Keystone Pipeline

http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1368169330/Nardone-Keystone-pipeline-A-bad-idea

Julie Nardone describes the Keystone Pipeline project as a "bad idea." She first begins her column by relating to every American who owns a car or uses transportation, which is pretty much everyone. She states the fact that we export oil to foreign countries which seems ironic because of the "staggering price of gas." She continues to explain that this project will not decrease our price of gas because it would all be exported. Therefore it would not "reduce American dependence on Middle Eastern oil." She then provides a flaw in government information which stated that the project would have "minimal environmental impact" because the report was conducted by a client of TransCanada therefore euphemizing the information for public support. Nardone also shared that Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the project had been completed and 30 spills alone occurred in the first year, giving her credibility. She described the environmental impacts that would occur if the pipeline broke, the Ogallala Aquifer would be contaminated, which provides 82% of the drinking water in the middle of the country as well as irrigates 20% of farmland. She concludes he argument questioning the United State's constitutionality and protection of public good, and illustrates the changes that would occur in America.
Whether this pipeline is built is relevant to my life because I would say I am more of an environmentalist. My AP Environmental Science has exposed me to all the potential dangers this project would pose, and after reading this column and realizing it wouldn't benefit us directly, I don't see a point in building something so risky for the government's selfish wants. They should try to fix the economy and national debt a different way, rather than investing millions into this project.

SOPA

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20120122/BUSINESS/301220018/Asheville-columnist-Crossman-SOPA-poses-grave-threat-Internet-freedom


Craig Crossman in his column explains the Stop Online Piracy Act and what would occur if it was past. He begins by explaining the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Under this act, two international treaties were ratified on handling copyright infringement committed on the internet. He uses YouTube as his prime example and what regulations it originally had. The Crossman continues to explain the changes that occurred in 2010 as a result of Viacom International Inc. v. Youtube, Inc. He then criticizes the rewriting of  the laws because it prevents "humans [from doing] what we do best: create and innovate." He provides theoretical examples, illustrating what would happen to a popular website like YouTube is asmall complaint were to come up. It would shut down. Therefore, this is known as the Internet "blacklist""where websites would shut down permanently. He then directly states his opinion, stating the law is "particularly infuriating" because we would be shutting down the Internet which is the "best thing America has going for it." He disagrees with the law exaggerating that it "seeks to destroy the global community."
This is relevant to my life because I am a teenager growing up in a technologically based society, where an internet plays a role in my life. I do use Google and YouTube, therefore if these websites were to shut down, it would affect how I obtain information greatly.