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.

Thesis Paragraphs

Same Sex Marriage-
The government is always trying to be less discriminative towards non-whites, and non-Americans, but with same sex marriage being illegal in most states they are discriminating against non-straights. As the citizens of America we grow up being taught to not discriminate against people because they are different then us, and same sex marriage being illegal is doing the exact opposite.The United States church and government are supposed to be separated, but in this case they are not. The government is being unfair and although same sex marriage goes against most religious views, the government should not have a say over whether same sex couples can be married.


Drinking Age-
The United States has one of the highest drinking ages, some countries do not have drinking ages at all because there is no need for them. The government thinks that by having the drinking age at 21 it will be better for the country which in fact it is not. Underage drinking happens and everyone knows whether they want to or not. The fact that underage teens will get in trouble for drinking they hide it which can be more dangerous to their safety. The government also thinks that by having a higher drinking age their will be a lower death rate due to drunk driving accidents, but instead of not allowing teens to drink the government should be making the public especially the teens aware of the dangers of drunk driving and have more severe consequences for drunk driving.


Censorship in Music-
Although there should be some blocks on what is allowed to be said in songs, the rules should not be as strict as they are. The government tries to hide the real world to people, so when a new song comes out they have to make sure they are appropriate for all ages and what they want the public to hear. Artists have to make a version of a song, and if the song wants to be played on the radio they have to change it and yes they can sell the unedited version, but sometimes songs are completely changed because you are not allowed to curse in them. Cursing happens, and so does almost everything else that artists sing about in their songs, but if the government thinks it is not suitable for the public they have to make a censored version of the song.

Article Summaries

In Nicholas Carr's article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" he is talking about how although many people are actually reading more than before, they are interpreting and reading the material in a different way because of the internet. Nicholas Carr is saying how the way we research and use the internet to do everything is changing the way people think, because instead of having to research with books, they just go online and can go from site to site in matters of seconds. People believe that our brains used to work like clockwork but now that we use the computer and the internet so often they are working like computers. Neuroscientists say that our brains change at a biological level when adapting to new technologies. The internet is now used for almost all the other technologies we need, like a tv, clock, calculator and others. The way the internet sends us the information it scatters our brains to different things at once and makes ours concentration levels really low. Nicholas Carr is stating that Google, wants to be the "perfect search engine" so they can give the people using it exactly what they want faster than anything else would be able to, in order to make people think and read information faster. The owners of Google, want to make a search engine that can take the place of the human brain, because they think the brain is like an outdated computer.
In Chris Hedge's article, "The Internet is No Substitution for the Dying Newspaper Industry" is about how the internet is not going to save the newspaper industry. Chris Hedge is saying that although almost all newspapers have websites they are still doing bad because the internet is only bringing in a small portion of the revenue for the newspaper. The internet is challenging the way people get news, because if they are reading online instead of watching the news or reading the newspaper they go to sites that agree with their beliefs. Chris Hedge says that about 80 percent of reporting is done by newspaper and wire service, so without them we would be missing something. The news gives us all the information even if we do not agree with it, unlike blogs who say the writers opinion and two different blogs about the same topic can be completely different because of the writers opinion and because they are free to write what they want and can not get in trouble for it, like newspaper writers would. When readers read the New York Times online they are not reading completely they are browsing and skimming. The corporate companies in the United States are controlling the news, and they would rather not have the citizens hear the real news because that would lead to them asking questions. The companies are making the news amusing and entertaining instead of informational and boring.
I agree with both authors of these articles, because I do believe that the internet is changing the way we think and process information. Although I think it is changing us I think it is for the better not for the worse. I believe that people know more than they would without the internet because even if they aren't looking for information they learn things about topics they weren't looking up because of headlines, and advertisements on the pages they are reading. Although people are not reading the articles and research completely they are skimming and getting through more articles than they would if they had to do research with books and without the internet's help. I also agree with Nicholas Carr that the computer is taking the place of many of our other technologies, instead of using a calculator, you can type a math eqaution into google and it gives you an answer which is sometimes faster than using an actual calculator. The internet is used by many people to watch tv shows that they missed, you can find almost any tv show online, which in the past you would have had to remember to set a vcr to record the show. In my opinion the internet is helping people read and find out news and things that are happening in the society, because there are more people that will read the news on the internet because they saw something about it on another website they were on, then go out and get an actual newspaper. I disagree with Nicholas Carr because I don't think the internet is something that is bad because yes it is changing the way people process information because they don't read full articles. I don't read the newspaper because the articles are too long and annoying to read, but I would skim through articles online to learn what is going on in our society.

