Nuclear Power in the United States

On March 11, an earthquake hit Japan, as well as a devastating tsunami. Following the disaster, people from around the world have come together to aid the Japanese people. (The story was also featured in Watching History Unfold). The disaster not only wiped out the homes of thousands of people, but it also damaged a nuclear plant, leading many Americans to ask, what is the future of nuclear power in America?

In the face of the disaster in Japan, American support for nuclear power has slightly diminished. Many Americans' fears about the safety of nuclear power seem to be confirmed. Many citizens are even suggesting increased offshore drilling rather than increased nuclear power. However, US officials are saying that nuclear plants in the United States are safe, and citizens should not be concerned. 

Nuclear power presents many difficult issues, such as safety and waste disposal. For about ten years, nuclear power has steadily gained popularity. But in the aftermath of the disaster in Japan, advocates for nuclear power could face serious difficulties. 

I personally think the US should have more nuclear power plants. President Obama has repeatedly stated that it is important to have many different forms of energy, including nuclear, and I agree. The answer to solving the energy crisis does not lie in one solution; instead, it lies in a variety of solutions, nuclear power included. I believe that the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks, and that America should begin to build more nuclear power plants. 

I am not denying that nuclear power can be dangerous, especially following the disaster in Japan. However, I know that US officials will be even more vigilant in making sure nuclear power plants are safe.

Libya and the United States

Photo cred: LA Times

For the past few weeks, we've all been watching the situation in Libya and surrounding countries. Moammar Gadhafi, the leader of Libya, has refused to step down despite widespread opposition among the Libyan people. But last week, the United States has become involved in the situation as well. On March 19th, President Obama ordered US troops to begin enforcing a "no-fly zone" in Libya. The United States was not acting alone, but was working with several allies, and was authorized under the United Nations Security Council Resolution of 1973.

Which led me to ask, how much do the American people support a US military intervention in the Middle East? The answer I got was not surprising. In this poll from CNN, it is clear that Americans are generally supportive of military action in Libya. However, support wavers when it comes to directly attacking Gadhafi's troops. Because direct attacks put soldiers' lives at risk, Americans are not willing to commit to aggressive military action.

But now that US troops have been ordered to interfere, another question arises: what will happen next? This is one of the most important questions that President Obama faces. If Gadhafi is not removed from power soon, Americans may grow impatient and support for military presence may dwindle. However, if Gadhafi is defeated, the international community must still decide how to move forward in Libya. Who will be the next leader? How much influence will the US and other countries have in creating a new government? All of these questions are difficult to answer, and President Obama must move forward cautiously in order to make sure the American people are behind US interference in Libya.

For an updated timeline on what's going on in Libya, check out this blog.

Are Our Rights Protected?

The Bill of Rights guarantees Americans certain liberties, including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Every American acknowledges that these rights are fundamental in our country. They have been protected under the Constitution from the beginning of our nation. However, these rights are not always safe. So I thought I would check in on how two of these liberties are protected today.

Photo Cred: New York Times

Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights granted to Americans. It means that no one can be punished for speaking out against something or protesting, as long as it does not inflict harm on others. In the past the government has repeatedly violated the people's freedom of speech, especially during wartime. These violations of civil liberties include the Alien and Sedition Acts and the Espionage Act of 1917. But is freedom of speech still at risk today? The answer is yes. This week, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in the case of Snyder v Phelps. The Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for their message that the war in Iraq and natural disasters are the result of America's tolerance of homosexuals. When the Church protested Matthew Snyder's son's funeral, Snyder sued Westboro for invasion of privacy and emotional distress. A jury awarded Snyder five million dollars in damages, but the decision was later overturned. The issue of the case is whether or not the Westboro Baptist Church's right to freedom of speech protects them from lawsuits like Snyder's. This week, the Supreme Court decided 8-1 that the Church is in fact protected under the First Amendment. The decision has led to a wide range of reactions, from those who agree that free speech should be protected to those who want to prevent the Church from spewing hateful messages. Personally, I agree with the Court's decision. I find the Church's messages to be despicable, but they aren't physically harming anyone and their protests are peaceful. Therefore, we must allow them to share their beliefs. If we don't, where do we draw the line?

Photo Cred: NPR

Another civil liberty at risk in America today is freedom of religion. In my AP United States Government class we've had a lot of discussions about whether or not prejudice still exists in modern America. One of the groups still experiencing widespread prejudice are Muslims. This week I heard a story from NPR about "Guantanamo North," two special prisons in the United States that house threats to the nation. The problem with these units, however, is that they house a disproportionate number of Muslims. Some prisoners, such as Avon Twitty, were not convicted of terrorism, but were sent to the units simply because of their Islamic faith. These units are known for their secrecy and their restrictions on civil liberties, and prisoners are unable to appeal their case in order to move from the units. The most concerning violation of rights, however, is the fact that Muslim prisoners are not permitted to pray together. In a country where we pride ourselves on our freedom, how can we allow people's liberties to be taken away simply because of their religion? For a further look at these special units, check out this timeline.

The lesson to be learned from these two stories is that civil liberties are never safe. Though America has made great strides in order to promote more tolerance among its citizens, there will always be an ongoing debate about the extent to which civil liberties should be protected.