A Critique on Sunil Sharan's "The green jobs myth"

Blog Stage Three: Substantial commentary or criticism #1 (POST TO BE GRADED)

A Critique on Sunil Sharan's "The green jobs myth" by Derek Rider
Friday, Febraury 26th, 2010

Sunil Sharan released a new editorial (NOTE: The Washington post requires an user registration to view this article, more information at the bottom of my post.) today concerning what he calls “the myth of green jobs”, and just as he is, I am left in the middle of road, unsure which side to fight for.
One part of the editorial that stood out most for me, was in the presentation, it is very easy to see that this article is intended to spark constructive thinking in not only those in favor of going green, but also those against it. It supplies both sides with some excellent ammo for striking up arguments. Sharan himself, being a director of the Smart Grid Initiative at GE from 2008 to 2009, show’s that he has a lot of credibility, and his editorial shows that he is actively trying to figure out exactly how to tackle this idea of going green considering his line of work. Sharan presents a very well formulated argument, and does an excellent job of not biasing, which I applaud him for. Sharan claims that while it is good for our nation to start moving toward a green style of living, especially since it will create current jobs, at the same time, in the future, with the automation of going green many will also lose their jobs. Sharan has taken the time out to give mathematical statistics showing exactly what kind of a temporary change going green could make for our country, and equally so, labels out exactly what could happen once “our installation process” has completed.
I feel the balance of power is best described in his conclusion paragraph; “For the purpose of creating jobs, then, a "clean-energy economy" will not offer a panacea. This does not necessarily mean that America should not become green to alleviate climate change, to kick its addiction to foreign oil or to use energy sources more efficiently. But those who take great pains to tout the "job-creation potential" of the green space might just end up inducing labor pains all around.”
Sharan successfully addresses the pros and cons of both situations, and in a matter that leaves both sides at a balance, leaving this topic wide open for discussion.
A very well made editorial Mr. Sharan, I will be looking forward to more of them.



Note continued:
Again, I apologize that the Washington Post requires that you register an account to view this article, I'm sure they will not spam you or anything. Also, I think it would be a wise choice to go ahead and register now, seeing as The Washington Post is a recommended source for our U.S. Government class, and registering now will probably make life easier for you later in the semester.

~75% of Americans support gays in the military.

Stage Two: Article Introduction (Post to be graded.)

Today, a new article (NOTE: The Washington post requires an user registration to view this article, more information at the bottom of my post.) went up at The Washington Post stating that three-quarters of Americans said that they support openly gay people serving in the U.S. Military. The article, written by Ed O’Keefe and Jennifer Agiesta, stresses the fact that this majority says we should remove the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy instilled during the Clinton administration back in 1993, which forbids commanders to ask the sexual orientation of a service member and REQUIRES the discharge of openly gay men and women.

President Obama called for a repeal of the policy during his State of the Union Address last month, as well as the military’s top civilian and leadership expressing personal support for a repeal. Three officials, Robert M. Gates, Carter F. Ham and Jeh C. Johnson are in the midst of conducting studies and are trying to work out the complicated parts of the repeal.

The statistics were formulated by random telephone calls to 1004 adult Americans, both male and female, on both home and cellphone numbers. Men and seniors were about 15% less likely to agree with the repeal, than that of women, and young adults.

This article is significant because it helps to demonstrate just how dramatically our attitudes towards homosexuals has changed in the past 17 years. No matter which side of the fence your on, I recommend checking out the article yourself.

Again, I apologize that the Washington Post requires that you register an account to view this article, I'm sure they will not spam you or anything. Also, I think it would be a wise choice to go ahead and register now, seeing as The Washington Post is a recommended source for our U.S. Government class, and registering now will probably make life easier for you later in the semester.