The Final post, but not the last ....


First of all ,I want to thank you for the content you provided us all this semester . You've been really collaborative with me , and i always enjoyed reading your feedback ,and comments .

This class was really helpful in my life in general ,and with other classes in particular such as my Writing 111. I learned how to search more , read , and be ahead on the world news . I loved how most topics were related to today actualities ,and deal with multicultural issues . Many topic we discussed were sensitive , diverse . I loved the forum part too where we exchange views and speak our mind .

This class thought me how to be more open minded ,and made me discover all views that i ignored about different topics . I become more noisy XD . Well I guess being curious does not kill !! . i also liked how you presented the topics , and the videos you uploaded for us . It was very helpful , and entertaining too . 

Otherwise , I don't like talking about my performance , I would love hearing the feedback from you / What i Know is that I discovered my love for writing . Not far i hated writing , or editing articles . Now i have a big passion which is writing . The class developed my skills ,changed my reading ,and writing styles too .  

Its just perfect, I would prefer if i took the course on the campus . I think it could be more alive ,and amazing if we had it in a real class so we talk ,and discuss all these topics face to face. 

All topics were amazing ,and interesting but I loved writing about Palestine Israel conflict .
The fact that i knew about this topic made it easy ,i also wanted to share my view that reflect many fellow friends views too . I wish we have this kind of opportunities to speak out to the world ,and share our feelings with no fair. 

Eyes in the Sky - The Rise of Drones

Largely unknown to the public, drone aircraft,and fly spy have been used by our law enforcement for surveillance of criminal targets, a tactic that is also being carried out without a warrant.

Recent reports indicate that local police in states like North Dakota, the FBI, and the Drug Enforcement Agency have all used Predator drone planes domestically to help find and watch criminal suspects. The use of these drones has been done without a warrant or without much public debate on the issue by government officials. This has sparked a barrage of legal and privacy questions.

While drones should be allowed in law enforcement, drone surveillance needs to have an issued warrant instead of simply being used at the discretion of law enforcement officers. The use of a warrant would provide the practice of police drone use with a stronger legal authority to protect citizens from intruding authorities infringing on basic rights.

Americans have a clear right to privacy. The Fourth Amendment  states that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 

Some believe that drone use makes our communities safer, as it allows law enforcement to fight crime more smoothly. But safety is being weighed against privacy. By allowing the state to have a blanket ability to spy for the sake of security can foster a rise in exploitation and misuse. The state will not have to justify its actions or be held responsible for inappropriate motivations.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the courts have ruled that what property is seen in the open, even if it is in your own private backyard, is not protected by privacy laws. The courts reasoned that it is because a passing plane can be able to see it as well. But it should be made clear that a passing vehicle or person witnesses something unintentional. It is not comparable to the intentional act executed by the government.

Drones are used in warfare for spying; this utility is being applied to civilian soil. The allowance of this practice evokes the phrase by George Orwell in his novel 1984, “Big brother is watching you.” The intention is to protect the public, but good intentions are easy to corrupt. Law enforcement should always have to give a good reason for breaking constitutional rights and drone surveillance is not an exception.

I feel that our privacy is lost since drone are flying domestic , also"There are contracts between the Department of Defense and companies that are developing facial recognition technology in order to put that technology on drones and they talk about identifying dissonance in crowds," she explained. "These contracts are talking about not only being able to identify who you are but collecting the information when you're engaging in this activity in the United States."

Its actually very scary , drones are going to allow us to spy on its citizen ,I'm sure no one is against them flying out US air space for our security , but since they are flying inside its more of a spying than protecting . The more people know about it the more they will react , but even media don't discuss this issue now . In order to leave free we have to protest ,and speak up !

From Quite Boston, to a Baghdad Boston

I remember the day of the bombing i was home ,i was hurrying mum so we go to the finish line watch the runners,and support them .She was so slow ,and took her time that day like unusual . Some of my friends were there waiting for us ,and they reserved our seats just close to the dramatic place where people lost their body parts,and family members.

I turned TV on to keep me entertain while she finish, 10 min later CNN reported the Boston marathon tragedy . I was shocked , scared for my friends lives , and confused . My mum also was so terrified ,and thanked god we were running late .

I called my friends, and had the worst 1h30 in my life. no one was answering ,I  thought about going there ,but mum stopped me. After trying to reach them again,and again I got in hold with one of them who comforted me ,and told me they all fine ,but so traumatized .

