A mine in Minnesota
Drilling Into A Polluted World
November 25, 2013
By: Paris Bell
Minnesota -- In order to quench its insatiable appetite for money and natural gas, Minnesota has begun to drill into its most precious resources – its silica sand. The process is called fracking, but it is formally known as hydraulic fracturing.
This process is used to get oil and natural gas out of the ground, which would in return bring in a large profit. Despite the large profit, many cities in Minnesota are banning this process. Local government officials believe that mining companies should operate under a more stern protocol if they wish to continue with their mining businesses.
Fracking is wreaking havoc to the environment. The process includes a huge profit along with huge amounts of air pollution, tainted water sources, and the deterioration of human health. Many people are concerned with the insanely large amount of money that would be needed to clean up the contaminated water sources. These same people know that these costs will be paid out of their pockets, if not at all. A community can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to clean up water sources. This is otherwise known as thousands of dollars the public just doesn’t have.
No matter what you call it -- hydraulic fracturing or fracking, it is still harmful to our planet. Even though the process can bring in a nice amount of money that could bring money into the state of Minnesota, fracking has helped destroy the environment.
November 25, 2013
By: Paris Bell
Minnesota -- In order to quench its insatiable appetite for money and natural gas, Minnesota has begun to drill into its most precious resources – its silica sand. The process is called fracking, but it is formally known as hydraulic fracturing.
This process is used to get oil and natural gas out of the ground, which would in return bring in a large profit. Despite the large profit, many cities in Minnesota are banning this process. Local government officials believe that mining companies should operate under a more stern protocol if they wish to continue with their mining businesses.
Fracking is wreaking havoc to the environment. The process includes a huge profit along with huge amounts of air pollution, tainted water sources, and the deterioration of human health. Many people are concerned with the insanely large amount of money that would be needed to clean up the contaminated water sources. These same people know that these costs will be paid out of their pockets, if not at all. A community can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in order to clean up water sources. This is otherwise known as thousands of dollars the public just doesn’t have.
No matter what you call it -- hydraulic fracturing or fracking, it is still harmful to our planet. Even though the process can bring in a nice amount of money that could bring money into the state of Minnesota, fracking has helped destroy the environment.
Gay marriage rally in the Capitol Rotunda in Minnesota
Legalizing Gay Marriage in Minnesota
By: Paris Bell
December 3, 2013
Despite the federal government’s immense attempts to stop it, gay marriage has broken its way into the law books in Minnesota. DOMA, or The Defense of Marriage Act, once tried to ban gay marriage altogether. This unsuccessful law was proposed by the federal government in order to get the issue of gay marriage totally eradicated. This not only failed, but it opened the eyes of many people among the nation. Can the government really do that? Should the government be allowed to do that? These same thoughts have been pondered over by many people just hundreds of years ago within The Federalist Papers. The philosophers believed that the government should not have total control of the states, but should share the power both the state and the federal government have with each other.
Infringing on the 5th Amendment as well as the 10th amendment, DOMA was deemed as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case Windsor v. United States made this ruling so. This law did not guarantee everyone equal protection under the law, and it does not grant people the rights they automatically have even though it’s not directly written somewhere in the Constitution. We believe that the federal government should not be able to tell the states who can and cannot get married. Gay marriage is not stated anywhere in the Constitution as being unlawful.
With 16 states legalizing gay marriage, and 33 states having marriage bans, you can clearly see that states are making their own decision concerning this topic. Gay marriage is simply a way of citizens who are not heterosexual to be able to have equal protection under the law as those who are not homosexual. Like African-Americans and the different minority groups in American during the civil rights movement, those who are homosexual want to get married are just trying to fight for their rights. Though not clearly stated, it is guaranteed inside of the constitution.
Legalizing gay marriage won’t only allow those, homosexuals, to marry the ones they love, but it would also provide them with equal marriage rights. For example, tax breaks and pension rights. These are rights that the federal government cannot take away despite what government officials may personally believe. If the federal government were to be able to decide on most issues for the states, national or not, it would defeat the purpose of The Federalist Papers being written. In addition to this, gay marriage should not be a national concern. Bottom line, the federal government should not be able to dictate what states want to do decide for its citizens.
Judging by the amount of state government already making the decision for themselves, legalizing gay marriage should be determined by the state government and should not be a federal government decision. In order to spread this message, those who support this decision should inform those around them. This could be done by making open groups on social networking sites, websites, or signing a simple petition. Many people living in the USA today do not know that their voice counts and that it can help to combat the federal government making every little decision for them. Can the government really do that? No, the government cannot. With your help, people will be able to know that.
By: Paris Bell
December 3, 2013
Despite the federal government’s immense attempts to stop it, gay marriage has broken its way into the law books in Minnesota. DOMA, or The Defense of Marriage Act, once tried to ban gay marriage altogether. This unsuccessful law was proposed by the federal government in order to get the issue of gay marriage totally eradicated. This not only failed, but it opened the eyes of many people among the nation. Can the government really do that? Should the government be allowed to do that? These same thoughts have been pondered over by many people just hundreds of years ago within The Federalist Papers. The philosophers believed that the government should not have total control of the states, but should share the power both the state and the federal government have with each other.
