Reponse to "Transportation Networking Companies:Yes!"

Responding to Myriam’s “Transportation Networking Companies: Yes!”. I hear you, girl!
https://thegovernementtoday.blogspot.com/

Ridesharing has become a fundamental part of our everyday life. I no longer have to call a cab companies dispatch service (you know, the ones who never smile through the phone), request a cab that will take 30 minutes to an hour (with a driver who is as equally rude as its dispatcher) and question how much my terrible “costumer service” based experience is going to cost. Cab companies are notorious for ripping off their customers. My friend fell asleep in a cab one time. The driver never woke her once they reached her destination. When she did wake, the total cost was $115… for a 3-mile cab ride! He threatened to have her arrested if she didn’t pay. I have never had a good experience with cabs. I’ve had my fare rejected many times just because my destination wasn’t far enough. They do not care about customer service or safety. Once, after arriving home from a trip I walked up to the next cab in line at the airport to be taken home. The cabby was sleeping and when he woke it was clear from the stench on his breath that he was drunk. I declined his cab only to be told I had to use him because he was next in the line. They claimed it was proper cab “etiquette”. Seriously? No, thank you.

Uber and Lyft have no doubt reduced the dangers of drinking and driving in this city. The city claims this special election (which is costing millions) is all about fingerprinting drivers and keeping the city council in control of Austin’s safety. It’s bullshit. As one Austin Statesman commenter pointed out, “taxi corporations flow campaign money to the city council”. Who really gets the short end of the stick from rideshare companies? It’s not the citizens of Austin. It’s the cab companies. Their businesses are dying, fast. They are losing money left and right, and they have called upon their good friend councilwoman Ann Kitchen, who chairs on the transportation committee. Did I mention cab companies are big city council contributors? Huh, curious.  

Lyft and Uber have spent $2.2 million in their “Vote FOR Prop 1!” campaign. Some view this as a large corporation misleading the community of Austin. I disagree. Don’t get me wrong, I hate when corporations have all the power. However, Uber and Lyft have made it pretty clear they WILL NOT operate in city’s that require government run fingerprinting, and for good reason. This statement is not an empty threat, nor a bullying tactic. It is gospel truth. Uber left San Antonio for a brief period when a similar ordinance was passed. Shortly after their retreat the city amended the regulations and Uber returned.

Uber and Lyft’s background checks are nationwide. The city council has issued at least 53 chauffeurs licenses to people who actually failed Uber’s background checks and were denied employment as a rideshare driver. That is crazy! The city really knows best, huh? Please.

Uber and Lyft’s regulations are firm and tedious. They offer real time GPS tracking to a rider’s friends and family to ensure their loved ones reach their destinations safely. Drivers AND riders can rate each other after trips. Uber uses these ratings to determine if a driver or rider can continue to use its services or continue employment.

Also, For Prop 1! campaign ads claim taxpayers will front the bill if prop 1 is shot down. This is actually false. The city will actually charge a fee to the companies and its drivers to pay these costs. I don’t see this as a good thing either. I see it as another way for the city to acclimate more money for their agendas. Dare I also say they may be losing a lot of jingle through the decline in DUI’S? That’s another theory, for different time. VOTE FOR PROP 1 TOMORROW! Help keep ridesharing safe and affordable!

Yes, Doctor... I am aware of his dysfunction.

     Earlier this month, South Carolina Representative Mia McLeod proposed a bill to the House that would require stricter regulations on Viagra for men. The proposal would require:

• a cardiac stress test, to ensure the patient is healthy enough for sex
• counseling that is based off considering celibacy as a lifestyle choice
• a 24 hour wait period, so that the patient would have time to really consider the side effects 
• consent from their sexual partner, stating that they are aware of their erectile dysfunction.

     McLeod has proposed this new bill in an attempt to make the male and republican dominate house understand why the regulations on women's reproductive issues is so unjust. South Carolina has some of the toughest abortion laws and restrictions in the country. Some of those regulations include:

• state sponsored counseling designed to discourage abortion
• 24 hour wait period to understand side effects of choosing to have an abortion
• parental consent must be presented for any minor 17 and under.

