The death penalty has been an issue discussed on the state and federal level. People ask whether it is humane to take the life of someone else as a punishment. People also argue the opposite saying that because someone killed another person, that means we can take their life. California state governor argues that his reasons for granting 737 prisoners reprieve of the states death row was because, “I know people think an eye for an eye, but if you rape, we don’t rape”. However, there are other people that argue the death punishment provides an understanding and ultimatum for those wanting to commit a crime. Each death penalty averaged $1.26 million which is a lot, if the death penalty were cheaper then the United States wouldn’t have to spend as much money on prisoners however, right now the cost for the death penalty is very high. A person serving a sentence for life costs on average $45,000 annually which adds up quickly. Should the death penalty be enforced or abolished? ​

The presidency of the United States has always stood as a position of leadership, someone who has communication, integrity, accountability, empathy, humility, vision, influence, positivity, delegation, confidence. As we look back on our presidents we remember Washington for his courage, Jefferson for his equality, Lincoln for his empathy, and Theodore Roosevelt for his drive. All of these great leaders have accomplished tremendous good for our country. Leaders, however, and men with hearts for goodness are not the same thing, Adolf Hitler is also known for being one of the greatest leaders and the worst human of the 20th century. As of a couple of weeks ago President Joe Biden gave his first address to Congress. Stating what he wants done and what he has done in the last one hundred days. Before this address and especially after he has been under strenuous ridicule and has been seen as an incapable leader. Does President Joe Biden have good qualities and has his old age influenced these qualities. ​

Across the nation, acts of terrorism have occurred. Shootings in areas such as schools, churches, and airports. Many people blame violent video games for these horrendous actions. A gunman who killed 22 people and injured 24 more in El Paso, Texas made a reference to a video game and later said he was very familiar with violent video games. Video games were quickly blamed by many politicians even though it was an obvious act of “ethnic hatred”.  In a policy statement on June 22, 2017 “scant evidence” was found on video game violence and real world aggression. Nowadays young children play these violent video games and show symptoms of violence that reflect certain aspects that are played in these games. Games such as Grant Theft Auto and Call Of Duty let the player go on heists and commit mass acts of homicide or go on missions I’m various places and kill people. These video games are available to the youth with nothing stopping them if they have the money. Do video games cause violence, or are they an excuse for Americans to feel better about psychotic people that live in the United States? 

It is very apparent that over the past year, Covid-19 has taken a detrimental hit on American economic development. As unemployment rates began to rise at the start of the pandemic, action needed to be taken in order to keep the country out of a deflationary spiral. This action came in the form of stimulus checks. While the idea of giving out money in efforts to promote the financial growth that businesses and community entities desperately needed at first seemed doable, it didn't necessarily initiate a motive for those receiving unemployment to hop right back in to the work force. Would this money have been better used if jobs were created and people had an opportunity to get paid so they could stimulate the economy while being temporarily unemployed? If not, then was the rational for distributing this money evenly due to the wavering stance of the economy acceptable?

​Speed limitations were first introduced in 1901 in hopes of increasing safety on roadways and preventing deadly crashes in public. Since then, automobiles have evolved in many ways, especially in terms of their safety features. Modern cars are now equipped with state of the art anti-collision properties and significantly better breaking systems that allow drivers to avoid crashes and slow down much quicker than before. Vehicles now a days are much easier to operate and very safe compared to the ones first created. Since automobiles are now much more advanced, is it reasonable to increase the outdated speed limit from to match with current abilities of cars and drivers?

Would you rather be born filthy rich or be born dirt poor?

​As Desmond Tutu, a known African leader, says “Twenty-five years ago, people could be excused for not knowing much, or doing much, about climate change. Today we have no excuse”. Humans need to do find new ways to help slow down climate change. Obviously, we are not the cause of such drastic changes in temperature, most of that is due to the fact that we are going through a heating period. The biggest problem though is not how much the ocean is rising from the acids in our atmosphere but how many people die from poor air quality. According to national geographic “bad outdoor air caused an estimated 4.2 million premature deaths in 2016,”. How can we expect not to take action in helping people?