Thoughts on the Water Debate

I thought that the water debate between Steven P. Eerie, Professor of Political Science and Director of Urban Studies at UC San Diego, and Michael George, former VP of Water Development at the American States Water Co. and current water attorney, was much more of a "debate" than the oil debate we attended two weeks ago. The two well qualified men addressed the issue of declining fresh water supply in Southern California, and also talked about possible alternatives to solve the problem.

The main issue that the two men differed on was that Eerie supported giving subsidies to water companies in exchange for conservation and believed in the public sector, while George was opposed to these subsidies because he did not believe it represented a market approach and (he supported the private sector). Eerie added that we needed to figure out how to align political incentives with the right kind of policy, and on this point George agreed with him in that there needs to be a political capability of getting things done within policy framework.  He also posed five major alternatives: improve management of current system, de-salination, conservation, reuse of top water, and reallocation. 

I think that water is definitely an important topic because we rely on it and often take it for granted. It is more important than oil because we can technically survive without oil but we need water for physiological purposes. It was also kind of scary how our water supply is starting to decline already in 2009. One point that struck my curiosity was how Antarctica holds 70% of the world's freshwater; is there a way that we can access/effectively use this water?

I'm not sure whether I support subsidies personally but I did believe that George's 5 major alternatives plan was a strong idea and at least gives us a basis of which to start taking action. Overall, George was a much more effective and clear speaker (perhaps because he is a lawyer?) than Eerie, who kind of put me to sleep.

Oil Debates

I thought that both Ralph Morgan, British Petroleum's Director of Climate Change Issues, and Matt Petersen, president of Global Green USA, had important and interesting arguments to make regarding climate change. Energy is certainly a focal point not only politically but in regards to important issues today - already, controversies and concerns about energy are beginning to really circulate around the popular public sphere. 

Ralph Morgan made some very interesting and attention grabbing points - that the world demand for energy will increase by 2050; that 1/4 of the world's population has no access for modern energy; that our U.S. energy policy is a decades long failure by depending on others for oil. I liked how Morgan used specific facts and statistics to add significance to his argument, which was that we need to lower our carbon alternatives, look to conventional alternative forms of energy, we need to explore for oil and gas production in our own country, expand our low carbon energy sources and build more, etc. He also supported offshore drilling, which raised a lot of controversial issues - I do agree with him, however, that we need to stop depending so much on foreign countries and instead start taking responsibility for producing our own energy. 

Matt Petersen raised similar issues but in a different way - he used appealing and attractive images/powerpoints, and also threw in some familiar celebrity faces to grab our attention. He pinpointed  three main issues: climate change, weapons of mass destruction, and the lack of clean water; however the argument veered much more towards energy/climate issues rather than WMDs and lack of clean water. Petersen refuted Morgan's argument for offshore drilling, saying that it would take 10 years for it to take place efficiently. He advocated a carbon tax, conserving and sacrificing energy, the importance of starting now and adopting a conservation mentality, and the importance of bold thinking. He basically said that it would take humans to get us out of this; he placed his faith in the human race. 

I felt that both of these men raised important points and I agreed with most of what they said. However, what I was slightly troubled about was that they didn't suggest/propose CLEAR PLANS or COURSES OF ACTION to do the acts that they proposed. For example, what specific steps or courses of action need to be taken in order to develop/endorse alternative energy? In what ways, specifically, can the average person contribute? And in question to offshore drilling ten years, wouldn't it still  be wise to start now - it's better late than never? How do we go about initiating a carbon tax? 

Prompt: Planning Thoughts Before Making them Public (Writing vs. Speech)

I believe that no matter if you're writing an important essay or trying to give a persuasive speech, it is definitely essential to plan your thoughts out first. I would probably take a different approach to planning my thoughts in writing a paper vs. giving a speech, but both would require significant planning- may it be outlining your thoughts out on paper, researching your topic, or taking the time to develop a cohesive and convincing argument.

When writing an essay, such as the ones that we've been writing for our Writing 140 class, it would be best to do a lot of prewriting in order to organize thoughts better. Since essays tend to pull from a lot of background information and material, sometimes its hard to see the argument at first or come up with a thesis. In order to get my thoughts straight, it definitely helps to do a lot of random brainstorming and freewriting, then turning to a more structured approach to prewriting such as a TOPOI or Fact/Idea list. From there, then it's okay to construct an argument outline, followed by a rough plan for your paper as well as a thesis. After performing all of this organized prewriting as well as a more free-thought prewriting, tackling the actual writing part of the essay comes much more easily to the writer. I found this to be the case for my Assignment 2. I did about three times as much prewriting for Assignment 2 as Assignment 1, and I had twice as much of an easier time writing that essay as my first essay. I probably only spent a total of three hours writing five pages, which I consider to be a really effective use of time in my standards.