Vandalism or School Prank?

Seaford, Ny- Local school officials get police involved to figure out which students did a prank of covering the school's lawn with pumpkins.

In today's society pranks done on school grounds by seniors are happening more and more. The seniors feel they have to out do the past seniors, so they will be remembered for years to come. Some schools do nothing about school pranks because they know the kids are just doing it to be remembered and to leave their mark on their school. In other cases like Seaford High School the officals feel that if they let this prank go the pranks will get worse year by year and they do not want to have vandalism or things to make the school look bad in their neighborhood.

Local school's seniors take pranking to a whole new level, they covered the entire school's lawn with pumpkins. School officials are taking these acts very serious and want to punish the culprits greatly. "They will be suspended for a month, and have to clean up the mess they made, and do community service," said School's Principal. We got to interview some of the kids from the school, one being a senior "I don't know who did it but it was just a prank that they want to be remembered for, none of what was done has caused permanent damaged, so I don't see the big deal, " Said Joe, Senior.

The police are questioning all students, and parents of the seniors to see if their children were home the night the incident happened. When we asked parents opinions they agree that it was a harmless crime and noone should get in trouble for this, it's like suspending someone a whole month for starting a food fight. The school officials are being completely harsh with their punishment, and maybe if they weren't going to have such a problem then they seniors who have done this would come forward.

The seniors just thought it was going to be a prank to be remembered by and did not realize everyone was going to take it so serious. Students from the school say that the seniors do a prank every year and they get in trouble for it but not as serious as this year, and this year's prank is not as bad as some of the other years, because all they have to do is take the pumpkins away. In the past students have spray painted the lawns and let animals loose in the building during school hours, and thouse students only got in school suspension for a week or two at most. The officials figure if they show the students they are taking the pranks done to the school very serious then the students will be less likely to do one in the following years.

The students of the school feel that the principal is going overboard and making the prank a bigger deal than they should, noone got hurt and there was no permenant damage to the school inside or outside.

The Onion Review

After reading several stories from The Onion, the stories are funny articles because instead of looking at stuff from the journalism view they look at it completely different and put a different spin on everything. One story about Derek Jeter, and his 2,722 career hit instead of looking at it as he passed a great baseball player, to make it more amusing The Onion wrote about how he was 12 dozen hits less than another player, and that everyone was celebrating Derek Jeter still being behind him. The Onion takes stories or people who are in the public eye at a certain point in time and make satire articles about them so people can know whats going on but with a spin on it, that isn't really going on and makes it interesting to read.

Amanda's life and Times

Fatal Car Accident, Friends Remember Teenage Girl’s Life
By: Amanda Wright

July 10th, 2006

Seaford-Early Sunday morning, young girl driving east on Sunrise Highway, hits teenage girl, Jamie, and flees the scene, friends gather to mourn the loss of their friend.“She was the nicest girl anyone knew and I just don’t know why this had to happen to her” said Amanda Wright

Early Sunday morning, Jamie Carbonell was in a hit and run accident after spending the night at a church carnival with all her friends. After Jamie walked one of her friends to the train station to make sure they got home ok, she was crossing sunrise highway, when a 20 year old women hit Jamie and sent her flying in the air and landing 20 feet from where she had been hit. Jamie was with two friends, L.A and Jamal, who had to witness one of the very close friends die. Jamie was dead on impact and there was nothing they could do for her. Minutes after the accident, Gonzo, friend was on scene and he was the brave on to call Ruth, Jamie’s mother to let her know about the accident.

