Goodbye to the gas pedal

link to article

The editorial “Goodbye to the gas pedal” from the Chicago Tribune discusses the emergence of electric cars. It talks about how new Teslas and Volvos are starting the phase out of gas powered cars. Volvo is getting rid of all gas powered cars and creating electric and hybrid versions to replace all of them from 2019 on. It also says that other brands are planning to create electric SUVs by 2020. This is not just happening here in the US. In Europe there are new laws being made restricting carbon emission. Some countries even want to completely quit selling of gas powered cars by 2040. Even with the new president here in the US, laws about carbon emission are encourage car makers to go electric. The article suggests that car buyers will soon gravitate toward electric cars with the concern of global warming in mind. But, the range of electric cars is not as far as gas powered cars because they have to be charged and gas cars can get gas almost anywhere. As the technology continues to develop the range will become longer and the price of buy an electric car will go down. Thus being more affordable for the average person. Electric cars are not as new as most people think. The first electric car was created in 1893 but was unable to gain popularity because Henry Ford’s Model T was dominating the market and because it did not perform as well. But, now that electric cars have similar features to gas powered cars they are able to compete with them. Like technology is taking over all aspects of life, artificial intelligence could be driving cars in just a few years.

The article has a tone that makes it seem hopeful for the rise of the electric car industry. Parts of it seem like they are going to happen which others seem a little far fetched. For example, it is easy to see how car companies are going to create electric cars of their own but I seems a little crazy to be claiming that electric cars are going to take over the car industry. This does not seem reasonable right now because the most well known electric car company, Tesla, is too expensive for the average person to be able to afford. So until brands like Ford or Honda have similarly performing electric cars, it does not seem like electric cars are gaining much popularity over gas cars. Overall, the article makes a good point that electric cars are gaining popularity but it will be a while before they are going to be completely widespread.

A total eclipse of the sun is a reason to unplug

link to article

The editorial “A total eclipse of the sun is a reason to unplug” by the Times Editorial Board from the LA Times talks about the solar eclipse that was on August 21st (the article was written before it happened). It describes what was going to happen during the eclipse in places where there was totality and in places where it was only partially covered. It also says that a total solar eclipse has not happened in ninety nine years even though eclipses happen around twice a year. It also encourages people to unplug a bit not only to experience the rare event but also because less power is being generated from the sun’s rays because it is being blocked. It reminds people that “every megawatt conserved during the eclipse is one that won’t have to come from fossil fuels”. Finally, it reminds people to use proper eye protection when viewing the eclipse because although the sun is partially covered it can still hurt your eyes.

The article has a positive tone that tries to get people excited about the event of the eclipse. I think that it is also really encouraging people to try to not waste power because not as much can be created during that time.

I agree with the article in that people should go outside and see the eclipse but I know for some people it is not that interesting. I personally thought that it was really cool and I was excited to see it but some of the people I was with at the time thought that it was a waste of time because there were so many pictures of it online. I think that the article should have talked more about eye protection and warn people that there are some glasses out there that were advertised as safe but actually were not.

The Guardian view on Confederate Statues: they must fall

link to article

The editorial “The Guardian view on Confederate Statues: they must fall” discusses the purpose of statues in relation to the Confederacy. It also talks about how the statues are supposed to be honoring people who were on the Confederate side of the civil war. This side was “founded on white racial supremacy, and economically dependant on industrial-scale slavery – a vast crime”. It makes the argument that we have laws against such things and thus should not be showing support for people from the past who thought those things were okay. Some people think that the statues should be preserved to remind people of the civil war similar to the way that Auschwitz was preserved to remind people of the immense suffering that occurred there. The statues are quite different and do not need to be preserved in order to teach people about what happened during the civil war.

This article was some what hard to follow because of the tone it used. The article pointed out many opinions in a sort of questioning way making it seem like it was not sure which the author thought made the most sense.

