A Brief Look at the Ongoing Conflict in Ukraine

/ David Kailer / Leave a comment

Images of the conflict in Ukraine have been bouncing around popular news sites on the internet for more than a week now, and the photography coming out of the country is nothing short of shocking. This article discusses the current situation in the ongoing conflict.

The article begins with a quote from former Ukrainian President Leonid Kravchuk, “Both Ukraine and the world recognize the country is on the brink of civil war.” Both the quote and the article come on the heels of reports that the Prime Minister Mykola Azarov has resigned.

The next few paragraphs deal with a potential amnesty deal between the Ukrainian parliament and protesters. “[M]ore than 200 people [have been] arrested since the demonstrations began in late November, centered on Independence Square.” The government has offered amnesty for these individuals if protesters leave Independence Square, a condition the protesters consider unacceptable.

Parliament also apparently voted to repeal anti-protesting laws which had exacerbated the controversy and drawn concern from the European Union and the United States over potential infringement of free speech and the right to protest. “The repeal legislation has still to be signed off by Yanukovych.” Yanukovvch is the leader of the Party of Regions, which called for the repeal.

With the resignation of the Prime Minister, the rest of his government resigned by operation of Ukranian law, which means that there is no permanent government currently in place, with the resigning cabinet currently acting as caretakers until a new government is installed.

“The recent clashes are an escalation of weeks of largely peaceful public protests prompted by Yanukovych’s decision in November to spurn a planned trade deal with the European Union and turn toward Russia. He and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed on a $15 billion deal for Russia to buy Ukrainian debt and slash the price of natural gas.”

Given the tensions between Russia and the United States over Syria late last year, and the newly forming tensions between Russia and the European Union, how will the Ukranian situation and future developments affect the growing conflict between American international interests and Russian priorities?

That was the proposition being debated on the Intelligence Squared podcast.

Moderated by ABC News’ John Donvan, the debate featured Dr. Neal Barnard (Clinical Researcher & Author, 21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart) and Gene Baur (President and Co-Founder, Farm Sanctuary) who argued for the motion; and Chris Masterjohn (Nutritional Sciences Researcher & Blogger, The Daily Lipid) Joel Salatin (Farmer & Author), who argued against the motion.

Here is description of the debate:

According to a 2009 poll, around 1% of American adults reported being vegan. In 2011 that number rose to 2.5%–more than double, but still dwarfed by the 48% who reported eating meat, fish or poultry at all of their meals. In this country, most of us are blessed with an abundance of food and food choices. So taking into account our health, the environment and ethical concerns, which diet is best? Do vegans have the right idea, or are we meant to be carnivores?

“Don’t Eat Anything With A Face”

/ Matthew Clemente / 2 Comments

The State of the Union and Energy Policy

/ Danielle Kloster / Leave a comment

I always look forward to the end of January to hear what the President has to say on energy policy in the annual State of the Union address. It is interesting to hear the way the data will be spun, and to learn the stated administration’s goals for the coming year. This year’s speech included quite a long discussion of the past year’s energy developments and the goals for the coming years. President Obama discussed the trends I mentioned in my last post: more domestic energy production, less imported oil. He also talked about the importance of addressing climate change, which he calls “a fact,” through emissions reductions at (primarily coal) power plants. Importantly, he also emphasizes the importance of energy consumption reductions, specifically through the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards, which reduce the average fuel consumption of the passenger cars and light duty trucks fleet.
There were a number of omissions that stuck out to me during the energy-focused portion of his speech. During his discussion of the importance of improved energy efficiency, he failed to mention that the U.S. is consistently the highest consumer of energy on a per-capita basis, with only a couple of other countries coming even close to our consumption. I suppose this would not fit in well with the narrative of America as the greatest nation on earth, but I think it’s an important fact to acknowledge. This ties in with his statements on climate change. He says that the U.S. has “reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth”. This isn’t exactly a fair statement without acknowledging that we are still one of the largest emitters of CO2, particularly on a per-capita basis. It’s also interesting that he discussed the importance of a “cleaner energy economy” just minutes after talking about ramping up domestic oil production, but I will get to that.

President Obama also failed to mention one of the biggest pieces of energy news so far this year: the contamination of the drinking water supply in West Virginia as a direct result of the coal industry. For about a week (and more for some citizens), 300,000 West Virginians lost access to water in their homes after a chemical that is used to process coal leaked into the water supply upstream. (A good commentary on the situation from National Geographic can be found here.) While domestic sources of energy can be beneficial to the economy, we must also consider the environmental, social, and health impacts of using these resources.

On that note, I found the President’s commentary on domestic oil production to be somewhat misleading. He is technically correct when he states we are currently producing more oil domestically than we are importing, but it’s important to remember that we still import just less than half of our consumption. Additionally, the definition of “oil production” in a lot of these calculations has changed to include all liquid fuels. These liquid fuels include biofuels (which are currently dominated by corn-to-ethanol production, a fuel that has its own set of environmental and social concerns), natural gas liquids, and coal- and gas-to-liquids production (albeit a small portion). It is misleading to lump all of these together in one category when each has it’s own concerns for use. For example, ethanol has been shown to have a very low net energy, meaning that it takes almost as much energy in the form of petroleum products to produce the energy-equivalent amount of ethanol. If the energy used to produce the ethanol comes from imported fuels, then we have gained little.

