Why should not Kill the trucks?

With the convenience that trucks bring us, the problems of those vehicles are exposed to us. For example, the large consumption of the gasoline, the large emission of the exhaust gas and the large amount of noise are some negative aspects that some people are against. Ford, as one of the biggest auto companies in the U.S.A., produced a lot of those controversial trucks. Then some groups talk about the issue of whether Ford should stop selling the oil-dawdled but profitable cars and trucks. Ironically, “the social justice organization CorpWatch bestowed its Greenwash Award on the automaker…while the average fuel efficiency of the company`s fleet was getting worse due to increasing sales of SUVs” (Askari, 2001, para.15). “For over a century, the Ford Motor Company has been a symbol of American enterprise and pride. Set up by Henry Ford in 1903, it pioneered affordable motoring for the masses with its 1908 Model T” (Leggett, 2005, para.1-2). Ford is an important competitor in the field of making cars. Some people, like the executive officer of Ford Motors, disagree with making Ford stop selling those cars. Other people, such as some environmentalists, argue that they should stop producing the cars because the environment is getting worse and worse with a slow speed of deterioration. They have suggested that Ford should use some new kind of energy such as solar battery, ethanol or hybrid. Actually, those new fuels are not very popular around the world today.

According to Roosevelt (2000), controlling the fuel economy and cleansing the tailpipes have been the requisite strategy of General Motors and Ford Motor Co. for several decades. It seems that Ford is a green motor company. It loves green as much as the public does. Thereby, as the best response to the unreasonable request, Ford should not stop selling the oil-dawdled cars. First, if the company stops selling them, Ford will make no profit, like a charity organization. Ford is a business company and it cannot live without income. Second, there is no moderate replacement of the truck. Although the high technology is developing at a high speed, the technology still cannot be put in place because it can only work in theory. Third, Ford has many competitors who want to kill Ford. Some of its deadly foes, such as Honda, Toyota and GM, are watching Ford. Once Ford cuts the production, they will rush out to grab that market which was controlled by Ford. Therefore, Ford should not stop the trucks and SUV sales.

First of all, Ford will make no profits without selling those well-sold but controversial vehicles. Those cars, such as trucks and SUVs, are the main source of income of Ford Motor. “For decades, Ford's F-Series truck has been the best-selling vehicle in America” (Ford history, n. d., para.1). Once the program of producing the trucks is held up, the company will lose a lot of money. Ford will be like a painter who loses his hands or a singer who gets sick in his throat. Is there someone who wants to cut his hands because they sometimes are out of control such as hitting himself? No one wants to do that stupid thing for the reason that compared with the damage the hands made, they have created more profits. So it would be a terrible pain for Ford to be forced to stop selling trucks or SUVs. Also, the finances of the company are in danger. According to Leggett (2005), “Although the company made a $3.5bn profit last year, most of its revenues came from selling car loans and other credit-it made relatively little money from selling cars. And if the interest rates rise, those revenues could dry up” (para.10-11). This is another big problem which Ford is facing. What is worse, as everyone in the United States knows that the economy of the U.S. is involved in a big trouble which is that it is decreasing. “If the economy continues to worsen and U.S. auto sales nosedive, the top executive of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC say they are prepared to weather the downturn” ( Detroit automakers prepare for worst sales year in a decade, 2008, para.1). According this situation, it is not a good idea to stop selling trucks to avoid the possibility of Ford Motor being collapsed. Therefore, Ford should not stop selling those trucks and SUVs.