I opened the door after mum was busy ,and left to go see them at the bombing site. When i got there ,I got the worst scene in my life ,and the most terrifying, scaring feeling too. I thought about those who leave in War zone ,and see this ,or even worst everyday. I thought about those in Burma,and Palestine who die every second . I felt so weak ,and powerless too . I want to say that leaving this made me so stronger ,and changed my view about those who experience such events like in Syria, or Lebanon.

My mind went back to that pic of a kid holding his sister after Burma government killed his parents just because they were Muslims , I thought how now they feeling ,and how the world don't do anything for them . I was in a pretty bad situation too, but also felt lucky being around a massive security ,and police agent who protected me . I thought about the rest of the world ,and the sadness ,and crimes around us . Bostonian need to move on and be strong. We have to keep going so they don't win .

We should not be scared or feel fear. Its time to stand up ,and build a stronger Marathon next year ,and   make those who caused this pain pay for it . Whoever did this ,and their complicit from far or close need to pay for it . We need to heal ,and keep in mind the rest of the world who suffer more ,and leave this dramatic scenes everyday . Who ever don't feel for others can't expect others feel for him. Terrorist have no religions, no principles . Terrorism is a new tool for power ,and the new "passe partout" for any one who want blame a lack of security, or a felluire in protection to the world .

Its time to get a serious investigation ,and read between lines,and get the real terrorist. If the two brothers did this ,than we want to know all about it ,and have proves shown to us . enough playing with people lives. for centuries many incidents happened ,and innocent people pay for it . When we will understand love is the power ,and the love of power is the real terrorist , we will be OK !

Sorry  Palestine ......One day .....Peace ..... Will Happen 

Towards the end of the 1800s questions arose as to how the Jewish people could overcome increasing persecution and anti-Semitism in Europe. The biblical Promised Land led to a political movement, Zionism, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine, in the Middle East.

From 1920 to 1947, the British Empire had a mandate over Palestine. At that time, Palestine included all of Israel and today’s Occupied Territories, of Gaza, West Bank, etc. The increasing number of Jewish people immigrating to the “Holy Land” increased tensions in the region.

European geopolitics in the earlier half of the 20th century in the wider Middle East region contributed to a lot of instability overall. The British Empire, especially, played a major role in the region.

During World War I, in 1916, it convinced Arab leaders to revolt against the Ottoman Empire (which was allied with Germany). In return, the British government would support the establishment of an independent Arab state in the region, including Palestine.

Yet, in contradiction to this, and to also get support of Jewish people, in 1917, Lord Arthur Balfour, then British Foreign Minister, issued a declaration (the Balfour Declaration). This announced the British Empire’s support for the establishment of “a Jewish national home in Palestine.”

As a further complication, there was a deal between Imperial Britain and France to carve up the Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire and divide control of the region. The spoils of war were to be shared. As with the 1885 Berlin Conference where Africa was carved up amongst the various European empires, parts of the Middle East were also to be carved up, which would require artificial borders, support of monarchies, dictators and other leaders that could be regarded as “puppets” or at least could be influenced by these external powers.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in a seemingly intractable dispute over land claimed by Jews as their biblical birthright and by the Palestinians, who seek self-determination, and help to free their land. Its world's longest refugee crisis and war.

Despite repeated attempts to end the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, there is no peace settlement in sight. Neither side has fulfilled the commitments it made under the 2003 roadmap - a phased timetable designed to lead to a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel put together by the United States, European Union, Russia and the United Nations. 

Million people struggle in their life for years. Nearly 50 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza – 2.1 million people – are refugees, many of whom live in crowded camps. Life in the Palestinian territories has got worse in recent years and economic hardship has deepened.

Socio-economic conditions in Gaza, which is subject to the most severe Israeli restrictions, have deteriorated particularly sharply and the population is increasingly reliant on food aid.

At the end of 2008, Israel launched a major operation in Gaza with the declared aim of stopping Hamas militants from firing rockets into the Jewish state. The offensive, the biggest in four decades, killed hundreds including many civilians.

Israel followed up its attack by shelling Gaza from land, air and sea, and mobilized tens of thousands of military reservists along the border with Gaza.