In addition, a lot of the oil we produce domestically, as I discussed in my last post, comes from sources that are harder to get, such as offshore and tight shale sources. This means a higher energetic and monetary cost to production. I am not sure if we’ll actually be able to “keep driving down oil imports and what we pay at the pump” using these sources of energy, as the President seems to hope.

Overall, I think that the message of President Obama was positive regarding energy policy. It is important to acknowledge climate change and take steps towards a low-carbon energy economy. It is also necessary to look to the future of both fossil and renewable energy resources, as both are important components of our energy future. And, as the President states, natural gas (done correctly and safely) does have the potential to act as the bridge fuel between our current carbon-heavy, fossil-based energy economy and a future of low-carbon, renewable fuel. I just hope that the President and Congress spend this year working on policy that works towards that new future.

[Quotes taken from the Washington Post transcript of the speech]

To Be or Not to Be Disabled

/ Christopher Moritt / Leave a comment

Today’s post will be short and sweet and involves something that came to my attention as I was filling out a job application. One of the many benefits veterans receive is preference eligibility for job consideration, especially when applying to federal jobs. How it works is you can either be 5 point eligible, meaning that you served a minimum of 3 years and received an honorable discharge or you are a 10-point eligible, meaning that you have a certain level of service-connected disability. The main issue with this is not everyone that claims a 10-point preference based on disability is actually disabled. When a military member is on their way out of the service a great deal of attention is focused on learning how to deal with the VA for disability claims. Veteran’s claims range in terms of the percentage in which you are disabled. For example, someone that had surgery but recovered fully but still experiences pain might be 20 percent service-connected disabled, while someone who is an amputee or suffers from severe PTSD might be 75 too 100 percent disabled. Take a look at the VA website to get a more detailed look at how it breaks down, although I promise you still will not understand how it works.

Many times vets will claim just about anything they can to get some level of disability and I believe this is at the encouragement of VA officials. I haven’t been able to pin down a reason except for the “if you don’t use it you loose it” philosophy of funding. It makes sense for the VA to want to generate clients in order to gain additional funding and programs from the government. The main issue concerning this becomes when completely able people are claiming a level of disability and taking advantage of programs and money they do not really need. Some vets will claim that a minor loss in hearing makes them eligible for 20 percent disability and somewhere around 200 dollars a month for a majority of their life. On a personal note I claim no disability, and had metal plates put in my arm while I was in service. Many of my friends tell me that I was stupid for not claiming it, but my injury was my fault, and if I take the money it might mean someone with a real problem may have to wait longer to get their much needed support from the VA.

Additionally, a limited number of benefits like the job preference system becomes something that people who don’t really deserve the advantage now have an edge in gaining employment. All this is not to say that there are not millions of veterans who deserve every penny they get from the government, but it does leave some questions. Should the VA have such a policy as to allow any change in your body to be considered a service-connected disability? Is there a way to change the system? I do not see a way how there is, without potential hurting those in need of disability services. In a time where the government is claiming to be cash poor, and jobs are hard enough to find it strikes me as poor taste to take advantage of the flawed system. For my money, I just didn’t want to say on every job I applied for that I was disabled regardless of how small, but I could use a few hundred extra dollars a month.

14 Year Old Boy Sentenced to a De Facto Life Sentence

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

“A 70-year sentence imposed upon a 14-year-old is just as cruel and unusual as a sentence of life without parole,” Shimeek’s public defender, Gail Anderson, argued before the Florida court in September. “Mr. Gridine will most likely die in prison.”

Shimeek Gridine was fourteen years old when a Florida state court judge sentenced him to 70 years in prison. Shimeek pled guilty to attempted murder and robbery as an adult. His attorneys are now in the process of appealing this sentence.

The United States Supreme Court has issued decisions in recent years alleviating some of the harsh penalties prescribed to young offenders. For example, in 2005 the Court held that offenders under 18 years old were not eligible for the death penalty (Roper v. Simmons). In 2010 the Court ruled it was also unconstitutional to sentence an offender under 18 years old to life without the possibility of parole in non-murder cases (Grahm v. Florida).

However, the problem in Shimeek’s case is he was sentenced to 70 years without the possibility of parole. Under his current sentence he will remain in prison until well into his 80’s, he essentially received a life sentence… without the label.

While there is certainly something to be said in favor of punishing any individual to the level deemed sufficient to match his or her crime, there seems to be a strong argument against sentencing a teenager to essentially a life term. I certainly do not mean to suggest that offenders under 18 do not commit serious crimes that should be punished accordingly. But I do not agree that a 14 year old boy should receive a de facto life sentence. Structuring punishments in such a way is far too harsh, and arguably is ineffective. One of the main goals behind punishing individuals is the idea that he or she will be rehabilitated through his or her incarceration so that one day they may re-enter society. Punishing a youth to this level does not comport with the goals of punishment in that way. In Shikeem’s case, there is no point to try and re-habilitate him while he is in prison because he now faces living his entire life behind bars for a crime he committed as a teenager.

There has to be a more effective and just way to punish youth for their criminal conduct.

Relevant New York Times Articles can be found here and here.