     I get that Viagra and abortion are two very different topics, however what this woman has done is open a door to why our state/federal government should have no say in the reproductive health of men or women. I agree with McLeod's idea. I think it's brilliant. This law isn't something she hopes will pass, it is designed to help men better understand why these laws and regulations are unfair to women. I've always believed women are restricted when it comes to our reproductive health. For example, men will never understand how uncomfortable a pap smear is. As a woman who wants to be responsible and take birth control (so that I don't have to struggle with the decisions of an unwanted pregnancy) I HAVE to have this invasive procedure every three years (which was finally just changed from ONCE a year). There is no true medical need for a pap when one is trying to obtain contraceptive. It became common for doctors to require one once a year so that they may test for cervical cancer. I get that at the end of the day it's in my best interest to have one. However, this is the reason so many women aren't on birth control. They don't want to have to go through hoops to get it. So, why is it so easy for men to receive Viagra?

I applaud Ms. McLeod on her efforts. Though the bill will not pass (and it shouldn't), I believe she has really opened a few closed minds on a very important subject.

Reply to "We the People"s Legalized Marijuana Helps the Economy....

I’m feeling your argument, Miss Gomez. Federal legalization of recreational marijuana could bring about so many great opportunities for this country.  Before I begin, let me clearly state that I am all for this. However, there are several terrible road blocks in why it’s going to be a true struggle for political figures to get their heads out of their asses and make this happen. From 1970 to 2014, the percentage of inmates locked in federal prisons for non-violent drug related charges rose from just 16% to 50.1%. Why such a steady, dramatic increase? Good, ole Nixon and the War on Drugs, that’s why. In 1971, Nixon declared rising drug abuse as “public enemy number one”. This declaration set into motion a series of new regulations in the effort of eradicating drugs from the streets of our nation. These motions included tougher laws and punishments for drug offences. You didn’t have to traffic pot by the pounds to have the book thrown at you. Something as small as a half inch long roach in your car ashtray could get you 2 years. Obviously these drastic measures have never worked. Drug abuse in this country is steadily increasing and until we start treating people as addicts instead of criminals, we are never going to see a decrease in abuse. Our inmate population has risen to outlandish numbers. Federal prisons make millions off these petty drug offenders. Judges have been accused of handing off harsh lengthy prison terms to petty drug offenders that come from underprivileged neighborhoods (the kind of kids who can’t afford real attorneys and get stuck with an over worked and under paid public defender who could really give two shits less) in exchange for under the table pay outs from the companies that run these prisons. The more inmates they have, the more grant money the government provides. Trust me when I say, that money is in no way being spent on inmates. The system is choreographed to benefit these assholes. Let’s say tomorrow marijuana is made recreationally legal on a federal level. Would all of those inmates serving sentences for marijuana be released? They should be. However, certain people running these prisons are never going to allow that. They would not only see a dramatic drop in their current populations, but the lack of sentencing in the future would continue to keep their numbers low. This means less cash flow, and that’s just not an option for these crooks.

The amount of tax’s that could be collected from this could take care of so many issues for this country. We could pay our teachers better competitive wages. We could use it to fund federal rehabilitation clinics, where true addicts could go (instead of prison-maybe this is an opportunity for the prison system to make up some of their potential lost income?) to get the help they need. We could use it to help law enforcement and fire departments (neither get paid nearly what they should). The possibilities are endless and bountiful. We as the people just have to push a little bit harder to get our country there.

They Shall "Not" Pass

In the United States Constitution, there is this little piece we have come to know as the Bill of Rights. This article contains 10 amendments, the first stating the following:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging of the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This first amendment guarantees our individual rights to freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of speech. This means as a citizen of this country I may peacefully protest things I don’t like, such as Donald Trump. It also allows me the freedom to say, write or type whatever I want, with some exceptions of course. Furthermore, it gives me the right to join any club, gang, group or congregation I so choose. If I want to gather together with people that share the same ideas and values, I can. Whether that group be the KKK, Comic Con or Westboro Baptist Church, it’s well within my right to do so.

