Clean Water Act

While every news station is repeating the over played debate clips or gushing over Honeybooboo, the butchery of the Clean Water Act is going on largely unbeknownst to the public. Peter Lehner, wrote on this issue in the Opinions section of Politico. In this article he attempts to inform the public of how Republicans in the House of Representatives and some in Congress want to throw out key provisions of the Clean Water Act. He starts off by showing the reader the effects of the Act, the fact that the tap water we drink is safe, the beach and the surrounding waters in which we swim in are safe, and we are still able to go fishing.  Before the law was passed in 1972, rivers caught fire, millions of fish died due to contamination, and raw sewerage was constantly dumped into rivers and lakes.  He claims that at the time “between 60 and 70 percent of America’s lakes, rivers, and coastal water were considered unsafe for fishing and swimming in 1972.

The basic argument is: not only do we have to protect the Clean Water Act, we have to go beyond what it originally states and augment it to deal with new issues involving the cleanliness of our water such as the hazardous effects of polluted storm water contaminating our rivers and lakes. He also argues that the EPA, not the House of Representatives or the Senate should oversee the Act; the EPA should go beyond preserving the cleanliness of the water and promote green infrastructure.

When I read the article I was touched by the fact that someone took it upon themselves to. That was until I read that Lehner is the executive director of the Nation Resources Defense Council, it kind of took me aback and made me think “well this changes things” could he have some hidden agenda other than to inform the public about this atrocity? I don’t know, but the fact of the matter is, this article brought light to something that affects millions of people and if the Act gets weakened it could have detrimental effects on our lives. I looked for an article that supported or criticized the article and I found a brief history on the Act on PBS which seems to strengthen the legitimacy of the article. I am convinced that we need to do something to ensure that the CWA remains intact, I just can't understand why states would want to trade the health of their inhabitants for money. Drinkable water is running out and they want to pollute the little we have left.

The Dilemma With Undecided Voters

After months of campaigning, the presidential candidates finally faced off on Wednesday during the first of the many debates that aspire to sway the few Americans who are still undecided. This article is intended for those undecided voters, Timothy Egan, a Pacific Northwest correspondent and a national enterprise reporter who has written for the New York Times for 18 years, starts out by stating that “time is up” for the undecided voter. There aren't many, but the fact that the media and the presidential candidates are focusing so much on swaying them to no avail is what seems to be the matter here.  He claims that there is no viable reason for them not to come to a conclusion yet, the candidates couldn't be more different! In his mind, either you side with Mitt Romney (who wants to cut taxes, add to the defense budget and somehow reduce the debt) or Barack Obama (who lowered the unemployment rate and plans to get rid of the policies that put us in this economic state).   The choice is evidently easy but he claims that it’s not that they can’t make up their minds, it’s that they won’t.

The argument appears to be clear: we hate you because you won’t make up your mind; yet beneath that there seems to be a pro Obama message here. While he rips Romney’s ideals he does nothing but praise Obama, it leads one to wonder whether Romney is that bad and Obama that good or whether the author is staying true to the New York Time’s liberal point of view.

Despite the bias, Egan’s argument is successful; it isn't based on his gut or on rumor but actual facts. I looked for the Washington Post poll which he claimed that undecided voters were the least interested in the debates, and saw that a whooping sixty eight percent of undecided voters won’t be watching the debates. After reading this article, I have learned that vast majority of the persuadable voters refuse to watch the one thing that is designed to persuade them and that is a problem, it’s not that they can’t pick a side it’s that they don’t want to. This argument made me understand the purpose of the debates and a bit about how the political world works during the race to the White House. If the undecided voters voted it could affect who wins the popular vote.