Wednesday, March 27, 2013

Marriage Equality Outline




Claim:
The Supreme Court should decide to make same sex marriage legal throughout the United States.

Reasoning:
The Supreme Court should decide to make same sex marriage legal because love is love regardless of sexual orientation and I do not believe it is the government’s position or authority to make that kind of judgment.

Warrant:
Same sex couples do not choose to love each other or to be gay, therefore they should not be punished for it.

Backing:
This is just like straight couples cannot help who they love or the fact that they love the opposite sex. What or who can really decide if something so uncontrollable is wrong or right?

Grounds:
41% of American people are in favor of allowing same sex marriage.

The pope supports marriage equality. If the head of the Catholic church can support homosexuals, than we all can. He sees it as more of  a human rights issue rather than just same sex marriage.

As of now there is no place for gay married couples on the tax forms and so gay couples face larger bills and hassles.

Statistics show there are about 594,391 gay couples this does not include those not recorded or those who have not yet come out.

Qualifiers:
Most Americans in our generation support marriage equality.

Counter/ Rebuttals:
Some people may argue same sex marriage goes against American tradition however the divorce rates of today’s straight couple marriages had does that as well in an even worse way. Allowing same sex marriage does not “destroy the institution of marriage” nearly as much as those who cheat, divorce, or get married for anything other than love.

Sources:


http://www.glaad.org/blog/lgbt-religion-news-summary-new-pope-marriage-equality-advances-and-lgbt-religious-gatherings





Monday, March 25, 2013

Distracted Driving, Revised


Solution To Distracted Driving
Although most people agree that distracted driving causes many fatal accidents on the road, most people do not recognize that the activities they participate in while driving can be distracting for them. Distracted driving can be classified as eating, drinking, or being on a cell phone. The problem is that people think that they can handle the distractions and multi-task, they are overconfident in their driving abilities.  As a result, more fatalities are occurring on the road and innocent lives are being taken too soon. Distracted driving can affect anyone from any walk of life. For example, I have heard numerous stories of small children being struck by distracted drivers and dying. It does not matter who the driver is, how experienced he or she is, or who is in the car with them, distracted driving is capable of affecting anyone. More importantly, distracted driving kills and therefore steps should be taken in order to put an end to it. The amount of car accidents and deaths due to distracted driving is getting out of hand.  A great deal of this problem is caused by the use of cell phones while driving. With this said, cell phones should be banned while driving.
Most people do realize that banning cell phones completely while driving would decrease the amount of car accidents and deaths caused by car accidents in the United States, however, some still create excuses that would oppose my viewpoint. For example, one may argue that cell phones may be needed in case of an emergency. This is a very valid argument, however, the use of cell phones creates most of these emergencies. “A car driver talking on their phone is 1.3 times more likely to get into an accident” ("Cell Phone & Texting Accident Statistics." Edgarsnyder.com). Cell phone use is a large problem that contributes to car accidents and deaths and so, if the use of cell phones while driving was eliminated completely, the number of emergencies would decrease significantly. Another strong opposing view is that passenger in the car cause the same level of distraction as cell phone use, therefore, the ban of cell phones would be ineffective unless something was also done about passengers. “The University of Utah study, conducted in 2004, determined that drivers perform more efficiently when having a conversation with a vehicle passenger, as compared to having a conversation on a cell phone, because driving and traffic become a part of the actual conversation. Those communicating via a mobile phone were four times more likely to miss an exit than those talking with a passenger” (“Mobile Phones and Driving Safety State Laws” mobilemarketingstrategy.biz). The reason that passengers do not cause as much distraction is because they are able to alter their own conversation due to levels of danger around them.
                In my opinion, cell phones should be banned completely while driving in order to keep the drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safer and out of harms way. “In 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured. Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction” ("Distracted Driving." dc.gov). The statistics do not lie, and it is very apparent that the problem of cell phone use while driving is becoming a bigger deal each and every year. In today’s society America has become very materialistic and it is hard to find someone not reliant or obsessed with his or her cell phone. They have become so reliant that they cannot even put it down for the amount of time they are driving. I see this as a problem because most people underestimate their addiction and think that if they have their phone in the car with them they will be able to suppress the urge to text, tweet, email, or call. In reality, most people have the attitude that they can just check their phone for one split second and be fine. It only takes one split second, one split second to ruin someone’s life or even end it. Distracted driving is such a large problem for the reason that people do not even recognize it as a problem. If law takes this distraction away, we will all be better off.
There is not one person that would not benefit from a law banning cell phones while driving. Without cell phones in use on the road less accidents would occur and all people on the road would benefit and be safer. The drivers would be safer and not have to worry about the guilt that would come with killing an innocent person because of their distracted driving. Passenger would not have to have to feel unsafe and on edge in their friend’s car. These passengers would not have to worry about if they should speak up about the drivers’ cell phone use because the problem would not be occurring. Also, pedestrians would not have to worry about crossing the street and having a distracted driver coming out of nowhere and hitting them. Lastly, mothers and fathers of small children can worry less about their children playing in the front yard and having a distracted driving strike them. As shown in figure one below, innocent people, especially children, are usually affected by distracted driving. It only takes one second of distracted driving to take a life and “looking down for just a second” is not a good enough excuse to justify the ham and pain caused by it. The new laws would benefit us all by keeping us all safer on and off the roads.