I’m no Trump fan. I am also not a Hillary supporter (unless it’s for her enrollment in federal prison, then count me in). Do I feel the Bern? Not really. Cruz, no. Kasich? Who?

In my opinion, the candidates we’ve been offered for our future 45^th President aren’t necessarily the crème de la crème. Each one has a flaw (or two) that most can’t look pass. However, those who do see these candidates as fit have every right to assemble at their rallies and cheer on their promised hopeful.

On Saturday, March 19^th in the Phoenix suburb of Fountain Hills, two dozen Trump protesters blocked a main highway with themselves and their parked cars. Their intentions were to prevent Trump supporters to be able to attend the rally that was being held a few miles away.

Now, I believe in our right to protest, but preventing others from attending a gathering in which they will express their ideas with other like-minded peoples is unlawful. It’s understandable why so many people despise Trump. He has said and promised some awful and hateful things during his campaign.  However, blocking access to one of his rallies is not right and is deemed unconstitutional. There’s also the whole obstructing a highway thing. Some supporters had to walk nearly 4 miles because of the blockade. How is that fair?

The previous weeks Trump rally was to be held in Chicago. However, it was cancelled due to violence and security concerns. Confrontations amongst protesters, supporters and police has become a common occurrence at Trump rallies.

Preventing Trump and his supporters from gathering only adds negative fuel to the hateful fires. These preventions are not the American way. Breaking the law and impeaching on other citizens’ rights because you don’t like the things a candidate says is not right. In a twisted way, those protesters are just like Trump. They are all bullies in the hallway.

The Salute is Familiar....

Joshua Ostroff is a Senior Editor for Huffington Post Canada. His former employment ranges from Music Editor for America Online, Inc to Senior Editor for Spinner. He is the winner of several awards and recognitions such as the Prism Prize and Polaris Music Prize. His primary category in journalism is usually music and pop culture. However, Thursday he published an article titled A Jewish Response to Trump Being Called Hitler. As a Jewish man, he had a lot to say about the popular comparison.

His statement that being Jewish is both a religious and ethnic term, in my opinion, is correct. In the 1930’s, though he wouldn’t have attended temple or practiced Jewish customs, he still would have been collected up in the masses during Hitler’s reign for simply being born to Jewish parents.

His arguments about Judaism being a race as well as a religion make me think about how tough it must be for Muslims of this country. How we categorize their attire and looks with the religion itself.  Many middle eastern descent people are discriminated against by those related factors, despite not knowing if they practice Muslim traditions or customs.

In his article, he elaborates on the ideas of Hitler and his rise into power. Hitler’s motive to gain political status fed on the nature of man. Hitler gave the masses a “bad guy”, claiming that the Jewish community was to blame for all of Germany’s woes and that by eliminating them he would “make Germany great again,” and the people listened. Sounds familiar.  Trump has repeatedly singled out certain minorities and blamed them for Americas troubles. At his rally in Orlando, he had his supporters raise their right hands to promise their vote to him. Did no one in that convention question what they looked like?

Ostroff says, “Super Tuesday exit polls found as much as 78 percent of Republican voters in some southern states support banning Muslims from entering the U.S.” How is this a common American ideal? Aren’t we the land of opportunity? Aren’t most of us ancestors of former refugees seeking the American dream of freedom?

Trump has fueled a fire. Though some may say it’s all an act, it’s a dangerous one. As an American who has walked the site of a former concentration camp, I can say I want no part in his campaign that’s fueled be racial hate. Closing our boarders and forcing other countries to build “our” wall is just ludicrous. Remarks about taking out terrorist’s family’s - he obviously has no recollection of the Geneva Conventions - are insensitive and have no regard for human life. This man is in no form or fashion fit to run such a powerful nation.

“So as hard as it is to hear Hitler's name all over the news, let it at least remind us why we must stop Trump and all leaders who traffic in racism and xenophobia before such hate defines anyone else.”

Ostroff’s closing statement speaks volumes. Our country is a melting pot founded on the idea of freedom. Immigration and diversity is the backbone of this country. We should be a nation that opens our arms and our eyes to the people that want our dream. Trump is constantly promoting racist ideas and policies. His campaign agenda is hateful and dividing this country even more. We need a healer, not an eccentric business man with poor character and small minded ideas.