The next reason that the argument cannot be accepted is that there is not any moderate replacement vehicle for the trucks and SUVs. Without selling those vehicles, what kind of cars can Ford produce? Can it sell the hybrid trucks, the electric trucks, the fuel cell trucks or the solar trucks? It is impossible only to sell these cars, because the technology used with these cars is limited. Actually, the efficiency of using new energy in the car is still lower than that of using the gasoline in an internal combustion engine. For example, the top speed of Toyota hybrid car Prius is 109 mph which is obviously slower than 160 mph-the common top speed of the car using gasoline. Further, if you drive a full electric car, you have to charge the battery every few days. Once you forget to charge, you may have to walk to work. However, you just only ought to fill up the gasoline every two weeks, if you have a common car using gasoline. And it is easy to remember to fill the gasoline every two weeks and it is not worth driving the hybrid cars. In addition, the new energy can only be bought in a few gas stations. The new fuel is being popularized slowly in a small scale around the world. For example, if you have an electric car and you live in Carbondale, when your car is under low power, you have to go to Chicago to charge your car. Will people buy a car that they have to drive hundreds of miles to charge? It is obvious that nobody will do that kind of thing. Instead, they will prefer to do something easy. After all, it is not reasonable and not timely to ban Ford from selling the trucks or SUVs.

The last consideration for Ford is its huge number of competitors. Ford is the most famous and largest automaker; on the other hand, it is also the biggest rival that the other automakers want to beat. According to Leggett (2005), “In the United States, Ford is struggling to maintain its share of the market in the face of intense competition from Japanese manufacturers Toyota, Honda and Nissan-as well as its traditional rivals General Motors and DaimlerChrysler” (para.12). This is a hard situation for Ford, and by now the result of the competition is negative. “…General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and Chrysler LLC (are) collectively (losing) market share to foreign carmakers like Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. and Honda Motor Co….” (Japanese competition has negative impact on U.S. automakers' - S&P, 2008, para.2). For avoiding this consequence happening, Ford should do something to improve the output of its products instead of stopping production. If Ford gives up the trucks and SUVs marketplace, the other automakers would take its place to sell them. Is there any difference between who sells the trucks and the SUVs? There is no difference. Once Ford follows the advice and stops producing trucks or SUVs, sooner or later, one of the biggest Motor companies which has a history of over 100 years will be killed by the weird suggestion. Thereby, Ford should not defer.

Opponents argue that Ford is the criminal of the environment and it is not so green as it claimed before because Ford makes trucks and SUVs which engendered a lot of pollution. However, this argument is not accurate because Ford is making a contribution to the environment. According to Askari (2001), “Through the Ford Motor Company Fund, the chief executive has helped steer millions of dollars to environment organizations in recent years. Last February, the fund contributed $5 million dollars to the Audubon Society, the largest contribution in his society`s history” (para.27). This proves that Ford is concerned about the environment, and it did what it should do as an environmental leader. Also, Ford makes its vehicles green. As Fonda (2006) said, “Ford also became the first American automaker to sell a hybrid SUV, with the Escape model in 2004” (Fonda, 2006, Sep. 10, para.3). Indeed, Ford has been working on the environmental problems and trying to reduce the waste gas from the tailpipe since they realized the environmental issue. They are clear with their responsibility that they should take good care of the nature. Therefore, Ford is also an environment protector. It is cruel to stop Ford from selling the trucks and SUVs.

In conclusion, asking Ford to stop the trucks and the SUVs is good thinking, but it is out of reality. If the trucks and SUVs are stopped, it will cause a dead Ford. First, Ford is going to face another economic problem while facing financial crisis after it stops selling the trucks and the SUVs. In America, most of the cars bought by the consumers are on loan from the banks. And the deadline of most of the loans is more than 10 years later which illustrates that Ford does not have much money. If Ford prohibits the trucks and SUVs, Ford will certainly die. Next, the limited technology reflects that it is not possible only to produce the new fuel vehicles. The hybrid, hydrogen cars are being produced as concept vehicles which just expresses the ideal cars in humans` mind. There are many obstacles to overcome until those concept cars become realized. Last, the competitors will take the place of Ford to sell trucks and SUVs. The Japanese vehicles, such as Honda and Toyota, are very popular in the U.S. because they have high quality, low price and fascinating design. Trucks and SUVs are the favorite styles of American consumers. Ford cannot stand for a while in the seriously competitive auto markets. To sum up, Ford should not stop selling the oil-dawdled but profitable cars. As the new technology is being invented, someday there may be a new style that may take the place of the trucks and SUVs because those new cars are not only green, which the consumers recommend, but also profitable, which satisfies the businessmen of Ford Motor.












