The Modern Hitler: A Horrible Comparison or a Warning of Things to Come?

In recent years, a number of people have been compared to Hitler by both the media and the public. Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un come quickly to mind, as do the members of the WestBoro Baptist Church. For Mr. Trump its something the public should be concerned about, as there are many parallels from the rise of Trump in the GOP in the years leading to his election, and the rapidity that the National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazi party) rose to power in the early to mid-1930s. Both came at times when the world was still feeling the pressures of wars and international debt crises. The only difference was the way the parties followers were able to interact with not only each other, but their opponents as well. Thanks to the glory of the internet, Donald J. Trump rose to power not by a violent show of force, but by force of words. Both blossoming leaders used their followers to help push their agenda by giving them promises of things they wanted. Granted this is not dissimilar to many politicians, however, the meteoric rise in support is what sets Hitler and indeed Donald Trump apart. In both cases, this was the fault of the media. As an Ohioan during the years leading up to the 2016 election, coverage was for both John Kasich and Donald Trump was almost constant while other contenders for the leader of the GOP were given minimal air time as well as media coverage in general. The same was true for our dear friend Adolf in his, for the time, meteoric rise to power and popularity. Germany needed a savior, and in the eyes of a war-torn German people, he seemed to have been sent from God. (We'll come back to that one soon enough.) The only problem with Hitler, is that he realized he needed a scapegoat. Fighting for initially the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WW1 as a conscript, he later fought for the Germans when German generals promised the now losing Austrians and Hungarians that they would lead them to victory at a point in the war where defeat was imminent. The might of the German army helped to extend the war for another two years.

When the war had ended, Austria and Hungary were split into two different empires, based on political differences, and somebody was needed to be blamed for the war. Germany was the obvious answer as it's power helped to extend the war, and strict sanctions were put in place by a forerunner of the United Nations. As the Germans had one massive advantage over the enemy with one specific technological advantage, that came from the past. As most countries were using aircraft to bomb enemy cities and positions, the Germans had an excess of international flights via blimp. For an empire that needed massive fire power, and quickly, they realized it would be too long before their own bomber planes would even be able to rival those of the enemy. So they converted almost all of their passenger airships to bomber use. Which were filled with helium. Aditionally, as the Germans were starved of coal from embargoes in all of their ports, they used very clever pneumatic systems in their factories, which also used helium. After the war, the German port embargo was lifted, and shipments of coal could resume. However, it was an expensive undertaking to convert the factories back to a coal/steam systems. However, it was necessary, as Helium was denied to Germany in the sanctions that followed the Great War. (They then refilled their world famous Airship liners to run on Hydrogen as at the time they were the equivalent of the Jet Age to cross the Atlantic compared to slower passenger ships. This was one of the main causes for the explosion of the Hindenberg, but thats a story for another essay in another class.) Just as Germany had finished reverting its factories to run on steam, the stock market in America crashed, and the whole world suffered. But nobody suffered more than Germany. Already one of the poorest nations in Europe after sanctions from WW1, Germany was hit the hardest by the depression and most people were out of work. Instead of trying to rebuild under sanction laws, the German leaders decided to just print more money. (Cause thats definitely how that works.) By the mid-1930's the German Reischmark had so little value that you would need just about a wheel-barrow full of it to actually buy groceries. (Many Germans would actually burn the money to heat their homes as it was cheaper than coal, and would use it as wallpaper to cover the insides of their homes.) The people were angry, and nobody was angrier than the workers, who were both out of work, and the lucky ones with jobs weren't paid even enough to burn the money for heat during the winter. So when an angry mustache model came to power, he had to blame somebody for the problems. Thanks to many censorship laws in place by the German government, and still resounding sense of national pride, even when Hitler was in German Parliament, and his party controlled most of the seats in the early 30s, Hitler still couldn't tell the people that the economics problems facing them were in fact caused by the then German government. Hitler needed a scapegoat. The owners of the factories then, who still had money. Incidentally, most of these factory owners were Jewish immigrants, and with the international and historical view, dating back from the days when Venice was still a city state, that the Jews were a miserly bunch. Obviously to an angry mustache man this means that they would refuse to pay their workers, or even put their money back into the economy. Target acquired, and for the rest of time, Hitler convinced his party that the Jewish people were evil and were against Germany in every way. 