Later that morning, after Jamie’s friends found out about the accident, they all gathered at Jamie’s house to remember her. The friends were trying to comfort, Jamie’s siblings as well as L.A and Jamal, because none of them could have imagine how they would feel if they saw the accident and knew they couldn’t have done anything to save her.

That night they all went to the same church carnival they had been at for every night the past week, but no one was happy and no one could do anything but think about the night before when Jamie was with them, and she was trying to fix everyone else’s problems. “All I could think about was how the night before Jamie was here with us and she was trying to calm me down, because I had been fighting with my boyfriend,” said Amanda Wright, “She was always there to help when anyone needed it and she would always comfort you and tell you everything is going to work out.” All of Jamie’s friends had the same thoughts and feelings about her and they were all saying that they couldn’t believe something so bad could happen to someone so nice. The only reason Jamie was crossing the street that late was because she wanted to make sure someone else got home ok, she was always putting others before herself.

Later on Sunday night, all of Jamie’s friends and family gathered at the scene of the accident, they lit candles and brought flowers in memory of Jamie. Even though they knew it was illegal it didn’t stop anyone from writing messages to Jamie, on the parking curbs. The night of the accident Jamie had won a nemo stuffed animal from the carnival, so that was put at the memorial for her, along with pictures of her and things that reminded Jamie’s friends of her.

All of Jamie’s friends wether they had been friends before knowing Jamie, or they were just meeting each other because they had Jamie as a common friend, where all there to help condole each other. “I remember trying not to cry because all my friends were hysterically crying and I knew they needed someone to be strong,” said Amanda Wright “But after a while I couldn’t help it and next thing I knew my friends brother was hugging me and telling me everything was going to be ok.”

Friends of Jamie said they will never forget her and that their lives will not be the same without being able to see her smile, or talk to her about their problems, or be able to get one of her hugs that just made everyone’s problems ok for a little while

Remebering Jamie

In July 2006 I had a tragic event happen, one of my very close girl friends, Jamie was hit and killed in a hit and run accident. I remember being at work on a Sunday morning, and when I went on my break I had like 10 missed calls, and 2 or 3 messages. When I called my voicemail the first was from my friend Teash, saying to call her as soon as I could, and the other was from my brother saying something happened and to call him on Vinny's phone as soon as I could. So the first thought that came to my mind was that something happened to Vinny and that's why my brother told me to call his phone, but when I called my brother he told me that our friend Jamie had been hit by a car and died at first I didn't believe him and I was like no way could that have happened. So after going back to work for 2 more hours, and when my mom picked me up and brought me home, the first thing I did was called my other friends and everyone was at Jamie's house so I got changed and walked over to her house. This was when I found out the details, on where, and when she was hit, I also found out that my friends L.A and Jamal were with her and saw the whole thing happen. Jamie was hit by a girl in her mid-twenties and she drove away after hitting her, we don't know why but the girl for some reason came back to the scene hours later, and was put under arrest after claiming she didn't see Jamie as she was crossing the street. The accident happened around 12 on Saturday night, and after the driver claimed she didn't see Jamie, she said that she saw L.A which still to this day doesn't make sense because Jamie was white and L.A was black so if you saw either of them you would see the white one, not the black one. The driver was speeding to make matters worse, and not only was jamie hit, she flew 30 feet and when she hit the ground she died on impact. July 9th was one of the worst days of my life, because I had become close with Jamie in the past 3 or 4 months, but for some reason my group of friends would exclude her when we went out sometimes, and looking back on it we all felt so bad. On July 8th there was a carnival at the church, around the block from where she was hit, and we were all there hanging out together and I remember when I went to leave I was saying goodbye to everyone, and I hadn't said goodbye to Jamie and I was about to leave, but something in me made me turn around and say goodbye to her, and I remember giving her a hug and saying I'll see you tommorrow. Looking back on that night I was so happy I said goodbye to her otherwise I would have missed saying goodbye to her and never had the chance to. The next few days were hard, because there was the wakes, the mass, and the funeral, my whole group of friends went to all of them, and it was so sad to see everyone crying and wishing that she was there with us instead of us being there because of her. The worst part of the accident was that Jamie was the nicest person I ever knew, and it just sucked that it had to happen to someone who was such a good person. Jamie died when she was only 19 years old, she had so much time to live and she would have done great things in her life.