Reference
Askari, E. (2001, October 31). USA: Ford CEO says he is green. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from http://www.corwatch.org/article.php?id=1453.
Detroit automakers prepare for worst sales year in a decade, (2008). FOXNEWS. Retrieved Apr. 23, 2008, from http:www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339649,00.html
Fonda, D. (2006, Sep. 10). Ford: just fix the car. Time. Retrieved Apr.23, 2008, from http://www.time.com/magazine/article/0,9171,1533422,00.html
Ford History, (n. d.). Edmunds. Retrieved Apr. 24, 2008, from http://www.edmunds.com/ford/history.html
Japanese competition has negative impact on U.S. automakers' - S&P. (2008, Apr. 07).Forbes. Retrieved Apr. 24, 2008, from http:// http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/afx/2008/04/07/afx4860177.html
Leggett, T. (2005, March 6). Ford fighting to keep its shine. BBC NEWS. Retrieved Apr. 3, 2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/business/4297305.stm.
Maynard, M. (2006, June 30). US: Ford plans shift in focus away from hybrids. The New York Times. Retrieved Mar 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=3826.Roosevelt, M. (2000, Aug. 14). How green was my SUV. TIME. Retrieved Apr. 23, 2008, from http://www.time.com/magazine/article/0,9171,997708,00.html

It is time to go green

In Maynard`s (2005) article entitled “US: Ford plans shift in focus away from hybrids ”, he claims that the Detroit auto company Ford will not only work on hybrid vehicles, but also on the flexible-fuel by pledging to the government that they will make the output of their flexible-fuel production two times what it is now by 2010. First, many environmentalists criticize that Ford`s vehicles are not green because most of their cars used the gasoline which could emit the carbon dioxide and raise the global warming. The global warming is the most serious concerning environmental issue which gives the Ford a lot of pressure to develop the new technology. Second, there is a lot of pressure coming from the Japanese companies who stepped ahead in fuel-saving program. Although the Toyota Motor and Honda Motor have not sold any green cars in America, the profits Ford made are decreasing because of the impact of the new flexible-fuel cars made by Toyota and Honda.
Third, more and more people love the flexible-fuel vehicles for the technology because the technology is new and they are proud of themselves because they are making a contribution to the environment, which means people are learning to get on good tern with the nature.

“Go green” is a more and more popular term around the world. People are living without anxiety about the basic necessities of life. Then people will give away some sympathy for the other things related to them, especially the environment. That is the most controversial topic in present humans` life. With the thriving internet, people know that protecting nature equals to protecting themselves. This opinion leads people to try their best to make almost everything green. Ford is one of the biggest automaker companies in the U.S. and fulfilling its responsibility should make itself green.

First of all, the green car will save a lot of energy. After the war between Iraq and U.S., the energy crisis is exposed to be more and more severe because the oil, coal and fossil fuel are unrenewable and have been used for several hundred years. There will be one day when natural resource would be used up. However, the hybrid is the mixture of the electricity and the gasoline that could reduce the consumption of natural resource. Moreover, the electricity is renewable and easy to create. Either the hybrid or the flexible-fuel, the result of using this energy is saving energy, on the grounds that it is renewable. That is unlimited to use the hybrid or flexible-fuel as the energy of the car. Therefore, the “green” car could save the energy for the next generation of humans.

Next, the consumers could save more money because the price of flexible-fuel is lower than that of gasoline. For example, at the beginning of last year, the price of the #87 gasoline was $2.32 per gallon, but now it has gone up to 3.39 per gallon. In only one year, the price of the oil has risen one dollar. Then, how about 10 years from mow? The price will not rise one dollar each year regularly but sharply because the price is based on the amount of the resource. The less the resource left, the higher the price will be. By contrast, the price of the flexible-fuel depends on the technology because it is renewable and the limitation of the price is only the technology. Thus, as the technology is developing, the price will decrease more and more, and will be lower than that of the gasoline. For this reason, the flexible-fuel vehicles should be produced more.

