Wednesday, December 7, 2011

My Own Thoughts on Changing the Drinking Age

Unfortunately, I disagree with your stance on lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18. In your post you argue that "eighTEEN" year olds would be doing more drinking and driving than at 21 years old, which seems a bit far-fetched. No matter what the age, there are people in this world that are too selfish to realize that they would be endangering themselves as well as others by getting into and driving a car while intoxicated. Also, it seems more likely that people that are legally able to drink in public would have more reason to get into a car, while intoxicated, in order to make it home. The reason  why so many 18 year olds are "binge drinking" is partly because they are not able to drink legally so when they manage to obtain alcohol, they have to consume their contents quickly since it is not legal for them to be consuming any alcohol at all. Your argument that at 18 many people are not mature enough to drink at that age again is a bit far-fetched. At 18 years old you are able to vote for our president and the policies that they represent, which is a pretty huge responsibility. With that in mind, if the drinking age was lowered to 18, most responsible 18 year olds would stay in line and not become crazy bingeing alcoholics if given the option. People that are prone to being crazy and getting behind the wheel while intoxicated are probably going to have the same general mindset at 21 years old as well. I am not saying that we should lower the drinking age to 18, but if it were lowered, I don't think it would be the end of the world. "With great power, comes great responsibility", so if you gave 18 year olds the chance to drink at that age, they would most likely step in line and try to prove that drinking legally at 18 can be a responsible yet still fun time.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Eliminating the Electoral College

In the past couple elections you have heard more and more about eliminating the electoral college which to me sounds like a plausible and excellent idea. I am not saying that the electoral college wasn't an amazing idea and that it did help our nation for some time. However, as our nation's population continues to prosper the electoral college seems much less useful. Not only is our population greater than it used to be, but more of our nation is better educated on our Government and how it works and the electoral college really doesn't seem necessary anymore. Not only is our nation much more informed, but more ethnic groups across the board are educated on our Government and no longer need representation from the electoral college in order to have their voice heard. It is time for the United States to adopt a direct democracy, since it is the most democratic way of voting, which is what the United States strives for. The electoral college is such an archaic system in the first place, and really makes the idea of voting in a democratic system void and null since it comes down to the electoral college's decision. Our nation could change for the better if we adopted direct democracy and let go of the archaic voting system we have held onto for so long.

Friday, November 11, 2011

Commenting on "Controversial Precaution" by Amber Scanio

Regarding the post "Controversial Precaution" by Amber Scanio, I believe that making the HPV vaccine mandatory is going to help save women's lives and no amount of stigmatism over the issue should stop the US from making this vaccine mandatory. A large portion of America finds it unsettling to have young girls, that shouldn't necessarily be sexually active, have to get the HPV vaccine which essentially allows girls to be sexually active without the possibility of contracting the human papillomavirus. Many people regard this vaccine as way to promote promiscuity. This is a ridiculous notion, getting the vaccine does not make you suddenly promiscuous, at the end of the day it comes down to morals instilled in people long before they get the vaccine. It is ridiculous to believe that people are going to try to stop young girls from getting this vaccine because they are afraid they will become sexually active, which will in turn put them in jeopardy and may cost young girls their lives. Fear Mongering tactics used by such people as Michelle Bachmann are always going to be around to try to scare people into thinking things, i.e. vaccines, are bad or harmful to the nation, but in reality these vaccines are made specifically to help.

Friday, October 28, 2011

Occupy Wall Street: Let's Keep the Movement Alive!

         Anytime in the last 3 weeks if you happened to turn on the television, flip through a newspaper, or go to any sort of mainstream news website you would find without a doubt the words "Occupy Wall Street". Even though the media has been doing day to day coverage on Occupy Wall Street many are not informed on how important Occupy Wall Street is to our Government and why it is is important that we keep this movement alive.
          Occupy Wall Street has been going on since September 17th and has managed from week to week to gain in followers or supporters of their cause. At first Occupy Wall Street may have seemed like any ordinary protest about big business versus the rest of the nation, but as it continues to gain more support and spreads throughout the nation, the protest only becomes stronger. It is imperative that Occupy Wall Street continue to grow, especially, since the protest has already shown to be stronger than anyone anticipated. This can be seen through numerous other demonstrations of "Occupy" going on throughout the  nation as well as support from several Democrat and Republican politicians. Several different unions have decided to back the Occupy Wall Street protests as well, which gives validity to these protests and show the protests have the ability to make a definite change in our Government.
        Occupy Wall Street is going to change our nation for the better if the protests keep up the way that they are. Not only will the protests help make a change in better equality of money distribution and help the U.S.'s national debt, but, it is also making our nation, the 99%,  more unified than it has been, possibly ever. This sudden unity of people from all over the nation shows the possible first steps to change in America in ways that will significantly change our nation for the better. This unity shows that maybe direct democracy in America could stand a chance, which would change the way our nation is run in a huge way.