Blogging Articles

Michael Skube writes about how bloggers should not be considered journalists. He says that journalism is not just a hobby like blogging is for most people. Michael Skube feels that blogging is hurting the journalism and reporting fields. The article describes how blogging is becoming more and more popular, and that the blogs are a side hobby that bloggers do and they are very opinionated. Another journalist finds it very strange that the bloggers are mostly blogging for free and doesn't understand why anyone would write for free. Bloggers feel that they are a new kind a journalist that give opinions and their views not only the politically "right" views. Bloggers are challenging journalism and politics with their blogs, because they can write about what ever they want and do not have to adhere to any of the rules that journalist that write for newspapers have to. A famous journalist Lasch, once wrote that what democracy needs is a debate, not information like facts and numbers but what people think about and their opinions and ideas. This was written before blogging had occurred, and bloggers agree with it completely. Michael Skube on the other hand feels that the blogging sensation and their ideas and opinions are less important than Lasch had said they would be. Michael Skube feels that blogging should not be considered journalism because journalists and reporters face dangers to get their information and that they spend much more time on an article than a blogger does on a blog post. Bloggers do not check their facts like journalists have to because to bloggers their opinions are more important then the facts.
Michael Skube's article and Andrew Sullivan's article are both about blogging and how it is changing the journalism field, but their views on blogging are completely opposite. Andrew Sullivan is a blogger, and also a journalist for the New York Times, but he feels that blogging is the more important one because he gets to express his opinion without having to be politically correct. Michael Skube is a writer for the Los Angeles Times, and believes that blogging is hurting the journalism field because articles need facts not opinions. Andrew Sullivan feels that news articles are opinionated but factual opinions because if the writer's opinions were in the story then the article would not be a editorial. The articles are still opinionated though because the writer can pick the facts that only support his ideas and leave out the ones that oppose him ideas. The two men both agree that blogs are very opinionated, one-minded, and the bloggers emotions towards the topics are very known to the readers.
I agree with Andrew Sullivan more than Michael Skube, although he makes some good points. In my opinion Andrew Sullivan's argument is better because it is better to know other's opinions on certain matters, especially because if you read a news article they are harder to read because it is all facts. With news articles you also have to pick out the facts and you would never get both sides of a story from 1 news article. I feel that blogging is helping the journalism field, and the country because people can get their thoughts out their for others to see without having to pay a lot of money and without having to have someone else agree and think that their thoughts will make money.

