Part I:
For my issue that I have chosen for my Major Analysis Project--I am concerned with the debate surrounding lowering the drinking age to 18. I have done enough research to assume that this is not an easy process; this would take many years for such a grand-scale hypothetical plan such as this to even work. I will begin by demonstrating how my project will demonstrate Good Sense, Good Character and Good Will.
By implementing an after-school education program geared to students K-8; we can catch them at an early age and right before they enter high school. I think this has a lot of credible backing to it. Education is a tool that has never failed in the past. We can incorporate into their education like what we do for sex education. D.A.R.E. is a good program, but it doesn't begin to even touch the surface. The alcohol education program won't be against drinking, we understand that kids will drink no matter what (whether it is by being curious or peer pressure, they will drink no matter how hard we tell them not to), instead, we will study Europe's culture surrounding alcohol as well as other countries and study past cases to see what makes them get to the point of being drunk. These are characteristics of Good Sense and Good Will--I will be approaching this proposal from a rational point with the intention of not being an enemy of alcohol but instead, more of an activity to be taken cautiously. If sex education means passing out condoms for kids to be safe, my program would teach them the negative impacts of making bad decisions but allowing them to grow and come up with their own decisions (this demonstrates Good Character).
Part II:
The forum that I am reviewing on lowering the drinking age or not can be found here.
The online forum that I found was on CollegeNet.com. So far, most of the people debating are educators and those that have first-hand experience. One commentor wrote, "Teenagers need a slow introduction into big responsibilities. Drinking and driving are two of those responsibilities. A provisional drinking license could control the time, place, and amounts of alcohol a teenager can drink." He suggests that we find ways to control the amount that teenagers drink--by getting rid of underground drinking parties and allowing it to be in public with more control and supervision. While I personally thought that this was a great idea, there were those that weren't so much in favor. An educator whose original opinion was to lower the drinking age has changed her mind as she grows older and she becomes more experience as a teacher. She is grateful for the 21 age minimum--and that in the past drinking and driving was the number one killer among teens.
What makes these two posts effective was that it was articulate in their arguments--but it also did not contain any brashness. It was very logical and appealed to readers, especially parents, lawmakers and college students. There were many good posts on this forum which lead to a great discussion. I even found myself agreeing with those that were for keeping the drinking age the same, only because they were very rational and persuasive about it. This makes the arguments effective for those that are on the fence about this debate.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Letter of Inquiry
February 25, 2010
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Rebecca W. Rimel
C.E.O. and Pres.
1 Commerce Sq.
2005 Market St., Ste. 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7077
Dear Ms. Rimel,My foundation requests $150,000 to create alcohol education programs for youth.
Our mission is to decrease the number of deaths on college campuses that come as a result of binge-drinking. We advocate education and trust in students to choose responsibly. Our foundation understands that it firsts begins in the home and early on at school. We would like to provide the opportunity for those that cannot get a free education at home about alcohol safety for them to acquire it at school. Our target audience are students about to enter high school that come from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We have a staff of 20 and would like to begin our programs around Seattle public K-8 schools. Our current annual budget has been mostly funded by individual donors and local businesses-- it currently stands around $30,000 a year. We are a beginning foundation that was recently started last year in 2009.
Our intent is to begin the slow campaign of lowering the drinking age to 18. We would like to begin the battle on binge-drinking with alcohol education after-school programs. Our project is entitled "Battle Binging". We understand that kids will drink no matter what, our primary concern is educating them on safety and responsibility for others. Our programs would include utilizing documentaries, real stories from families who were affected by their children binge-drinking and local immersion in community activities and social growth to make them budding leaders in their communities.
"Battle Binging" has a desperate need for fiscal backing; we would like to continue to expand as a foundation helping students understand the importance of the dangers of alcohol. We would like to put an end to preventable deaths and end a mistrust in students when it comes to drinking. Our long term goal is to lower the drinking age, but our current goal as of right now is to start with education and turning students into leaders. The need for this money would begin with some local and national research: what in the past has worked and what hasn't? We would like to begin by thinking of potential ways to make the after-school program fit with modern students today.
Our expenses would mostly be geared towards purchasing rights to documentaries, travel budgets for speakers and useful supplies and tools to help with after-school activities. All of the grant money that would potentially be awarded to us would be used throughout the seven K-8 Seattle public schools to begin the program as soon as possible.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing your response,
Carolyn Huynh
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Key Arguments for Women Ski Jumpers
The key arguments against women ski jumpers not being allowed in the Vancouver Olympics was that it barely met the requirements to even be an official event--however, that was mostly a matter of timing and when it was officially given a World Championship title, it had barely missed the mark when the Vancouver Winter Olympics event lineups were announced.