Finally, a good living environment leads people to a “green” life. As known, America has the largest “population” of cars. The emission of the cars could be a moderate part of the judgment of the environment. The environment in which people live is related to the health index. That means the more exhaust that is released from the car, the more unhealthy people will be. For instance, all the emission of the car is discharged to the environment in which people breathe, plant crops and absorb energy from the nature. It is obvious that people also take in the pernicious gases that would cause some terrible disease like pulmonary tuberculosis. So it harms the human`s health with the emission of the waste gas. However, with the flexible-fuel transport coming out, the environment will be safe and green. Furthermore, health will come to the public. Hence, the green car will be the fashion of the world.

In conclusion, the green car is not only a type of transportation, but also a sign that human civilization is improving, because it is more than a car, it surpasses the meaning of transporting people from one place to another. The green car helps us save energy, and saving money for people is another benefit. This is because no one wants to waste their money, especially when there is a way to save money. In the end, driving the green car also considers about the people`s health. Nobody likes to live in an air polluted environment, however, the number of vehicles in America is certainly huge. So, in the future, the green car will be more and more common around the world. Let us “go green”.

Reference
Maynard, M. (2006). US: Ford plans shift in focus away from hybrids. The New York Times. Retrieved Mar 24, 2008, from http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13826
.

Green leader

In Askari`s (2001) article “USA: Ford CEO Says He`s Green”, she points out that the CEO of Ford is a “green” person who devotes himself to the environmental preservation. First, he spent his own money and time on researching the causes of environmental issues. Because of this, many authorities gave him high marks for his personality, especially the executive director of the Michigan Environmental Council. Second, she claimed that the engine which uses the renewable and clean resources will take the place of the internal combustion engine. Because using the limited resource is not a long term program for the manufacture of cars, the age of the internal combustion engine is coming to an end. Third, Ford quit the organization that is against the effort to control the carbon dioxide emission. Although Ford is still producing SUVs which “drink” gasoline and emit a lot of exhaust gas, he made a proclamation that Ford will be working on increasing the fuel efficiency of the SUVs. Finally, Ford gave a 5 million dollar subscription to the Audubon Society, which is an environmental organization. It is said that the fund is the largest one in the society`s history, which shows the determination of Ford to be “green”.

As the world is becoming green, the people are learning to be “green”. Some people think that they do need to preserve nature, because that will not change a lot of the environment by their personal effort. It should be some big organization or the millionaire, such as the government and the celebrity. However, some people argue that even though a person`s ability is limited, we can gather as many people as we can because a plenty of “ones” makes all. If everyone gives a little contribution, it will be a lot after adding all. Should the leader of the auto company demand himself to be an environment protection person? The answer is they should be green.

First, he will be a good example to his workers and to other auto companies because he is the leader of the company who is regarded as an idol by his staff and a symbol to other companies. All strategies of the company are considered by the CEO and all the strategies reflect the concerns of the leader, the profits or the environment. So the leader, especially the automaker, should make a good example for his subordinates nor only in his work but also in his life. For example, the car he is driving could not be the most expensive but the most environment-protecting. That will lead the others to learn from him.

Second, it is a person`s responsibility to demand of himself to care about the nature. Moreover, the leader must be highly educated and knows what responsibility he has. We are living in a polluted environment. But where does pollution come from? The factory is the answer. But the pollution is manmade. All the waste is made by humans. So is the pollution. For instance, if you broke your neighbor`s window, do you have the responsibility to fix it? The result is, absolutely, yes. Therefore, we polluted the earth, which means that we are on duty to clean it and make it green. Also, we should tell our children to do the same thing because the sense of responsibility is a human`s basic quality.