Infringing on the 5th Amendment as well as the 10th amendment, DOMA was deemed as unconstitutional. The Supreme Court case Windsor v. United States made this ruling so. This law did not guarantee everyone equal protection under the law, and it does not grant people the rights they automatically have even though it’s not directly written somewhere in the Constitution. We believe that the federal government should not be able to tell the states who can and cannot get married. Gay marriage is not stated anywhere in the Constitution as being unlawful.
With 16 states legalizing gay marriage, and 33 states having marriage bans, you can clearly see that states are making their own decision concerning this topic. Gay marriage is simply a way of citizens who are not heterosexual to be able to have equal protection under the law as those who are not homosexual. Like African-Americans and the different minority groups in American during the civil rights movement, those who are homosexual want to get married are just trying to fight for their rights. Though not clearly stated, it is guaranteed inside of the constitution.
Legalizing gay marriage won’t only allow those, homosexuals, to marry the ones they love, but it would also provide them with equal marriage rights. For example, tax breaks and pension rights. These are rights that the federal government cannot take away despite what government officials may personally believe. If the federal government were to be able to decide on most issues for the states, national or not, it would defeat the purpose of The Federalist Papers being written. In addition to this, gay marriage should not be a national concern. Bottom line, the federal government should not be able to dictate what states want to do decide for its citizens.
Judging by the amount of state government already making the decision for themselves, legalizing gay marriage should be determined by the state government and should not be a federal government decision. In order to spread this message, those who support this decision should inform those around them. This could be done by making open groups on social networking sites, websites, or signing a simple petition. Many people living in the USA today do not know that their voice counts and that it can help to combat the federal government making every little decision for them. Can the government really do that? No, the government cannot. With your help, people will be able to know that.
Protesters protest in order to sway the state government's decision on medical marijuana
Cannabis in the Northern Star State
December 12, 2013
By: Paris Bell
Minnesota – The Minnesota Legislature, now finished with their 2013 bipartisan group, is gearing up to induct the topic of medical marijuana into debate in 2014; The debate would introduce a bill that would legalize medical marijuana in Minnesota. Some Minnesota state Representatives, such as Rob Barrett, is opposed to legalizing the substance. There were 11,629 arrests that involved marijuana is some fashion in 2007 alone. Majority of arrest in the United States were marijuana related. Taking this into consideration, some Minnesota state Representatives may be hard to cajole into voting for the legalization of marijuana.
Despite the negative attention to discuss this issue, 65% of Minnesotans are for legalizing medical Marijuana. The law to pass this was actually introduced in 2009, and passed. This victory was then vetoed by Tim Pawlenty, the Governor at the time. Representative Carly Melin and Senator Sen. Scott Dibble are for legalizing medical marijuana, which is why the topic was brought up in the debates by them to be discussed in the following year’s debates. They, along with other hopeful Representatives and Senators, are longing to be added to the list of the other 18 states that have legalized medical marijuana by this day and age.
There are many misconceptions when it comes to medical marijuana. By legalizing medical marijuana, citizens are only able to access the drug by getting it prescribed by a licensed physician. Even then, they will only be able to get only up to 2.5 ounces of the cannabis at a time. Many people are under the impression that medical marijuana would lead to havoc in their counties; It would only allow those who honestly need it to have access to the medicine they need.
The citizens of Minnesota who are believe that medical marijuana will be pleased to hear it come up in the debates sometime in 2014. Until then, the citizens of Minnesota are writing to their local representatives to support the upcoming bill.
December 12, 2013
By: Paris Bell
Minnesota – The Minnesota Legislature, now finished with their 2013 bipartisan group, is gearing up to induct the topic of medical marijuana into debate in 2014; The debate would introduce a bill that would legalize medical marijuana in Minnesota. Some Minnesota state Representatives, such as Rob Barrett, is opposed to legalizing the substance. There were 11,629 arrests that involved marijuana is some fashion in 2007 alone. Majority of arrest in the United States were marijuana related. Taking this into consideration, some Minnesota state Representatives may be hard to cajole into voting for the legalization of marijuana.
Despite the negative attention to discuss this issue, 65% of Minnesotans are for legalizing medical Marijuana. The law to pass this was actually introduced in 2009, and passed. This victory was then vetoed by Tim Pawlenty, the Governor at the time. Representative Carly Melin and Senator Sen. Scott Dibble are for legalizing medical marijuana, which is why the topic was brought up in the debates by them to be discussed in the following year’s debates. They, along with other hopeful Representatives and Senators, are longing to be added to the list of the other 18 states that have legalized medical marijuana by this day and age.
There are many misconceptions when it comes to medical marijuana. By legalizing medical marijuana, citizens are only able to access the drug by getting it prescribed by a licensed physician. Even then, they will only be able to get only up to 2.5 ounces of the cannabis at a time. Many people are under the impression that medical marijuana would lead to havoc in their counties; It would only allow those who honestly need it to have access to the medicine they need.
The citizens of Minnesota who are believe that medical marijuana will be pleased to hear it come up in the debates sometime in 2014. Until then, the citizens of Minnesota are writing to their local representatives to support the upcoming bill.