I believe Palestine has THE RIGHT OF RETURN to their land, but this DOES NOT MEAN THE DESTRUCTION OF ISRAEL. Many people do not believe that any ethnic group has the right to guarantee an ethnic majority in a nation-state, and therefore do not believe that Israeli Jews have the right to demand a perpetual Jewish-majority state. However: even those who support a Jewish majority in Israel should be able to accept the Palestinian Right of Return, since acceptance of this right will not necessarily overturn the Jewish majority in Israel.

• While all refugees must be given the right to return, not all will choose to exercise that right.
• The two-state solution, supported by most Palestinians and Israelis, would allow many Palestinian refugees to resettle in inside the Palestinian state. Many other refugees would choose to stay where they are.
• Even if two million Palestinians from refugee camps returned to Israel, the total Israeli Palestinian population would still be a minority of some three million, with Israeli Jews a clear majority of almost five million.
• The right of return does not mean that individual Israelis must give up their homes. In other refugee return situations, the right of return has been interpreted to mean that, if a former home no longer exists or is occupied by an innocent third party, return should be permitted to the vicinity of the former home. 

Israeli historian Benny Morris has documented 369 Palestinian villages that were eradicated in the war of 1947-9. At least 234 of those villages were destroyed by direct Israeli military action. At least 80 of these villages were outside the territory of the UN-defined Jewish state. Israeli towns were founded on many of the sites.
Some of the Palestinian refugees were forced elsewhere in Palestine; most were forced out of the country altogether. The United Nations set up refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and inside Israel. The acceptance of the newly-founded Israel into the United Nations was conditional on Israel's compliance with resolution 194, calling on Israel to allow the return or give compensation to these refugees. Israel refused to comply.

The new state of Israel spread the story that all these Palestinians had left under orders from Arab leaders, citing "Arab broadcasts" telling people to move away so that Arab armies could "operate without interference.” There has never been any evidence for this story. Both US and British intelligence services were monitoring all broadcasts during the period, and not a single "Arab broadcast" telling people to leave was recorded. In fact, several Arab broadcasts were recorded telling the population to stay put. Israeli forces, meanwhile, were using threats, violence, and murder to force many Palestinians out of their homes. 

It is no longer the official line of the Israeli Foreign Office that Arab leaders ordered Palestinians to leave Palestine. The State of Israel bears the primary responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

PALESTINIANS HAVE THE RIGHT OF RETURN UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

The general right of return is affirmed in numerous human rights and international law documents, including:

• the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 13(2): “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” • the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 12 (4): “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.” This allows those outside their own country to return for the first time, even if they were born elsewhere and would be entering for the first time, so long as they have maintained a "genuine and effective link" to the country and have not renounced their ties to it.
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. (Art. 5 ii)
• The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (Art. 1.C), focuses on return as the preferred option for refugees by ending protection of refugees only once the refugees have voluntarily repatriated.
• The right of return is a general principle in international law and has been affirmed by the American and European Human Rights Conventions (Art. 22(5); and 4th Protocol respectively), and by the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights in cases involving Cyprus, Bosnia, Croatia, Kosova, Uganda, and East/Central Europe.

Palestinians have a specific right of return according to the United Nations:

• UN General Assembly Resolution 194 III in 1948 provided that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return....” (Art. 11)
Resolution 194 has been reaffirmed more than 100 times by the General Assembly in other resolutions including 513, 2452, 2936, and 3236. 

Israel's conduct toward fishermen in Gaza is unacceptable and must be condemned by the international community. Unacceptable as the tightened restrictions may be, however, they are far from surprising, as they are merely the latest in a long history of Israeli war crimes and human-rights abuses committed against the Palestinian people.

Israeli Journalist Amira Hass Sparks Furor at Home for Defending Palestinian Right to Resist

See Link below  

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/4/10/israeli_journalist_amira_hass_sparks_furor

THE OPPOSING VIEW

The comparison is very different when it is viewed historically and it is in this context that we should realize the criminality of Peres’ narrative which is as horrific as the occupation, and potentially far worse. For the president of Israel, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, there were never Palestinians before he initiated in 1993 the Oslo process, and when he did, they were only the ones living a small part of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

In his discourse, he already eliminated most of the Palestinians. If you did not exist when Peres came to Palestine, you definitely do not exist when he is the president in 2013. This elimination is the point where ethnic cleansing becomes genocidal. When you are eliminated from the history book and the discourse of the top politicians, there is always a danger that the next attempt would be your physical elimination.

