Ethical Oil

In the article, 'Blood oil' vs. 'ethical oil', published in the Houston Chronicle, the Editorial Board makes an  argument in favor of tapping into our own country's oil, or even accessing friendly nations' supplies, instead of trying to get it from the Middle East.  They compared the oil from the Middle East to the diamonds once purchased from parts of Africa that caused so much bloodshed, also known as "blood diamonds".  Ethical oil, of course, would mean purchasing oil from friendly countries or tapping into our own oil reserves.  I agree with the authors in that we should not import oil from enemy countries in the Middle East, as there are many other places that produce oil.   I feel the authors tried to reach everyone, especially people supporting Obama, so they can see what the President is put a stop to.  President Obama put a hold on the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline, which would run from Alberta, Canada to multiple destinations in America.  The article argued that allowing this pipeline to go through will benefit us with thousands of barrels of oil a day.  The article also stated, "It will mean well paying jobs, increased tax revenues, reduced expenses for national security and, in the case of natural gas, benefits for the environment."  The last statement in the quoted sentence is what really threw me off.  There are so many controversies pertaining to the environmental issues this massive pipeline could cause, and I feel this is reason enough to question the credibility of these authors.  Crude from oil sands produces some of the dirtiest fuel.  I agree with President Obama, and not the authors of this article, that we must take the time to be able to fully understand the environmental impact this pipeline could have on our country, along with Canada, before agreeing to start construction on said pipeline.  I do, however, agree with the authors that hearing more debate about ethical oil would benefit our country.  Hopefully, this will be something discussed further during the next presidential election.

NJ to Vote on Gay Marriage

On February 7, 2012, MSNBC published an article about a NJ Assembly scheduled to vote on gay marriage. The vote is scheduled to take place on February 16, 2012, to hopefully grant same sex couples the right to marry in New Jersey.  Reed Gusciora, an openly gay assemblyman and sponsor of the bill, feels they will get the 41 votes needed for passage.  Of course, there may be a problem once it reaches Gov. Chris Christie.  He has said he will veto the bill if it lands on his desk.  According to the article, "Democrats need 27 votes in the Senate and 54 in the Assembly for veto-proof majorities" which will prove to be quite difficult.  Although it seems that it may not pass this time around, I hope the gay advocacy groups continue to fight for this freedom that everyone deserves.  It saddens me that we do not have more states in this country allowing gay marriage, as I feel it is unconstitutional and inhumane.  Everyone deserves the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.