We need Uber and Lyft!!!

                           Public transportation is an important everyday life. Many people can’t afford a car, so they rely on public transportation. Recently in Austin, a proposition of having more regulation on online transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft, require having employees to have fingerprints, background checks, and more things. On May 7, 2016, Austin’s register voter had a chance to vote yes or no for the proposal. Unfortunately, Uber and Lyft didn’t get enough votes and currently aren’t operating in Austin anymore. Many people are upset because they don’t have a transportation they used every day. In “Transportation network companies: Yes!” By Myriam Cisse, she mentions that the government should find a common ground with Uber and Lyft about negotiating employment regulation and tax collection, I agree with her statement.The Department of Transportation of the United States should be more involve in the regulation. I think it’s important doing background checks and drug testing, many employers require the new hire to go through the same process.
                             In the article, “By Losing Uber, Austin Is No Longer A Tech Capital” by Jared Meyer, he mentions that The FBI fingerprint database is incomplete, and the database they have and use is the local police department. So having fingerprint new hires isn’t going to be efficient. I believe lawmakers should unite and help the citizens with more public transportation like Uber and Lyft and have the same regulation in all states. Many people who travel use Uber they don’t know that in some places you have to call a taxi, having Uber and Lyft in all cities helps tourist find transportation. Companies like Uber and Lyft provide job opportunities and provide safety, especially when people have been drinking. I hope soon all states would have the same regulations and provide more public transportation.!!!!!!!!

Should the Eighth Amendments apply to an underage defendant who committed a capital punishment?

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. The United States is one of five countries that still practice the death penalty. They’re 18 states in the United States that abolished the death penalty and 32 states currently still use the death penalty after convicted of a capital offense. There about 41 Federal Capital Offense, if found guilty of the offense the defendant could be sentenced to the death penalty. My view on the death penalty is if someone committee one of the forty-one Federal Capital Offense should be punished. I also understand why people are against the death penalty because two wrongs don’t make a right. At the end of the day, they’re consequences for your actions. There have been many different death penalty cases, but the most controversial are when the defendant is under the age of 18.  The defendant is tried as an adult and is charged with capital offenses. Before 1988, the offenders who committed the crime when they were under the age of 18 were executed. In 1988, The U.S. Supreme Court decided that offenders under the age of 18 can’t be sentenced to death because is “cruel and unusual punishment.” Thompson v. Oklahoma was the cases the U.S. Supreme Court decided capital offenses committed by under age of 18 couldn’t be sentenced to death. In this case, the defendant was 15 years old at the time of the crime. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant because they felt it violated the eighth amendment because it was “cruel and unusual punishment” for a 15-year-old to be sentenced to death. I believe that the crimes committed by the offender of any age is cruel and should get a sentence that fit the crime. I understand the U.S. Supreme Court ruling is base on the United States Constitution but the Constitution doesn’t specify what are “cruel and unusual punishment.” One thing is the defendant being sentenced to death when they’re underage, and the other being executed at a young age. In the past cases, a defendant who was under 18 years old were executed at age 28. I think the Eighth Amendment shouldn’t apply to under the age of 18 who committed a capital offense because there is an increase in violence by juveniles if there is no death penalty, juveniles would continue committing capital offenses, at least they would realize if they committed a crime they could get sentenced to death.


Sources:

http://crime.about.com/od/juvenile/i/juvenile_death_2.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Death_penalty_for_rape

http://deathpenalty.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004927

http://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendments/amendment-viii

Global Warming is Our Reality

                  We don’t see reality as how it is until you get a rude awaking and you realize the ugly reality. I recently went to Mexico City, it was my fourth time going; on my previous trips I didn’t get sick, but this last trip I did. It wasn’t the food that got me sick, but it was the air contamination. I was feeling really sick that I had to leave as soon as possible. When I landed in the United States, my symptoms went away. It turns out Officials in Mexico had advised people to limit outdoor activity because of the high ozone level, it was Mexico City’s first air pollution alert in 11 years. I always knew that Global Warming exists but I didn’t want to believe it until my experience in Mexico. Unfortunately, this is the future of the United States if there is no initial to stop Global Warming. In “Why destroy what keeps us alive?” by Beatriz Cordero,  she makes a valid point that money isn't used help fight Global Warming. If the United States doesn't do anything we are going to relive one of the most destructive events in the decade; Hurricane Katrina. On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, killing more than 200 people and causing $80 billion in damage. The Center for Ice and Climate researchers at the University of Copenhagen conducted a study on the changes in regional sea surface temperatures, they concluded that there's an increase chance to have Katrina-like events in the future. Many scientists said the primary cause of Global Warming is the rising emissions of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide, ozone, and methane. I agree with miss Cordero about Companies who burn fossil fuels should provide winds and solar panels. Olga Mugisa, 11-years-old from Uganda proposed if you cut one tree, plant two.  By doing this it helps stop climate change by removing carbon dioxide from the air. If the United States government regulated companies and made sure the companies would be liable if they don't provide benefits for the environment and citizens. I hope the U.S. government wakes up to the reality that Global Warming is causing many destructions and soon it can get rid of our existences.

