the lawmakers and union should stop to take the time to listen to each other and make a compromise.

Arizona immigration issues lead to issues with the Federal Government

An article entitled, Arizona Sues Feds Over Immigration Issues, shown in USA Today, discusses Arizona's grievances with the Federal government in relation to their lack of action when it comes to border issues and the lawsuit that has resulted. Filed on Thursday afternoon, the lawsuit is a countersuit to the lawsuit the Federal government placed on Arizona questioning the constitutionality of immigration law, SB1070. The lawsuit maintains that by suing Arizona, the Federal government has failed to uphold the 10th Amendment, maintain operational control of the border, enforce immigration laws, and protect Arizona against "invasion." Basically Arizona is just asking that the Federal government do it's job. The Federal government has informally responded to this lawsuit by saying that there are other more pressing issues that should be focused on by Arizona. The article in USA today is short and informative on the topic and gives the reader the general idea of a current issue dealing directly with the interpretation and application of the Constitution by the Federal government.