Undergraduate / 'major issues with water' - College essay To Texas State University [5]

Choose an issue of importance to you-the issue could be personal, school related, local, political, or international in scope-and write an essay in which you explain the significance of that issue to yourself, your family, your community, or your generation.

Since the beginning of time people have been harnessing water. The great Egyptian civilization, depended fully on the Nile, the romans were the first to build huge aquifers to transport water to citizens. Today technology has made water readily available to almost anyone in the world. In the United States clean water is available to many people, but this is not the case for many developing countries, where water is much greater appreciated and they don't take for granted the use of water like many Americans. We live in a world where water is used so much that it is actually being overused and the world cannot replenish it as fast as the people are carelessly using it. We are in what we can call a global water crisis.

There are two major issues with water that I would like to emphasize. One is water is being used at a super fast rate in which the world cannot replenish it. We pump so much underground water from aquifers. The Ogallala Aquifer is the biggest aquifer in the United States and it spreads through eight huge states, which just happen to be agricultural states. Farmers are pumping so much water that hydrologist predict if we keep pumping at this extraordinary fast rate that the aquifer will be dry in about fifty years. When we over pump this of course causes effects to land. The land sinks since the water holding the land at that current level will collapse and this could cause huge devastation to buildings, roads, and farm fields. We are taught in school that water is a renewable resource and that we will never run out because the water cycle will replace it. This is not the case with population growing and more necessities for water than ever, currently there is no way aquifers can get filled and be replenished as fast as we use them.

Second water is being privatized and controlled by giant corporations, who make water, a natural resource a consumer product. What do you need to buy consumer products? Money. If you don't have money you simply cannot afford the water and corporations can control whole nations, since they own the water rights of that city or state or even country. Developing countries are the ones that suffer the most from this water privatization. These countries are unable to build infrastructure for clean water delivery because they are forced to grow cash crops to get out of a debt to the where these crops have no tariffs and export huge quantities and they make no money, thus they stay poor and pay the hiking water prices of privatized water.

What can we do to help the cause of the global water crisis? We must convince policy makers to change legislation and make water globally a resource all humans should be able to obtain at reasonable prices. We must use sustainable crops suited for natural environment in which less water will be used. We must find ways to conserve water and our natural springs or aquifers and not let corporations be able to privatize water. Citizens must speak out against big corporations and governments who support this type of behavior. The bottom line is that we are running out of water and it is something we all need to live.

Research Papers / "Right Wing Voter Suppression" - Research paper for english [2]

This paper is to be framed as an argument and should meet all the requirements regarding taking a stand and refuting the opposition.

Right Wing Voter Suppression

More and more states are passing voting identification laws in order to vote. Voting identification laws are designed to protect the sanctity of voting by purging the problem of voter fraud. Voter identification laws would make sense if the United States had a voting fraud problem, but voter fraud is almost non-existent in the United States. Instead voter I.D. laws are suppressing votes and making it harder for people to have their voices heard. Voting identification laws are a solution in search of a problem.

Supporters of voting identification laws argue that they are essential to fight fraudulent voting. Arguing that identification is part of a democracy, that without an I.D. you are a second-class citizen. You need an identification to hop on a plane, ride an Amtrak train, and buy a six-pack of beer or a pack of cigarettes. Therefore it makes perfect sense to have voter identification when going to the voting booths. Advocates say voter fraud is real and is a major problem in the electoral process. With tougher restrictions the validity of voting will improve and help the democratic process become a more clean process. Supporters also state that government identification is easily obtainable. Stephan Thernstrom, a history professor at Harvard university, and Abigail Thernstrom, vice chairwoman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, argue that "It is reasonable to surmise that a high proportion of the people who had not taken the trouble to get a government-issued photo ID may be among that huge group of no-shows. If they weren't going to vote anyway, new ID laws wouldn't affect their behavior." Over the last four presidential elections about forty percent of the people eligible to vote didn't cast a vote. Even in a Republican state like Texas, identification is easily obtainable. In Texas the Department of Public Safety offers free identification cards to citizens who request them. President Ben Jealous of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People has blasted voter ID laws and called for a "high tide of registration and mobilization and motivation and protection." Critics argue that if indeed identification laws motivate voters to get registered than it's a win for both sides and the country. More people will be able to vote, and democracy will be better off, with a clean electoral process at the booths.

Opponents of voter identification laws say that they disproportionally target and suppress votes from groups that tend to vote Democrat, including young, poor, elderly and black and Latino voters. Obtaining photo identification can be a costly and burdensome as some states require the voter to obtain a birth certificate which can cost up to twenty five dollars. According to a study by New York University's Brennan Center, about eleven percent of eligible voters lack photo identification while a lot of people in rural areas have trouble accessing voting identification offices. John Hudges, supporter for voting identification laws and lawyer for the state of Texas, when asked about the issue of people living in rural areas and having trouble reaching voter identification offices said that was "reality to life of choosing to live in that part of Texas." When a judge pointed that some people would have to travel 120 miles to the nearest voter identification office he said that people in those areas had to travel "long distances to do any number of things." Even worse at least twenty five percent of African Americans don't have government issued identifications and about eighteen percent of Latino voters also lack government issued identifications in the United States. Attorney General Eric Holder has compared the new voting identification laws to the new "Jim Crow laws" in which poll taxes enacted by southern states kept poor black people from voting in those states. Given the circumstances of lengthy and costly price of obtaining documentation to provide for identification, it puts a new financial and bureaucratic burden on voting.