The "Seaford" Idea

Seaford is just a little town on the south shore of Nassau County, although the people who live there believe it to be much more. When I moved to Seaford, from Plainedge school district I was surprised to see how different the two communities were, even though they were literally 5 minutes away from each other. From the outside Seaford looks like a small upper class predominately white, good place to raise kids with a good school district. But as we have all been told many times, you can’t judge a book by the cover, the same applied to Seaford. Once living there and getting to know people I realized that the town was completely different than what my mom had thought and intended for us to live in.
The residents of Seaford do not realize it but living in Seaford was hurting them socially, because they are not exposed to diversity at all. They entire town of Seaford had about 1 black family and like 2 or 3 Spanish, but everyone else was white and either Italian or Jewish with few exceptions. I would consider a lot of the Seaford residents to be racist, not because they choose to be but because they were never exposed to anything else so they do not know any better. The town is filled with upper class families so along with not being exposed to diversity they kids are given what they want and whenever they want it. The kids in Seaford are so spoiled that most of them did not have to work at all during high school and they got brand new cars and their parents would pay for their gas, insurance, and if anything ever broke they would just ask their parents for the money. Most of the kids in my high school would have brand new cars and would not even know how to park in a parking space with cars on both sides of them. They also were the most stuck up people I have ever met, if you did not wear Hollister or Abercrombie or have brand name bags you were an outcast and yeah other towns do the same thing but not as much or as badly as Seaford does. I would always think of when everyone went to college they would be in for a rude awaking because they are all very childish and none of them ever do anything without at least like 3 or 4 other friends with them. From the outside Seaford looks like a good place, and there are not kids hanging around the streets like in other towns that most people think are bad places to have a family. Once on the inside though they are just like every other town with teenage drinking, drugs, and teenage sex. Seaford is such a small town, especially because the way they divide up the schools, people who live in seaford go to either Plainedge schools, Seaford schools, or JFK Highschool, which made the Seaford school district even smaller than the town itself. Seaford has 2 elementary schools, one middle school and one high school. The highschool has less than 1000 people enrolled from 9th grade till 12th grade. Since Seaford is such a small town everyone knows everything about everyone else. I remember within a week of living there everyone knew like my whole life story even people who I never talked to ever. The girls in Seaford are also very protective when it comes to the guys, they would make sure that their boyfriends never talked to the "new girl" which at the time was me and I didn't realize this. I remember moving to Seaford in December of 9th grade, and the first day I started there were multiple kids who came up to me asking if I drank or smoked, and then when I answered they asked if I was “straightedge,” and having no idea what that meant I knew I was not going to fit in at this school. Within a week of living in Seaford, there were two kids in 9th grade, one boy and one girl who had both been hospitalized, both for alcohol poisoning, one of which had to have their stomach pumped. I had lived in Seaford not even a full 3 months before the first time that I drank, and then suddenly I fit in and was not looked at as an outsider. This was strange because I never thought of myself drinking before I was at least in college and now 3 months of living in Seaford I was already drinking. People would think that alcohol and drugs were not a problem because most kids are not on the streets doing them, because there were a few parents who allowed to the kids to drink at their houses. Within 6 months of living there I knew of at least 3 drug dealers who were less than 18 years old, and I had tried weed which again was a shock because I will not even smoke a cigarette. I knew of multiple people being arrested for possession of weed, and not only if that wasn't bad enough they brought it to school with them. Once they did a anonymous survey of my english class in 10th grade to see if how many people have drank and every single person except 1 in my class said they have drank at least once. They also asked how many people have smoked before and about half of my class had tried it. I know that is they would have asked the same question to my entire grade before graduation, that more than half my grade would have smoked at least once, and maybe 5 kids in the whole grade have never drank alcohol before. Even the so called "unpopular" people drank in Seaford, because it was the only thing to do on the weekends. One thing that I find very strange is that there is a precienct in Seaford and even with all the cops there were still so many people who drank and smoked and got away with it. My friends and I used to hang out in the parking lot behind a cvs and in a park that was locked after sundown. Somehow someone had gotten a key to the gates and would open it and we would all hang out there and drink and smoke and I think out of all the times we were there the cops only came once, and none of us ever got tickets for drinking or got taken home. An outsider would think that there was so much to do because there are 2 major parks, a movie theatre, the mall is like a 10 minute car ride, and plenty of stores, but on the inside those are the places we say we are going but instead we go to someone’s house to drink, or we hang out in the parking lot of one of the stores and smoke. Seaford may look like every other town on the outside but once on the inside you discover how truly stuck up and spoiled the kids are, and how bad the town truly is with alcohol and drugs..