Schindler's List

2. Schindler's list is a movie about the holocaust which focuses on the effects on over 1000 peoples lives via the aid of Oskar Schindler a member of the Nazi party. The movie starts with the formation of his factory, and the relocated Jews to the Krakow ghetto, and ends as a haven for a small portion of the many Jews affected by the Holocaust.

Oskar starts by saving Jews through his employed accountant, Itzhak Stern, and saves many people. This man tries to save many people claiming that they are essential workers but is smart and makes it into a more appeasing deal claiming that Jews cost less than Poles. Schindler befriends a man named Amon Goethe who is in Krakow in order to set up a new concentration camp and continues to receive help and support from the SS. This relationship with the SS, his friends in high places, allows him to go fairly undetected in his saving of the Jewish people in his factory. At more than one point throughout the movie his workers are taken away from him and he has to get them back, they are all in grave danger at these times. On one of these occasions his workers are sent to Auschwitz concentration camp and the workers almost don't make it out. Schindler travels there and saves them himself. At the end of the movie the war is officially ending and as Schindler leaves his favored workers he realized how many more lives he could have saved.

3.

a. To me power is the ability to control everything around you, how things happen, where they happen and when they happen, it is the ability of an earned position in which there are no variables in anything you wish to accomplish. You know how it happens and know what must be done.
To Goethe power seemed to be the ability to control other people, even abusively . He seemingly found power in harming others and enjoyed it in a way. Making himself feel better was his power.
To Schindler power was money and being able to do what you want. He demonstrates this with his relationships with those in high and low society during the movie.
Yes, Schindler and Goethe both misuse their power. Goethe misuses it in form of abusiveness, he abuses the Jewish girl Helen Hirsch both sexually and physically and he knows he cannot get in trouble for it because of his power. Schindler misuses his power in a way but this misuse is for the good of these thousand Jewish people. He uses his high position to do things considered illicit by his affiliated party.

b. At first Schindler was the "criminal" tricking the Nazi party, using the Jewish community as a way to obtain higher profit, and was only in it for profit at first creating his "antihero" status. As time went on he realized what was happening, a specific event that brought on this realization was the girl in the red dress. He saw this little girl who couldn't have been over 5 years old walking around and all of the death surrounding her. A while later he is where bodies are to be burned and sees a little red dress being removed from the ground amongst the dead. This was his first big realization; they were normal people too. From then on he took his workers lives very seriously and worked to obtain more and protected the children ferociously.

c.This film was extremely effective. Everything about the film really drew the veiwer in to this realistic representation of the Holocaust. It gave me a deeper understanding of what was going on. As time goes on I realize that there were more death scenes than I remember and slowly they are coming back to me, it is almost as if my brain blocked these out because they were extremely effective in the peice. They were something so horrible I didn't want to remember or realize how realisitic they really were. This movie is now one of my favorites and is a good representation of what Schindler did for those 1100 Jews.

Republicans Could Tap a Gusher of Support Off the California Coast

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/07/republicans_could_tap_a_gusher.html

Over the years off shore drilling in order to solve the U.S.'s dependency on foreign oil has been greatly opposed. This article showed me the great changes that are being made in these views as oil prices go up. Petroleum Engineering has greatly enhanced. These companies have perfect their machines and manufactured spill free oil drillers. There have been no accounts of oil leaks or disasters in that area. Even during the with hurricane Katrina in the Gulf of Mexico the oil production platforms stood strong and no leakage occurred.
Today, over 40% of Californians support offshore drilling. and 47% of Americans want to advance towards a similar solution. Even those who hated the idea are switching sides. The big push in this situations is the nations rising oil prices, California being one of the highest. Californian society is being threatened and is greatly in debt offshore drilling is one way to help solve this problem economically.
Environmentalists are starting to change towards being more open to the idea of offshore drilling. They are starting to see ways to write contracts with oil companies that can greatly benefit both sides and create a fairly good deal for everyone. This development means that eventually everyone will be able to better understand the benefits of offshore drilling and most likely additionally be able to see its letdowns.
Much of this article was sorting through political views which took a long time because they were so strongly opinionated that it was hard to separate fact from argument and actually find the fact within the article.

Questions:

1. Which environmentalists are beginning to see benefits and what actions have been taken in accordance?

2. Why is it that when I find an argument for this side that it is always so politically involved, is there any viewpoints that are not defending or attacking in this subject matter, why or why not?

3. How would offshore drilling affect oil companies that got into it, would they make more money or less than they are currently?

