Last Post

I have submitted your evaluation!

Argumentative Essay Final Draft

The drinking age should be lowered to 18 instead of 21. Alcohol is not as prominent in other countries as much as it is in the United States therefore the United States has one of the highest drinking ages. The government thinks that by making the drinking age 21 it will lessen drunken driving accidents and the use of alcohol by teenagers. The fact that the drinking age is 21 makes younger people want to do it more, because they know they are not allowed. The United States government feels that they are controlling the drinking problem by limiting the drinking age. At the age of 18 you are officially an adult, and all decisions you make you should be responsible for. At the age 18 you can drive, go to war for our country, vote for president, but the government feels that letting an 18 year old drink would cause chaos.

The government is afraid to lower the drinking age back to 18 because they think, that everyone from ages 18 to 21 will go crazy and drink so much and cause a lot of damage. In my opinion lowering the drinking age to 18 will not cause as much chaos as politics and the government believes, because teenagers younger than 18 drink already. What the government needs to realize is that if teenagers want to drink they will always find a way. In my opinion lowering the drinking age might lower the amount teens drink because they will be allowed to, and it won’t be as exciting. The government says that 18 year olds are not mature enough to drink, the government is especially afraid of drunken driving accidents. The percent of drunk driving accidents would not increase, because with the drinking age being 21, anyone under 21 still drinks and they make sure they don’t drive because it would be more illegal. The federal government raised the drinking age to 21, by threatening states to lessen federal funds if they didn’t raise the age as well. After only a little over 20 years of having the drinking age being 21, several states are thinking about lowering the drinking age to 18. A major argument is that soldiers that fight in Iraq can be shot at and defend our country but can’t legally drink on United States soil. "If you can take a shot on the battlefield you ought to be able to take a shot of beer legally," said Fletcher Smith, who has sponsored legislation to lower the drinking age in South Carolina (Goldberg 1).

With the drinking age at 21, it encourages more binge drinking for younger people, and puts them into more dangerous situations. "I know people in high school who drink and that's well below the drinking age. I don't feel like lowering the drinking age would promote kids to drink; they're already exposed to it. The laws are used to keep people under 21 from drinking, but people under 18 drink. What is the success of that?" (Travis 1). Many people are just oblivious to the fact that people under the age of 21 drink. Once in college there are so many opportunities to drink, there are certain bars that allow you in and allow you to drink if you have a college id, they don’t even check your age. In college there are people from ages 17 to above the drinking age, so having all the different ages makes it very easy for underage people to get alcohol. Underage drinkers for the most part have to hide the fact that they are drinking, which can be very dangerous to their health. “About 90% of the alcohol consumed by youth under the age of 21 years in the United States is in the form of binge drinks.” (Quick Stats on Binge Drinking) The government shows that binge drinking is the highest form of drinking in underage drinkers. The government also states that the highest rate of binge drinkers is between the ages of 18 and 20. Underage drinkers have to drink in hidden places so they won’t get tickets or in trouble from their parents, not being able to tell anyone they are drinking can cause people to die. Binge drinking is much more dangerous than lowering the drinking age to 18 and allowing 18 to 21 year olds to drink in bars, and clubs.



The government should lower the drinking age back to 18 because having the drinking age at 21, doesn’t stop younger people from drinking to begin with. The government is afraid of what will happen right when they lower the age, but they do not think about the long term changes. The government doesn’t think about how lowering the drinking age would also help them by the taxes they would make off of the younger people drinking. The government pretends they are trying to do what is best for the citizens, but drinking is bad weather you let 18 or 21 year olds legally do it. In the United States the 18 year olds are considered adults, and are given many responsibilities, they are allowed to vote, get married, live on their own, and enlist in the army. Any person who is allowed to go and fight for our country in my opinion should be allowed to have a legal drink in the United Sates.




Works Cited
Goldberg, Suzanne. "Us States consider lowering drinking age." The Guardian (2008): 19.
"Quick Stats on Binge Drinking." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2008).
Travis, Helen Anne. "Debating the Drinking Age." St. Petersburg Times (2008): 18.

Extra credit about the G20 Project

This blog was very informational, i honestly had no idea about any of this and its crazy to actually see this happening in the US. The videos we watched in class were so shocking and they made it seem like the protestors were causing trouble when in fact they were just enforcing their free speech. I think the LRADs are way too powerful for a simple protest in Pennsylvania, and the police use tatics to keep the protestors from being able to leave. To know that the goverment has enough power to basically get away with anything they want if they say they need "emergency powers" is kind of scary. Our government is supposed to be a democracy and we are supposed to have the right to free speech, and free press and not allowing the protests to protest about the G20 project is infringing on that right. The news broadcasts that we watched about these protests made it seem like it was not the United States, and that the protestors were doing something wrong, and that the police had all right to do what they were doing.