750 words later, and we come back to modern times. Donald Trump needs a scapegoat for the still struggling post 2008 economic downturn Americans. Once bustling factories were still producing nowhere near the national averages of the early 2000s or the later half of the 20th century. (There is alot of things that caused this, and the 2008 housing crash was really the end of the industrial powerhouse of America.) Obviously, Trump needed support of the people without telling them that the culprit was actually international factories were cheaper and could produce more for less. And with a still post 9/11 boom of American Superiority Complexes, and dwindling international ties, Mr. Trump realized that he couldn't blame our own problems on either ourselves, or our closest trade allies. (Well, yet for the latter.) So he needed a group of people that have been a hotly debated issue for a while. (And I'm not talking about... you know what I'm not going to make that joke, but I'll let you finish it for yourselves.) Obviously it was the fault of the immigrants coming to the United States willing to work for the minimum wages that were being offered if it meant being able to live in the "Greatest place in the world." Obviously the people who were willing to work for what the corporations were offering, and not wanting more, were taking jobs from people who were wanting better working conditions and more pay. (And Abdi the neursurgeon is definitely stealing jobs from BillyBob the former factory worker, but again thats a discussion for another time.) Clearly then, its those pesky Mexicans trying to take advantage of America's advertising campaign of the "American Dream*." (*Restrictions apply) And as always, its the fault of the previous leader as it always has been, but this time, it was a man from another one of those groups of people the GOP supporters definitely do not like, so that was easy to propagate. And obviously a man who graduated from Harvard Law School was definitely worse at running a country than JimmyJohn who drives tractors for a living. (Not saying any way to make a living is a bad way to make a living, but if you're going to run a country I'm just going to vote for the man with the Law degree.) So yeah. there are quite a few parallels there. And, I'm not the first one to point it out, and I won't be the last. But for a while, it was an unrespected theory just created to keep the Annoying Orange from becoming president. Until one man came along, and started to plant the seeds of respectability into this crazy theory. A year and a half into Mr. Trump's presidency, an essay was published by one of the most respected Holocaust and Hitler historians. Christopher Browning's essay brought up a couple of great points, regarding both similarities and differences, as well as the rise of the Neo-Nazi movement that seemed to just so happen to rise again with the now president's campaign. (https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/5/17940610/trump-hitler-history-historian , https://www.thenation.com/article/escape-hitlers-germany-taught-trumps-america/ , https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/07/16/its-not-wrong-to-compare-trumps-america-to-the-holocaust-heres-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dc8b89308a4f )

(Also this is getting quite long and I apologize to anyone reading this, but I am quite the history buff when it comes to international affairs of the first half of the 20th century. I promise the next two points will be nowhere near as long.)

Moving on to our second favorite Hitler contender, Kim Jong-Un. Many people consider our glorious leader here to be even worse than the man, the myth, the mustache legend, Mr. Adolf himself. And on some points, its hard to argue. For example, while Hitler singled out people to abuse for the "greater good of the German people" he never kept his people unaware of the outside world. He brainwashed them quite a bit to the point where they thought they were the best and were the sole inheriters of the planet sure, but they were aware that the rest of the planet existed, and were allowed to interact with them. So on one hand, Hitler was nowhere near as bad as Mr. Never Not Bowled a Perfect Game. (And apparently he doesn't have a butthole so theres also that, and well, theres something to be said when your leader thinks of himself so highly that he pushes this onto his people.) However, as far as we know, mistah Kim has never slaughtered millions of Jewish people. (But he probably would if he could.) (https://www.handelsblatt.com/today/politics/north-korea-goodbye-stalin-hello-hitler/23571690.html?ticket=ST-4396253-b9igpSZOJEjIUmpv1KBk-ap5 , https://theweek.com/articles/450792/north-korea-isnt-nazi-germany--some-ways-worse )

Finally, we get to look at everyone's favorite religious cult, our friends at the Westboro Baptist Church. Although they have never been directly compared to Hitler, (That my 3 minutes of Googling could determine) its definitely hard not to include a modern group of people who hold such a horrible person in such high regard. How high of a regard? Well calling him the second coming is almost there. In fact, not only was Jesus Christ, the first savior sent directly from God, but so was Mr. Mustache, as they proclaim "God sent Hitler" in bold letters on one of their blog posts. The link citing this is following this sentence, but I wanted to put in there that the title of the website is the actual Blog sponsored by the WB-BC and I have no control over what they call it. (http://blogs.godhatesfags.com/workmen/2011/12/28/god-sent-hitler/ ) Also theres some bits of their FAQ page where they claim that they are not affiliated with the Nazi Party because the Nazi party (basically) was violent. And obviously, WB-BC isn't as violent as the people who abort babies and are gay or whatever. (https://www.godhatesfags.com/faq.html#Militia ) Additionally, I found a tweet that really speaks for itself so I'm just going to link it and not talk about it cause we just flew past 2000 words. (https://twitter.com/wbcsaysrepent/status/999694573138931712?lang=en )

From the Utopian Illusion to the Dystopian Reality: Exploring the Uncertainty of the Present State of the American Dream

Dan Jira

Dr. Padmore Agbemabiese

English 1020: 80623

28 November 2018

From the Utopian Illusion to the Dystopian Reality: Exploring the Uncertainty of the Present State of the American Dream