It happened before. The early Zionists, including the current president, talked about the transfer of the Palestinians long before they actually disposed them in 1948. These visions of a de-Arabized Palestine appeared in every Zionist diary, journal and inner conversation since the beginning of the 20th century. If one talks about nothingness in a place where there is plenty it can be willful ignorance. But if one talks about nothingness as a vision or undeniable reality, it is only a matter of power and opportunity before the vision becomes reality.

Jewish people are a peaceful people, and I know that because I’m Jew, Many of us are against Zionism, and Israel have a right to the Holy Land, but not in Palestine because taking someone else land by violence is diffidently not what we were told to do as established in the Old Testament, we have to wait and not build our land.

 Sure the Jews had lived in Jerusalem and the surrounding area for nearly 2000 years before being thrown out by the Romans.  But that was a minority .After the Holocaust, thousands of homeless European Jews needed a place to settle, where they could be free of anti-Semitism and violent oppression. Part of this is true

 Israel was pushing my parents to come join The Jews leaving in Palestine, but we refused also many of the Jews community who leaves in Morocco refused the call.

I don’t know match what to say about the argument of Israel because sometimes i feel ashamed of Israeli terrorism and other countries facilitating it. It's not about racial or national solidarity; it's about morality, and the Human right.

My big brother and his Wife are Orthodox Jews living near Tel Aviv. They are outraged at Israel's behavior, especially the restrictions on sick patients needing to leave Gaza.

My sister-in-law, a medicine from Tel Aviv University and a specialist in medical ethics, has complained publicly about this.As a Jew, I, too, am ashamed and disgusted at what is happening. Yes, Israel needs security. But what is happening goes far beyond security needs.

Israel's actions amount to collective punishment, forbidden under international law. I am ashamed of Israel government and the killing the do against Palestinian kids

Is there any solution , I think we so much far from that , and I don’t know what is the answer ….all I know is kids are paying for this war and so are we. We need to move on; this conflict took many lives, and destroyed many families in both sides. The Israeli government and Palestine have to think for the families, and people who pay the price every day.

I’m sick of the torture and the barbarized war between both sides, sure Israel is taking this beyond the cruel, but Hamas needs to sit and find a solution with all sides in this endless conflict.

      We want peace, and need peace. 

G.M.O Foods

"GMO" stands for "Genetically Modified Organisms," and in the case of food, it usually refers to foods that have been genetically engineered for reasons unrelated to health or nourishment. You may also see the term "GE foods" (which stands for "genetically engineered" foods) or terms like "genetically altered" or "genetically modified" or "genetically improved" to describe these foods.

 The sad part is if you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label, but to avoid G.M.O.’s you’re out of luck. They’re not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can’t contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.’s, however, even that may not work. For that GMO’s should not be released into the environment since there is not an adequate scientific understanding of their impact on the environment and human health, or at least must be labeled.

 A lot of people, like me advocate immediate interim measures such as labeling of GE ingredients, and the segregation of genetically engineered crops and seeds from conventional ones. We also oppose all patents on plants, animals and humans, as well as patents on their genes. Life is not an industrial commodity. When we force life forms and our world's food supply to conform to human economic models rather than their natural ones, we do so at our own peril.

As a lot of voices start to call for labeling modified food, I don’t understand the opposition of some companies for our right to know what we eating. There are leased on a fact sheet that share many brands under a “corporate parent”, they even gave millions of dollars to fight against GM labeling. These brands include Larabar, Naked, Horizon Organics, Odwalla and other familiar brands. On the bright side, some of the companies that have given significant amounts to support Prop 37 are some of my favorites. This includes Nutiva, Lundberg, Eden, Nature’s Path, Dr. Bronner’s Magic “All-One,” and Straus Organics. I like many of their products, and i'am glad to know that by supporting them, I am also supporting a company that shares similar goals for labeling foods containing GMOs.

 We should stand, and speak our mind about this issue, I remember me and my boyfriend, we have written a few of these companies and told them expressly and in no uncertain terms that we have taken note of their stands and will no longer be buying their products. The Biological diversity must be protected and respected as the global heritage of humankind, and one of our world's fundamental keys to survival. Governments are attempting to address the threat of GE with international regulations such as the Biosafety Protocol. The saddest part is that I still don’t understand how they still not apply the labeling here in U.S.A even though many manifestations have been held for the last years.

