An Ultrasound before Abortion?

An Ultrasound before

Abortion?

    There is currently a bull running through the legislation of Wisconsin on an abortion bill. The bill would require the female to get an ultrasound before ending her pregnancy. You would have to find a clinic that would be able to perform a correct and accurate ultrasound, but the catch is that the clinic has to have clearance for admittance to a hospital. The reasoning behind this bill is that many women have regretted getting an abortion and sometimes seeing the ultrasound picture may change their minds and not want to go get an abortion. Planned Parenthood is the most common place in Wisconsin for an ultrasound. Under state law the patient wouldn’t be required to take an ultrasound.  They’re allowed to just go through with it without thinking about it.

            Since you know a little bit about the law, I am going to share my feeling with you on this subject. I believe that we should allow women to get an abortion in certain situations. I believe this because in the terrible world we live in today there are vigorous crimes. If a girl got pregnant by her molester she would even be more scarred than she already is because that child would be a memory of what happen that day or night. That wouldn’t be healthy at all for the child or the mother. Also if someone does get raped it’s not like they were going out and giving themselves up. They were forced into something that they didn’t want to and they shouldn’t be punished because of that. I am against abortion in any other way because if you weren’t raped or sexually abused, you know the risk you take and if you’re willing to take that risk, you can LIVE with the child and learn through your actions.

            Lastly I believe that if you choose to have unprotected sex you should be willing to deal with the consequences of your actions. “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” My mother has always said that to me about certain things in life and even though many people think that it would never happens to them. It happens to a lot of people and it doesn’t make it right to take a life away because they chose to take the risk. With a rape victim that is unfair because they were forced to do something and they shouldn’t have to live with the memory if they don’t want to because that can destroy someone for life. So why risk making the child a burden to the mother and make the mother remember what happened to her and resent the child. No child deserves that because it can kill them even before they start living.

            Thanks for reading and I hope to hear back from you soon! This is a topic I think we need to cover because it is so relevant. Also I would love to hear your opinions so please don’t be afraid to comment or write back to me! It would be greatly appreciated.

The link to the article is listed below:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/bill-would-require-an-ultrasound-before-an-abortion-b9927582z1-210326851.html

Thank you for reading,

George Opelt

Should the government give grants for alternative fuels?

Cody Albano

Should the government give grants for alternative fuels?

            Coal and gasses will not be able to run our cars and homes forever. Soon we will run out, and when we do, then what? We will have no fuel to power our cities, corporations will fall, even countries. We will be left to primitive versions of transportation. Life would never be the same for anyone again. Alternative fuels are the only option we will have. Soon it won’t be an alternative.

            However, we are not that far in research for these alternative fuels like bio-decomposition, solar and wind. Research can often times be expensive, which is why scientists, who work for not-profit organizations, are asking the government for grants. Besides grants from schools or other public entities which rarely happens, grants from the government will be the only way to keep the discoveries going. The USDA does give grants for alternative energy and they are dispersed throughout the states however. Might I remind that all of these alternative fuel options will be able to pay back eventually.

            The Government does not have a hard time sending grants, but the problem is, $5,500 isn’t going to do much in research. Plus, the grants get divided into different states, which shrinks that number even further. I understand that the US is in debt tremendously but, not to sound cheesy, it takes money to make money. A current house hold solar panel will be able to pay itself off within 20 years. If we continue research and find better and more reliable materials, we can create panels that will pay themselves in 10 years, or even 5. They will also be able to last much longer as well with very little maintenance.

Graphene is a recently discovered product that is considered a two-dimensional material. It is made entirely out of graphite atoms in a hexagonal pattern and is only one atom thick. Because of this Graphene has some amazing properties, like being a super conductor 300 times better than gold. This property is something that scientists have been looking for to apply for Solar panels. The problem is making the Graphite into its two-dimensional form. If the government were to send higher grants then they could be used for this new material for alternative energy.

            On March 15^th, President Obama announced that he is proposing to fund $2 billion for this research in a span of 10 years. This would help a significant percentage if it were to get passed. The main purpose for this fund is to help with research for alternative fuels in cars and vehicles and find sources that can be used instead of coal and oils. The problem with it passing is that democrats are for these alternative fuels where as republicans feel the need to fund off shore drilling and oil rigs. The main point Obama is trying to make to convince both parties is that this is a jobs-creation opportunity. Most democrats are for this but very few republicans are which is why it is critical to have them agree to the terms.

            In an overview since, Alternative fuel is needed to continue as a country. We will not be able to survive as a whole when we run out of oil and coal. As long as enough grants are sent for research of solar panels and wind turbines and such, soon these alternative fuels will not be the alternative.

