Clearly an oil corporation’s focus is to make profits, but that’s the focus of any business in the world, everyone is in the business of making money. Does anyone complain about tax breaks or subsidies the government provides to the agricultural industry? The answer is no, and the reason is that people perceive that industry to be noble. They provide the world with food and agricultural products. The oil industry just destroys the earth. These are all false perceptions.
On another note, I think it’s important to make another distinction. When Obama said let’s stop giving breaks to old energy (oil/gas) and invest in new energy (one can only assume renewables; solar, wind, hydro) he was talking about one in the same. The big corporations mentioned in the article, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, are not just oil companies, they are energy companies. They’re the leaders in new energy technologies. Now I understand that Obama most likely meant he would then provide tax breaks for young startups companies who would potentially have the energy source of the future, but the likely source of such a thing is most likely going to be one of the established giants.
The oil industry seems to be popping up in class discussion a lot. First we looked at the effects of natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale through the lens of a completely biased source and an instructor who seemingly agreed with it all. Now we have this article, a follow up to the discussion about legalized bribery in our political landscape. In response to reading this article you ask us to look at it from a different perspective, but the thing is, the only reason many have this perception of the oil/gas industry is due to the mudslinging in class and the instructor’s obvious stance on the related issues. The fact is that oil/gas are fundamental in our society both physically and economically. Every industry, especially large ones, has special interest groups representing their needs. People are eager to criticize the negative aspects associated with drilling for oil and drilling for natural gas, but they are even more eager to complain about high prices at the pump, and even higher oil bills to heat your house. All decisions produce both winners and losers.
Although, in this scenario, I didn’t have to work hard to attain my position, there is still the possibility that I could take Berkshire Hathaway, grow it, and bring the company to a new level of prominence. The more money we have, the more power we now hold over those around us. But that power exerted from non-government individuals is often over looked. If you asked a group of people who have the most amount of power in this country they would probably all choose government officials and people of that status. As Sam has repeatedly mentioned in class; those with power act on their own best interest. The wealthiest individuals usually those who assume power, are more likely to create policies that benefit themselves or individuals close to them, further widening the inequality gap. I have come to realize this is just a way of life. But I think that a country like the United States of America is structured in a way that gives individuals more of an opportunity to shrink the inequality gap.
The invisible strings come into play here. Wealth distribution is partly determined by true hard work, but most is actually determined by the aforementioned invisible strings. People are born into privileged situations, situations that will undoubtedly affect their future income and stature in society. First, I question if this is wrong. Personally, I don’t come from wealth and because of this fact I may be embittered towards people who do and subsequently reap the benefits of their situation. But if I were to speak truthfully, if I was put in the situation of wealth and privilege, I would be eager to take advantage of my stature in society. And I don’t think that’s wrong. I understand that it’s important for people to prove their own worth and merit, but who is to say that those qualities are unattainable from a position of privilege. Say my father was Warren Buffett, and he handed down Berkshire Hathaway to me. I would have the great advantage of being President and CEO of one of the greatest companies existing today, an advantage that no other would be rewarded.
But the fact remains that I need to wake up the next morning and face the repercussions of my actions. Clearly waking up in a jail cell for years on end is the same concept. If I got drunk and was with a buddy who sexually molested a girl, I would be considered by all her friends and anyone who was aware of the incident, as a creep or a rapist of sorts. Am I a creep or a rapist? No, but my choice, even if I was intoxicated, was to associate myself with a creep and am therefore viewed by the majority as such. In reference to my other point, why let it get to you? We are college kids forced to read these things and respond to them. The fact is that your actions have put you in a position where people can make false assumptions and false judgments about you, and as a student, we’re forced to. Don’t get bogged down in what someone referred to you as, rather spend your time trying to prove why you’re not these things, and by all accounts, you have.
I understand your frustrations with being stereotyped in the worst light possible, a murderer. When I responded to your original post about freedom, I have to say I really empathized and understood with what you had to say. I too play guitar and express myself artistically and really believe it to be one of the truest forms of freedom. There are so many decisions to be made and opportunities to explore when behind bars. The fact that I see that previous statement as the truth helps me understand what you mean about feeling free although you are physically contained. To speak a little to your most recent annoyance with students assuming you are a murderer, I can’t necessarily blame them, and furthermore don’t understand your frustration. It’s true you have not killed someone but you have committed a crime that our legal system saw fit to place you on the same level as people who have. I believe that you’re a good person, who in a moment of poor judgment, did a terrible thing. And yes, I myself have done some really stupid shit, far regrettable shit, particularly when under the influence.
? It seems ludicrous that we allow vast inner-city populations to breed like insects, welcoming child after child into impoverished, drug-addicted households, but have inhibitions on simply allowing two human beings of the same sex to do so responsibly. On the other hand, it’s important for me to mention that I do understand that same sex families may face a great deal of hardships. Having homosexual parents would definitely present some unfortunate circumstances for children. Bullying and teasing at school would certainly be a fear for the children of these families, but what do kids lean on in times of hardships? Family. In times of woe children will always rely on their family to help them get through it. Homosexuals are just as inclined and capable to provide the love and support necessary to properly rear a child (no pun intended). This video was a perfect example of all the things I just mentioned. The man was a talented speaker and really proved that homosexuals can be capable parents.
I am a conservative, heterosexual male. It’s true that homosexuality generally makes me feel uncomfortable. Things like this video make me question why though. Is it that I am truly that uncomfortable observing homosexual situations and behavior, or is it that my sociological situation makes it not “ok” for me to embrace other’s sexual tendencies. As I examine it, I tend to believe it’s the latter. When it comes down to it love is love, whether its love for a man by a woman or vice versa, or whether it’s love for a woman by another woman, the constant remains love. Once you can come to terms with that notion, it becomes a lot easier to understand or empathize with a lot of the situations that rise from same sex couples. Love is the fundamental element to any relationship. If a man loves another man, truly loves him, then why would we prevent them from entering the sacred covenant of marriage together? If love is at the root of what makes a family succeed, and there is ample love between same sexes, then why prevent them from starting a family of their own?
No definition of freedom is wrong because you define it for yourself, and that thought may be at the essence of freedom itself. No matter what it is, it should never be taken for granted, because as the lifer explained, one bad choice, in one split second, and what you currently perceive as freedom could be forever altered.
Reading this also makes me think if this man's definition of freedom is the same, conceptually, as Martin Luther King Jr.'s. Dr. King wanted equal freedom for all races, creeds and ethnicities, particularly in the form of civil rights for everyone. In a way I see dissent between MLK Jr.'s definition of freedom and the lifer's. I would argue that in following the lifer's definition, all races, creeds, and ethnicities were already free. They had capable ears, eyes, hearts and minds to think and freely guide their own lives, a concept that even allowed for a man like Martin Luther King. Maybe MLK Jr. was one of the first minorities to realize that he was in fact "free", and in doing so was able to propel a movement that resulted in legal freedom. He realized that he had a mind to think with, and an able body to carry out his thoughts, and in doing so created a whole movement of freedom for all minorities.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Creation