Write Stripes

It will be hard to remain unbiased when presenting information concerning the oil issue. However, there are some safeguards that will prevent me from allowing my personal opinion to sway the views of students at Clemson. I can look up several different sources that present both sides of the issue. In my mini-flier, I presented the obvious information--that gas prices are rising. I also provided a website for them to look up further information if they wanted to. Thus, I'm presenting facts without stating whether the rising gas prices are good or bad. By presenting both sides of the issue, I'm leading students to do independent research on their own. Once the spark has been set, they can then form their own opinions.

Because I'm for having a neutral internet, it will be a challenge to present unbiased information. However, I feel that if I constantly remind myself of the fact that there are two sides to the issue and have a source that can backup the information presented, then it will be possible to present information to our audience in a manner that contains a little bias as is possible. I think the key component to do this is to constantly evaluate all information presented and consider how both sides would react to the information. These small steps will keep the information as unbiased as possible and little more would be useful beyond these steps.


also, for anyone wonder we do not have to post an article review this week

It's going to be difficult to remain unbiased in this project--but I think that if we present enough material from each side of the issue, bias will not be a factor. There is alot of information out there that is either very pro or very against net neutrality--but to find the balance will be the challenge. Also, just periodically checking on ourselves will be necessary to ensure fairness.

In order to stay unbiased in the presentation of the oil issue, I will try to take a few safeguards in the information I present. I will try to use a variety of different sources in all my research of different aspects of the oil issue. For instance, in my ad I created to highlight America’s dependence on oil, I used a drawing from Mad Magazine which shows Uncle Sam shooting up on oil, which would probably be a turn off to conservatives. However, I then used a recent quote from President Bush when he states that America has an “addiction” to oil, which conservatives should respect and listen to. In this way, I will try to include ideas from both sides of the issue to all my ads and arguments, while still presenting what I feel is the correct view on the oil issue.

It's hard to write anything from a completely unbiased point of view, because as human beings we have opinions and it's hard to convey anything without those creeping in at least a little bit. Keeping the opinions out of the report would be a lot harder if it was an individual project, but I think that simply being part of a group will force us to be as objective as possible because you have to consider each person has an individual opinion different from your own. Putting those together will create a kind of balance and neutrality going in to it.

Another way to keep it unbiased is to consider every aspect of the issue, even the ones you don't like, and present equal amounts of information on all sides. Sometimes it is easier to gloss over the parts you don't like, but making an effort to make all the parts equally informative will counteract that tendency. I think also seeking out information directly contradictory to your beliefs will help keep out personal views as well.

It is always difficult to remove one's personal bias from a project. In the case of stem cell research I do have an opinion on the topic, but I am also able to see and understand the other viewpoint. I think being able to understand why the other side believes what it does will help me be more respectful of that view and help me present it as equal with my own. I will also help avoid bias by focusing on the facts and letting them speak for themselves. Because our topic is so scientific, the facts of what scientists can and can't do, and the basics of the genetic makeup of stem cells is very clear, no matter what side you are on. I hope that by presenting factual, understandable information that I will be able to keep bias out of my work, and give students a fair chance to form their own opinion based on the facts, not on persuasion.

It's going to be difficult to remain unbiased in this project--but I think that if we present enough material from each side of the issue, bias will not be a factor. There is alot of information out there that is either very pro or very against net neutrality--but to find the balance will be the challenge. Also, just periodically checking on ourselves will be necessary to ensure fairness.

It's going to be difficult to remain unbiased in this project--but I think that if we present enough material from each side of the issue, bias will not be a factor. There is alot of information out there that is either very pro or very against net neutrality--but to find the balance will be the challenge. Also, just periodically checking on ourselves will be necessary to ensure fairness.

I am going to keep myself unbiased on the issue of health care reform by throughly researching the subject and reading articles that are not for or against any certain plan of action. Since we are assuming that everyone feels changes need to be made in the health care system I will not have to hide the fact that I feel that the system is flawed. Also, I do not have a strong opinion for one plan or the other. By educating myself on all plans I think I will keep an unbiased view on the health care reform issue.

This article discussed Deborah Platt Majoras, the FTC's Republican chairman's opinions on net neutrality. She is of the idea that net neutrality should be maintained. However, the article also pointed out the partisan divison on the issue: Republicans are tending to side with broadband providers.