            When I was younger, my family would often make trips down to Geauga Lake amusement park. It was one of the largest amusement parks in the world, and as a child, it was the highlight of every summer. Although I was never a fan of the roller coasters, or most of the rides, for that matter, I still loved the atmosphere. The foods, the smells, the people, the excitement, and the seemingly endless amounts of fun we had. When the park closed down in 2007, it was hard for me, as a ten year old, to understand why, as it had always seemed so pristine and perfect. It wasn’t until some of my friends and I, freed by the acquisition of our driving licenses, returned to the site of the park in 2016 to take pictures to extend our urb-exing (Urban Exploration) photo albums. The 9 years between the last person through the gate, and us climbing over the fences had been enough for nature to start to reclaim what was initially hers. Although surrounded by rusting and almost terrifying abandoned structures, when I closed my eyes, I could still smell the food, and hear the excited screams of patrons on the many rides. The park’s tagline for the years I remember was always “Two great parks for the price of one!” touting their waterpark pass being included in the ticket price for the amusement park. However, as much as I loved Geauga Lake, I always remember it being nothing more than mediocre, especially when comparing it to Cedar Point, which was about the same distance away. It wasn’t until I started writing this essay that all of these memories came flooding back to me, and I believe there is a very good reason for that. The land of the “American Dream” may indeed have once been the crown jewel of destinations, however today, with more and more economical troubles, and political instability, this once great land of opportunity is nothing more than a soon to be defunct amusement park with a tagline from its spectacular past.

            For the longest time, and to some extent today, the United States of America was considered the “Promised Land” for people around the globe. A new land of opportunity and freedoms that their own countries failed to provide. Most of them spent their last dollars getting a passport, visa, and ticket to the new world. Travelling from all over the globe, they descended on the realization of their dreams. The immigration numbers, for many years, were staggering. From 1901 to 1920, fourteen and a half million people came to the United states. During this period, they came mostly from Europe, most probably to escape the Great War which raged in their hometowns and all around them. During the Great Depression, however, emigration numbers plummeted. The great financial woes of the country were seen as a direct cause of the inflow of foreign-born workers. Allowed immigration levels were slashed. By 1933, only 23.1 thousand people were allowed into the United States per year. However, by the time World War II was ramping up in Europe, more and more people were allowed in the country. By 1939, however, only 83 Thousand people were allowed to emigrate into the United States (Smith, Bloomberg). However, as the war in Europe grew deadlier and larger, America started rebuilding itself from the depths of the Great Depression, as lend-lease contracts from other European allies came in asking the United States to utilize its once great industrial powers to craft the supplies needed for war. As factories started filling pre-paid orders from countries such as France and Holland, the American economy started getting richer again, and were mostly wanting nothing to do with the war. Once again, this meant another slash on emigration as people were concerned that the refugees would bring the war with them to the United States. Therefore, from 1941-1960, only 3.5 million people emigrated to the United states, with most of those people coming in the 1950s. During the last 20 years of the 20^th Century, however, more and more people were allowed into the United States again. From 1981-1997, over 14.2 million people started new lives in the United states. This impressive rise in emigration comprised of 5.3% of people in the 1998 US Census.

            Many people will look back on the “good old days” of the United States and think that in terms of jobs, we are doing much worse now then we ever have. However, according to data from the United States Census Bureau, in 1950, only 29.8% of the population were considered employees. Fast-forward 50 years and much has changed. In 1958, 46.6% of the American population was considered an employee. This is an increase in workers by population of 16.8%. Additionally, the New York Stock Exchange traded 169.2 billion more shares in 1998 then it did in 1950, and 169.61 billion more shares than it did in 1900. Of course, there are way more companies now than there were in either 1900 or 1950, however, shares are only sold and bought if there is money to buy and sell. Furthermore, the median adjusted household income in 1950 was just over $20.3 thousand dollars while it more than doubled to $44.5 thousand dollars. On the surface then, the American economy is better for the citizens then it ever has been. This, of course, makes you wonder why all of the people CNN interviews are so worried. Instead of looking at the data at the local level, when you zoom all the way out, all of their concern becomes validated. In 1950, the non-adjusted GDP of the United States was $294.6 million dollars, which seems great until you know the adjusted Federal Debt. We were spending much more than we had and we were already in $3.119 million. In 1997, however, the GDP of the United States was making above $8.5 billion, once again, however, we were spending more than we had, and the federal debt climbed to just shy of $10 billion. Additionally, the last time the United States had a surplus, was during the Clinton Presidency in 1998-2001. Since then, however, the US Federal Debt has climbed to just over $1.3 trillion in 2011, and dropped again to $438 billion in 2015. However, the debt has once again started to rise as the 2018 estimate is $833 billion, with an estimated $987 billion in 2020 (Amadeo, TheBalance.com).