Fig. 1. Distracted Driving Can Affect Anyone ("Ditch the Distractions!" lexleeskids.org)
Even though eliminating cell phone use while driving would be the best solution to the problem at hand, I do understand that a compromise to the two opposing views may need to be made instead. This common ground could be that a system or app could be placed on the phones so that while in the car, only emergency calls can be made. With this solution all other numbers, phone calls, and activities would be blocked so the distraction level would be decreased. However, in case of an actual emergency, 911 would be accessible to the driver. This seems to be the best compromise because both ends would benefit. It also seems to be the safest alternative because the driver would be less distracted but still be able to contact an emergency line.
In conclusion, cell phone use should be banned while driving in order to decrease distracted driving and keep everyone safer on and off the roads. As you can see, from figure two below, the way people perceive distracted driving is often wrong. The funny text that you are probably not even really laughing out loud at is minor compared to someone’s life. The number of fatal crashes due to distracted driving is disturbing and unnecessary. However, it can be put to an end with one simple law that takes away cell phone use completely in vehicles. The main problem is that most people do not think of themselves as “distracted drivers” and then in turn place themselves in dangerous driving situations. All in all it would be in everyone’s best interest to end the cycle and ban cell phones while driving.




Fig.2. Texting And Driving Leads To Crashes ("City of Golden Valley." goldenvalleymn.gov)





Works Cited
"Cell Phone & Texting Accident Statistics." Edgarsnyder.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar.            
            2013.
"City of Golden Valley." Golden Valley News. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Distracted Driving." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
            Control and Prevention, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Ditch the Distractions!" Lexlees Kids Child Safety and Injury Prevention. N.p., n.d.
            Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"MobileMarketingStrategy.biz ." Mobile Phones and Driving Safety State Laws. N.p.,
            n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Drunk Driving Presentation

                                      
                                      
                                                                                   
                                      
                                      