This was an informative article about the FTC's views on the subject, and discussed the more partisan side of the issue.

http://news.com.com/FTC+chief+critiques+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6107913.html?tag=nl

Having actually learned what net neutrality is, I believe now that it is a very important issue that everyone should know about. My opinion, however, is that the internet should remain much like it is right now—without many more restrictions etc…Obviously, illegal activities should not be tolerated (just as they aren’t now), but I don’t think it is fair to restrict people’s activities on the internet just because they can’t pay as much as a corporation to get their information out there. Also, I use the internet every single day; so, I would rather not have to wait on some pages to take longer to load than others just because that provider couldn’t pay the extra amount for the extra bandwidth. Having a neutral net is very important in allowing everyone’s opinions to be heard and for sharing information. It should not be yet another place for competition moreso than it already is.

On the topic of stem cell research, I have strong opinions on both sides of the issue, which draw me somewhere towards the center of the issue. Coming from a Catholic High School in conservative Charleston, South Carolina, I have a side of myself which agrees with the conservative religious leaders, and can understand many of the moral conflicts which are necessarily a part of stem cell research. At the same time, I am currently a genetics major, so I can understand the great amount of knowledge, understanding, and even possibly cures which comes from research, especially research so specific to humans and their diseases. Also, I can understand the suffering that those with diseases which could be cured by stem cell research undergo and can sympathize with them. I really have been trying to hold off forming a definite opinion on this topic until after this project is over, so truthfully I really do not know what my opinion is on stem cell research, but I do know that if it is possible without necessarily killing the embryo, that it is a scientific must and should be widely available and funded. As far as other types of stem cell research go, I am not so sure, hopefully by the end of this project I will have gained enough information to make an educated decision.

Initially, I was very adamantly in favor of net-neutrality. Who wouldn’t embrace the idea of a free and equal internet. Then I delved more deeply into both sides of the argument. The internet is not free now, and never will be – it is just a matter of how the cost is distributed to customers.

Those in favor of net-neutrality tend to be those with a vested interest in protecting the suppliers of online “services” (such as google). They want a neutral net to prevent their needing to pay for faster service in a bidding war with a competitor. Those against it tend to be big business, the government, and economists. They see a free net (net-neutrality is actually more regulation) as the best situation because it will remain a free-market.

But what about all those little startups? Currently there are government regulations that protect against monopolies and unfair competition. The main argument in favor of net-neutrality is that it will protect against communications companies from abusing their power, which is the same thing the current laws ensure.

In the end, my opinion lies with the idea that more government interference in the internet is a bad thing. ISPs will do what they need to do to recover costs and consumers will speak with their feet towards unfavorable ISPs. The government will continue to investigate and prosecute ISPs for abusing their power, and the customers will win through the best combination of prices and speed. Sorry, net-neutrality is not truly a neutral net, it is a net protecting the interests of some companies at the expense of other companies.

After much research and discussion on the issue of America’s dependence on oil, how that affects our economy, and what steps we must take in order to find some solution, I have formed a few ideas of my own on the subject. I feel that America does indeed rely far too much on foreign oil, and that this is a problem, not only politically but economically as shown in the drop in GDP and rise in other goods' prices, and that this problem is only going to get worse in the future as oil prices continue to rise. I also feel that we have to start using some of the alternative fuels that are available to us today, but I’m not sure which ones as that is not my area of research in the project, but I feel I will learn more about this in the next few weeks as our project comes together. (Also, I feel that this use of altenative fuels would decrease demand for oil and cause prices to fall in that market, which would be good for everyone involved.) Finally, I feel that it might be a good idea for the US to sign the Kyoto protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions as a sign of good faith that we will require US businesses to take steps to have business practices that are better for the environment.

I definately think that many changes need to be made to the United States Health Care System. The amount of uninsured individuals in this country is outrageous and will continue to grow if the problem is not stopped. I think national health care is a great idea because everyone should be provided quality health care and should not have to earn it. Right now in the health care system expenses for uninsured medical visits can cause someone to go bankrupt. The tax payer plan works like the public school system and the market base plan leaves it up to the employer and individual. I am more for the tax-payer funded method than the market base plan, but their are hidden costs and agendas with both. Through further research I think I begin to feel more strongly about one side or the other.

My opinion of stem cell research at this point is that it is defiantly something that needs to e given a lot of really thorough thought. It is a touchy subject, and hard to make up your mind objectively when there are so many highly charged emotional appeals coming from both sides. As soon as I make my mind up to side with one side, I see a good point for the other side and change my mind.