Over the Limit Under Arrest, Drunk Driving Limits to Change

By: Dan Kemp

Currently each state’s law states that any person driving a car, truck, motorcycle, truck, or other motor vehicle or operating heavy machinery must do so with a blood alcohol level of 0.08. Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is a measure of the amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream. BAC is commonly expressed in percentage terms. For instance, having a BAC of 0.08 percent means that a person has eight parts alcohol per 10,000 parts blood in the body. If a person is found driving or operating a motor vehicle or heavy piece of equipment with a 0.08 BAC or higher will receive a ticket for driving a vehicle while intoxicated (DWI). Other tickets for the same offense include DUI OWI, OUI, OVI, DUII each mean essentially the same thing but are called, assessed, and fined differently in each state.

The facts don’t lie, in recent years drunk driving has been a huge problem in the United States. Over 1.41 million drivers were arrested in 2010 for driving under the influence of alcohol or narcotics. This does not include the millions of drivers that were not caught driving intoxicated, or the ones who received a warning. Adults drank too much and got behind the wheel about 112 million times in 2010 that is almost 300,000 incidents of drinking and driving each day. In that same year 211 children were killed in drunk driving crashes. Out of those 211 deaths, 131 (62 percent) were riding with the drunk driver. If these stats do not show you exactly how dangerous and how big of a problem drunk driving is then nothing will. 

This graph shows how many drivers were killed driving drunk in 2010 compared to other national events

As you hopefully have noticed states, especially Wisconsin have tried to prevent drivers from getting on the road after they have had too much to drink. During the last year Wisconsin’s television and radio stations have exploded with anti-drunk driving ads. Using the slogans “Zero In Wisconsin” and “Over the Limit Under Arrest” the number has decreased slightly but not enough. Wisconsin however is not the only state experiencing this problem, in fact all 50 are and that is why a major change is coming.

The National Transportation Safety Board recommended on Tuesday that all 50 states adopt a blood-alcohol content (BAC) cutoff of 0.05 compared to the 0.08 standard today used by law enforcement and the courts to prosecute drunk driving. Changing the legal limit to 0.05 will help everyone on the roads. First and foremost comes the people driving with alcohol in their system. Drivers are currently able to drive with 0.08 BAC levels in their body, which is considered “safe” but lowering the limit to 0.05 will make those driving even safer. Also it will discourage drivers from getting onto the roads after drinking. Knowing that it will be easier to receive a DWI ticket, hopefully will keep people from drinking more than the legal limit or encourage them to find a designated driver.

Hopefully this change will go into effect, and go into effect soon. We cannot put a price on our country’s safety. Changing the drinking and driving limit to 0.05 will keep people safe and save lives.

Works Cited:

"Drunk Driving - DUI, DWI, OUI, OWI Explained." DUI Laws. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.drunkdrivinglaws.org/drunkdriving.html>.

 

"MADD -Statistics." MADD -Mothers Against Drunk Driving. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.madd.org/statistics/>.

"Tougher drunk-driving threshold proposed to reduce traffic deaths - CNN.com." CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/14/us/ntsb-blood-alcohol/index.html>.

 

observant, being, and proactive. "Going All ‘Janet Napolitano’ on Drunk Driving « Drinking And Driving .Org – Behind the Wheel." Drinking And Driving .Org - Drunk Driving Statistics and Prevention Techniques. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.drinkinganddriving.org/blog/?p=144>.

Evolution Should Not Be Taught In Public Schools

Written by: Jacob Page 

 

According to Dictionary.com, the definition of the word Religion is, “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs”, there for the Theory of Evolution is technically a religion which is illegal to be taught at a public school. Although that one fact should be enough reason to ban evolution from public schools there is more. The first thing is the fact that there are a growing number of students who don’t believe in the theory. Without a forced influence by the school, a student has more freedom to believe in what in what they truly believe in. 


Personally this affects me because I am going to be a pastor. I don’t want my kids to be forced to learn about evolution as I was. Since I did not believe in the theory I had to act as if I did believe in it, which according to my religion is sin. This is, in terms of my religion is forcing religious people to sin. Also since I did not believe in the theory I failed the class twice due to lack of interest and anger that I was being forced to learn something I did not believe to be true. You need to remember as well the fact that money does not grow on trees, not everyone can afford private school. Also when kids are young they are easily mislead, and they love to rebel. I don’t want my child to be accidently mislead into evolution causing him to lose faith. We’ve all been kids at one point in time and we’ve all rebelled against our parents, the last thing I want is for my kids to take me teaching them religion in the wrong way.