4. If all of this information on benefits and no defects is so readily available then why is it still being opposed, are there still downfalls or is it stubbornness?

Offshore Drilling's Amazing Safety Record

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121581714417147413.html

When I read the title I was extremely surprised to find what it was about. Usually all oil articles oppose drilling in U.S. waters, but I finally found a different point of view. There was an oil spill in Santa Barbara in 1969 and a group sprang up to defend their ocean from another spill such as this one. The group called themselves GOO! (Get Oil Out!) one of the first organized groups to oppose drilling in the ocean. GOO! still exists today, but they have changed their ways extremely. GOO! now supports ideas of offshore drilling all the way. It is hard to imagine how and why an organization that started in order to oppose exactly what they have decided to support. This article opened my eyes to yet another view on solving U.S. oil dependency. Although it is not the usual it is every bit as insightful. Drilling off shore has an almost perfect safety record of 99.999%, it's hard to argue with a fact like that. Oil spills of a larger amount are rare and lesser ones are more common but even those can be rare. This small amount of damaging spills is a result of improved technology that decreases accidents greatly, the trade has almost been perfected. NASA and the Smithsonian conducted a study together and found that most of the oil that we find on our beaches today, like the tar we find on our feet after walking on the beach, are cased by natural oil seeps from the oil deposits underwater. The ocean leaks over 60 million gallons of oil a year and the tiniest source of oil leakage in the ocean was found to be drilling at 15 million gallons. Oil pollution into the ocean has another large contributor that is not drilling. This contributor is ships they were leaking over 130 million gallons of oil into the ocean, but no ban on them has yet been suggested.
The extremely high gas prices have accounted for much the new support in offshore drilling, but the defense on the subject is rising and collecting supporters that way too.

Questions:

1. Did the clearly established view by the author at the end of the article affect those who read the article? (It was a bit of a slam.)

2. The fact that not many articles like this one can be found makes me wonder, why exactly are they so scarce and who is making it this way, is it a control of media or a lunatics view point being thrown down?

3. If there is so much oil seeping from the ground would it in fact stop the seeping if drilling were to happen, like when a cow needs to be milked every day?

4. How was it decided that an organization bent so much on opposing drilling completely conformed when this seeping has only been discovered and publicized recently, was it being hidden from the public or is there another reason for their conformation?

5. If the environmental defects that were predicted by environmentalists have not come to be then why has action not been taken to move forward, are there other reasons why?

Reducing U.S. Dependence on Middle Eastern Oil

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Features/NationalSecurity/bg1926.cfm

In this article I learned that the biggest oil importer in the world is the U.S., importing an astounding 13.5 million barrels per day. 17% of our oil imports are from the Persian Gulf. This reliance on the Middle East leaves a vulnerability to both economical and political intimidation.
The U.S.'s dependence on foreign oil is a National Security Threat because 68% of our oil will be imported by 2025. This is a National Security Threat because many of these countries that hold power over our oil are have large amounts of corruption within them. This oil market is also a danger to the U.S.'s suppliers, the market is completely unstable, and there is no room for mistakes. The day that an oil importer in Saudi Arabia was attacked oil prices rose by $2 and the attack wasn't even a success, though 4 people were killed.
Oil can be used as a weapon; the countries that do and have controlled our oil understand that we depend on it greatly. Terrorist have found the weapon in boycotting oil and intimidated the U.S. with that action.
Middle Eastern countries and Arab leaders thoroughly understood the U.S.'s need for oil long before the extreme focus on oil came about. They predicted our transfer of oil importation sources to them once our other oil locations dried up or ran low. This understanding alone was a threat at the time that was not recognized.
The biggest oil exporter in the world is Saudi Arabia, but they are also the ones with the most unused oil that is still available to them, in this time and day that makes Saudi Arabia a powerful country, for one day they may control the last of the oil. The world could last a couple decades on their oil if they were to increase production, maybe giving enough time for alternative fuels to be discovered and put into action.
Iraq was allowed by the U.N. to once again export oil due to the end of Saddam's rule. Although this seems good at first for the U.S., perhaps a friend to import from, this is not the full story. Not only does this help with more oil production for the very much oil dependent U.S. but it also crippled production from what it could be today had the war been better funded and prepared for defending Iraq against the current terrorism, sabotage, and violence.
In this article three things are offered that may help the U.S. with Middle Easter oil dependency. One: getting ready for failure of the oil regimes, two: creating a friendly bond with Persian Gulf states, and three: spreading the locations from which the U.S. imports oil.

