Lowering the drinking age to 18

In the 80’s the legal drinking ages was raised to 21 in hopes that the government would be able to control drinking of young adults, thus decreasing vehicular deaths and accidents on the highways. In doing so there was a decline in fatal traffic accidents but this surely did not mean that people under the age of 21 stopped drinking. Underage drinking quickly became less common, but it lead to other issues lives lost to alcohol in places other than the highway are increasing in the 18 to 24 year old bracket contributed by alcohol poisoning and binge drinking. Some experts believe that having the legal drinking age at 21 is more harmful than helpful.

 Claims form have been brought forth form many Colleges and Universities that disagree with the legal drinking age. These schools believe that by outlawing alcohol consumption from those students under 21 is only making the problem worse. If the drinking age were changed to 18, Colleges would be able to regulate alcohol use, so students would not become overly intoxicated. This would probably cut down on the number of College campus alcohol-related deaths, since Campus officials would be able to better monitor alcohol use (petitiononline.com). From history we have seen that prohibition is not effective on the prevention of drinking, prohibiting teens from drinking in bars, restaurants, and public locations has the effect of forcing them to drink in unsupervised places such as fraternity houses or house parties. When teens get hurt from alcohol-related injuries or accidents, they are sometimes afraid of seeking medical help for fear of legal consequences. Lowering the drinking age will allow teens to drink alcohol in regulated environments with supervision (msnbc.msn.com).

Some people accuse law enforcement of not being equipped, unable to or not enforcing the law but the fact of the matter is the law is being enforced based on the number of arrests made, tickets written. Police departments have even raid parties suspected of condoning underage drinking writing tickets of every individual found drinking illegally but this still is not effective, the party would just be moved to a different location the next time. The police should not be running around chasing people writing tickets for having a beer in their hand. Instead young adults should be taught how to drink responsibly and effects of alcohol abuse like as done in other matters. As parents we don’t just throw car keys at them when they turn sixteen, knowing that they have little experience driving a car and expect them to figure it out. A suggestion was made that responsible drinking be taught in high school much like sex education is. If it is said that school teaches kids to be adults why leave out certain aspects of be responsible adulthood that is with out a doubting affecting young adults of our nation, we have done it with sex education why not alcohol?

  It is the stigma of “the forbidden fruit” which drive the underage to not just drink but to get dangerously drunk (     ) lowering the age limit in time would take the stigma away making drinking not such a big deal .The legal drinking age in many countries starts at 18 and there are some that do not have an enforced drinking age but yet the alcohol related issues are far less than ours. No one wants the problems we face with alcohol to continue we should work on our common goal to decrease if not stop them

To spank or not to spank…

Child Discipline

Now a days there is a big issue on how or even if one should discipline a child. It use to be, when I was growing up that what ever my parents said was law and that was final no debate not discussion. Child discipline should start in the beginning. You should enjoy holding, cuddling, and talking with your baby. Studies have reported that infants respond to the sounds of the human voice. Talking to your child early may help in your child’s brain development and train them to know what we expect by our tone.

Children are extremely fast learners in their early ages and at times will try to push the limits, to find out what they can get away with and how much. If the parents don’t take notice of that behavior and make an effort to stop it that may lead to an unruly child. I have noticed increasing number children with the upper hand in their family. With little respect for their parents and much less for elders, children are becoming more and more unruly which I believe is because of less effective methods of punishment. The debate over child discipline is so widespread that it is affecting the family system in society and will continue to do so. Some parents find them selves cautious in choosing a method of discipline because our society has changed, along with some regulations now that it is considered unacceptable to spank your child.

Despite the negative points said about a good butt whooping, I do believe in the occasional spanking. I agree with the first video below which states a timely smack on the butt prevents a lot of headache later. It teaches the child his limits and the consequences of disobeying the rules, it stops or prevents the child form testing their parents. On the other hand “a calmly delivered smack” would prevent the parents from getting frustrated lashing out at the kids in anger. I believe the spanking should not be used to put fear into a child but to teach them that their actions have consequences it should be the last resort after other methods has been applied. A child of 15 who has been brought up in a strong household should have been taught enough that you would not need to spank. Taking away friends, phones, TV, money should do the trick. Explain to them why you feel the way you do and discuss the issue with them, that should eliminate the need to spank.