Not only does this affect me directly but it affects ones I care about, such as my pastor. My pastor used to be a councilor at a MPS school helping many families for years, until one teacher decided to sue him for inviting kids to his church. The lawsuit resulted in the loss of his job leaving him to rely on his church alone to supply two kids and a wife. The fact that he can be sued and fired for only inviting someone to his church, while science teachers are getting the opposite, paid is absolutely asinine. This country is supposed to be land of the free. That includes freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. Having a required class based on a theory is not either of those things. It would be one thing if there were also required Christianity class. Or just a class called religions that focused on all religions. Regardless of religion anyone should be able to see the law and rights that are being infringed in school.




Work Cited:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
http://archive.adl.org/religion_ps_2004/evolution.asp

The Wiki Weapons Project

Written by: Bradley Kern
 
Imagine being able to print anything you can design in full 3-dimensions, right from your computer. What would you design? A ball? A bag? A case? A toy car? What about a full functional gun? Well, that is exactly what Cody Wilson, founder of Defense Distributed, did. He has started a project called “The Wiki Weapons Project”, which states is “a nonprofit effort to create freely available plans for 3D printable guns”. The gun is called the “Liberator”, which would have been the first 3D printed gun of many. Recently the U.S Government, specifically the Department of Defense Trade Controls, has had him remove his 3-D blueprints, a little 100,000+ downloads later. The blueprints have already been passed around, many uploading the blueprints to sites such as Pirate Bay, where anyone can download it, including those who do not live in the U.S and may not have the right to own a gun. Thousands now have the blueprints to his gun, many of which don’t even have a 3-D printer in the first place. What worried many people with this gun is that it is untraceable, making it harder to find if someone printed and shot the gun.

Many things went wrong with this project. Since the gun was digitally downloaded through the web, anyone around the world could have downloaded the blueprint. This violates the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, which only allows the trade of defense and military weapons if the Department of State allows it. Since it was made of plastic, the gun violated the Undetectable Firearm Act, which states that all firearms must be recognizable by metal detectors. However, the files are now everywhere, sites like the Pirate Bay now host the blueprint files, over 100,000+ people have downloaded the file. Many people both praise and criticize the company. They have not be endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), though they have been endorsed by the Gun Owners of America (GOA). Those who criticize it say that they are endangering the public, even putting Cody Wilson on Wired’s most dangerous people list. Rep. Steve Israel wants a ban of the Wiki Weapon project and a renewal of the Undetectable Firearm Act. One thing to consider with the Wiki Weapon project however, is how expensive and tedious it is. First you have to buy a 3-D printer, some of which cost from $1500, to $80,000, the $80,000 one being industrial size, while the $1500 is for smaller uses. Then buy the special plastic cartridge used for 3-D printing, which is going to cost you another $50 per cartridge. Not to mention the fact that it takes hours, to even days before the printing is even done. It would be less time consuming to just go and purchase an actual gun.

What this sheds light on is the future of 3-D printing and what we can and cannot print. The 2^nd amendment gives us the right to own and produce guns (Guns cannot be made of imported parts though), but can we do will still get that right if plastic is untraceable. How long before 3-D printing becomes cheaper, and anyone who is smart enough to design their own weapon, prints one. His files are out there, and if he can create a 3-D printed gun, someone will surely improve off of this. Keep in mind, I’m all for 3-D printing. I think this is incredible, the fact he was able to 3-D print a gun, but what happens when bad people get untraceable guns. What Cody did was show us that we need to evolve with today’s technology; it also brings many questions to the table. How are we going to adapt to the changing technological advances around us? Are we going to regulate what can and cannot be 3-D printed? Is 3-D printing itself going to be government ran and funded, or are we still going to leave it to the companies and the people? Not everything in 3-D printing is centered around guns, right now they are working on 3-D printing functional organs, and have succeed with the first functional 3-D printed bionic ear. 3-D printing has other features besides being a local gun manufacture.

In the end, it is all going to come down to what our government can and cannot restrict, and what we will let them restrict. 3-D printing is becoming a larger industry every day, and this event is pushing us to see what technology today is capable of doing, and what people are capable of doing with that technology. Do I believe that 3-D printed guns are going to “alter the U.S government system”? No, but I do believe that it will become immensely popular when everyone can get a hold of it, and what people will create will become argued about even more as time goes on.

References:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/3d-printable-gun-153109290.html

http://defdist.org/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technology/2013/05/how-defense-distributed-already-upended-world/65126/

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/state-department-defense-distributed-3d-printed-gun-plans/65075/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/may/12/defense-distributed-3d-printer-gun

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/3d-gun_n_3247443.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-government-orders-cody-wilson-and-defense-distributed-to-remove-blueprint-for-3dprinted-handgun-from-the-web-8610842.html