With the economy on a downward trend again, millions have already lost their jobs, and tens of thousands falling victim to the COVID-19 virus, it is hard to determine where the US should take its next step under the Biden Administration. When COVID first emerged, some argued we shouldn't be doing much at all. 31 January 2020, Nacy Pelosi proposed the No Ban Act which would prevent the Travel Bans that the Trump administration was working to put in place. Leading up to the last election, the media has been criticizing Trump for not acting fast enough. An article published by the daily wire, https://www.dailywire.com/.../walsh-governor-cuomo-says..., describes the New York Governor's, Andrew Cuomo, theme that if these statewide shutdowns can save even one life, it will be worth it. Some would argue that people die in car accidents every day but we do not close our highways to save those lives so why close the economy. Ultimately, this all begs the question, should our economy ever have been jeopardized in the first place with the closing of businesses to entire states, and should we look to shutdowns again if we see another surge in COVID, or were the repercussions too much?
With mass shootings taking place more often, many argue that weapons such as the AR-15 must be banned. The AR-15 has been used in 24 percent of mass shootings since 1982, according to James Alan Fox. Others reason that it is not the gun behind the shooting but the person committing the terrible act themselves. Preventing these people from having a gun rather than banning them altogether seems like the best plan of action to numerous people. If a person is set on carrying out an act of violence they easily can use a handgun or shotgun instead of an AR. In 1994 an assault weapon ban was implemented due to a number of recent mass shootings. The ban showed little results towards minimizing shootings during the ten year span in was enacted causing it to no longer be enforced. These tragic and horrific events continue to occur though, calling for something to change. Does another assault weapon ban need to ensue, or does the focus need to be put on the person performing such extreme acts of violence and keeping guns out of their hands?
Marijuana has been making a legalizing sweep across the United States. There are already 10 states that have legalized it with more to follow, under the idea that it will help people medically instead of being an intoxicating drug. The controversy lies in whether medical purposes great advantage the possible harmful effects, but we now know for a fact that it is more harmful. Studies have shown that marijuana can cause psychosis and schizophrenia which reflects what is happened in the states that have legalized it. Since states like Oregon, Colorado, Alaska, and Wahington have made it legal, crime has dramatically been increased. The biggest concern with legalizing marijuana lyes in the availability of children. When marijuana becomes legal, kids get easier access to the harmful drug through their parents causing serious brain damage. Are the dangers of marijuana greater than the benefits, and should it be legalized?
For centuries America has been the land of opportunities. We have opened our arms to the world and allow for most cultures to have a place in the 'land of the free'. Although, for some we struggle to give them this chance at a new life. Within the last decade there has been a devastating amount of illegal immigrants coming from the neighboring country of Mexico. An average of 250 billion dollars is spent every year on these unregistered citizens. From a financial standpoint this approach is unrealistic and inconclusive. To counter this, active illegal aliens have been the foundation to our society. They provide a helping hand to anyone that will give them a chance, and do so for minimal pay. Immigrants are the backbone to our economy and a vital advocate to the success of the American dream. Provoking the question of controversy, should active undocumented citizens still be considered illegal?
America has always been a country known for its patriotism. Centuries of engrained tradition have kept multitudes of civilians standing, removing their hats, and placing their hands on their hearts when in affiliation with symbolic entities that manifest American morals. These small acts of respect towards our country have always relayed a strong sense of patriotism and until recently have not been questioned otherwise as to why we perform in these ways. In 2016, San Fransisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick performed an unspoken protest when he did not rise for the singing of the national anthem. While this silent act shocked people across the nation, it brought to light the realization that in the fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, some feel that human value and decency have fallen from the list of priorities. The public release of Kaepernick's behavior triggered a movement that left citizens questioning the importance of respecting a simple song that's original intent was to promote American virtue. Other reputable figures such as Jay Z and Beyonce are encouraging this act as a form of objection and reveal that they "as people of color do not yet feel it acceptable to praise a country that does not fully accept them". With that being said, should individual values outweigh traditional indicators of patriotism? More specifically, should standing during the national anthem be required as a way to pay due respect towards our country?
Across the planet there are several tribes of indigenous people who have never contacted the outside world. These natives have no understanding of the rest of humanity’s accomplishments and do not know that society as a whole has progressed into the future. With deforestation, rising populations, and continual exploration, our world is increasingly getting closer to theirs. With this, many of the accepting tribes become educated, welcome much needed supplies, receive vaccines, and gain the ability of choosing a new, potentially better, life. On the other side of these encounters is death from both attacks and the transfer of disease. Often times the passing of disease only hurts the tribes, who have never built up an immunity, while dramatically reducing their numbers. Humanity has always chose to avoid these tribes, but it has become clear that this is now nearly impossible. While taking these two immense options into consideration, modern society must choose which choice benefits both of us. Whether we want to try help the ones who have survived just as long as us, or try to improve their lives by welcoming them into our world, it all comes down to this question: should we interfere with the uncontacted tribes of our world?
Death is inevitable. People die for so many different reasons, fatal crashes with vehicles, bodily functions failing, diseases and viruses, etc. Death is hurtful and most of all, fearful. We fear the unknown of afterlife more than we fear anything else in the world. It also keeps our world going. If people don’t die, we overpopulate even more than the world already does. Utopia’s are often worlds with no death, people are invincible instead of death being inevitable. In a realistic aspect, more deaths will better the world. It would lessen the people in the world and with this comes so many positives including, equalizing food for people, everyone has a job, less houses which means more refurbished nature, and so on. Would you rather live in a world with no death at all or a place where death was more common?
Is college necessary? In today's job climate, a degree does not guarantee work anymore. There are numerous studies that show this, yet college is still shoved down every high schoolers' throat. Why is that?
Rachel McKinnon is known as a world champion in competitive cycling. Although she is not awarded with an applause for her accomplishment, instead she receives hateful messages, assumptions of cheating, and death threats. All due to her being a transgender women. Many social media spectators are saying that McKinnon should be participating in male races. McKinnon quickly replies, by informing her audience that she, in fact, is legally a women. Making it forbidden to compete as a male. The abundant amount of comments McKinnon receives, involve that yes, once upon a time she did have testosterone within her body. This would give her an unfair advantage in the races. She replies by saying "I transitioned in 2012. My testosterone levels are so low that they’re undetectable, and have been that way since 2012." Giving her no greater advantage than any other competitor. There is no issue with athletes that are legally transgender. Do you think people who are transgender deserve to have equal opportunities?
In a world full of advancing technologies, almost all would say that we don't have any other choice but to let it keep advancing. Out of all technologies, one stands out as being something right out of a Syfy movie; gene editing. Gene editing allows researchers to change someone's or something's genetic makeup in order to produce more desirable traits. Being a relatively new technology, there hasn't been many established rules on how it should or should not be used. One research group in China successfully changed the genetic makeup of a pair of twins while they were fetuses. The scientists behind that project now claim that one of those children is now immune to the AIDS virus. Theries of curing disease, preventing birth defects, and even making the "perfect child" have been discussed. With this new technology that could soon become available to everyday citizens, maybe some more than others, the question must be asked, is it ethical to use this technology on unborn children with no voice of their own? If so, to what extent is it still okay?