He-Man Hillary Haters Club

The New York Times editorial board consists of 19 journalists, all of which contribute a variety of expertise. Their educations range from Harvard College to NYU Law School and have quite a substantial amount of journalistic experiences between them. Collectively, their articles not only serve as a voice for the board, but the editor and publisher as well.

They published an article last week that speaks of one of the many scandals of Hillary Clinton, titled Mrs. Clinton, Show Voters Those Transcripts. They elaborate on an ongoing issue over Hillary’s transcripts of paid private speeches being available to the public. How does a candidate, who claims once elected she will be the voice of the average struggling American and hold big banks and Wall Street accountable, receive payment from big banks for her “private speeches”? We aren’t talking about a few thousand dollars here. She’s received millions collectively, and she feels she’s being treated unjustly, claiming “Why is there one standard for me and not anybody else?”

They go onto say she claims she will release the transcripts of these private bank and industry speeches if everybody else releases theirs, including the republicans. The republican party has never been shy to say they support big banks and tax breaks for the wealthiest of our Americans. No one speculates about their candidate’s private speeches, because we already know what they are promising them. However, when you have a potential democratic nominee who makes statements about wanting to better regulate big banks and weaken tax breaks for the wealthy, one doesn’t expect said candidate to appear at a private and paid speech to said banks.

The New York Times believe the people deserve to know where she truly stands. Those transcripts could be the proof that democratic party members and voters need to make a wise and educated decision on who they choose to nominate to run on election day. She seems to believe that she has already won her party’s nomination and fails to realize that at this time the republican party is not her running mate, Bernie is. Until she releases the transcripts of these paid speeches, no one will truly know her intentions as president.

I agree with the editorial board when they state “Public interest in these speeches is legitimate, and it is the public – not the candidate – who decides how much disclosure is enough.” Her “stonewalling” and rebuttals are something most would expect from a teenager, not a potential democratic nominee or future president.

The point of this article, in my opinion, is to help further inform the public of Hillary’s intentions. It’s obvious the editorial board of the New York Times are not her biggest fans. They have further provided proof of her misdoings and have raised questions about her character. Their opinions on her reactions to the release of these transcripts are justified. They believe she has an obligation to the public that wants to support her.

A Light at the End of the Ferguson Tunnel

Top of Form

     Ferguson. It’s a name we all have come to know too well. The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown was a turning point in the way our nation viewed the relationship between police and minorities.  Police corruption and brutality is an everyday occurrence in this St. Louis suburb. The predominately black community has suffered a tremendous amount from the people who have sworn to protect them. Now, I’m not saying every cop in Ferguson is crooked, but it seems to me that this particular orchard has a few too many bad apples. The cities officers had a history of abusing and wrongfully enforcing power long before Brown’s death.

     After the Grand Jury chose not to criminally charge Officer Wilson in the death of Brown, the residence of the city felt there was no hope to end the ongoing wrong doings Ferguson law enforcement continued to bring upon its citizens. However, after a thorough, 18-month long investigation into the practices of the Ferguson Police Department and municipal courts, the Justice Department has chosen to take action and sue the City of Ferguson for multiple violations of Civil Rights. The investigation was opened shortly after the shooting of Brown and is an effort to "force police reform."
      An article from The Washington Post says the DOJ found that the Ferguson Police Department and courts continuously “engage in unconstitutional patterns and practices of using force without legal justification and engaging in racially discriminatory law enforcement conduct.”
     This article is definitely worth the read. Racial inequality and discrimination has become a huge topic of late. There is a terrible rift that has developed in our society. I feel that this law suit from the DOJ is a huge win for equality. It shows that our government isn’t choosing to sit idly by and watch the country divide itself and allow our constitutional rights to be trampled on. For once, we can view an example of the government having our backs. They’re setting a precedence that needs to be set; law enforcement and city officials are suppose to protect us, not harm us. We forget that there are systems and people in place to defend us from wrong doers who try to deny us of our civil rights. We just have to remember that they sometimes work at a snail’s pace.