Friday, October 14, 2011

Free Trade: Is it good for America?

In the article Congress finally gets it: Free Trade is good for America, which was found at The Christian Science Monitor, it talks about the recent free trade agreement that the US is signing with Columbia, Panama, and South Korea. The article goes into some detail about how this free trade agreement is going to help our nation on several different levels. The author of this editorial is targeting an audience that is generally concerned about US government that is around 20 years of age or older. While the article is intended for an audience that is more knowledgeable of Government the author does a good job of summing up what this agreement will mean for the US. The author's knowledge of the US's current economic status and the use of data provided helps the readers trust the validity of the author's arguments. I agree with the author's overall idea that the agreement that President Obama is agreeing to is going to be good for the nation. Some of the positive outcomes of this agreement that the author mentions are the fact that the agreement is expected to "help the American economy grow by 2.5 billion", more and better "employment opportunities" and "boost sales and exports." This agreement is going to help our economy grow and at the same time we are going to be uniting with 3 other countries that will be able to assist in our economic revival. It is not to say that this agreement is 100% fool proof but the authors many reasons for why this free trade agreement is going to be good for America makes the authors argument much more valid.

Friday, September 30, 2011

Everyone Should be Required to Have Insurance?

USA Today Editorial

In the Editorial from USA today titled "Everyone Should be Required to Have Insurance" argues the fact that the GOP needs to start embracing the idea that everyone that can afford to have healthcare, should have healthcare. I completely agree with the authors argument that everyone needs to start getting health care. The author is trying to reach out to the general public that may not be as aware of the proceedings of the GOP debates. I feel that the author makes a valid argument in this editorial. The author gives example of how all of the candidates have dodged the topic of health care time and time again. They also go into detail on how the few responses the candidates have given have been hypocritical of what they have previously backed. The authors main argument is that the GOP needs to be backing the recent mandate which would make anyone that is able to afford health care have to purchase it. The author provides plenty of evidence to support the idea that the GOP needs to start touching on health care. The author makes another valid point on why people should be accepting the mandate when they mention the process of how hospitals charge others more money in order to cover the cost of people that can't afford to pay at all when they go to a hospital. I completely agree with the author that the candidates need to start backing this issue. It's hard not to be swayed with there is such blatant evidence that our system of "health care" we currently have is not helping. The author mentions how Ron Paul unsuccessfully was able to help out his campaign mangers financial woes after his death in 2008 even though, he claimed that people pulling their funds together would solve the problem of having immense medical bills. This along with other examples of how the system we have is not working and that our health care system needs to change. 

Friday, September 16, 2011

Faltering Before a Nation

     I found this particular article while perusing the ABC News website: "Former Advisor: Bachman Blew Debate Momentum with Vaccine 'Mistake'." Bachman's political trail has been somewhat scattered with blunders and it is my job as a concerned citizen to read further. The article talks about a few of  Michele Bachman's bumps along the way in her presidential race for the republican nomination.
     The article goes on to talk about how Rick Perry and Michele Bachman went head to head in a debate that gained Bachman praise when the topic of Perry's recent plan to make all young girls get the HPV vaccine came up. Bachman criticized his idea and even went on to talk about the real reasons as to why Perry is suddenly wanting to implement this plan. The article then goes into detail about how Bachman dived headfirst into her own presidential campaign demise. Over Labor Day weekend one of Bachman's campaign runners left her campaign and then publicly ridiculed her campaign methods. From that point forward Bachman has started to spiral out of control. From such remarks stating that the HPV vaccine causes mental retardation to making fun of the hurricane that devastated the Eastern coast. The article goes into more detail on why her campaign could be in serious trouble.
     Not only is this article a bit of a spectacle on how uncensored Bachman is but it also shows the instability of her campaign and the possible flaws that could lead to her demise. The mere fact that people from her own campaign are abandoning her doesn't bode well. Mix her crass remarks into the melting pot of all of the other politicians more subtle techniques of putting their ideas out there and it could lead to her losing the nomination.

Click on this link for the entire riveting article