I agree with the article that the monument should be taken down. I think this because they are displaying a message of remembering the racism and hatred that the Confederacy had. The article brings up the point that Auschwitz still exists to remind people of what happened to people during the Holocaust and that the statues are supposed to remind people of the civil war. I do not think that old statues that were supposed to show these people in a positive light are helping convey the message to people that the civil war was a war fought to decide whether slavery was going to be a thing or not. I think that that message being portrayed by the statues is that these people were good when in fact they were not. If people want to remind people of the civil war they should make monuments about what it accomplished in terms of ending slavery.

The Travel Ban at the Supreme Court

link to article

The Editorial “The Travel Ban at the Supreme Court” by the Editorial Board at the New York Times discusses Trump’s effort in trying to create a travel ban. The editorial begins by saying that Trump saw it as a “victory” that the Supreme Court is allowing a partial travel ban while they wait until October for reconsideration. Trump has said in the past that he wants to stop all Muslims from entering the United States. However the Supreme Court has been blocking his efforts since they started in January. It also says that the travel ban created in March that stopped travel from six primarily Muslim nations for 90 days and stopped the refugee program for 120 days was unconstitutional. It was seen this way because it “drips with religious intolerance, animus and discrimination”. Now the Supreme court is allowing people with a claim of a bona fide relationship to enter the United States. The Editorial also points out that “no one from the affected countries has been responsible for a fatal terror attack in the United States in the past two decades”. This just shows even more that the travel ban is not necessary.

The Editorial’s tone seems to be demeaning because it points out Trump’s flaws with reasoning in the Travel ban. It also shows why the travel ban is unnecessary because the reason Trump wants it is not valid. The reason being that he thinks that people from primarily Muslim nations are going to come to the United States to kill people in terrorist attacks. But, this reasoning is flawed because none of the terror attacks that have happened in the United States were caused by people from these countries. I agree with the editorial’s point of view that Trump’s travel ban in pointless and dumb. Not to mention that it is also unconstitutional. I hope that the Supreme Court will continue to block Trump’s efforts to block people from entering the United States.

Will Amelia Earhart ever be found?

link to article

The Editorial “Will Amelia Earhart ever be found” by the Editorial Board from the Chicago Tribune discusses the different speculations and theories about where Amelia Earhart ended up. This topic may seem completely irrelevant considering she went missing eighty years ago and nobody has ever found her but I find it very interesting that somebody could just go missing without a trace. To this day there is still no clear answer as to where she went and what happened to her.

The editorial starts off by saying that Earhart and her navigator Fred Noonan went missing over the Pacific ocean in July 1937. She went missing when she lost communication with the Coast Guard Cutter that was trying to help her land safely. The first theory the editorial talks about is that she ended up on a Japanese controlled island where she became a prisoner of war. This theory was supported by a very blurry photograph that was taken from far away making it unclear who the picture is of. I did not believe this theory in the slightest because of the evidence that was provided was terrible. The article then continued on to say the picture was taken before Earhart even left for her trip, debunking the theory in its entirety. Another theory was created by a doctor who claimed to have seen bones on an island near where Earhart went missing. A knife, zipper, and a jar of freckle cream were later found on that island to bolster that theory but I still find this theory unbelieveable because of the lack of actual evidence. Those items could have easily been planted but the doctor which would completely falsify the theory he created. I do not think that anyone is ever going to find out what happened to Earhart because she went missing so long ago. She cannot still be alive today because she would be 120 if she was. The mostly likely explanation is that she crashed into the ocean or an island and died shortly after from either impact or lack of food. I think that her disappearance was important to her legacy because people are still talking about her because they don’t know what happened to her. If she had not gone missing people would have been interested in what she accomplished but it is unlikely, in my opinion, that she would be talked about all that often today.

Overall, I find Amelia Earhart interesting because nobody knows what happened to her. Part of me wishes that someone could find real evidence pointing to what happened. But, on the other hand I want it to stay a mystery because it is interesting seeing the theories people come up with. Even eighty years later I think it is still interesting how someone could disappear without a trace.