Other arguments against allowing them into the Olympics mostly dealt with medical (which they don't even give any reasons as to why it is a medical problem) and economical reasons. Despite women ski jumpers petition since 98' to enter the Olympics, to this day, only men are allowed to compete.
This not only calls out Canada's gender discrimination, but it also calls into question an international gender bias when it comes to this event. For a grand sporting event like the Olympics, that promote world unity, they are being hypocritical by not recognizing women ski jumpers as capable of being able to compete. According to Time magazine, ski jumping is the only sport that is men-only.
The IOC (International Olympic Committee) are arguing for the economic reasons--there is no money to allow another group to enter the competition. This calls into question as to why other events aren't being cut, or why the men's team are not being affected to allow women competitors in.
Other arguments against allowing them into the Olympics mostly dealt with medical (which they don't even give any reasons as to why it is a medical problem) and economical reasons. Despite women ski jumpers petition since 98' to enter the Olympics, to this day, only men are allowed to compete.
This not only calls out Canada's gender discrimination, but it also calls into question an international gender bias when it comes to this event. For a grand sporting event like the Olympics, that promote world unity, they are being hypocritical by not recognizing women ski jumpers as capable of being able to compete. According to Time magazine, ski jumping is the only sport that is men-only.
The IOC (International Olympic Committee) are arguing for the economic reasons--there is no money to allow another group to enter the competition. This calls into question as to why other events aren't being cut, or why the men's team are not being affected to allow women competitors in.
Debate Team Status Quo vs. Government
I am a bit torn on this issue, I am a big believer in public education, however, I found Nick's argument for private education convincing overall. I can see why America's public education system is the worst in the world, and I would want to make better strides towards improving our current model--so I also in part, would agree with the opponent's side. I agree that there are many terms when it comes to 'private' education--it doesn't just deal with paying for an education. Having private education forms competition among students to stride better--it creates more opportunities. However, I am very much in agreement with a socialist approach when it comes to education: everyone should have the same footing and on the same level. Education is a human right, and it should be approached that way.
MAP; Major Analysis Paper
Carolyn Huynh
Major Analysis Project:
The Debate on the Current Drinking Age
Ever since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was implemented, the legal age to consume alcohol has remained at 21—however, this law has proven to be counterproductive in its attempt to save lives (CBS News). Though according to Why21.org, some might argue statistically that since the law has been activated, over 900 lives have been saved each year, resulting in over 25,000 people’s lives have been saved since Reagan signed the law. The argument being presented is the ongoing and controversial debate of keeping the minimum legal drinking age at 21 or the possibility of lowering it down to age 18. This topic continues to spark heated conversations throughout the United States. Since 1984, the United States continues to remain the country with the highest legal drinking age in the world-- bringing with it a slew of problems to the youth and others that are uneducated when it comes to alcohol.
There has been an alarmingly increasing number of problems on college campuses on binge-drinking and alcohol abuse. There are statistics that state that 2 out of every 5 college students are alcohol abusers [MADD.org]--this means that they consume more than five drinks in one sitting. It seems as if the more forbidden alcohol is, the more students and kids want to obtain it and abuse it—often times leading to alcohol poisoning and death—preventable deaths that were mostly caused by fear of being caught or simply being uneducated when it comes to alcohol. However, these statistics could be entirely biased and grossly misinterpreted. According to research done by Dr. Dennis Thombs, a professor at Kent State University, most of the students that he tested over a 15 week course held a BAC (alcohol content) way under the intoxication level. [Potsdamn.com] Either the tests are highly exaggerated or the death toll count has sharply risen; either way, the best solutions are still education and trust. There are important steps that need to be taken so that if and when the drinking age is ever lowered, there wouldn’t be such a high percentage of accidental deaths.
The proposition to lower the drinking age, though simple sounding in its request is not black and white. There are many sides to the spectrum, and though one can see the perks of simply changing the law to match other countries, such as the likes of Canada or Europe, whose rules are more lax when it comes to alcohol (i.e. allowing a glass of wine to accompany a twelve-year-olds’ meal with permission from the parents), however, another element to consider would be that London’s youth also has their own drinking problems right now (according to their website, ‘young people in London have a higher intoxication rates than in the United States’)—one has to practically rewrite almost three decades worth of history; and that is no easy feat. This subject warrants much more in depth and insightful arguments from both the opposing side as well as the supporters of this movement. The current major participators in this debate would include Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Support 21 Coalition, Choose Responsibility and over a hundred college presidents that have signed a petition to lower the drinking age. The audience, mostly those that are under twenty-one as well as responsible parents, are the main watchers—though there are also many prominent sections in the government (i.e American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Safety Council, the International Association Chiefs of Police, the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, the Surgeon General of the U.S., as well as the U.S. Transportation Secretary) that support keeping the age at 21.