Third, it will purify the human soul. Why do people make many mistakes and always make the same mistakes? Because they are never think about what they did, why they did it and whether it was worthwhile or not. If a CEO would question himself about why he has to do something and what it will cause, his spirit will be developed. Over and over, he has renewed himself many times. After that, what he says and what he does will be more efficient and reduce the falseness in his work. Thus, it is necessary for him to demand of himself to make a contribution to the environment.

In conclusion, it is obvious to demand that the CEO to require himself to be an environmental protection person. Not only it is his responsibility, but also that is the high-way to improve himself. Also, the action of preserving the environment will influence others` opinion and educate the next generation to have the same sense of responsibility. Then we will not only live on a green earth, but also a human civilized planet.

Reference
Askari, E.,(2001). USA: Ford CEO says he is green. Detroit Free Press.
Retrieved Mar 28, 2008, from CORPWATCH database

A parasite called Wikipedia

According to Martin (2008), “seven percent of all internet users now visit the site every day” (para.13). Everyone knows what Wikipedia is used for. It will become the most welcome website, because you can find any information you need, especially for free. Also, there are not any complicated registered steps. So it is easy to spread the world. However, the issue which comes out with the “famous” Wikipedia is that the students use it for their academic study. For many negative reasons it is not a good source for students to use while writing an essay which should be formal and authorized. Surely, students should not be allowed to study with Wikipedia.

The first reason against using the Wikipedia is that it violates the copyright of the certain people. Every day there are millions of people surfing on Wikipedia. And most of them are students who want to copy some academic sentences in their papers. But is that ethical? Of course not. The information posted on the website is copied by someone who copied from some others` academic papers on which those professors spent several years. Those students who use the information had infringed the copyright. Those researchers devoted themselves to study for several years, which is destroyed by the Wikipedia visitors with two clicks in two seconds. Where is the ethics of those people? Don`t they know they should respect the author`s rights? Moreover, the students who accept the advanced education are the powerful symbols of the country. How can we allow them to do the immoral behavior? Instead, we should teach them to respect others` achievement which they will achieve someday.

The next factor that is opposed to getting information from Wikipedia is that the information may be wrong. According to Wolverton (2007), “it is not the number of the articles available on Wikipedia that is up for debate, though. The argument amongst scholars is that the information available on Wikipedia is not necessarily accurate and that the articles themselves are particularly susceptible to internet vandalism” (para.11). That means people who post or add some words on Wikipedia can write whatever they want, because they even need to register their names. So the information on Wikipedia cannot be correct. For example, if someone searches for the definition of horse and he found that it is a kind of animal with two big eyes and four long legs…, he may probably printed the definition and point to a frog and say, “it is a horse.” So the information posted on Wikipedia has no confidence in the information. Therefore, students cannot use the information on Wikipedia.

The last concern of banning the site to students is that is damages the academic study. As Wolverton (2007) told, according the company called Alexa Internet which inspects the Websites and solves the problems in them, Wikipedia has already been in the top 10 most popular websites in America by Jan. 15, 2001. It is obvious that many students look for and use the information from Wikipedia. What could be the result? It would increase the dependence on Wikipedia for students. They will not ponder about their courses. What they are going to do is just looking at the screen and clicking the right button of the mouse to copy. Over and over, students would get lazy and lack of creativity. fewer and fewer people will do the real academic research. Is that what people expect to do with Wikipedia? The answer is no and never. So students should be forbidden to put something from the Wikipedia in their papers.

In conclusion, the students should keep very far away from Wikipedia. First, we should respect others` creatures which are without any knowledge of the writers. Second, the content on Wikipedia may be faked and would mislead people to a terrible result. Third, Wikipedia would kill the spark of creativity of the educated students, because more and more people are dependent on it but not on themselves. So Wikipedia is not a useful tool to study academics in the university. It is just a website to enlarge our personal viewpoints. Finally, students should use it when they are working on a paper and should have a medium way to regard its value.

