The Terminator, Beck, and Obama vs Economics...Can we survive????

                In searching the multitude of opinion articles I happened to come across three very interesting and highly debated topics.  The three articles are entitled; “The Terminator vs. Big Oil”, “Glenn Beck Mocks fire victims, Reaches New Depths of Awfulness”, and “Congress Cant Repeal Economics”.

            In the first article, the writer expressed great distain for the Big Oil companies that are infringing upon the state of California.  With the voting of proposition 23 ever nearing, it seems that Big Oil is pressing itself upon California voters in order to wrestle the vote out of them.  Prop 23 is a proposal to kill California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as A.B. 32.   A.B. 32 was designed to create a healthier environment in the state of California, this required businesses to meet new regulations in environmental quality of production.  Big Oil companies it seems don’t want to spend any of the money they have in order to make these necessary upgrades.  Therefore, their plan has become simple, repeal A.B. 32, and they won’t have to make the upgrades.  A.B. 32 supporters argue that because of this Act, the unemployment rate has continually fallen, because there are more jobs available for people in green technology.  Also, the supporters state that because of this Act, the quality of life and the environment are daily improving.  I find it interesting that Prop 23 is so controversial in California, a state that I thought to be hugely populated with environmental lovers.  It just goes to show that maybe people are tired of having to pay increased prices and taxes in an effort to afford the new regulations state and federal governments are imposing.  The author uses mostly logos in his opinion article, which gives the reader a lot of useful information to for an opinion. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/opinion/06friedman.html

            When I read the heading about Glenn Beck, I was at first glance startled and a bit shocked.  Ill readily admit, I am a huge Fox News fan, and Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly are probably two of my most watched show.  After reading the article, I was at first enraged by what the author was portraying Beck out to be.  The article brought up a heated debate of sorts.  You may have read or seen the story about Gene Cranick, the man who failed to pay a $75 fee to the fire department to protect his assets.  When a fire raged near his house, the fire department would not respond and let his house burn, all because he didn’t pay the fee.  He even offered to pay the fee right then.  The author of this opinion article chastises Beck for his view that the fire department did the right thing.  I agree with the author, and do think that the fire department should have helped the man.  I do, however, think that Beck was using the story in a much bigger context.  The author of the story failed to grasp the underlying meaning that Beck was trying to convey to his audience.   Beck was simply stating that it’s not right for people to not pay into government, and then take money and services that they didn’t help to pay for.  I think the opinion author really needs to take a second look at things before he goes on rants and attacks people over their thinking.  Granted, I do think that Beck could have used a better example, and not have been so harsh a critic of Cranick.  The author in this piece uses a lot of pathos type writing as well as ethos, he wants to connect and share that connection.  He want to insight people to feel indignation towards Beck. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/glenn-beck-mocks-fire-vic_b_753193.html

            The last and final opinion article that caught my eye was over the health care plan implemented this year by President Obama.  The author simply states, that with all the requirements in the plan, health insurance agencies are not able to supply the demanded insurance amount.  There is a shortage of insurance, and many insurance agencies are beginning to close because they are not able to make a profit feasible to sustain their business.  Many companies are taking major hits as well, McDonalds for instance stated last week that they may potentially end up having to drop their 30,000 some workers insurance unless some changes are made.  I am currently taking an economics class, and even though it’s Econ 101, I have learned a lot about the way the economy works.  You can’t have a high demand and a low supply and still have low prices.  If supply doesn’t change with demand, prices go up.  That is how equilibrium pricing and supply work.  The way it is looking, supply of insurance is going down as a result of business not being able to meet demand at such low prices.  What this means in the overall scope of things is simple; as supply goes down and demand goes up, insurance is going to cost way more than people are able to afford.  If there are not some changes made to the health care plan, I am honestly really worried about where and what health care will be in ten years.  The author in this article writes from an ethos point.  They wanted to form a connection with either political ideologies, or people who have been or will be affected by this insurance downfall. 
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/10/06/congress_cant_repeal_economics_107445.html