            In plain numbers then, the United States of America is still the “Land of Opportunity” it once was for the people. So, why are so many people convinced the American Dream is no longer? Two major reasons stood out during the research period of this essay. The American Dream meant two different things to the rich and the poor. The rich want to be able to afford richer luxuries in life, and the poor want to afford to live. These two dreams are very close in wording but mean drastically different things. In 2014 the state with the lowest cost of living was Mississippi with a median monthly rent payment of $875 and a median monthly utilities payment of $175. The minimum wage however, was only $7.25/hr. $1050/$7.25hr = 144.83 hrs. If we assume a 20-day work month, (4 weeks, 5 work days a week) 144.83hrs/20days = 7.25hrs/day. This means that someone working minimum wage would have to work 7.25 hours out of every 8-hour day just to afford a place to live. However, these calculations do not account for a phone bill, or internet, or even a grocery bill. This also means that for a Mississippian working full time for minimum wage, they would only have an extra $13 a month for all of the aforementioned things (Rawes, USAToday). Talk to almost anyone over the age of 50 today, and they would tell you it was the exact same way when they were growing up… or was it?

            In 1965 the national average cost of rent was $118 a month. If we assume that the cost of utilities is the same percentage of rent as it was in 2014, that brings the monthly cost of utilities to $24. This brings the bare minimum cost of living to only $142/month. Minimum wage was only $1.25/hr. $142/$1.25hr = 114hrs. Again, assuming a 20-day work month, this means that the average minimum wage American only has to work 5.7hrs of their day to afford the basics, again not including groceries. However, this leaves them an extra $10 a month for everything else. This is only $3 less than today, and that was 50 years ago when a gallon of gas was only 31c, and a gallon of milk was 95c. Today, however, a gallon of milk costs around $3.15, which is just more than the 50-year gap in wage. If we adjust the living wage in 1965 for today’s money however, we find that a measly $10 in cash turns into $78. This means that a person working a minimum wage job full time was making an adjusted $64 more a month than todays minimum wage workers, and this was at a time in history when most minimum wage jobs were reserved for high schoolers and immigrants before they gained enough experience and language skills to move up in the job force. In 2017, 12.3% of Americans were below the poverty line according to the US Census, however other sources cite it at 13.9%, which is down 2% from 1965, however, 46.7% of these people in 2017 reported that they were in Deep Poverty. This means that their household income was half of the minimum poverty line (UCDavis, “What is…”).

            The depth of the poverty pool in the United States is not at the highest it has ever been; however, it is affecting people more and more as costs rise. Specifically, in the 20-30 age range, the cost of education. This has caused a massive $1.5 Trillion crisis in the United States. According to Forbes, “Student loan debt is now the second highest consumer debt category (behind only mortgage debt) and higher than both credit card and auto loan debt” (Friedman, forbes.com). The massive student loan debt, coupled with the ever-increasing job market that requires higher education, leads us to one simple reason for most Americans to believe in the downfall of the American Dream. We are getting smarter, and learning more than we ever have in history. We know more about the universe and our world now than we ever have in history. In 2017, the Census Bureau said that 33.4% of Americans aged 25 or older had a bachelors degree or higher. This is a 5.4% increase since 2007, and a 28.8% increase since 1940 (Wilson, TheHill.com).

            This relatively meteoric rise in education means a number of things. For one, eventually the quality of life, and technological production of the United States will continue to rise, and we may eventually reach the average IQ’s of countries around the world, such as Norway and Japan. However, at the moment, for the United States, it means that people are more likely to see holes in what has been called the American Dream. Not only are people looking at the American Dream through the lens of higher education, but they are also looking at the American Dream with tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt on their backs. The American Dream seems to only exist for the extremely poor because they need something to believe in, and the extremely rich, because they are living it. For the rest, however, the American Dream is as surreal and as fictitious as a dream itself.

Works Cited

Amadeo, Kimberly. “US Budget Deficit by Year, Compared to GDP, Debt Increase, and Events.” The Balance, Dotdash, 29 Oct. 2018, 22 Nov. 2018.

Friedman, Zack. “Student Loan Debt Statistics In 2018: A $1.5 Trillion Crisis.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 13 June 2018, 26 Nov. 2018.

Rawes, Erika. “10 Least Expensive States to Live in the U.S.” USA Today, Gannett Satellite Information Network, 7 Sept. 2014, 20 Nov. 2018.

Smith, Noah. “One Sure Way to Hurt the U.S. Economy? Cut Immigration.” Bloomberg.com, Bloomberg, 9 July 2018, 23 Nov. 2018.

UC Davis. “What Is the Current Poverty Rate in the United States?” UC Davis Center for Poverty Research, UC Davis Center for Poverty Research, 15 Oct. 2018, 26 Nov. 2018.

United States Census Bureau. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 20^th Century Statistics. Section 31, 1999. 867-889. United States Census Bureau. Web. 20 Nov. 2018.

Wilson, Reid. “Census: More Americans Have College Degrees than Ever Before.” The Hill, Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., 3 Apr. 2017, 26 Nov. 2018.