Sources:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/16/choked-mexico-city-bans-1m-cars-in-air-pollution-alert

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/03/130319-hurricane-climate-change-katrina-science-global-warming/

http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/135576/

Legalized Marijuana helps the Economy

                     Over the years, marijuana has been one of the most consume recreational drug and now it's used for medical purposes. Four states have legalized recreational marijuana and a total of 23 states have legalized medical marijuana (1). According to Tom Huddleston, Jr from Fortune estimates $6.7 Billion Dollars in sales of legal marijuana would be sold in 2016 (2). Marijuana excise taxes collected by the states like Colorado have been using for school construction, law enforcement, youth programs and drug education initiatives. Colorado has collected almost $70 million in marijuana taxes that’s the double excise taxes collect from alcohol, $42 million excise taxes collected in the same year (3). After seeing the profit of marijuana, I believe the United States should legalize marijuana in all 50 states. I’ll be honest I’m not a consumer of marijuana, but I believe the excise taxes collected could help states with funding and the national debt. Many people believe with the legalization of marijuana isn’t a good idea because it’s not healthy, creates more crimes and effects the economy. If marijuana is so bad why are alcohol and tobacco is still legal? In 1920, alcohol was prohibited from manufacturing, sale and distribution of intoxicating liquors. People believe alcohol was going decrease crimes and believe that other goods and entertainment would generate more money, but that wasn’t a reality. Prohibition causes crimes to increase, it was bad for the economy, and bootleg alcohol was sold. In 1933 Prohibition ended, the economy recovered, crime decreased, alcohol had restriction and regulation (4). After Prohibition, alcohol generates many excise taxes, the U.S. government isn’t going to prohibit alcohol even though it causes many health problems and death; the taxes are uses for school, streets, and other necessary expenses. Tobacco is a legal consumable item that causes health problems, but the federal government is going to let tobacco companies produce more tobacco products. In the next five years, tobacco excise tax would generate $50 billion dollars (5). Legal marijuana generated about $1.6 billion in taxes just in the 23 states; imagine if all 50 states were legal how much money legal marijuana would (6). Legalized marijuana would benefit the economy. Legislators can create laws strictly on consuming, selling, and distribution; also creating age restriction like the same with alcohol and regulate marijuana making sure is safe to consume. Legalizing marijuana would decrease crimes, because there wouldn’t illegal trafficking of marijuana, putting out cartels out of business (7). Marijuana is use as medicine to help treat and prevent illnesses (8). Marijuana becoming legal for recreational or medical it would help the economy. We can’t prohibit something because is unhealthy; many products aren’t safe but we still consume and the government profits. So if someone says marijuana shouldn’t be legal first think how much taxes could be collected, second the uses of those taxes are use to help build schools, streets and other things, finally thing to consider if marijuana is bad for us why have legal products like alcohol and tobacco available for sale, if the government was concern with our health it would remove legal products that cause harm. Marijuana is beneficial for everyone.

1)      Barnard, Jeff. "Five Questions: Here Is What’s Legal (and What’s Not) in Oregon     Marijuana." The Cannabist. Associated Press, 22 June 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

2)      Basu, Tanya. "Colorado Raised More Tax Revenue From Marijuana Than From Alcohol." Time. N.p., 16 Sept. 2015. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

3)      Huddleston, Tom, Jr. "The Legal Pot Market Could Hit $22 Billion in Sales By 2020." Fortune. N.p., 01 Feb. 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

4)      History.com Staff. "Prohibition." History.com. A&E Television Networks, 01 Jan. 2009. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

5)      Tobaccofreekids.org. Increasing the federal Tobacco tax by 94 cents per pack will increase revenue and save lives. N.p.: n.p., 2015. PDF.

6)      St. Pierre, Allen. "Congressional Research Service: Report On Federal Government Taxing Marijuana." NORML Blog Marijuana Law Reform Congressional Research Service Report On Federal Government Taxing Marijuana Comments. N.p., 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

7)      Savron, Jacqueline. "7 Ways America Would Change If Marijuana Became Legal - AvvoStories." AvvoStories. N.p., 28 May 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

8)      Loria, Jennifer Welsh and Kevin. "23 Health Benefits Of Marijuana." Business Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 20 Apr. 2014. Web. 01 Apr. 2016.