Thursday, March 21, 2013

Distracted Driving


Solution To Distracted Driving
Although most people agree that distracted driving causes many fatal accidents on the road, most people do not recognize that the activities they participate in while driving can be distracting for them. Distracted driving can be classified as eating, drinking, or being on a cell phone. The problem is that people think that they can handle the distractions and multi-task, they are overconfident in their driving abilities.  As a result, more fatalities are occurring on the road and innocent lives are being taken too soon. Distracted driving can affect anyone from any walk of life. For example, I have heard numerous stories of small children being struck by distracted drivers and dying. It does not matter who the driver is, how experienced he or she is, or who is in the car with them, distracted driving is capable of affecting anyone. More importantly, distracted driving kills and therefore steps should be taken in order to put an end to it. The amount of car accidents and deaths due to distracted driving is getting out of hand.  A great deal of this problem is caused by the use of cell phones while driving. With this said, cell phones should be banned while driving.
Most people do realize that banning cell phones completely while driving would decrease the amount of car accidents and deaths caused by car accidents in the United States, however, some still create excuses that would oppose my viewpoint. For example, one may argue that cell phones may be needed in case of an emergency. This is a very valid argument, however, the use of cell phones creates most of these emergencies. “A car driver talking on their phone is 1.3 times more likely to get into an accident” ("Cell Phone & Texting Accident Statistics." Edgarsnyder.com). Cell phone use is a large problem that contributes to car accidents and deaths and so, if the use of cell phones while driving was eliminated completely, the number of emergencies would decrease significantly. Another strong opposing view is that passenger in the car cause the same level of distraction as cell phone use, therefore, the ban of cell phones would be ineffective unless something was also done about passengers. “The University of Utah study, conducted in 2004, determined that drivers perform more efficiently when having a conversation with a vehicle passenger, as compared to having a conversation on a cell phone, because driving and traffic become a part of the actual conversation. Those communicating via a mobile phone were four times more likely to miss an exit than those talking with a passenger” (“Mobile Phones and Driving Safety State Laws” mobilemarketingstrategy.biz). The reason that passengers do not cause as much distraction is because they are able to alter their own conversation due to levels of danger around them.
            In my opinion, cell phones should be banned completely while driving in order to keep the drivers, passengers, and pedestrians safer and out of harms way. “In 2009, more than 5,400 people died in crashes that were reported to involve a distracted driver and about 448,000 people were injured. Among those killed or injured in these crashes, nearly 1,000 deaths and 24,000 injuries included cell phone use as the major distraction” ("Distracted Driving." dc.gov). The statistics do not lie, and it is very apparent that the problem of cell phone use while driving is becoming a bigger deal each and every year. In today’s society America has become very materialistic and it is hard to find someone not reliant or obsessed with his or her cell phone. They have become so reliant that they cannot even put it down for the amount of time they are driving. I see this as a problem because most people underestimate their addiction and think that if they have their phone in the car with them they will be able to suppress the urge to text, tweet, email, or call. In reality, most people have the attitude that they can just check their phone for one split second and be fine. It only takes one split second, one split second to ruin someone’s life or even end it. Distracted driving is such a large problem for the reason that people do not even recognize it as a problem. If law takes this distraction away, we will all be better off.
There is not one person that would not benefit from a law banning cell phones while driving. Without cell phones in use on the road less accidents would occur and all people on the road would benefit and be safer. The drivers would be safer and not have to worry about the guilt that would come with killing an innocent person because of their distracted driving. Passenger would not have to have to feel unsafe and on edge in their friend’s car. These passengers would not have to worry about if they should speak up about the drivers’ cell phone use because the problem would not be occurring. Also, pedestrians would not have to worry about crossing the street and having a distracted driver coming out of nowhere and hitting them. Lastly, mothers and fathers of small children can worry less about their children playing in the front yard and having a distracted driving strike them. The new laws would benefit us all by keeping us all safer on and off the roads.

Fig. 1. Distracted Driving Can Affect Anyone ("Ditch the Distractions!" lexleeskids.org)
Even though eliminating cell phone use while driving would be the best solution to the problem at hand, I do understand that a compromise to the two opposing views may need to be made instead. This common ground could be that a system or app could be placed on the phones so that while in the car, only emergency calls can be made. With this solution all other numbers, phone calls, and activities would be blocked so the distraction level would be decreased. However, in case of an actual emergency, 911 would be accessible to the driver. This seems to be the best compromise because both ends would benefit. It also seems to be the safest alternative because the driver would be less distracted but still be able to contact an emergency line.
In conclusion, cell phone use should be banned while driving in order to decrease distracted driving and keep everyone safer on and off the roads. The number of fatal crashes due to distracted driving is disturbing and unnecessary. However, it can be put to an end with one simple law that takes away cell phone use completely in vehicles. The main problem is that most people do not think of themselves as “distracted drivers” and then in turn place themselves in dangerous driving situations. All in all it would be in everyone’s best interest to end the cycle and ban cell phones while driving.