Reference
Martin, N. (2008, Jan. 21). Wikipedia clamps down on ‘unreliable’ editor, telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved Apr. 23, 2008, from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/20wiki120.xml
Wolverton, J. (2007, Jan. 27). Wikipedia Wisdom, Valley Vanguard, Retriedved Apr. 23, 2008, from http://www.svsu.edu/clubs/vanguard/stories/1141

It is time to go green

In Maynard`s(2005) article entitled “US: Ford plans shift in focus away from hybrids ”, he claims that the Detroit auto company Ford will not only on hybrid vehicles, but also on the flexible-fuel by pledging the government that they will make the output of their flexible-fuel production two times as that now by 2010. First, many environmentalists criticize that Ford`s vehicles are not green because most of their cars used the gasoline which could emit the carbon dioxide and raise the global warming. The global warming is the most concerned environmental issue which gives the Ford a lot of pressure to develop the new technology.  Second, there is a lot of pressure coming from the Japanese company who stepped ahead in fuel-saving program. Although the Toyota Motor and Honda Motor have not sold any green cars in America, the profits Ford made is decreasing because of the impact of the new flexible-fuel cars made by Toyota and Honda. Third, more and more people loves the flexible-fuel vehicles for the technology because the technology is new and they are proud of themselves because they are making contribution to the environment that means people are learning to get good tern with the nature.

“Go green” is a more and more popular term around the world. People are living in a no anxiety in the basic necessities of life. Then people will give away some sympathy on the other things related to them, especially the environment.  That is the most controversial topic in present humans` life. With the thriving internet, people know that protecting the nature equals to protecting themselves. This opinion leads people to try their best to make almost everything green. Ford is one of the biggest automaker company in the U.S. and its responsibility should make itself green.

First of all, the green car will save a lot of energy. After the war between Iraq and U.S., the energy crisis is exposed to be more and more severe because the oil, coal and fossil fuel are unrenewable and have been used for several hundred years. There will be one day when the nature resource would be used up. However, the hybrid is the mixture of the electricity and the gasoline that could reduce the consumption of the nature resource. Moreover, the electricity is renewable and easily to created. Either the hybrid or the flexible-fuel, the result of using this energy is saving the energy on the grounds that they are renewable. That is unlimited to use the hybrid or flexible-fuel as the energy of the car. Therefore, the “green” car could save the energy for the next generation of human.

Next, the consumers could save more money because the price of the flexible-fuel is lower than that of the gasoline. For example, at the beginning of last year, the price of the #87 gasoline is $2.32 per gallon, but now it goes up to 3.39 per gallon. For only one year, the price of the oil raises one dollar. Then, how about 10 years later? The price will not rise one dollar each year regularly but sharply because the price is based on the amount of the resource. The less the resource left, the higher the price will be. By contrast, the price of the flexible-fuel is depends on the technology because it is renewable and the limitation of the price is only the technology. Thus, as the technology developing, the price will be more and more down than before and that of the gasoline. For this reason, the flexible-fuel vehicles should be produced more.

Finally, the good living environment leads people to a “green” life.  As known, America has the largest “population” of cars. The emission of the cars could be a moderate part of the judgment of the environment. The environment in which people live is related to the health index. That means the more exhaust releases from the car, the unhealthy people will be. For instance, all the emission of the car is discharged to the environment in which people breath, plant crop and absorb energy from the nature. It is obvious that people also take in the pernicious gases that would cause some terrible disease like pulmonary tuberculosis. So it harms the human`s health with the emission of the waste gas. However, with the flexible-fuel transport coming out, the environment will be safe and green. Furthermore, health will come to the public. Hence, the green car will be the fashion of the world. 

In conclusion, the green car is not only a type of transportation, but also a sign that human civilization improves because it is more than a car, it surpasses the meaning of transporting people from one place to another. The green car help us save the energy and saving money for people is another benefits. Because no one want to waste their money, especially when there is a way to save the money. At last, driving the green car also consider about the people`s health. Nobody likes to live in a air polluted environment, otherwise, the number of the vehicles in America is certainly huge. So, in the future, the green car will be more and more common around the world. Let us “go green”.