The Problem of Energy Consumption and How to Solve It

Dan Jira

Writing Seminar 

Professor Beery 

April 28, 2017 

The Problem of Energy Consumption and How to Solve It 

Mahatma Gandhi once said “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed.” One-hundred years later, we are feeling the ramifications of the later half of that quote. Non-renewable sources of energy are depleting, and the quicker we use them up, the quicker we are destroying the ozone layer of our atmosphere. Although alternative sources of energy are here and ever advancing, until hydrogen as a fuel source is introduced, we will never be able to run an emissions free economy. 

Whether or not you believe that global warming exists, it cannot be denied that the global use of energy is increasing every year. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, energy consumption per person (in Million Btu) has gone up from 65 in the year 2000 to 74 in the year 2010. That is the equivalent of each person in the world using 1.9 tonnes of oil each year.  The current rise of per capita energy consumption is worrying news considering that from 1980 to 2000, the average energy consumption over those 20 years was 63.9 Million Btu. However, the average over just the next ten years, from 2001 to 2011, was up to 77.1 Million Btu. This meteoric rise in energy consumption per person may not seem too drastic, but when you look at the world consumption of energy, during those ten years, you can see that it has risen from 400.6 Quadrillion Btu all the way up to 520.3 Quadrillion Btu. This 120 Quadrillion Btu increase over those ten years is nothing however, when you look at the data from 1980. The world consumption of energy in 1980 is 237 points lower than it is 31 years later. That increase is what I am concerned about. The 520.3 Quadrillion Btu of energy that the world used in 2011 is the equivalent of 89.66 Billion tonnes of oil (U.S. Energy Information Administration).  

It must be considered that because this table includes renewable sources of energy as well as nonrenewable that surely this cannot be a bad thing. However, in 1980, the average Petroleum consumption was 63,122 Thousand Barrels of Oil per day. In 1990, there was a modest increase to 66,541 Thousand Barrels of Oil per day.  The increase from 1990 to 2000 was a bit more drastic. In the year 2000, world consumption of oil was up to 76,928 Thousand Barrels of Oil per day. The consumption from the years 2000 to 2010 is just a bit more drastic. In the year 2010, world consumption of oil was up to 88,216 Thousand Barrels of Oil per day. Sure the increase over ten year intervals is not unexpected given the needs of the planet. However, the increase of  global consumption of 25,094 Thousand Barrels of Oil per day is worrying nonetheless. The story is even more drastic with natural gas. From 1980 to 2010, the global increase of natural gas was up 60,915 Billion Cubic Feet. From 52,943 Billion Cubic Feet in 1980 to 113,858 Billion Cubic Feet in 2010. The story for coal is the exact same, with an increase of global use of 3,762,483 Thousand Short tons from 1980 to 2010. The energy needs of the planet are more than telling of the increase in electricity consumption. The number of Billions of Kilowatt Hours the planet needed doubled from 1980 to 2005 and increased a staggering 11,357 Billion Kilowatt Hours over the course of thirty years, from 1980 to 2010. All of this translates to the huge increase in global CO2 emissions from 1980 to 2010 from 8,825.2 Million Metric Tons in 1980 to 11,392.4 Million Metric Tons in 2010. Sure these numbers may not seem huge, however if you add the total production of CO2 emissions over the course of those 30 years, then do you see where within the problem lies. From 1980 to 2010 an astronomical amount of 299,438.5 Million Metric Tons of CO2 emissions has been put into the atmosphere of our planet (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 

All of these billions of tons of CO2 have been building up in the upper atmosphere of our planet. Contrary to what some people think, these gasses are not causing a degradation of the atmosphere. No, rather, they are doing something a bit worse. These gasses are starting to build up another layer of the atmosphere. This layer is thicker than most of the other upper layers of the atmosphere and is trapping the sun’s rays inside the atmosphere, and in turn making the planet warmer. This change in temperature, although miniscule when compared to the universal thermometer, is causing significant damage to the planet. It cannot be denied that the ice caps are melting, and that deserts are expanding. If you look at the California drought of the past year, then you know of the problems that I am referring to. There must be a solution to all of this, because as much as the ecomaniacs want us to turn away from non-renewable fuels immediately, it is not that easy. 

Currently, the most widely used renewable power source is hydropower. From the early days of hydropower when a calm stream turned a water-wheel used to mill grain, to the modern-day marvel of the Three Gorges Hydroelectric power-plant in China which helped the nation produce more than 50% of the world’s hydroelectric power (Power-Technology). The only problem with hydroelectric power is that no matter how efficient it is, it is limited. The location of hydroelectric power plants is limited to land and environmental restrictions. Most hydroelectric dams create lakes behind them. Because of this, it is required for these dams to be put in specific places, and only after extensive geological surveys to make sure that the resulting lake created by the dam would not destroy any sensitive ecosystems in the area. 