Most people today think that there is something wrong with spanking.  They have been literally “brainwashed” by modern psychology, which claims that spanking is evil, and that children are inherently good. God Himself declared in the Bible that spanking “spear the rod and spoil the child” (Proverbs 22:15) is the basic way to discipline children.  Therefore, those who refuse to spank their children are in rebellion against God. The spanking method predates Jesus Christ, The American Academy of Pediatrics does not condone spanking at all claiming that spanking makes children aggressive , And the behaviors that those who were spanked more often at the age of 3 are likely to exhibit defiance, temper tantrums, getting frustrated easily and physical outbursts. But I have a hard time digesting this belief, children have been getting spanked for ages why now when we believe less in spanking we more people grow up with these symptoms?

http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2010/04/13/2010-04-13_spanking_kids_makes_them_more_aggressive_defiant_row and_prone_to_tantrums.html#ixzz0oDlF4lgN

Child Discipline

Week 5

Oral Composition

1. What is the authority of the commentary?

-The authority would be objective.

2. What type of argument is attempted (definition, evaluative, other)?

-The argument is evaluation of the changes in child discipline and the results of or lack there of it.

3. What evidence is cited?

-Yes the evidence is sited.  .

.4. Where do the two viewpoints conflict? How and why?

– View points conflict was on the second vedio when she said that a child should not fare the consiquence of what the did but the should fare the offence they did.

5. Which do you judge to be the most convincing? Why?

– To me the second was more convinceing because it explained more and gave more insight

The Effect of Firearm Controll

The Effects of Firearm Control

 

Numerous Studies have been done on the basis of firearm control due to the common belief that handguns cause more violence. This began in the 1960’s to the 1970’s when robbery increased by thirty percent and murder rate had doubled. Handgun ownership was also on the rise and soon caught up, grew steadily with the increase of crime. The National Commission on the cause and prevention of violence influenced the tabloids and magazines that handgun sales were the cause of the increase in violence making it the scapegoat there after. The theory kept up even though the 1980’s when firearm stocks continued to prosper while there was a significant drop in homicides. The result where even more striking when compared England homicide rates; in 1974 America’s homicide rates were 40 percent than England’s but in as little as 15 years America’s rates was only 10 percent more.

Anti-gun crusades have made claims that were wrongfully reinforced by false evidence. They would conceal declining American homicides (particularly gun homicides) by combining suicide and murder statistics, producing an “intentional homicide” rate that they can claim is caused by the increase of handgun ownership. They would also compare the American murder rates with other countries using the combine approach putting American rates at the front of the list. When it was discovered that the data was invalid due to suicides had been factored in, a new and updated test was done. The new study revealed that by removing suicide there was a huge difference in the results: the countries with less firearm had less violent crimes caused by gun.

The evidence from the international comparisons done by neutral parties confirmed and contradicts that posted by the anti –gun crusaders, the data reviled the increased gun ownership did not itself increase crime if any thing it damped it.

Firearm control laws don’t do what they are intended to do. While the legitimate user of the handgun encounters intense regulation and restrictions, the illicit markets adapt to whatever he sees fit to fit his needs. It also conflicts with our freedom and privacy interests which has been a core part of American public life.

Everyone knows that possessing a handgun makes it easier to intimidate, it’s not just to wound or kill. Think about uniformed police officer, who carries handguns in plain view not in order to kill people nut simply to daunt potential threats. Ant it works. Criminals generally do not single out police officers for that very reason.  

“Gun Control.” Just Facts.com. Web. 07 Apr. 2010. <http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp&gt;.

“Gun Control: Myths and Realities | David Lampo | Cato Institute: Daily Commentary.”  The Cato Institute. Tue. 06 Apr. 2010. .

“GunCite-Gun Control-International Homicide Comparisons.” GunCite: Gun Control and Second Amendment Issues. Web. 07 Apr. 2010. .

epitaph

Here I lie down in his layer.

Gone to rest with much despair,

I made sacrifice to bring to bring us near,

Today I stand saying a prayer

I would like to be remembered mostly,

As someone who was passionate for life.

The days of unsought ecstasies are numbered,
However long we linger in the light.
I was one who cultivated wonder,
Less of one contented to explain,
Delighted by the promises of hunger,
Enduring for their joy the years of pain.
Gifts I had aplenty: Some I savored,
Others sacrificed for others’ needs.
Remember me as someone who was favored,

Despite constraints, to tumble in the leads,
Ocean to what winds I could not be,

Nightrider through what worlds I could not see.

if you steal my car

Why would you want to steal my car? What did I do to deserve this torture? (These the questions that would be going through my head as my eyes become red with rage). I was on my way home from work only stopped at Kroger’s to get some milk for my cereal in the morning. Something told me I should keep not have stopped, I ran out of milk as seeing I was passing by, I made a quick stop. That was all it was suppose to be, a quick stop, but now here I am standing in the Kroger parking lot with a half-gallon of milk in my hand, sun blazing on my forehead, standing in the spot where my car should be, looking  around like a fool.