Reference

Maynard, M. (2006). US: Ford plans shift in focus away from hybrids. The New York Times. Retrieved Mar 24, 2008, from CORPWATCH database.

Freedom cannot be extremely free

In Twist`s (2005) article entitled “Controversy blights UN net summit,” she points out that the summit was about the agreement of the freedom of the net and who should supervise is in Tunis. At first, she states that the funding on facilitating the development of the net is not enough and the means of getting new money are few. This could be the most crucial limitation of enlarging the freedom of the net around the world. Second, she claims that the shortage of technology is also another factor that blocks the freedom of net. Without upgrading of new technology, the net system cannot make any achievement. Then, the delegation of the U.S. criticizes the Tunisian government that they did not fulfill their promise to give away the freedom of expression and assembly. However, the Chinese representative argues that governments need to make some regulation to secure the Tunisian`s internet safety. Generally speaking, the policy of overseeing the management by the Tunis government is moderate.

With the development of technology and knowledge, the internet proves its importance in humans` life because of the coming of the information age. While the value of the internet is rising, the controversy over who should possess the power of censorship of the internet is also exposed. Allowing for immature system of the internet in Tunis, the government should not reduce the censorship of the internet.

First, without any control, the information abuse on the internet will happen. People can get any kind of information on the internet by using search engines as well as publish any articles, which will probably cause the information boost on the internet. For example, if no organization inspects the comment of the articles posted on the internet, the rebel will take the opportunity to state the anti-government message or some frauds will deliver a lot of fake information to cheat people for money or even worse, the state secret may be given away. Also, the information from the internet will be tangled because nobody is going to put the resource in order. So, the function of the internet will be so useless that the internet resembles a big trash bin.

Second, the internet cannot be safe in a situation in which the government gives up the duty to oversee the internet. If the government does not protect the internet, the hackers may attack cyberspace, which will be harmful to the stability of the nation. For instance, some hackers attacked the Microsoft several years ago, which caused the loss of millions of U.S. dollars. Worth mentioning, Microsoft is the biggest company that exploits new software for operating system for personal computers. Otherwise, the security system to protect the business of this company must be entirely efficient. As this case shows, the government should supervise the internet in the same it protects itself.

Third, the internet without monitoring will lead the public to a wrong world. Nowadays, the computer has become more and more important and common because everyone could afford the price of the computer, which will increase the dependence on the computer. More and more people will search for news on the internet instead of buying a newspaper. If the news is not selected by the organization belonging to the government, it will possibly give people the wrong information. Some of the information may cause the people psychological problems, for example the making up of a traqic story about the increasing rate of traffic accidents which is not true or approved by the government. So, the government should oversee the news on the internet for the health of their citizens.

In conclusion, the government should not give up the freedom of sharing the internet information. If the information abuse spreads on the internet, it will result in a terrible destruction in every field of the states. Also, the freedom of the internet is related to the state security. The more freedom the internet has, the unsafe the nation will be. In the end, the overabundant information on the internet may harm the psychology of the public, and affect the health of the citizens. In all, if the internet loses any powerful control, the chaotic information on the internet could lead to a doomsday of the present peaceful and beautiful world. However, nobody expects that day to become real. To conclude, the government should not give away the power of overseeing the management of the net.


Reference
Twist, J. (2005). Controversy blights UN net summit. BBC News. Retrieved Mar 20,2008, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4450474.stm

Should the government care about the citizens` heath?

According to what Kongzi said, People is the fundamental foundation of a country -No person, No nation. It means that people are the most for a country and will lead a thriving country to be powerful and prosperous. If there are no people in the country, how could the country develop to be strong. Also what is the most important thing to the people? Their health. For this result, the government should offer health service to all citizens because it will bring the U.S. such profits as the social benefits, health benefits and economic benefits.