The first text that will be analyzed, will be an article written by the American Observer—American University’s graduate journalism magazine. One of the major opponents of lowering the drinking age would be the Support 21 Coalition. Support 21 was founded by MADD [Mother's Against Drunk Driving] and has been supported by other organizations such as the 'Insurance Institute for Highway Safety' and the 'American Medical Association' and other such prominent government groups. Support 21 is vehemently against lowering the drinking age.
Their main claim is that the current minimum drinking age saves lives. Their concern is that drinking is a public health concern; they have zero tolerance for anyone over the age of 21 purchasing alcohol for teens. Support 21 appeals to not just people who are under 21 but above 21 as well. By claiming drinking as a public health concern; it also appeals to adults who deal with alcoholism and those that have been victims of knowing alcoholics. By turning the argument into a public health concern, this provides a way for the argument to open up not just for those concerned in the battle, but for everyone (regardless of age or how these matters concerns them) to get involved—because in some way or the other, their health might or might not be at risk. The powerful use of this argument is an effective strategy: include the masses and try to at least get them on your side.
The next medium that will be critiqued will be an online video segment that ’60 Minutes’ did on this topic. They begin by showcasing the supporters’ reasoning for lowering the drinking age. Two years ago, one hundred college presidents (including the heads of Dartmouth, Virginia Tech and Duke) across the country signed a petition to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The movement was started by John McCardell; former president of Middlebury College in Vermont. As one of the main pioneers behind this movement, McCardell got what he wanted people to do: to talk about this topic again. The segment continues to discuss the meaningless deaths that occur on college campuses. Fraternities are a good example to see the abuse of alcohol. There are many case studies that discuss how kids don’t want to get in trouble, so they won’t dial 911 if their friend has alcohol poisoning.
The debate that McCardell has been trying to provoke is that he does not think the current law is working at all—and instead of pushing kids to begin drinking at 21; kids have taken it underground, behind closed doors, allowing them to become uneducated in alcohol and instead abusing it heavily and binging on it excessively. McCardell’s petition was the driving force behind his success in either persuading people to his cause or to dissuade people into joining the other side. By having presidents from prestigious schools sign this petition, McCardell was showing that adults are signing this and that they are all in agreement. It was not just mere college students that signed the petition to quickly lower the drinking age—there was more to this logic—and that was to also save lives.
In an opinion editorial, written by Robert Schlesinger for US News, Schlesinger sides with lowering the drinking age, but agrees that it will be a difficult transition to make. By allowing the idea of ‘possibility’ of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 into the picture, this provides a common thread for both sides of the argument. What would the future look like if the drinking age is lowered to 18? Would everyone be safer or will things get significantly worse? He agrees that alcohol education should begin at home but also that it lays in the government as well. It isn’t just the forbidden fruit to those under 21, but it is the forbidden fruit to everyone in the U.S.
“First, alcohol education starts at home: Parents are the first line of education when it comes to liquor and how teens deal with alcohol will reflect at least in part how it is regarded at home. More broadly, as Maureen Ogle, author of a history of beer, wrote in this space in December, this country still has a prohibition hangover. We repealed the prohibition laws but still treat booze like it ought to be illegal.” [USNews.com]
He makes a claim that the country is still in a “prohibition hangover”—this means that although alcohol is legal now, people still treat it as if it were still illegal; which in this case, it is for those under 21. The ‘degree’ of how law enforcers treat alcohol creates a movement to drive it all underground—to avoid being simply categorized as ‘bad’, people avoid being seen in public drinking at all. Schlesinger’s op-ed, though modest in its length, managed to appeal to a younger audience by telling his own personal account of his college life. It was effective in how it connected with the audience.
The last and final text that will be examined, is the website and homepage of the group, Choose Responsibility—the group in favor of lowering the drinking age. Their main catchphrase is: Balance, Maturity, Common Sense. Their proposal, to allow those who are 18-20 the ability to purchase and consume alcohol. They believe that by having an age minimum to drink only treats them as if they are not responsible adults; so why should they act like adults? Under their proposal link, it says: “Current drinking laws infantilize young adults. We should not be surprised, then, by infantile behavior from otherwise responsible adults.” Their main goal is to produce a successful program that will use education as a main force in helping kids choose wisely when it comes to alcohol. According to a study they did: “Though its legal drinking age is highest among all the countries surveyed, the United States has a higher rate of dangerous intoxication occasions than many countries that not only have drinking ages that are lower or nonexistent, but also have much higher levels of per capita consumption.” This makes us wonder, is the age minimum requirement really working? The statistics are shocking when you go past the college campuses and into a broader scope of the issue.