The second most widely used renewable energy source is also the oldest: wind power. Wind has been used to power grain mills since the early 9th Century to grind grain. However, it is only as of 1888 that wind has been used to create electricity. In recent years, the “annual growth rate of cumulative wind power capacity has averaged 25% during the last five years” (Power-Technology). The largest on land wind farm in the world is actually in California. The Alta Wind Energy Centre has an operational capacity of 1,550MW through 586 individual turbines. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the United States consumed 3868 Gigawatts of electrical power. This means that the largest wind farm in the world can only produce 0.0004% of the electrical power required to run the nation. However, there is a problem. The General Electric 1.5MW Turbines that are the most common around the world, are massive. These windmills are, on average, 80 m tall, and the rotors are 77 m in diameter. If you were to fill the cylinder of operating space that these turbines need with water, you could fill 149 olympic size swimming pools. This means that the most efficient, and largest, wind farm in the world is situated on 3,500 acres. Solar power is the world’s third most productive renewable source of energy generating around 100GW per year (Power-Technology). Solar power has the same problem that wind energy does, in that its source is not constant. Unlike a hydropower facility where the source is a constant flow from a dammed river, solar panels and wind turbines are constantly plagued by the lack of their sources. However, these three sources offer one advantage that coal powered electrical plants could never achieve: zero emissions.  

Electricity is said to be the future of transportation; however, I disagree. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, electricity production accounts for the largest amount of CO2 emissions at 30% whereas transportation on accounts for 26. This means that until electricity is generated completely emission free, electricity is not the most efficient way to power your vehicle. However, there is light at the end of the tunnel because there is a solution coming soon. Hydrogen. The most abundant element in the universe in the universe has been powering the largest object in our solar system for over three trillion years, our sun. A hydrogen fuel cell vehicle operates on the same basic principles that make the sun shine. By smashing two hydrogen atoms into each other, a massive amount of energy is created. In the sun, this process causes radiation, however, luckily, here on earth, this process needs to be stimulated by oxygen. This means that when liquid hydrogen travels from its fuel cell to the engine of a car, and is mixed with just the air around it, not only does it push the piston up, enabling step one of a 4-cycle engine, but the gasses which are then expelled from the pipe in the back of your car come out as the wonderful chemical, dihydrogen monoxide, or, water. 

Problem solved then... except I don’t think it is. I foresee another problem arising from the use hydrogen. The problem that I foresee is something that has only been published in six scientific journals as of 2015. The problem I foresee derives from a single line of dialogue that I watched about NASA on the Discovery channel when I was home sick from school one day. In single thirty second clip of this documentary, an SRB, or Solid Rocket Booster, was being test-fired. In order to cool the exhaust gasses, thousands of gallons of water were sprayed into the nozzle of the rocket engine to cool the gasses so they would not burn the area of land behind the SRB. It was the next line of dialogue though that I have remembered through all of these years. It said “Because of the amount of water vapor, or steam, that was created during the cooling of this engine, it will rain two hours from now on a government owned wetland 20 miles east of this facility. In the 1970s, they thought it was a coincidence, but they now know that it is in fact the test firing and cooling of the rocket engines that causes this rain-shower.”  After I heard this I theorized that if every vehicle in the United States were to run on hydrogen, with each car producing about the same amount of water vapor as it would CO2, weather patterns around the world would drastically change, for better or worse. It turns out that I was not alone in my theories, and in 2006, a journal published to Stanford University’s Global Climate & Energy Project stated that “A hydrogen economy is expected to reduce particulate concentrations overall although some local increases may occur due to changes in precipitation patterns” (Jacobson, et al.). This complex sentence is basically saying that if we switch to a hydrogen economy, emissions will be reduced overall, however, there will be changes in weather patterns. 

My solution on how to solve the energy and climate crisis is to use hydrogen power only in certain places. The main place where I would implement hydrogen power is electricity power stations. The amount of energy that could be produced with hydrogen instead of coal is about a 25% increase in power production. The water vapor exhaust could be collected and condensed inside the plant to produce water. In areas where water is plentiful, this can be put straight back into the ecosystem. However, in areas where clean water is a luxury, the water can then be used for drinking and irrigation. Furthermore, if this system were to be implemented into areas where electricity and clean water are uncommon, or even unheard of, then the benefits of a system which could provide both are astronomical. Another area where I see hydrogen power benefiting is the global shipping fleet. If a shipping boat were able to produce its own clean water while underway, and not have to carry it with them from the beginning, they would be able to carry more cargo, and produce no emissions doing so. Furthermore, this can also be applied to cruise ships that currently produce large amounts of CO2 emissions. If those emissions were replaced with water, the ship would be able to provide clean water for all aboard as long as the engines could run. The last place I would envision hydrogen power, and its by-products being useful is an emergency backup generator. Not only would this provide the user with electricity, but also clean water. If these ideas were implemented alongside hydro, wind, and solar power, than I believe the world could work to an emissions free power grid. 

The current power demands of the world we live in cause the emissions problems that we have been creating since the industrial revolution. However, it has only been within the past 40 years that we have started to realize the effects of our need for energy. Although we may be constantly expanding our use of renewable energy sources, it cannot be denied that they are not advanced enough yet to meet the needs of the planet. However, I believe that within the next 15 years, an emissions free economy can be created by changing the current fuel of choice of power plants from coal to hydrogen. 