Of course, we can’t deny the benefits of gene technology in terms of food production. The most common genetically engineered is the one that contain modifications that make the plants resistant to certain diseases and herbicides, or allow them to produce their own pesticides, thereby eliminating or reducing the need to spray.

But a huge risk and danger is around the G.M.O foods, environmental damage from GM crops can be caused through various channels. One of the main concerns has been the possibility of gene transfer to a non-target species, that is crops engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds cross-breeding, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance to create ‘super weeds’. In addition, environmentalists fear that transgenic plants may proliferate rapidly, pollinating natural plants in their surroundings eliminating existing species. Further environmental suspicions include those of unintended harm to other organisms (especially non-target insects) and of the reduced effectiveness of pesticides once insects become tolerant to a crop’s natural pesticide. Questions have also been raised on the human impact of genetically modified organisms. Critics of recombinant DNA fear that the pathogenic, or disease-producing organisms used in some recombinant DNA experiments might develop extremely infectious forms that could cause worldwide epidemics.

 Likewise, the unknown effect of foreign genes introduced into GM food crops in terms of human health also presents a controversial issue. Furthermore, there is a possibility that introducing a gene into a plant may create a new allergen or cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals. A proposal to incorporate a gene from Brazil nuts into soybeans in order to increase their nutritional value was abandoned when it was found that the genetically engineered soybeans caused an allergic reaction in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. For these reasons, extensive testing and labeling of GM foods must be required to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies. 

Biotechnology has started to revolutionize food production, with fantastic results. With the world population of 6 billion expected to double in the next 50 years and an adequate food supply becoming a major challenge it will no doubt continue to do so in the future, but the consumer is the one who decide withier they buy it or not .  

                                                            Gun control/rights in the US

Gun rights and gun control groups alike have been lobbying Congress for decades to craft legislation in their respective favors. In the past years the gun issue has reached the nation’s highest court more than ever.
Gun control believers want you to believe that if all guns were outlawed then there would be no crime. Gun rights believers want you to understand that it is your constitutional right to own a gun, and it might save your life .

I think that Guns, like other weapons, though more deadly and possibly more convenient to use, are still inanimate objects and are not the cause of violence or killings. They are not responsible for mass shootings like Virginia Tech, Connecticut, etc... People kill not guns. The main problem is about laws, and the illegal sell of guns. More than 90% of guns used in gun crime were obtained through illegal means such as stealing or the black market. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Also the major piece of gun control  is legislation , the U.S. Code was the assault weapons ban, which passed in 1994 as part of a larger crime bill passed by Congress and signed by then-President Bill Clinton. The ban applied to the manufacture of 19 specific models of semi-automatic firearms and to other guns with assault-weapons features. But the ban expired in 2004, and repeated attempts to renew it have failed.

 Democrats believed their support for the assault weapons ban cost them control of Congress in the 1994 mid-term elections. Whether that's true or not, there's little question that the politics of gun ownership have swung to the right. Republicans largely oppose gun control, and Democrats are split, with some lawmakers cautious about going against the views of more conservative constituencies, especially in rural districts. And in 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in, striking down Washington, D.C.'s blanket ban on handgun ownership in a case known as District of Columbia v. Heller. The ruling established that the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -- means that individuals, and not just the police and military, may own guns.

Money ,and power also control guns , Gun rights groups have given more than $30 million in individual, PAC and soft money contributions to federal candidates and party committees since 1989, with nearly $27 million -- or 87% -- of it going to Republicans. And in the 2010 and 2012 election cycles, they let loose another $41.2 million (at least) in outside spending, almost all of which has put Democrats in their cross hairs  The NRA has provided the lion's share of the funds, having contributed more than $21 million since '89 and further opening its coffers to make $25 million in outside expenditures.

Gun control groups, by comparison, have been barely a blip on the radar screen. They've given a total of just under $2 million since 1989, of which 94 percent has gone to Democrats. In the 2012 election cycle, they gave only $5,000.

Obama needs to enforce the guns control laws ,the existing background check system fails 99.91% of the time, and isn't a deterrent to gun violence at all.  If fraud and deception occur at a higher rate than 62 out of 72,600, then rather than add to the number of background checks, we should first ask why the Department of Justice didn't pursue more than 44 prosecutions, which is a worse rate of .0606% of all rejected applications.

“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, and the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.” 

― Dwight D. Eisenhower

                                      The energy Crisis 

 
We've seen some pretty incredible things blamed on Global Warming over the years, ranging from hurricanes, tornadoes and blizzards to earthquakes and plunging penguin populations.