Argumentative Essay

The United States drinking age should be lowered to 18 instead of 21. Alcohol is not as prominent in other countries as much as it is in the United States therefore the United States has one of the highest drinking ages. The government thinks that by making the drinking age 21 it will lessen drunk driving accidents and the use of alcohol by teenagers. The fact that the drinking age is 21 makes younger people want to do it more, because they know they are not allowed. The United States government feels that they are controlling the drinking problem by limiting the drinking age. At the age of 18 you are officially an adult, and all decisions you make you should be responsible for. At the age 18 you can drive, go to war for our country, vote for president, but the government feels that letting an 18 year old drink would cause chaos.

The government is afraid to lower the drinking age back to 18 because they think, that everyone from ages 18 to 21 will go crazy and drink so much and cause a lot of damage. In my opinion lowering the drinking age to 18 will not cause as much chaos as politics and the government believes, because teenagers younger than 18 drink already. What the government needs to realize is that if teenagers want to drink they will always find a way. In my opinion lowering the drinking age might lower the amount teens drink because they will be allowed to, and it won’t be as exciting. The government says that 18 year olds are not mature enough to drink, the government is especially afraid of drunk driving accidents. The percent of drunk driving accidents would not increase, because with the drinking age being 21, anyone under 21 still drinks and they make sure they don’t drive because it would be more illegal. The federal government raised the drinking age to 21, by threatening states to lessen federal funds if they didn’t raise the age as well. After only a little over 20 years of having the drinking age being 21, several states are thinking about lowering the drinking age to 18. A major argument is that soldiers that fight in Iraq can be shot at and defend our country but can’t legally drink on United States soil. "If you can take a shot on the battlefield you ought to be able to take a shot of beer legally," said Fletcher Smith, who has sponsored legislation to lower the drinking age in South Carolina (Goldberg 1).

With the drinking age at 21, it encourages more binge drinking for younger people, and puts them into more dangerous situations. "I know people in high school who drink and that's well below the drinking age. I don't feel like lowering the drinking age would promote kids to drink; they're already exposed to it. The laws are used to keep people under 21 from drinking, but people under 18 drink. What is the success of that?" (Travis 1). Many people are just oblivious to the fact that people under the age of 21 drink. Once in college there are so many opportunities to drink, there are certain bars that allow you in and allow you to drink if you have a college id, they don’t even check your age. In college there are people from ages 17 to above the drinking age, so having all the different ages makes it very easy for underage people to get alcohol. Underage drinkers for the most part have to hide the fact that they are drinking, which can be very dangerous to their health. If someone is with a group of people who are all binge drinking, no one is going to make sure everyone is still conscious. Underage drinkers have to drink in hidden places so they won’t get tickets or in trouble from their parents, not being able to tell anyone they are drinking can cause people to die. Binge drinking is much more dangerous than lowering the drinking age to 18 and allowing 18 to 21 year olds to drink in bars, and clubs.

The government should lower the drinking age back to 18 because having the drinking age at 21, doesn’t stop younger people from drinking to begin with. The government is afraid of what will happen right when they lower the age, but they do not think about the long term changes. The government doesn’t think about how lowering the drinking age would also help them by the taxes they would make off of the younger people drinking. The government pretends they are trying to do what is best for the citizens, but drinking is bad weather you let 18 or 21 year olds legally do it. In the United States the 18 year olds are considered adults, and are given many responsibilities, they are allowed to vote, get married, live on their own, and enlist in the army. Any person who is allowed to go and fight for our country in my opinion should be allowed to have a legal drink in the United Sates.






Works Cited
Goldberg, Suzanne. "Us States consider lowering drinking age." The Guardian (2008): 19.
Travis, Helen Anne. "Debating the Drinking Age." St. Petersburg Times (2008): 18.

Thesis Paragraphs

Alcohol is not as prominent in other countries as much as it is in the United States, therefore the United States has one of the highest drinking ages, when other countries like Italy do not have an age limit at all. The government thinks that by making the drinking age 21 it will lessen drunken driving accidents and the use of alcohol by teenagers. The fact that the drinking age is 21 makes younger people want to do it more, because they know they are not allowed. In my opinion I feel that having a higher drinking age in fact causes teens to drink more and then drinking becomes a serious problem and danger. Teenagers binge drink more because they can only do it on the weekends and also they hide it otherwise they would get in trouble for it. I still feel there should be a drinking age I just believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because at the age of 18 you are officially an adult, and all decisions you make you should be responsible for.
Lexis Nexis:
http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7732516703&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7732516706&cisb=22_T7732516705&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=138620&docNo=1

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7732516703&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7732516706&cisb=22_T7732516705&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=8213&docNo=4

http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T7732516703&format=GNBFI&sort=RELEVANCE&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T7732516706&cisb=22_T7732516705&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=11063&docNo=9