Critics are also quick to point out that voter fraud is a myth, created by Republicans to suppress votes that typically go to the other party, the Democrats. According to News21 an online voter fraud database, conducted a national investigative reporting project which identified 10 voter impersonation cases out of 2,068 alleged election fraud cases since 2000 - or one out of every 15 million prospective voters. In another analysis done by the New York Times in 2007 only 120 cases were filed to the Justice Department of voter fraud over a period of five years. Out of those 120 cases, 86 resulted in voter fraud. The rest were mistakenly filed registration forms or confusion on voter eligibility. Professor at UC-Irvine and election law specialist, Rick Hasen "When you do see election fraud, it invariably involves election officials taking steps to change election results or it involves absentee ballots which voter ID laws can't prevent," he said. The real problem is not voter fraud, because it simply does not exist on a substantial amount that could change the electorate process. The real problem is the Republican Party simply trying to get people who don't vote for them, to stay at their homes and not come out and exercise their right as American citizens to vote.

In 2008, President Barack Obama won the young vote, the black vote and the Latino vote by record numbers and turnout among those groups. The President won the black vote by 95 percent, the Latino vote 67-31 percent and the young vote (18-29 years of age) 66-32. It is after 2008 that Republican states led by Republican governors started implementing voter identification laws with the hope of changing the electorate to favor their candidate for the year 2012, Mitt Romney. Republicans know that demographics are changing and that just winning the white vote will no longer carry the election for a candidate. The candidate must win more than just the white vote because America is more than just white people; we are the melting pot of the world. Instead of refocusing their party and campaigns to include and make it more accepting of minorities, Republicans chose to suppress the votes of minorities in the election process. Pennsylvania State House majority leader Mike Turzai, a Republican, has publicly said that the state's voter identification law would "allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania was a swing state in the 2012 presidential election and the state's voter identification law could have had dire consequences for black and Latino voters in Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania there is about 760,000 registered voters, or 9.2 percent of the voter's base of 8.6 million, don't have state identification. This is a great number of people who could be disfranchised, which will not have their voices heard in the election process, all because of voter identification laws. With all of these laws being pushed before November 2012, there must be some major voter fraud in Pennsylvania? According to Prospect.org, "While those promoting the law initially argued it was needed to prevent voter fraud, there's been no evidence of voter fraud in the state, and the state did not cite any examples of voter fraud in legal proceedings." On October 2, 2012 Judge Robert Simpson shot down the voter identification law in Pennsylvania, but only because he was "still not convinced" that voters without voter identification would not be disenfranchised before the presidential election on November 6, 2012. Judge Robert Simpson, blocked the law from taking affect because it was too close to the election, not because of the overwhelming evidence of no voter fraud in Pennsylvania or the impediments it would have on minorities trying to vote. Republicans must put this issue aside if they plan on having a future in politics. Suppressing the vote of minorities, that have had their voices shot down for hundreds of years, is not the right pathway to take. The government must make voting easier for everyone, not restrict votes of the least represented, such as blacks, Latinos, poor, and uneducated.

The Unites States has one of the lowest voter turnouts amongst democratic nations. According to The San Francisco Chronicle, "in 2008, 56.8 percent of our voting age population turned out to vote, "Such a level of turnout is more on a par with what can be expected in countries such as Burundi (67 percent in 2010) or Congo (59 percent in 2011), where democratic institutions are considered weak. The United States is not a weak democratic nation. Our elections and turnouts are an example to all countries. How we elect and choose our candidates should be a role model for all democratic nations. Internationally, voter identification laws put the United States alongside countries that our government often frames them as "bad actors", they are not "true" democracies and that seek to limit citizens rights. The United Nations general assembly concluded that ""the systematic denial or abridgement of the right to vote on grounds of race or color is a gross violation of human rights and an affront to the conscience and dignity of mankind, and ... the right to participate in a political system based on common and equal citizenship and universal franchise is essential for the exercise of the principle of periodic and genuine elections."

If the United States wants to continue to be a democratic example to the rest of the world, we need to do a better job of insuring all people no matter what color, gender, sexual preference or religion always have their right to vote. Restrictions against minorities are not the answer politics is not the answer. The Democrats and the Republicans can disagree on a lot of things, but one thing we must not allow is to agree to suppress votes from our own citizens. All eligible voters must be insured to have their voices heard.