Death Penalty is Unconstitutional (Stage 5)

     People have killed one another since the very existence of humanity. Therefore, I see the act of punishing another by death as uncivilized. The Death Penalty has been around for many ages and it's something that must be stopped. The act in itself seems inhumane when you think about it. We're not wild animals. We're intelligent beings that are able to comprehend the fact that taking another life is not right. Not only that, but personally I think that the Death Penalty is a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" that is strictly prohibited based on the 8th Amendment. Therefore, this penalty can be seen as unconstitutional.

     Another downside is the wasted money spent on the process of a Death penalty. We could be using that money for other forms of crime control but instead we focus it on a single individual and determining whether they live or die. Then there comes the other downside which is human error. Sometimes an innocent person is wrongfully convicted and thus is wrongfully punished. With the Death Penalty, there is no going back if there was a mistake determining the person who committed the crime.

     I do understand that some people seek justice and turn to the Death Penalty for that. It might be that the criminal killed one of their loved ones. I understand the hatred they must feel towards that person, but we all need to stay strong and not go down to the criminal's level where we resort to killing someone. Justice can be achieved through other ways. We don't have to kill one another. We don't live in the past anymore. We don't have to practice such barbaric methods of punishment.

Response to "Guns and Politics in The United States"(Stage 8)

     I agree with my classmate's post on his blog, "Guns and Politics in the United States", mostly because people in general don't have necessary experience to handle weapons. Like my classmate stated, most people believe that they are able to defend themselves if they were able to carry a weapon on them. However, not everything goes out as you want it to. There are times when the person carrying the weapon to defend themselves, might not be able to shoot the attacker at the heat of the moment. A problem with that is, that you'll only bring attention to yourself and therefore expose yourself to even more danger. Let's say that the defender does decide to shoot at the suspect. It's not a guarantee that the bullet will hit. There's slight chance it'll miss and maybe even hurt another person because of the missed shot.

     My classmate also brings in another good point about people not having a successful attack on a mass of people because they are unable to receive a weapon. Here in the US, our mass shootings have taken the lives of many poor innocent citizens. If the killers were unable to have those guns in the first place, then we would have lost less lives or perhaps prevent any life from being taken away. One last thing I would like to add to the argument is the fact that most people, including myself would feel rather uncomfromtable if someone around them was carrying a gun on them. Even if they claim that it's for self defense, you never really know what could happen and to you, they're some random stranger that just happens to be close to you. Most people don't trust random strangers, so arguebly you wouldn't trust someone that well if they had a gun on them. At the end of day, I don't think it's worth the risk to allow citizens to carry guns

                                  Original Editorial #2

     For the longest time, Americans have accepted the fact that we should remain with the system of the Electoral College. However, the system has clearly shown us its flaws and has failed us multiple times. It has ran its course and the time for a new system is now.
     Many Americans like myself were displeased with the outcome of the election. Sadly however, some people cannot comprehend the fact that the popular vote does not automatically determine who is the President, rather it's whichever candidate reaches 270 electoral votes that determines the winner. Then that opens another world of problems, and that is the issue of Gerrymandering and the representation we have on our districts. Sadly, most Americans are not well educated to know these issues. Perhaps media can help solve the problem by educating the general public, but we all know that won't happen.
     I've also come to notice that people are protesting or denying who our president is. While I do support people's involvement in politics and their right to protest, I think we should rather shift our focus on to protesting a new system of voting. What better time to change out system than now. At a time when millions of Americans felt cheated out of their vote. At a time when we've experienced another failure in the Electoral College. Even though the opposing opponent had won the popular vote, they ended up losing. This isn't the first time this has happened. Back in the 2000 election, President George W. Bush had won the election even though he did not win the popular vote.
    Then comes the question of what should we replace the Electoral College system with? The answer isn't so simple, and many have argued on what we can replace it with. We certainly can't do direct democracy because the general population of the US is rather stupid when it comes to politics. What we could do, is apply the rule of the shortest line method. That way, we would be able to eliminate the issue of Gerrymandering and the other issue of unequal representation of our districts. That way, we won't have any parties have any kind of advantages or disadvantages. Of course, this new method isn't the best solution there is, but it's certainly an improvement.
     Now is the time to act, It's time to act  as one and make our voice be heard to our government. The Electoral College can't stay here forever. As we continue to develop and grow as a society, we will need better or upgraded systems to keep up with out developments. However, we shouldn't waste time and push it off to the side, the best chance we have of making a change is now.