The first reason is that offering people heath service will bring social benefits. The most obvious benefit is that people will not protest to pay taxes. If the public pay money to the government, the government should have responsibility to take care of them. As an example, if the government take money from the people, but do not care about their health. What will happen? Some people will write “Where is my money?” or “Give the money back to me!”, hand them over their heads and parade in front of the White House. To make the public live in a happy life, the government are responsible to care about their health by giving them health care. In addition, the crime rate will decrease for the reason that the money citizens cost to visit the doctor will be paid by the government. For example, if a person hears that his mother gets a cancer which costs not as little as $10,000, he will probably rob of the bank to save her mother`s life. The benefit becomes so unforgettable that the government will get stable taxes income and work easily because of crime rate decreasing.

The health benefits are the second factor to make the health service offering necessary. First, people will be in a good condition of physical health with health service. For instance, the most “famous” disease in America is obesity. According to Department of Health and Human Service,” In 2006, only four states had a prevalence of obesity less than 20%. Twenty-two states had a prevalence equal or greater than 25%; two of these states (Mississippi and West Virginia) had a prevalence of obesity equal to or greater than 30%.”( Department of Health and Human Service,2007,July 27) Otherwise, if the government refuses to provide health service to citizens, people may not visit the doctor when they get sick. Over and over, this will affect personal physical health so badly that the citizens will get fatter and fatter and the number will be bigger and bigger. On the other hand, in a long time, people with health service could not get psychological problems. For example, if AIDS affects someone and the government will not pay any money to treat him, then he cannot do anything but wait to die. What is the feeling of waiting to die? People may be disappointed, get mad or even suicide. The psychological illness is the most difficult disease to cure. Above all, health service should be given to all citizens for keeping them in good physical and psychological health by the American government.

The third consideration that the government should agree to serve American people health service is the economic benefits. The economy growth will increase with health service for all people. Obviously, if people cannot receive health service from the government, they have to visit the doctor by using their own money and everyone knows that it is very expensive to see a doctor in the USA. So the citizens will save money or spend the money on treating themselves instead of purchasing basics like cars clothes and food such as Louis Vuitton, Ford GT and KFC, which causes the economy develop slowly. Also, the taxes could be stable. For example, if people do not go shopping for extra goods, which means the government cannot have money except by raising the taxes, the taxes will go up .Then people go shopping less and less and taxes are more and more, which is a vicious circle As a matter of this fact, the government should never be any hesitated to offer health service to all citizens because everybody likes more and more money.

The last benefits, if the government will offer health service to all citizens is to remove generally and gradually discrimination which is the most serious and sensitive issue. For example, if the health service can only be given to part of all the citizens, there must be someone cannot receive the health care. So how to decide who can get or who cannot? Because of different wealth, different gender, different color of skin or different age, some persons cannot receive it or be given it in others` despised eyes. Who can bear those kind of eyes? None.Everyone have equal rights to receive the health care. Therefore the government cannot give the health service to some “special” parts of all the American public but provide it to all the US citizens.

Opponents of offering health service to all citizen argue that health service to all citizen will cost a lot of money. However, this disagreement is incomplete because if the government do not offer the health service to any one, when the workers get bad illness like SARS, the money costs to cure them is much higher than the price of health service costs. Thus the truth is health service will cost less money because the social benefits, the health benefits and the economic benefits will save American government a lot money and make the public think the government is efficient. On the whole, it is utterly reasonable for the US government to provide all the citizen health service because of such profits mentioned above.

In conclusion, the advantages of offering health service to all citizen are so enormous and it a long-term profits that nobody want to see there are always sick people who are coughing on the streets and the taxes leap by 200%. All American citizens want to live in a healthy, happy and long life. according to the article “Deaths: final data for 2004” given by National Center for Health statistics, the average life expectancy at birth in the USA in 2004 was already 77.8 years ( Miniño, A. M., Heron, M. P., Murphy, S. L. , & Kochanek, K. D, 2007, August 21). Therefore, only if everyone can get health service in the USA. The people will not get mad and more benefits. The best way that the social benefits, health benefits and the economic benefits come out and become big is offering health service to all American citizen by the government. Then the American citizens will live healthier lives and the United States of America will be stronger and more harmonious.