President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list.  he said at one of his speeches : “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.

Governments, and people are behind this climate change, I don't agree with the global warning story , but i recognize that we have to put red flags , because we are going throw a bad environmental situation .  It is natural to assume that if people do not accept the science of climate change, because they do not understand it, or perhaps need to know more about it.
Certainly it is true that someone who knows very little about climate change is unlikely to care a great deal about its consequences so it is important that the facts about climate change are widely known and readily available.

Whether its about the Global warming which is  the accelerated warming of Earth due to an increase in greenhouse gases, particularly from the burning of fossil fuels, or Climate change which is the natural change in global temperatures over time. More specifically, a change in Earth's energy budget can result in both increases and decreases in global temperatures. we should stand up and  do something to stop this . 

"The Earth is getting warmer, but it’s too much of a leap to say that human beings are the reason. There are plenty of natural climate cycles and I believe in being skeptical " that was a conservative view , Fair enough. But this is science, and skepticism has to come within the framework of what we already understand. The scientific method does not simply mean coming up with an idea, or hypothesis, and testing it to see if it is true.
Hypotheses are supposed to be based on our existing body of understanding , based on our current theory. These get tested before wilder and crazier ideas. We don’t just leap to testing whether aliens are using the planet as a dump for the heat from their warp drives. 

Humans ,and government actions are the major cause behind this big change. Recognizing this does not force anyone to oppose pipelines, support a carbon tax, or start composting and wearing hemp shoes. It just opens us up to start aiming our fiery furnace of a political system at actually solving our problems. 

Anyone can go ahead, argue that the economic cost of anti-greenhouse measures doesn't justify the benefit, especially if the planet is getting too hot. Argue that we should look for technical solutions not only to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions . at the end humans activities affect a large climate change , true they are not the only suspects ,The climate has changed throughout the Earth’s history, well before humans evolved.

Here some facts;  When humans burn gasoline, coal, natural gas, and other common fuels to make electricity or drive cars, they release a substantial amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. For every gallon (or liter) of gasoline your car burns, 1300 times that volume of CO₂ is released (a gallon of gas weighs about 6 pounds or 2.8 kilograms, but the released CO₂ would weigh over 19 pounds or 8.75 kilograms).

 in the other side Republican says that other issue such as war, taxes, and other things come before the idea of global warming, but far-right-Republicans believe that global warming is false and is an idea all about money for Democrats to raise taxes, and make people pay more. also a lot of Americans don't believe in climate change ,and its because of a lot of facts .

Psychological: The consequences of climate change are too awful to contemplate. Therefore, we're denying the issue, as we used to deny monsters in the room by hiding under the blanket. If you don't look at it, it can't look at you.

Economic: The costs of a large-scale effort to fight global warming are too steep to bear. Therefore, we're trying to ignore the issue, or pretending it doesn't exist, or we believe that the economy (including development) is more important.

Political: The fact that Democrats are always hammering on about climate change and Republicans aren't suggests that this is a political issue, not a scientific one. This creates a feedback loop: if climate change were real, why is it so polarizing? Because it's so polarizing, it must be slightly suspicious.

overall , if we want believe it or not , we are leaving in a bad situation today . the main contributor of climate change is us . We should take our responsibility,and try to find solution instead of blaming outsources. Maybe changing our behaviors ,and taking this serious might minimize the problem side affect . By controlling our day to day life , we can save what is left in the earth. these number are a huge facts about our activities affects.

1. 4% of carbon emissions come from industrial processes
2.  7% come from agriculture – for example methane emissions from livestock and manure, and nitrous oxide emissions from chemical fertilizers
3. 21% carbon emissions from transport 
4. 65% come from the use of fuel to generate energy (excluding transport)
5. About 40% of carbon emissions in the state are the result of decisions taken directly by individuals. The biggest sources of emissions for most people are likely to be

* energy use in the home (the main use is heating) * driving a car* air travel

There other elements of  people's homes that contribute to climate change indirectly. Everything, from furniture to computers, from clothes to carpets, all use energy when it is produced and transported – and this causes carbon emissions to be released.

Being pro-planet is being pro-life. Saving this earth for the next generation is a responsibility of all of us . Lets take a moment and think about this earth that gave us ,and still giving us everything . 

Jalila Guerina