Planning thoughts for a speech would be a lot more different from an essay. While in an essay you have the time to sophisticatedly form your argument and develop the complexity of what you're trying to say, in a speech, the most important thing is that you get your point across immediately to your audience and also are able to support your point with clear, specific, accurate facts. Similarly to writing a paper, for a speech you would also need to do research, but it would be more important to find very to the point, eye-opening facts that grab the attention of the audience. After all, there is nothing worse than boring your audience with mundane information that is not out of the ordinary. Your speech, similarly to your paper, should also have extremely sound logic - the audience will be able to tell if you are flubbing or don't have adequate information, probably even more so than if you were writing an essay. In an essay, I feel that it's easier to make your logical fallacies transparent or mask them with fancy language. In a speech, however, it is MUCH easier to tell if you don't know what you are talking about. Prewriting and organizing your ideas into clearly structured arguments is a great way to plan out your thoughts.

In the end, writing an essay and writing a speech aren't all that different from each other. In both cases, I would approach planning  my thoughts very seriously and allot significant time for research, brainstorming, thinking, considering pros and cons of certain viewpoints - anything to strengthen and perfect my argument. However, what's very different about writing an essay and giving speech is obviously the way they are presented. The strength of a paper is being able to formulate your argument in a more complex and structured way, while in a speech, the specific words you choose and facts you choose to present should be strong, forceful, and persuasive : being to the point is very essential in grabbing and convincing your audience.  A speech's rebuttal would need to be particularly strong, especially in a debate - for in a debate you would need to prepare multiple strong rebuttals in order to make your opponent seem weaker and strengthen your own side of the argument. Rebuttals can also definitely help to strengthen an essay, but you probably would not need as many compared to a speech or debate. 

Vice Presidential Debates

Last night was the presidential debate between Alaskan governor Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden. I went to watch the debate with no expectations since I have never seen any political debates lately. I was pleasantly surprised with how entertaining the debate was, as well as how interesting and in depth the important issues addressed were. I also had never seen Palin or Biden speak publicly before, although I had read much about them in the media and newspaper.  

Right off the bat, I could tell that Senator Biden had an edge over Palin. He spoke with more confidence and experience on the issues at hand, particularly foreign policy. When Palin started speaking, she had a deer-in-the-headlights expression. However, I found myself impressed by her composure and rhetoric in a moment of extreme pressure and exposure to the public (particularly since she has been shed in a very negative light for the past few weeks in the press). Also, Palin has a very likable personality. She speaks in a conversational tone that can relate to the average American, and uses cute phrases such as "gosh darnit" that may appeal to certain people.

In the long run, however, Palin often didn't answer questions Biden posed at her, nor did she counter-argued very effectively. Instead, what she did was avoid the questions and talk about her "plan" with John McCain, and kept referring to her experience as a governor and legislator (which often times was redundant or irrelevant to the question asked). Basically, Palin eloquently spoke about her position and experiences, but in doing so, didn't really answer the questions or arguments thrown at her.

In contrast, Biden used facts, percentages, insight, and persuasive language to back up his points and also refute the jabs that Palin threw at him. There was also a moment of tenderness where he referred to his dead wife and child, but he didn't throw the sympathy card too hard. I was surprised that Biden didn't attack Palin harder on foreign policy and federal issues, particularly since it would uncover Palin's total lack of experience in that area. However, I think he was mainly trying to come across as considerate of her, which he did, and was a small price he had to pay.

In the end, both Palin and Biden spoke very well and higher than what I expected of them. The big picture, however, is scary: the fact that someone as inexperienced as Palin is only a heartbeat away from the White House is frightening. Yes, Palin was an effective governor in her state of Alaska. Yes, she is a likable and very nice person that connects with the middle class. However, there is no way that she is ready to lead our nation, especially one as complex and sophisticated as the United States of America. I would be much more comfortable having Biden as Vice President. The irony, however, is that the likelihood of Palin attaining the presidency isn't that small - John McCain is already in his 70s, while Barack Obama is over 20 years his junior.

I really don't know why McCain picked Palin- she's a good politician but simply doesn't measure up to the responsibilities and knowledge required of a potential commander-in-chief. The vice presidential debate only seemed to solidify this statement and what we already know.

I know who I'm voting for in November.