Comment on my colleague's blog: "Freedom"

            In today’s blog my dear colleagues, I will provide a rebuttable argument to one of my colleague’s editorial or commentary. Beatriz Cordero’s commentary attract my attention. She made a comment on a very controversial topic : ISIS, standing for Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

I strongly disagree with my colleague argument and let me tell you why. First, she asserts that the United states decisions to engage in a war against ISIS is a very bad idea. She thinks that it will put in danger the Americans. According to the United States, government military attacks against Syria will actually stop the ISIS from advancing to Syria where the Sunni militant group is believed to have strong base command in Raqqa near Iraq. To begins ISIS is a group of people that pretend to be Muslim and killed people every single. Believe it or not, they are everywhere in this world. For me, the United States should engage in this war against ISIS because if no one do anything the Islamic group ,as they call themselves, will run this world. Whether the United states does or does not do anything everyone is vulnerable. They can attack every single country they want. Another part that I disagree with is when Beatriz Cordero said that "when a Muslim pose bomb he is called a terrorist." It is important to correct this idea that many people think. The members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are not Muslim. They just pretend to be Muslim. Not any single religion in this world agree with the action of killing someone they are not Muslim. 

Transportation network companies: Yes!

       Everyone has been a witness of the controversy creates by Online transportations network such as Uber. Belonging to these customers that use almost every week those online transportations, I judge necessary to talk about it. Uber is a company with a free online application that provides transportation to individuals. People just need smartphones and credit cards to subscribe. But what differentiate Uber from the taxi union? Uber’s drivers are not companies’ employees and use they own personal cars. They do not have the requirements taxis can have. As the issues between Taxi and Uber have been here for several years, the past two years Uber has been facing lawsuits with many governments in the world, including the US government. The taxi union is not longer competitive compares to this online transportations. Today, I want to call to action. Uber is more than helpful for the American society, and the government should encourage those initiatives. 

        For my part as I said before, Online transportation are part of my everyday life since I have to use them whenever I am running late for class or meetings, and that happens every time. The government should try to find common ground with Uber and his concurrent lyft. The negotiation may lead to an employment regulation and tax collection. The government has to considerate the advantages of those mobile apps before taking drastic decisions. First of all, Uber provides employment to more than 5.000 Americans and help them fulfill their needs. A company that creates job should not be disabled.  Uber has a relatively lower fare than taxis, the time between the order and the pick up are very short. People don't have to wait several minutes to be picked up and don’t have to fumble for cash. Uber drivers provide better services than taxis one. I think the government should just impose more strict rules to these companies but should not try to stop them. Our world is evolving, technologies and services should be growing with it. Dear colleagues, I would like to invite you all to vote for the Prop 1 for those companies on may 7.

Comment on my colleague's blog: The Truth Of America

           As I had for this assignment to comment on one of my colleague blogs, I read almost everyone's blog and the one that interpellate me is the post of The Truth Of America: Is changing wages a good idea?
I believe that this question of raising the minimum wages is a very crucial one and that everyone need to give their opinions.
         Jesus Tovar made a very effective and persistent argument in his editorial. However, it is important for me to notify that low wages here would mean wages that can sustain to people’s need. Workers aspire to get wages that will help them fulfill their needs. No one is interested in working somewhere they are likely to receive low incomes. The US purchasing power has declined which make harder for American low wage worker to afford certain commodities; they would have to work for longer hours. My colleague emphasizes the fact that hardworking Americans are the only ones entitled to wages increase, but he does not seem to recognize that the effect of raising minimum wages would have an impact and will make “lazy” people get motivated and work hard. 

Military attack again ISIS or not?

      According to the article, “Obama to bomb ISIS in Syria: 5 reasons for and against airstrikes.” The United States foreign intervention and policies through the use of the military attacks have become a contagious issue in the recent times.  Given that the Syria government is no longer recognized by the America government, the United states administration claimed that it won’t seek permission of conducting the military surveillance from president Bashar Assad become they  no longer recognize the government of the day. There are many reasons as to why the United States government shall authorize the airstrikes and a launch of the military attack against the ISIS which might include: ISIS expansion into Syria, calls for airstrikes are growing steadily, an assumption that airstrikes shall stabilize Syria, the fact that United State is already striking Syria and the need of the united states government to protect its territory. 

        According to United States government military attacks against Syria will actually stop the ISIS from advancing to Syria where the Sunni militant group is believed to have strong base command in Raqqa near Iraq.  The military attack will eventually control various military bases in the country where the ISIS is among the rebellious group under the control of the Syrian crossing in the border. The attacks of the Americans and other countries citizens in Syria by the ISIS rebels have necessitated the United States government to call for the military attack against Syria. The United States government believes that in order to attain law and order and to ensure that the human rights are respected in Syria it would be appropriate for the military attacks from the United States military. The United States government believes it is time to bring President Assad out of the power in order to stabilize Syria because he is the greatest supporter of the ISIS rebel instead of being a propagator of peace in Syria and the world. The United States Government believes that through the military attack the Syria democracy in political, social and economic sectors shall be restored.

        Give the mission of the United States military attack is to stop the ISIS rebels from advancing and expanding to Syria. There has been no need for hesitation because the military is already in the Syria grounds fighting the rebels. Moreover, despite the fact that the Pentagon has confirmed that the Islamic States has no potential to conduct terrorist attack against the American soil, president Barrack Obama has taken the issue with the serious it deserve because he believe that the western members of the ISIS have the potential to propagate the terrorism attack against the United states. Nevertheless, issues such as public opinion, the need to stop strengthening President Assad, high risk of casualties and inadequate intelligence are some of the factors the United States government continues to evaluate.

