DIY Government

  Lieutenant Governor of California Gavin Newsom signed into law a measure that allows players to receive endorsement deals, despite the National Collegiate Athletic Assn. calling the move unconstitutional. I believe that other states should follow in his path. Student athletes are constantly getting exploited by the school to profit. The argument is always that student athletes are compensated with school tuition being paid for. Yet the amount of effort and profit the schools are making from games and coverage is enormous amount. I am not proposing the schools pay the athlete but instead allow major companies to endorse them. Companies such as Nike, Adidias, and the list goes on; are always looking for the next player going to the pro athlete level. Allowing these companies to attach the name will not only benefit the school but also the player. Students need to be able to receive a little bit of income from the amount of time they put in to perfecting their craft.  Colleges are co

For this blog, I am discussing an article I found on the Daily Kos  written by Walter Einenkel. the article starts by talking about Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) a company that had to file for bankruptcy after the wildfires that have taken place over California and led to billions of liability cases which crippled the company. San Franciso offered 2.5 billion dollars to buy the electrical Grid from PG&E. why wouldn't the company take the offer? Walter Einenkel found this statement from  t he city attorney " We're not interested in profit. We're interested in providing safe affordable power to ratepayers rather than trying to make sure that stockholders are getting some great rate of return on their investment." This statement alone made me want to side with the company agreeing with the city attorney, and after all affordable anything for the public, I can get behind.  PG&E cam back with a statement to decline the offer and instead of working on

While reading on USA Today I came across an opinion article stating Trump didn't have to with drawl troops from Syria to keep his promise on his campaign. I being a veteran and always for bringing troops home still agree with the author's. They both make great and valid points you can tell they have done there research talking about this issue. An example would be when the authors report "The current U.S. military presence in Syria of 1,000 troops represents 0.05 percent of all American military forces in uniform today." that is a small amount of troops deployed into that area in the gram scheme of things, but could have a bigger effect if something was to happen. Both authors state how we do not elect based on issue-by-issue, and that meaning they may not keep all promises but do we as Americans really expect that anymore? I believe that it comes down more to the overall how did the president do and who the upcoming candidates are. Withdrawing troops to fulfill on