Gooogle:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/60minutes/main4813571.shtml

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=551

Clive Thompson on the New Literacy

Thompson writes about how the Internet does not actually have a negative effect on writing. Thompson talks about a study done by a professor at Standford University, the study shows that young people today are writing a lot more then young people without the Internet. Although the writing are not always essays and long articles, the writing that takes place online added up to 38 percent of the students writing on average. The study showed that the writing would change depending on who the audience was, and that students would not write essays they were excited or enthused about because there was no audience except for the professor. They had no personality coming across in their writing because the only point was to get a good grade.
Questions:
1. Does the audience really change the way people write and the tone of the writing?
2. Do people actually write more because of the internet?
3. Is writing in short hand and text messaging "language", hurting the way people write in general?

"New media and the Slow Death of Written Words"

Mark Zeltner, the author of the article “New Media and the Slow Death of Written Word,” starts by saying how he likes printed news better than news on the internet. Mark Zeltner acknowledges that the younger generations dislike newspapers, and would rather read the news on the internet. He is different from the other writers who believe that the new media is taking over the way news is portrayed. Mark Zeltner says that the new media is not completely new, “it is a compilation of many aspects of all the old traditional mediums.” Mark Zeltner agrees with other writers that the new media is changing our society, but he does not think that it is completely destroying the printed news.
I agree with some points that Zeltner makes in his article, but there are some points that I do not. Mark Zeltner says how the computer is bad for the eyes, and I agree fully with that, but the writing in the newspaper is not much bigger than the words on a computer screen. Staring at a newspaper for hours like some people do cannot be much better than reading the information on the computer. With the technologies we have now a person can enlarge the writing on a computer screen until they can read it unlike the newspaper where the most you can do is put on magnifying glasses. I disagree with Mark Zeltner’s point about the way the information is being consumed, whether reading it on a piece of paper or a computer screen, the words have the same meaning and the point of the article is still the same.
Mark Zeltner’s 10 rules for writing for the new media have some valid points. Rules 1, 2 and 3 are about gaining the reader’s attention and keeping it through the entire article while informing them of all the facts. Starting with rule 1 “Just the facts ma’am or keep your writing tight, tight, tight,” I agree that the writing has to be short, but have all the content it needs to have needs to be in it. Rule 2 “Anything over a screenful is a waste or click vs. scroll,” also has a valid argument because our generation and today’s society do not have the time to read articles that are too long. An article has to be interesting in order to engage a reader enough to make them want to go to another page of the article. Rule 3 “No Page is an Island or think in modules not chapters,” I agree with the fact that the writer should make it hard to miss important information, because most people will just skim an article for important facts rather than read the entire thing.
Rules 4, 5, and 6 are about keeping the reader entertained while not taking away from the effect the article is supposed to have on the reader. Rule 4 “A picture is worth a couple thousand words or when to embed images and when to just write,” I completely agree with this because I am more likely to pay attention to an article that has interesting pictures and I would be able to know what the article is going to be about before reading it. Rule 5 “Did you hear that or when a sound is more important than words, “ I disagree with this rule because if I were reading an article I would not wait for a sound clip to download, I would just read the article and hope that I did not miss anything from the sound clip. The part about adding music as a background is a good idea, but it cannot be distracting music. I can listen to my i-pod while reading and understand what I read, but if the music were like elevator music it would distract me even more. Rule 6 “Did you see that, or when a video clip is more important than words,” is another rule that I would disagree with because the fact that I would not want to wait for the video to download in order to watch it, so I think it would be a waste of time because most of the readers would not watch it.
Rule 7, 8, 9 and 10 are more about the structure of the article, and ways to keep the reader paying attention and not steering off to other websites, either through hyperlinks or to look something up. Rule 7 “Huh, What’s this or when to use descriptions and definitions,” is useful because if the definition is not on the page and the reader did not know what it meant, they would probably stop reading the article to look up the meaning, and this would distract them from the reading. Rule 8 “Ever take a trip without a road map or why hypertext is a wonderful, dangerous thing,” is another rule that I would agree with because hypertext will distract readers because they would click on them to see where they bring them and what they are about. Rule 9 “Want some fries with that or why sidebars can be an important part of every document,” is a rule I disagree with because when I am reading an article and there is a sidebar and it is very unlike that I actually read it. I think it is important to keep the reader focused on the main document. Rule 10 “Sometimes you can tell a book by its cover or why content and form are both important,” is an important rule to me, because the way the information is presented to a reader is very important because if it is in an interesting form and colors the reader will be more likely to want to read the article and more likely to pay attention while reading. Mark Zeltner states how he thinks that written words are not completely dying off but it is important for a writer to have other technologies in their writing in order to make the reader entertained.