Fig.2. Texting And Driving Leads To Crashes ("City of Golden Valley." goldenvalleymn.gov)









Works Cited
"Cell Phone & Texting Accident Statistics." Edgarsnyder.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar.            
            2013.
"City of Golden Valley." Golden Valley News. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Distracted Driving." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease
            Control and Prevention, 14 Mar. 2013. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"Ditch the Distractions!" Lexlees Kids Child Safety and Injury Prevention. N.p., n.d.
            Web. 14 Mar. 2013.
"MobileMarketingStrategy.biz ." Mobile Phones and Driving Safety State Laws. N.p.,
            n.d. Web. 14 Mar. 2013.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Assignment #3

12.1
1.) The name of the tank tops "wife beaters" is an issue because it carries a strong connotation an stereotype to those who wear them.
2.) the three problems with the definition are that it suggests a man beating his wife, in fashion male dominance where men beat their wives should not be present, and the term should portray flattery not violence.
3.) These definitions were put in the essay to provide strong factual evidence for their argument. The author's definition is different because she defines it as a skinny0ribbed white T-shirts that can be worn under another shirt or alone rather than a tank that abusive individuals wear..
4.) the objection to the definition would be that it means a t-shirt worn by abusive individuals however,  I do think that she states her argument that this is bad name very convincingly.
5.)I believe that an image like this could be helpful to her because it shows a good looking model wearing the tank top rather than an abusive husband.

Assignment #2

2.1
1.) Because he was sheltered and was not allowed to enter certain elements of pop culture, he lacked an outlet for his true feelings and desires.
2.) He argues that a particular character eventually was able to "free" him and that the character was good for him because of the violence.
3.)He says that it does teach some children ways of violence, however, it has taught many more how to deal with the feelings they feel.
4.)By telling children violence and rage is bad, we confuse them about their own feelings. In other words, parents should not make children fear their feelings by telling them they are wrong.

2.8
According to Gerard Jone's , violent media can actually have positive effects on young people because it teaches them how to face their negative feelings and deal with them. jones also believes that violent media are a positive influence on children because it shows children that they should not be afraid to feel their emotions. Jones makes some good points. For example, he says that he consults to public schools and also raises a daughter, therefore he has the knowledge and is a reliable source. However, we must keep in mind that violence can be damaging to a child in some cases. All in all, Jones does have a strong argument on this issue and I think he backs it up very well with great evidence.

Assignment #1

"In Praise of Tap Water" New York Times
1.) People should should take into consideration more the cost and the impact on the environment before making the decision to drink bottled water.
2.) The arguments used in the first three paragraphs of this article are that drinking bottled water is more expensive than drinking tap, bottled water is bad for the environment, and it is actually not much healthier than tap water.
3.) "The real change, though, will come when millions of ordinary consumers realize that they can save money, and save money, and save the planet, by turning in their water bottles and turning on the tap."
4.) I feel as though the author could have had a stronger counter argument. He could have said it its more convenient in our busy lives to just grab a bottle of water. He could have then come back with the argument that reusable bottles could be purchased. He also could have used the argument that tap water isn't as clean as bottled water but them argued that tap water could be filtered before drinking.
5.) The purpose of this argument is to show that people of importance are on the author's side therefore the reader should be as well. Also it serves the purpose of showing the author's proposal is very doable and reasonable.

"Poland Spring Water" Polandspring.com
1.) Although 100% recyclable, the plastic still does a lot of damage to the environment and tap water does not leave any plastic behind.
2.) Tap water has no labels and uses up no resources.
3.) Again, tap water uses 0% of the plastic previously used.
4.) Tap water can also be easy to carry if put into reusable bottles.
5.) With reusable water bottles, recycling is even easier!

"Pure Water 2Go" Purewater.com
The argument being made here is that, although bottled water seems convenient at the time, it adds up. the picture is saying that even though it seems like a great alternative to tap water and is very recyclable, it only adds up to a giant pile of waste.