   Not Enough Aid For Those In Need

     In my classmate's blog, she mentions the fact that tuitions for universities have been at an all time high in recent years. Sadly, it only keeps increasing as time goes by. Students are finding it even more difficult to find a way to pay for their education while some also have to pay for rent, bills, food, etc. Not everyone has the support of their parents to pay some of the costs and some don't even have anyone to look for to get help. Financial aid can only pay for a fraction of the total cost and young students who have recently graduated from high school only have a minimum job as a source of income. Yet, they are expected to fully pay the cost, so they can have a successful career after finishing their education. However, that's not how it works. Most students end up in debt after finishing college, as my colleague had said in her blog. How are we suppose to encourage our youth to succeed when we are unable to provide them enough financial need, especially to those who are not as privileged as others.
     As my classmate said, she offers the solution of increasing financial aid while also increasing the funding from the government. I agree that as it is now, Financial aid is not sufficient enough for many young students in our universities. By increasing it, we would be able to support many more students and even encourage more young adults to enroll into a university. Many people choose not to attend because of the cost and not having enough money, but by increasing the fund we'll have more intelligent students graduating from their desired college and as a result, our workforce will improve tremendously. The government should really focus on education if we really want to be a successful country and they can start by aiding the students in need.

            In the article, "Sixteen Year-Olds Are Smart. Let Them Vote", published on The Washington Monthly and written by Mike Males and Anthony Bernier, they argue on why teens as low as sixteen years old are capable enough of voting and taking responsibility of their actions because of their votes. The authors provide plenty of facts and statistics to back up their claims while also comparing teens to the intended audience which in this case are adults, and the elderly.

            The article states the opposing arguments made on their stand and addresses them with facts and new research that has been done. In this case the opposing arguments consists of teenagers being known to be “reckless and impulsive”. There’s also the fact that teens are not allowed to drink or smoke or have guns, so they shouldn’t be mature enough to decide on complex issues. Well, the authors argue that new research shows that young adolescents brain development is not directly correlated to irrational behavior. Then they provide more statistics to push for the idea of American adults being more violent than young teens.

            Overall, they provide a well throughout argument. They provide clear facts and statistics which appear to be credible. They directly address the opposing views and counter them with the facts they gathered. This essentially makes their argument more believable and more likely to convince their audience, which in this case are adults and the elderly, to change their minds on how they view teens, and perhaps allow them to vote.

            I personally don’t agree with the authors. I believe that the majority of teens are uneducated especially in the U.S., thus making me hesitant about them voting. Perhaps instead of lowering the age of voting, we should find ways to educate our young so they’re ready to decide when their time comes.

In the article, "USA Today Editorial Board: Trump is unfit for the presidency" published on USA Today on September 30, 2016,  the Editorial Board makes a clear argument on why Donald Trump should not elected to be the next President. The intended audience for this article would be those who are in favor of Donald Trump, and this article was made to change those minds to prevent someone as dangerous as Donald Trump from being elected. They present valid arguments and reasons such as Trump being erratic, prejudiced, reckless, and mentions how much of a liar he really is. Donald Trump has always been a liar and always changed his stances on many topics, making him unreliable. One key fact they present, is the fact that he has made some of the most ridiculous statements. He had it in him to mention the size of his genitals, and has even mocked a disabled reporter. The article presents many other examples which really shows what type of person he really is. The article then goes on to list all reasons as to why he's unfit, and does so excellently. It even talks about how they don't necessarily support Hillary but tell people who are voting for Trump, to reconsider. I definitely agree with this article; I would have never imagined he would get this far in the election. This article is worth the read and it effectively supports their arguments with facts and evidence that are used to attack him. It has a clear audience and the reason for the article is quite obvious, don't vote for Donald Trump but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

Hillary Clinton Outlines Vision of More Job Opportunities for People With Disabilities

In this article, they talk about Hillary Clinton and how she wants to expand job opportunities for the disabled, something that is often overlooked and are also often undervalued. The article also mentions how Hillary didn't talk about the fact that Donald Trump mocked a disabled reporter, Serge F. Kovaleski. Trump also stated, that he doesn't recall meeting this individual. Some saw this as an opportunity for Hillary to attack Trump while also making herself look good to those who were upset by Trump's actions. I thought this was an interesting article and I also support how Hillary is considering and thinking about the disabled. This might also show you how bad Donald Trump can be at times, and how Hillary seems less evil from both of them.