Commentary: Ann Coulter

                 Ann Coulter tweeted about Pope Francis’ trip to the United States; her tweet went like “THIS Pope's philosophy of worshiping the poor, blaming the rich leads to Latin American poverty. American Catholicism leads to success,” (Madrak, 2015). She has been under criticism from many quotas, Crooks and Liars noted that it must be tough for her to carry all that hate. What she said was not appropriate, but according to Coulter and her fans, it was okay, they did not see any problem with her way of thinking. Looking at what she was complaining about was not worth the discomfort and rant; she has a right to say whatever she wants to say, which is okay, but her statement was just off the mark. Others can argue that it is within her constitutional rights to say what she wanted, but there are instances where we cannot deny her the freedom but wonder what guides her principles. It is fallacious to think that being compassionate to the poor will drive the Latin America to poverty, how are they even related? If the wants better living conditions for the poor in the society, then that is independent of other factors or areas. The rich in the society are well off, so the pope was right to have mercy and compassion on the poor who have been ignored by the breed that Coulter represents. She comes from a school of thought that the white privilege should be guarded by all the might they have gathered. Her tweet was more of entitlement rather than an objective comment, she, and her kind feel entitled, they feel that they deserve more than the poor do, which is utterly stupid. Matthew Dowd’s reply was necessary, and it is impressive how he kept it modest without insulting her, it is commendable. 

The neglected Israeli-Palestinian peace process must be revived

          The audience being targeted by the author in the article includes the politicians in Washington and in the Arab capitals. The article by the authors proves their credibility as it is not founded on their personal interests or opinions but on information they gathered while in their professional positions and on their experiences as negotiators in the two countries. Dennis Ross was President Clinton’s Middle East peace negotiator between the year 2009 to 2011 in addition to being President Obama’s special assistant for the Middle East and South Asia. David Makovsky was at one time a part of the Secretary of State’s negotiating team in the Israeli-Palestinian talks between the years 2013 to 2014.

          The authors claim with the rise of Islam nation issues for instance the humanitarian crisis in Syria and Egypt’s battle with radical Islamic groups the attention has been drawn from the tense situation between Israel and Palestinia which is boiling up  to break the peace agreement in the process of being initiated. The authors mention the fact that in the past five months prior to the article, more than 100 Palestinians had carried out direct attacks against Israeli nationalists. Furthermore, the divisions between the Palestinian people and the unreliability and poor reputation of their leaders in guiding or unifying them, the issue between the two nations seems unlikely to be resolved soon. Also, the government of the Israelis which is too strong handed and not fully invested in the peace process makes the peace process more delicate and crucial. It is for these reasons that the authors feel more attention needs to be paid to the situation between the two nations to preserve the tranquility as the chances will fade quickly due to the leadership succession disputes the Palestinian nation is likely to face in the near future.

             The authors show the weakness the American government has had which has been in stalling the agreement process. Given the current stalled state Palestinia is in, the most urgent thing for the U.S government should be to diffuse the tension between the two nations by restoring the possibility and hope of the people to reach an agreement and change the current state of affairs. However, the Obama administration has been more a hurdle that a solution treating all settlement agreements reached or suggested as unacceptable dismissing and undermining the orders of the president where he went forth to state not all peace agreements are equal and hence distinctions are a requirement to find the best solution for the people even if it is not necessarily what they as negotiators would like. Their indifference and indecision has only encouraged the Israeli to disregard the Palestinians and thus president Obama’s approach. However, the authors argue that the U.S government has a chance to turn things around if willing by offering the Israelis something in return for their cooperation for instance the promise to veto any resolution on settlements believed to be detrimental to the Israelis at the U.N Security Council. The U.S government could also agree not to present to the council their own individual resolutions intended or they perceive has the ability to solve the conflict. Lastly, the president could pledge to push both European and Arab nations to stand against Palestinian efforts to normalize Israeli- Palestine contacts as to the Israelis that would be against their terms of agreement. All these measures would go a long way in bridging the barrier between the two nations as Israel would also come to the table and agree to terms. However, despite the advantages and possibilities America and its government are moving at a sluggish pace to actualize them and give hope to all citizens involved.

America’s Policy on Refugees

                 The United States government, through Congress, has passed several laws on refugee relief in America. In 1948, the Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act, which allowed more than 200,000 Europeans into America. In 1953, the Refugee Relief Act was passed and saw over 600,000 more refugees into the United States. However, after September 11, 2002, attacks, America’s refugee policy was completely changed. In the wake of the attack, the annual quota set aside for refugees now goes unfilled. Refugees are now faced with numerous bureaucratic hurdles including an investigation by the National and International Intelligence Agencies. Their biometric data, such as fingerprints, is taken and compared against criminal and terrorist databases. They are also screened for diseases and subjected to many interviews. In short, they have to prove that they are worthy of the United State’s refuge.

             

          This hustle is now being felt more pronouncedly by Syrian refugees, especially after November’s attack in Paris. I read Maria Christina Garcia’s Article in The Washington Post that provides a clear picture of how the United States government is handling the issue on Syrian refugees. The article, America has never actually welcomed the World’s Huddled Masses, argues that even though the United States has been a very accommodating country for the oppressed, Syrian refugees have not been treated the same as others since the 9/11 attacks. Garcia provides an analysis of the historical journey that has led the United States to be referred to as a haven for the oppressed. After reading the article, you will realize that rather than moving forward as a welcoming nation, we have taken several steps back by cultivating stereotypes and ignoring policies that the country worked so hard to enforce. This article is worth reading.