Things I would like to know after reading this article:

1. What does quasi-monopolistic mean?
2. What are radical Wahhabis?
3. How long will it take before the diversified U.S. oil runs out?
4. What does contingencies mean?
5. If the United States is importing this muchy oil, on a global veiw what doe other countries see us as, do they interprate our oil use as a greedy quality?
6. Did the United States' dissagreement with Venazuela affect the ammount of oil imported from there, therefore creating more fall back on the Middle East?
7. Although the United States disagreed with Russia what are their incentives for still supplying us with oil?
8. Does the use of oil as a weapon create more of a push to find a solutoin our oil dependency in the Middle East or has it always been put on the same level as all the other threats of oil dependency?
9. How could the U.S. be better equipt today to create better conditions to help in the production of oil and importation from Iraq?

Why Offshore Drilling Can Bridge Gap to U.S. Energy Future: Op-Ed

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4279775.html

Through this article I learned about the positives of off shore drilling and how that may help the oil dependency of the U.S. and future energy of the U.S. This article first brings up the many different proposals that have been made so far including plans by T. Boone Pickens, Senator Obama, and Senator McCain. The article states that the Apollo project may not be the best plan to relate to because current day NASA is not what it used to be and the U.S. currently needs something that will consistently subside energy problems with oil dependency.
Energy plans and policies that have been made since the Nixon administration have made things worse; therefore caution is a great asset in making decisions on creating more policies for today. One of these policies that hurt our oil was the ban of offshore drilling in 1982 which cut us off from around 76 trillion cu. feet of natural gas. It says that our main issue is we are creating not nearly as much as is needed for our country. Alternative fuels were tried such as ethanol from corn, but this caused the cost of food to sky rocket and energy prices too.
Senator Obama's promise of money towards development of plans seems to mean well, but who gets the money is the question. Enron was recently thought to be a great contribution to the energy field; if money went to a company like that there would be consequences.

Things I would like to know after reading this article:

1. What is the "Apollo Project"?
2. What are biofuels?
3. Exactly how much and how long will oil from the U.S. fill the gap?
4. What does cu. stand for?
5. What energy policies were those that worsened the structure since the Nixon Administration, and how could these policies be fixed in order to make them have a more positive effect on todays policies?
6. What are the faults of the many other plans that have come about and how could a plan work to be better than the others?
7. How could Solar and Wind power be bettered and why is that not the right path?
8. If Pickens is on the right track, then what is wrong with wind power?
9. Does the fact that Pickens's money rests on wind energy have any affect on the desicions he makes, does it make it a bad plan?

Natural Resources Defense Council Oil Dependency Solution

http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/fensec.asp

This article from the NRDC website describes solutions to the problem of oil dependency. From this article I learned that if we were to increase drilling in the U.S. to harvest the domestic oil it would only increase the world’s amount by .3% while the U.S. uses around 25% of the world’s oil supply. Also domestic drilling for domestic oil would only create this small amount in seven to ten years.
This article brought up seven long-term solutions to reducing oil dependency and six short-term solutions. A few of the long-term solutions were; rising fuel economy standards in order for people to save up to $25 billion dollars yearly in fuel, requiring new more fuel efficient tires to lower friction this would save $90 dollars over the new tire’s life span and would reduce gasoline consumption by 3%, tax incentives were another add on solution which would be given towards the advancement of vehicle technology, money towards public transport encouraging larger ranges for these vehicles to travel, and “smart growth” which I grew to understand would help coordinate public transport routes in order to subdue traffic growth that came about through population growth, using ethanol as an alternative fuel instead of gas, and launching an "Apollo Project" in order to use fuel cells with hydrogen.
A few short term solutions to oil dependency were; checking tire pressure to prevent friction and the use of more gas, follow traffic laws, when in line stop engine, use public transportation and carpool when possible, and keeping cars in good condition. Throughout this article they supply ideas that both help the economy and the environment seemingly to hit two birds with one stone.

Things I would like to know after reading this article:

1. What is refuge crude?
2. What are fuel economy standards?
3. Would lower friction tires be more dangerous because it would impede breaking?
4. What was the reasoning of companies to make tires have more friction in the first place?
5. Where would the money for both tax incentives and public transportation come from?
6. What is the definition of "smart growth"?
7. How exactly would reinvesting in public transportation help with the oil situation if the significant increase in riders has already occured?