Page Break 

Works Cited 

“Alta Wind Energy Center (AWEC), California.” Power Technology, Power Technology, www.power-technology.com/projects/alta-wind-energy-center-awec-california/ 

“2013 Honda Civic EX Sedan Review.” Automobile-Catalogue, Automobile-Catalogue, www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2013/1600520/honda_civic_ex_sedan_automatic.html 

“2013 Honda FCX Clarity Review.” Automobile-Catalogue, Automobile-Catalogue, www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2013/1154960/honda_fcx_clarity.html 

Gandhi, Mahatma. “A Quote by Mahatma Gandhi.” Goodreads, Goodreads Inc., www.goodreads.com/quotes/30431-earth-provides-enough-to-satisfy-every-man-s-needs-but-not 

Jacobson, Mark Z, et al. “Hydrogen Effects on Climate, Stratospheric Ozone, and Air Polution.” Stanford University: Global Climate & Energy Project, 2006, p. 10., gcep.stanford.edu/pdfs/QeJ5maLQQrugiSYMF3ATDA/2.1.5.jacobson_06.pdf 

“The World's Most Used Renewable Power Sources.” Power Technology, Power Technology, 2015, www.power-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-most-used-renewable-power-sources-4160168/ 

“U.S. Energy Information Administration - EIA - Independent Statistics and Analysis.” International Energy Statistics, United States Department of Energy, www.eia.gov/beta/international/rankings/#?prodact=2-12&cy=2013&pid=2&aid=2&tl_id=2-A&tl_type=a 

A Review of Google Pixel Reviews

Dan Jira

Professor Beery

Writing Seminar

6 February 2017

A Review of Google Pixel Reviews

            The problem with buying a new Android cell phone is that there is too much choice. I will admit that life would be a lot easier if I was in the Apple camp of mobile devices, just buy the new one that came out three days after you bought your current phone. However, that is why I prefer the Android operating system, a Google developed OS, for the choice. Eventually, you end up choosing an Android phone on little things that are easy to nit-pick, for example, the camera quality, or battery life. When it came time for my cell phone’s upgrade in early August, I was dead set on the newest offering from Motorola. Until I saw an advertisement for a brand new device from Google itself. The Pixel. It ran the newest version of the Android OS, and had a suite of goodies unique to that phone, such as the Google Assistant. However, I wanted to read some of the reviews on this new device to make sure that it was not just a rebranded, and Android running iPhone. Some of the reviews I found were terrible, and some of them sold me on the phone completely; however, they made me think. We spend so much time researching products, and reading reviews of products, but we never take time to look at the reviews themselves. So, I determined, four months after purchasing the Pixel, to take an in depth look at some of its reviews, and give them a review of my own.

            I chose four reviews to be the back bone of this paper, and they are all reviewing the Google Pixel / Pixel XL. These four reviews are from different websites, and all four are from four different countries where the Pixel is sold. These four reviews were selected by Google-ing “Google Pixel Review” and selecting the first four reviews that came up. Additionally, some of the reviews were either posted or edited less than three days before the writing of this paper, and some were posted over a month and a half ago. However, all four reviews will be judged on the same four criteria, the date of publication, quality of writing, if there is a bias in the writing, such as an Apple fanatic reviewing Google’s product, and if there is a rating system, and if it makes sense or not.

            The Google Pixel has only been out for consumer purchase for 5 months as of the time of writing this paper, and has only been available for press use for the past 6 months in order to have reviews of the product available to the public by the time it was available. The first review that I looked at, from androidcentral.com, was posted on 18 October of 2016, two days before the public release date of 20 October 2016. According to the site, this review was published after six days of using the phone (androidcentral.com). Another site, knowyourmobile.com, has recently updated their review as of 27 January 2017, however, the site also provides an initial review for the phone, an update after two months of use, as well as updates to the review for whenever the software gets updated as well. The third review, from trustedreviews.com, posted the 23^rd of January 2017. The last review I looked at, from catchnews.com, was first published 25 January 2017. These last two reviews gave the reviewers ample time to use the device, however a review published this long after the initial release date, no matter how in depth or relevant the information might be, would be irrelevant to the early on consumer.

