Abstract This paper argues that installing solar collectors on rooftops and insulating homes in America will not provide citizens and businesses with the energy needed to keep American strong; therefore, it is paramount that the U.S. continues to use fossil fuels. The author stresses that the green movement offers an alarmist misuse of statistics; distressing techniques have been used to calculate atmospheric temperatures above the oceans of the world have resulted in a 40% exaggeration of 'global warming' according to an international study by scientists. The paper relates that the sea levels are rising around the planet but not in any uniform fashion; it is a natural phenomenon in between ice ages.
Table of Contents
Introduction: The U.S. Government Should NOT Turn Away From Fossil Fuels
Nuclear Power, Wind Power and Hydro Power are NOT the Ultimate Answer
Global Warming Myths Exposed
Global Warming is NOT Occurring
Greenhouse Gases are NOT the Cause for Global Warming
Sea Levels are NOT Rising as Indicated by Environmental "Experts"
Temperatures are NOT Rising as Fast as Some Environmentalists Say They Are
Oil is the Best Choice for Reliable Energy for America
The Antarctic Ice Sheets (Polar Ice Caps) are NOT Melting
Animal Species and Sea Life will NOT become Extinct in Massive Numbers
Solar Energy is a Good Idea but it is NOT Practical at this Time
From the Paper "Nuclear power is extremely dangerous and nuclear plants can get out of control: The Chernobyl nuclear accident in Russia in 1986 caused an estimated 4,229 deaths in the Ukraine, and unknown number of cancers throughout Europe, according to Dr. Richard Smart, Department of Nuclear Medicine at St. George hospital in Kogarah Australia. World renowned radiation expert Dr. Helen Caldicott - founder and president of Physicians for Social Responsibility - explains that plutonium, a by-product of nuclear fission, is "so carcinogenic that hypothetically half a kilo even distributed could cause cancer in everyone on earth." Also, five kilos of plutonium in the hands of a terrorist can make a sizable nuclear weapon; currently, there over 1,200 tons of plutonium are stored around the world near nuclear plant sites. Additionally, reprocessing spent fuel "causes deadly radiation releases into the environment that are a threat to public health." "
An analysis of the history and current states of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Bill of Rights and their interpretations and applications by the United States Supreme Court.
Abstract This paper is a historical and substantive analysis of the interpretation and application of search and seizure law by the Supreme Court with a significant emphasis placed on the analysis of political and social pressures and responsibilities of the Court and how they thus respond. The landmark cases of Terry vs. Ohio, Mapp vs. Ohio, Bostick vs. Florida, and Weeks vs. United States, are utilized to demonstrate the effect external pressures on the Court. Additionally, much emphasis is given to the development of arguments in opposition to alarmist and reactionary crime control models, including the development of the Department of Homeland Security.
From the Paper "The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides a vehicle whereby each American citizen may be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." The relatively straightforward articulation of the Fourth Amendment, as well as the implied meanings its words may hold, continues to be a volatile, emotional topic of significant political and judicial debate. Insomuch as the balance between personal civil liberty and state security treads a fine line between fairness and injustice, as so does the tolerance of a free people to be restrained in the exercise of their freedom. Those citizens well served by the relentless security initiatives of American legislators and bureaucratic agencies hold utmost regard for its criminal justice authority. However, many other citizens foster both a growing contempt and suspicion of the intentions of an ever-infringing American government."
Abstract The paper states that modern, corporate advertisers over the decades have effectively learned how to manipulate the consumers' buying habits. In order to increase their persuasive power over the modern consumer, advertisers align their products with extreme images of a desirable, perhaps even metaphoric lifestyle. The paper comments that the result is a story that anyone can achieve an iconic lifestyle by simply buying products. The paper continues and notes that similar to advertisers, the news media uses firmly implanted iconic images as metaphors. Then, by augmenting the metaphoric image with text and editorial, the media creates a controllable story, or narrative motif. In order to understand the news media's interpretation of current events correctly, this paper examines each type of the iconic image, their corresponding metaphors and the resulting narrative motifs. The paper begins with a detailed examination of each type of metaphorical image.
Outline:
Directionality of Movement
News Photographs
Assemblages of Images
The Statue of Liberty
Imaging Multitudes and Masses
Woman and Child Image
Water-Flood Imagery
The Flag of the USA
From the Paper "Photographs carry powerful messages since they are able to deliver a close reproduction of reality. The photographs' capture of reality give magazine covers a type of eyewitness testimony. However, this also means that the readers are more likely to be unaware that those pictures have been manipulated, and that they might have been designed to construct a specific message. Chavez notes, that "Photographs become both testimony and evidence for the position that immigration is a problem and that the nation's borders are being tested by people wishing to enter the country illegally" . Furthermore, photographs steer away any ideological bias accusations from magazines since they appear to represent what "really" happened."
Abstract The paper analyzes the positions of two researchers who are opposed on their views of climate change. The paper specifically considers their positions in light of several significant differences the two have, primarily on the issue of computer modeling. The paper notes that S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University, when referring to global warming, argues that "the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most". The paper comments that the opposer is Tom Wigley, a climatologist and senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research who commands a wide array of evidence to support his claims regarding climate change. The paper considers the position of each on the issues of computer modeling and the potential impact of climate change, drawing on outside research to demonstrate which position has the greater likelihood of being correct.
From the Paper "The issue is that when we are dealing with models that work on systemic averages, there is a certain degree of uncertainty and ambiguity built into the model itself. Climate change skeptics like Singer immediately prey upon this uncertainty. He argues that the models are too ambiguous and seemingly contra-dictory to warrant our support. Different models produced by different scientists to account for different data sets cannot even necessarily agree on the same things, therefore the models cannot be trusted. Singer even goes so far as to im-ply that we cannot trust the scientists who construct these models because they could tweak the models to produce the results they want, seemingly in order to impress their climate change colleagues and ensure funding for other projects. Of course, such a claim borders on slanderous and cannot be rightfully considered a mark in favor of Singer's position. Wigley responds generally, "Cooking the books would be a concern if that was what scientists were apt to do. But I don't think scientists generally behave that way". In fact, if we accept that scientists will do anything to ensure their next paycheck, then the integrity of the scientific process is lost and claims by all scientists--Singer in-cluded--cannot be trusted."
