I completely agree with my colleagues opinion on this post "Free College Tuition", Bernie Sanders "College for All Act" is an excellent idea that should be considered. I did look more into it, and this is definitely a great way to give young people from low and middle income families the opportunity of a lifetime; to be able to attend public colleges or universities for free. It is a disgrace how hundreds of young people today do not go to college simply because they can't afford it. This is not a radical idea from what I read as I looked more into it, this is something other countries have done, so why can't we do it. In addition to that, there is also many students that have to work up to two jobs during the day or even at night, to be able to afford college on top of student loans. There is also current college graduates who owe big loans and are in debt. Students shouldn't have to drown in debt to get the education they need to survive. Education is a must and it is very important, an educated person has more chances of landing up a good high paying job. Giving this opportunity to young people who are determined to be successful is definitely a great idea. Yes "This legislation will make our economy stronger and more productive". -Bernie Sanders

I read an article in the New York Times by Vikas Bajaj titled "When the Shooter Is a Toddler" the article was published October 15, 2015 The person who wrote this article is talking about how not only mass shootings are the only major gun issue in the United States, one of the other major gun problems the country also needs to face is the terrible number of unintentional shootings that have occurred lately by young people and even children some whom are still toddlers. This article shows credibility by mentioning the various cases when this has happened and mentioning specific numbers for example the age of  the children ranging from three years old and younger shooting themselves or someone else; with most of them being unintentional shootings. In the article it also talks about how this is something that has been looked further into by a study making the reader believe the information that is given. With all this being said is why I agree with the message the author is trying to deliver through this article, making it clear that we need better gun laws and have a massive public campaign to make people who own guns keep them firmly under lock and somewhere safe. At the end of this article the author also mentions how so many lawmakers are afraid to cross the N.R.A so the best thing to do is spread this message directly to Americas gun owners. Yes, having a gun is a good way to stay protected, but not having it somewhere safe and secured is also a way to stay unprotected. All accidents deaths and serious injuries are tragic, and we should all ought to strive to prevent as many as possible.

I definitely agree. This post "Problems we face" is very accurate. Now in days news do take a side whether if it's for democrats or republicans. And I'm sure that could go under the agenda setting theory that describes the ability of the news media to influence the way the public think. When the media focuses on just a few issues and subjects, the public tends to perceive those issues as more important. Yes, in order to become a united nation we need to stop focusing on just the minority of the people, and start thinking about the goodness of the majority. I am sure there is more than just five people out there who are in the same situation, and as long as these people who stand in the middle of both sides are willing to speak, and try to bring everyone together to make things better little by little, we will eventually influence one another, become a team, and we will be joined together politically. But if no one is willing to speak everything will remain the same as it is. It is always better to give it a shot even if the outcome turns out to be different from what was expected, rather than just leaving it as it is, and wondering what if? If we all agree to come together as it's supposed to be instead of constantly debating each other, we will become a stronger nation.

Global Warming

Global warming is a subject the government has ignored for many years. Why? Because there is always something more pressing. Every time we get an alarming and scary update on this situation that is observed to happen the subject is brought up, but then it automatically fades away and we go back to focusing on absurd things. Global warming is a serious issue we should all take into consideration. It would be very helpful if the idea would be considered and well discussed by presidential candidates, to come up with a possible solution, because there is several solutions to decrease global warming such as cleaning up America's dirtiest power plants, reducing carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gas emissions and many more solutions. One of the reasons why the government denies the idea of fighting global warming is because they will spend a lot of money doing this, but the government is already spending money on things that are less important. And what is more important spending billions of dollars on such things as building a bigger wall or fence to keep out illegal migrants or our health? and finding a way to protect our children's future? Global warming possesses a real threat and enforcing a movement as soon as possible is better than waiting, because the longer we wait to do something the less change we will see. The fact that the government avoids this subject is why it is up to us to take action in order to have a healthier atmosphere.When the public leads, our leaders will, eventually follow.

 

Substansial commentary or criticism #2

In the article Let Citizens, Not Celebrity Journalists, Ask the Questions at Debates, from the New York Times Fredrick C. Harris a professor of political science at Columbia University argues that citizens should be the ones asking the questions directly at debates in order to improve and make presidential debates more considerable. I disagree with him, yes it would benefit a lot of citizens and I am sure a lot of them would also agree with this idea. Their advantage would be that they will be able to ask their own questions at debates to get a direct answer instead of having an established journalist asking their question in a completely different way and not getting the exact answer they want. But deciding on who to choose out of all the desperate citizens with the urge of asking questions and getting answers would probably be the problem. Fredrick C. Harris does not mention how this process would be done other than just having the candidates field questions from certain people he is not specific such as saying they will randomly pick someone from the crowd. Fredrick also says that we should think of presidential debates as public forums with ordinary people meaning citizens with no special or distinctive features, but in the past we have had debates where citizens have been able to give their opinion and ask question which haven't resulted in a good outcome. So that would be another problem a lot of citizens would want someone knowledgeable on the topic to come up with good questions and ask the questions in a adequate way. And that's why we have professional journalists with that being said in my opinion in order to enhance the quality of presidential debates journalists would be the ones that would have to improve their ways of providing and requesting questions and answers to the candidates and the people, they are the ones that would have to focus on doing their job decently.

I read an article in the New York Times by The Editorial Board titled President Obama and the Power Of Mercy the article was published on Wednesday October, 1st. The person who wrote this article is talking about the power to permit mercy and compassion to someone who is unfairly serving a long sentence in jail. In the article it is mentioned that this is one of the most important constitutional powers, and a president needs to do opposing action of the repeated excesses of the federal criminal justice system. It also talks about the clemency process being removed from the Justice Department and being moved to the White House itself so it can be done right and taken more seriously. At the end of this article it is mentioned that if president Obama wants to make a difference in his final year in office, offering a fast track commutation process for this group would be a good idea. I definitely agree with this editorial because this would benefit only prisoners who don't have a criminal history, have demonstrated good conduct in prison, have no history of violence, and who have been unfairly serving a long sentence for many years. And of course only if this process is done adequately and operated effectively.  

Blog stage two

I read an article by Julia Preston in the New York Times titled White House Campaign Urges Legal Immigrants to become (Voting) Citizens The article was published on Tuesday September, 15. The article talks about the start of a White House campaign that will encourage legal immigrants to become American citizens. This article is important and worth our time because it is very informative and let's us know all the needed infromation about this campaign. It also tells us the benefits we can get from forming this campaign such as adding a million or more voters to the electorate in time for the upcoming presidential election. It gives us a brief story about the famous pitcher for the Los Angeles Dodgers making it possible to become an American citizen after many years of being in the United States, letting us know that it is possible for many others to accomplish becoming American citizens as well. Aside of that it also reminds us of some of the words Donald Trump delivered in the Republican debate and some of his proposals. Reading and being informed about information like this is more than important and very beneficial.