I think that the more I read, the more it seems possible that stem cells can be extracted from a lot of different sources other than baby embryos, and those cells can be cultivated to cure a lot of devastating diseases. That is an incredibly promising line of research that should be funded federally and supported publicly. However, scientists say their best sources of stem cells are embryonic cells. I don't support abortion. That’s just my stance on that issue, but at the same time, just because I don't support abortion, that doesn't mean people will stop getting them. If people are going to have abortions no matter what I think or feel, then why not use those aborted embryos for something good? And, people that use the embryos left in fertility clinics are also coming under fire. Some argue that those could be children. That’s true, but I would like to see a statistic on how many become garbage. If they are going to be thrown away with yesterday’s newspaper, I see no reason not to donate them to labs for research that could save someone’s life. But, supporting research done on the embryo stem cells is a slippery slope. The government’s stance is that they will not fund the destruction of human life, and I agree. They will allow research on the existing embryonic lines, but they want to prevent any more from being harvested. I agree with that, but I also see how it creates a host of slippery slope funding problems for the government. It also creates a cat and mouse game of “how much can we get away with?” by researchers. I am anxious to delve more deeply into the literature and find out more about stem cell research. But, unless I see more credible information that convinces me otherwise, I support stem cell research, but not when it is done on embryonic stem cells.

I feel that the government should be doing more to secure oil for the country. China, Russia, and the Middle East have most of the oil reserves in the world. We need to be able to have relations with them so that they do not become more powerful than the US in the long run. Once the US doesn't have any more oil reserves we will be at the mercy of other countries to supply us with oil which leads to the point that the US needs to research and produce alternative fuels. There is very little time left to develop a good alternative fuel. If we do not find one soon, then we will all be without energy.

Concerning immigration, I have very strong feelings. I have worked and built wonderful relationships with many illegal immigrants. I see the pain and suffering they go through to be in America. They work so hard to send the money home to their families. They don't want to be here illegally in our country, but their country isn't taking care of them. They have to come here to survive. I understand that them being here is a strain on our country - they aren't paying taxes and they may be taking jobs from citizens. Yet I still believe that they should be able to come here. We need to continue to allow them in for their survival. We also need to work closely with the Mexican government to help stop the problems within mexico that are causing them to leave. I do not support any legislation that involves overwhelming fines, sending people back to Mexico, or ridiculous requirements for citizenship. The sight of the population changes in the future excites me - it doesn't frighten me at all. This will make it hard for me to have an effective pathos argument because I don't beleive I see this issue the way the majority of people in this area do. However, all I can do is try to stay as factual as I can. The way people interpret the facts is up to them.

On the issue of stem cell research, my opinion in somewhat split. There are a variety of places that stem cells can come from, and therefore a variety of types of stem cell research to consider. I believe that research done on adult somatic stem cells, such as those from the brain or bone marrow is very good and should be continued. I also think that research done on cells gathered from the umbilical cord is acceptable as well. This research could potentially cure many diseases and should be continued enthusiastically.

However, I am not in favor of research done on stem cells taken from embryos. In the case of adult and umbilical stem cells, the harvesting of the cells does not end a human life. I believe that embryos are living humans, and therefore the act of destroying them, even for a good cause, would be murder. I know that an embryo might hold the potential to help prolong someone's life, but it also holds an even greater potential to grow into a life of its own.

As of right now, I believe that gas prices are too high. I realize that in the past week or so, prices have dropped but there this is no indication that prices will stay low. The unpredictable nature of gas prices makes this small reduction obsolete in the grand scheme of things. Consequently, I'm finding it hard to believe that the rise in prices is simply a response to greater demand in China. Since Bush has been in office, it seems as if the price of gas has steadily increased. I'm not sure if this is a direct reflection of his leadership skills, but it is apparent that gas prices have increased. Rising gas prices is causing prices in other items to go up. Thus, you have a rise in the price of consumer goods while salaries and minimum wage are at a standstill. Lastly, I don't understand why we have not resorted to alternative fuel sources. We have the knowledge and the material needed to use alternative sources. Such alternatives could reduce the demand of gas in several different places, thus allowing crude oil to be used for other reasons.

In concerns to net neutrality, I feel that the internet should be neutral. I don't believe that the internet should be set up in a way so that some companies can discriminate against their competitors to provide differing bandwidths according to preferred customers. As a frequent internet user, I do not want to wait on some webpages to load for a long time while others that I do not want to visit would load considerably faster. Thus, I feel that protection needs to be set up in order to ensure that no one company or internet service provider can sell premium services to allow preferred service. It not only affects start up companies who may not have the capital to purchase premium services thus lowering the speed at which customers can see their products on the internet, which could possibly cause their company to fail, but it also affects the typical user who may use services provided by the competitor of their ISP which would lessen the internet experience for them, causing frustration. I know that I want to be able to access any webpage at any time and at the same speed as any other webpage. I feel that with the increasing use of the internet in every day life that maintaining a neutral internet is crucial in developing new technology and services as well as improving existing ones. Having a tiered system that gives preference to certain companies I feel will only limit innovation and will restrict society as a whole, while giving more money to providers.