The Reality TV Campaign

            Peter Roff is a politic writer from the U.S. News & World Report. In his article, “The Reality TV Campaign: The media have let the American people down,” he writes about how media has changed politics. Roff’s argument is presidential debates are becoming more into reality television and its focus is to entertain instead of focusing on nations problems. Roff said that the reason television is more focus on the entertainment part of debates because viewers aren’t going to watch debates because most of them think they’re boring. The only way the media can get more views or reader is to give them what they want: drama, twist, and surprises ending. Roff is concerned because they're problems with foreign affairs, candidates haven’t mentioned anything about those issues. He is worried that U.S. may lose allies since some country doesn't trust the U.S. for past decision that the president made. Roff makes an analogy about how media wants to focus on rating and instead of good quality journalism, he said “It's the market at work, giving the people what they want – but more people watching wrestling doesn’t make it any more real and more people watching a football game doesn’t make the quality of the play any better.” Roff makes sense on the ugly reality of media. Roff was formerly a senior political writer for United Press International. He writes about public policy for a number of publications and for public policy group. Roff background in politic writing makes him credible.
              Roff intended audience is Americans citizens who watch TV or people involve in politics. Roff entire article focuses on how people are being affected because media isn't focused on the real issues. He feels bad toward the readers and viewers because he feels like he let them down because other media and himself have reported on the entertainment part of the debates and not on the main issues. Roff is concern that voters are going to choose a candidate base on what the media portraits them and not their capacity as future president. I agree that we can’t base our votes on a presidential candidate base on what we see on television it should be base on actions like they say “actions speaks louder than words.”

Commentary: Examining America's strained relationship with immigration laws

            The election for a new United States President is occurring right now. One of the topic most debated in this election is Illegal Immigration. Presidential candidates have expressed different argument of illegal immigration. One presidential candidate proposes to deport all illegal immigrants. Another candidate said the problem with illegal immigration is “anchor babies” (child born to a non citizen mother in a country which has birthright citizenship). The big issues presidential candidates haven’t addressed are the current immigration laws not being enforce.

Michael Torres’s commentary in Los Angeles Times, he argues that there are many immigration laws in this country, but there’s no enforcement. Torres states that people break laws because there's lack of enforcement and creates uncertain. Also Torres mentions that if this country is ready to enforce the laws there would be consequences. One of the consequence would be if laws are enforce that would mean many families could be separated. Torres said "An immigrant's relationship with our country should not start with an illegal act. It's not good for the country, and its not good for the immigrant," what Torres is saying is immigrants shouldn't have a bad relationship with this country if everything is done correctly. Torres wants the presidential candidates to campaign a policy to enforce laws how they’re written. He suggests if laws aren’t enforce then change them and enforce those changes. Torres wants a presidential candidate to set up and fix the system or create an Immigration Reform.

As concern grows over terrorists on social media, Senate bill calls for national strategy

             In recent years, we have seen an increase in terrorism crimes, committed in the United States. Terrorist groups have been increasing and threaten the United States and other countries. Many terrorist groups have been using social media to recruit new members. Jerry Markon wrote an article from The Washington Post, Markon writes about the U.S. Senate committee proposing a new bill on combatting the terrorists’ use of social media. In December, the House passed a bill similar to the one being proposed, after a married couple shot and killed 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino, California. This attack was possible because terrorist groups use social media to recruit. The anti-terror investigators weren't able to prevent this attack from happing. Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik were the persons involved in the shooting in San Bernardino, California. They were sending private messages about their commitment the jihad and martyrdom. In Tashfeen Malik's Facebook, she posted about her pledge her allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State terrorist group. The San Bernardino Shooting and at least 60 people have been charged with a terrorism-related crime; this has made the government aware of the problem with terrorist using social media. Markon mentions how The Department of Homeland Security, the State Department and the FBI all have different ideas on combating terrorist organizations online. President Obama wants to request military force against terrorist groups, but the Congress denied the request.

I believe this article is worth reading because it shows how the U.S. government hasn’t established a plan to combat against terrorist groups online. If they would have prevented attacks, it could have saved many lives. Unfortunately, the attacks happen and now we are aware there's a huge problem with social media. I personally don't feel safe knowing someone is plotting against the United States and could be living a few minutes away.   The FBI, Homeland Security, Congress and the President need to find a solution fast. Modern Technology is a tool terrorist group use to recruit, attracting new members to join their war. This article made me realize how we should take seriously what people post because we may think someone is posting random things but it could be a real threat. If the government doesn't step up and find a solution we have to help each other and prevent attacks.