            The quality of writing on a review can be the determining factor for some people when looking for a product. They may not want to purchase a product with a horrifically written review because they do not wish to be roped into a stereotype about a product’s users. All four of the reviews that were looked at for this essay were professionally written, which kept the writing clean and organized. However, as all four articles were written for different sites, and in four different countries, the articles reflected what the reader-base of those articles would be concerned about. The review from androidcentral.com was by far the most technical of the reviews, covering everything from unboxing videos, to processor speeds with everything a hardcore phone nerd would want to know about in-between. However, the article from catchnews.com focused more on its general readers, from lower and middle class India. The title of the review is even “Google Pixel review: You’ll love it, but here’s why you absolutely won’t buy it”. The reviewer, Sahil Bhalla, makes it plain to his readers that the Pixel that he has to rave about the features of the phone, and how they compare to Apple’s offering of the iPhone 7; however, he also compares it to the OnePlus 3, another Android based phone that is available in India. He makes it plain to the Indian readers that although the Pixel is a fantastic device, the Rs 29k price difference between the two phones is incredible, and if his readers have the option between the OnePlus 3, and the Pixel, then they should go for the OnePlus 3, and “go on a holiday somewhere toward the South of India.” (catchnews.com) The other two sites, trustedreviews.com and knowyourmobile.com are based in London, UK, and the reviews show it. Although cost is mentioned in the cons list of both site’s reviews, it is not as much of a major roadblock as it was in the review from catchnews.com. However, there are a few problems with the two sites. The review from trustedreviews.com is littered with ways to get the best deal for the phone in the country, however, these somewhat helpful additions end up looking too much like a mess of advertisements on the site, which distracts the reader from the review. The review from knowyourmobile.com is a well written review in its own right, however, it brings me to my next criteria when looking at these reviews.

            The review from knowyourmobile.com is clearly written with an Android fan’s bias. Even in the verdict of the review, the author, Richard Goodwin, states that “I used to be a Nexus [another phone with the Android OS] purist. Not anymore. Now I am a Pixel purist.” (knowyourmobile.com). Even the article from catchnews.com, which advises its readers that they should probably purchase a different device because of the Pixel’s price, even acknowledges that “You’ll definitely buy the iPhone if you’re already embedded in the Apple ecosystem” (catchnews.com). However, Bhalla does acknowledge that he also uses the aforementioned OnePlus 3 as his actual mobile phone, but he does a good job telling his readers that they could get all of the features on this lesser known device by presenting it as nothing more than an option for them, instead of telling them that the OnePlus 3 is the phone that they should definitely buy. Additionally, the article from androidcentral.com is very obviously biased in the form that it is written by an author who writes for an Android based website, however, this type of website attracts similar type of visitors, who are also very biased towards the Android system, so it ends up working out.

            A review isn’t a review if there is no rating system, and this essay reviewing reviews is no different. Two of the reviews out of the four did not include a rating system, however, the verdict was very clearly written out in paragraph form at the bottom of the review. They were both proper conclusions to the reviews which allotted a very distinct verdict of the product. However, the other two, from trustedreviews.com and knowyourmobile.com, both included a 5-star rating system with pros and cons underneath the stars. Trustedreviews.com and knowyourmobile.com both gave the Pixel 4.5 and 5 stars respectively. Of course, I can not leave this review without rating these reviews on my own scale. In honor of the random fast food reviews that litter YouTube, I have come up with my own rating system these reviews will be scored out of 8 schnobbles. The first review, from androidcentral.com I have given 7 schnobbles for being informative, but it loses a point for not having review system that is easy to glance at. The next review, from trustedreviews.com I have given 7.5 schnobbles for being clear cut, and concise. The next review, from knowyourmobile.com I have given 8 out of 8 schnobbles for having a day one review, as well as a two month update, and a review on each of the updates for the phone that has come out. The last review, from catchnews.com I have given 7 out of 8 schnobbles this review has strengths in the fact that the reviewer tells it like it is, telling his readers that the Pixel is wonderful, however, it is not worth the price in India where there are better options available.

            Out of the four reviews that I have read for this paper, there were many interesting differences. Such as the locations of the reviewers, and their perspective on the new device. All in all, these reviews highlight the pros and cons of this new phone, while both telling it like it is to their readers. Although all of these reviews were posted too late to help me choose my new phone, they will be perfect for their readers, in determining if they should purchase the Google Pixel / Pixel XL or not.

Works Cited

Bhalla, Sahil. “Google Pixel Review: You'Ll Love It, but Here's Why You Absolutely Won't Buy It.” CatchNews.com, Catch News, 27 Jan. 2017, www.catchnews.com/science-technology/google-pixel-review-you-ll-love-it-but-here-s-why-you-absolutely-won-t-buy-it-1485365712.html

Dobie, Alex. “Google Pixel + Pixel XL Review.” Android Central, Mobile Nations, 11 Nov. 2016, www.androidcentral.com/google-pixel.

Goodwin, Richard. “Google Pixel XL Review: The Best Android Phone Right Now.” Know Your Mobile, Dennis Publishing, 27 Jan. 2017, www.knowyourmobile.com/mobile-phones/google-pixel-xl/23846/google-pixel-xl-review-specs-price-features-detailed-best-smartphone-assistant-AI.

Parker, Max. “Google Pixel Review: Easily the Best Camera on a Phone.” TrustedReviews, Time Inc. (UK), 23 Jan. 2017, www.trustedreviews.com/google-pixel-review.