Now I’m beginning to think of all the stuff that was lost: my gym bag with all my mauy thai and weight lifting gear, my CD collection case with over three hundred CDs that took me years to collect ….MAN! I’m even more pissed… Elliot did tell me I sound not ride around with it in the car but I never listen and now it’s gone and I can hear his voice already “I’ve been telling you bra” that’s exactly what his going to say .

But wait a minute…what row is this? This is the …..Aw man I’m in the wrong row I’m parked in the back to the left by the black Toyota truck. And here I am in the parking lot like a raged bull spinning around in circles, getting all bent out of shape over nothing.

If you steal my car steal my car, who ever you are, you would not only put a wrench in my system but you would have put me in a world of hurt.

Now I would have had to (and was starting to think about already) replace all or at least most of the stuff that was lost. I would have had to call the police…. or should I call the insurance first?  What is the normal procedure for getting your car stolen? I think I should call the police first because the insurance agent would want a police report to begin with. Filing a police report which would be a pain staking endeavor. Waiting in the parking lot while I’m being baked for the officer to show up would at least take up to about 2 hours seeing that their response time is that of a snail on a leaf. After filing the report now I have to deal with my insurance, with that they may drop me or raise my rates.

Dealing with the insurance is the longest part in the process, with the investigation and paper work which could take months leaving me with out a car bumming on my friends for rides, taking the bus and walking more that usual. I would not even wait or expect the police to retrieve my car; auto theft is not an emphasis the police department don’t make any money from it.

Just one moment of me walking into the parking lot and walking in the wrong spot sends all these thoughts into my can you imagine what I would have to go through if my car was to have actually been stolen?

POIA

(POIA) 111-H4858

Public Online Information Act of 2010

 

All too often, information that the law requires be publicly available is hidden behind stone walls and paper barriers, leaving the people with little or no idea of the decisions being made on Capitol Hill. The POIA tears down these walls buy requiring the Executive Branch to make publicly available information that is within the pages of these bills, the citizens will be able to view, discuss and give inputs on the nation’s budget spending and new bills among others 

Introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) in with collaboration the Sun Light foundation, POIA requires Executive Branch agencies to publish public information on the Internet subject to limited, commonsense exceptions. It requires the government to adopt the openness and transparency. OMB’s E-Government Administrator and CIOs at independent agencies are responsible for developing regulations to implement POIA. And, the public is granted a limited private right of action (similar to that under FOIA) to guarantee that the government lives up to its transparency obligations.

A special federal committee will be created from a coalition all branches of government to coordinate the development of Internet based publication library. Policies will be implemented promote best practices generally, including data interoperability standards, and will keep the people up-to-date with new information in a user friendly format. The advisory committee’s 19 members – six appointed by each branch of government, plus one by GSA – are drawn from the public and private sectors and will serve as watchdogs, synthesizing the needs of agencies and the public and making recommendations on updating federal law.

 With a new transparency bill there is shifting the burden of proof form the tax payers to the government. Meaning that if a citizen thinks that his taxes are being miss-funded they have to take upon then selves to do the research and provide that evidence. To the every day citizen legal documents are daunting and don’t really mean any thing, they see it as a totally different language. Further more for a citizen wanted to find out information on an upcoming matter is very unlikely for the simple fact that the information is a timely and expensive process. Then to try decoding the hundreds of pages within this document people don’t have time or even the know how to do so, leaving the government with their trust to doing what is best. Transparency reverses that leavening the government to prove to the citizens that their tax money is being spent properly.     

POIA the access to information, the laws, bills and what’s going on in government means that people or institutions in the state of power know that they can be observed and will be held accountable for the actions that they take. This will also help to create a better informed public which will give people a sense of pride, keep people more involved with government and thus forcing the government to really listen to and adhere to the public’s request. When an impression is made by the government to the public that they are giving them access, and not just listening but adhering to their request and needs the people in turn will be more involved, proud and committed their communities. 

“Policy Center – Summary of the Public Online Information Act – SunlightFoundation.com.” Making Government Transparent and Accountable – SunlightFoundation.com. Web. 07 Apr. 2010. <http://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/summary-public-online-information-act/&gt;.

“Public Online Information Act (POIA) Announced. Libraries and the Public Cheer | Free Government Information (FGI).” Free Government Information (FGI) | Because Government Information Needs to Be Free. Web. 07 Apr. 2010. <http://freegovinfo.info/node/2938&gt;.

 THOMAS (Library of Congress). Web. 03 Mar. 2010. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111ufHLbG:e3714