It seems as if the prevention of death is the value that both sides would put at number one on their hierarchy list. Safety, is what every parent wants. Deaths that were a result of alcohol poisoning or out of poor judgment seem inexcusable if better alcohol education and trust would have more of an impact.
For the opposing side, MADD obviously does not want more drunk drivers on the road—and their fear is that if the age is lowered, kids will be out of control when it comes to drinking and driving. But one has to ask the question then, should the driving age also be raised? It brings a whole new argument into the picture. The second tier that both sides would place in their hierarchy system would involve education. Being educated about alcohol and being first taught in a responsible home environment is the first step towards making good choices.
The argument seems valid on both ends. But the ultimate question to be asked is: which side will end up possibly and potentially saving more lives? On one side, you have professors from universities who are on board with the idea of lowering the age due to their experiences of being involved firsthand with students who binge-drink. The other side presenting their argument is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—who are concerned with the idea that there will be more drunk drivers on the road. Both sides represent good arguments; and the key arguments involved include a sense of trust and a responsibility to educate youth.
This debate is important because it asks us all as citizens to enter into the conversation and argue for a better public health. What will be the better choice for all of us? Will we be able to drive safely on the highway without the fear of an irresponsible drunk 18 year old behind the wheel? You enter into the conversation with a concern for yourself, your friends and your family. If the potential to lower the drinking age is imminent, how will we go about advocating safety and making sure that our kids are safe? These are important questions and key issues surrounding the argument that needs to be addressed. At 18, if you can vote, buy cigarettes and be chosen to stand in the front lines in war to face death—than do you also have the ability to drink a beer? Possibly, if they are educated first and than trusted afterwards as well.
Sources:
http://inews6.americanobserver.net/articles/campaign-lower-drinking-age-faces-sobering-reality
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/60minutes/main4813571.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/23/the-drinking-age-debate-time-to-go-from-21-to-18-but-its-not-an-easy-call.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/20/local/me-drinking20
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3708133&page=1
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/19/health/chi-college-drinkingaug19
Major Analysis Project:
The Debate on the Current Drinking Age
Ever since the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was implemented, the legal age to consume alcohol has remained at 21—however, this law has proven to be counterproductive in its attempt to save lives (CBS News). Though according to Why21.org, some might argue statistically that since the law has been activated, over 900 lives have been saved each year, resulting in over 25,000 people’s lives have been saved since Reagan signed the law. The argument being presented is the ongoing and controversial debate of keeping the minimum legal drinking age at 21 or the possibility of lowering it down to age 18. This topic continues to spark heated conversations throughout the United States. Since 1984, the United States continues to remain the country with the highest legal drinking age in the world-- bringing with it a slew of problems to the youth and others that are uneducated when it comes to alcohol.
There has been an alarmingly increasing number of problems on college campuses on binge-drinking and alcohol abuse. There are statistics that state that 2 out of every 5 college students are alcohol abusers [MADD.org]--this means that they consume more than five drinks in one sitting. It seems as if the more forbidden alcohol is, the more students and kids want to obtain it and abuse it—often times leading to alcohol poisoning and death—preventable deaths that were mostly caused by fear of being caught or simply being uneducated when it comes to alcohol. However, these statistics could be entirely biased and grossly misinterpreted. According to research done by Dr. Dennis Thombs, a professor at Kent State University, most of the students that he tested over a 15 week course held a BAC (alcohol content) way under the intoxication level. [Potsdamn.com] Either the tests are highly exaggerated or the death toll count has sharply risen; either way, the best solutions are still education and trust. There are important steps that need to be taken so that if and when the drinking age is ever lowered, there wouldn’t be such a high percentage of accidental deaths.
The proposition to lower the drinking age, though simple sounding in its request is not black and white. There are many sides to the spectrum, and though one can see the perks of simply changing the law to match other countries, such as the likes of Canada or Europe, whose rules are more lax when it comes to alcohol (i.e. allowing a glass of wine to accompany a twelve-year-olds’ meal with permission from the parents), however, another element to consider would be that London’s youth also has their own drinking problems right now (according to their website, ‘young people in London have a higher intoxication rates than in the United States’)—one has to practically rewrite almost three decades worth of history; and that is no easy feat. This subject warrants much more in depth and insightful arguments from both the opposing side as well as the supporters of this movement. The current major participators in this debate would include Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Support 21 Coalition, Choose Responsibility and over a hundred college presidents that have signed a petition to lower the drinking age. The audience, mostly those that are under twenty-one as well as responsible parents, are the main watchers—though there are also many prominent sections in the government (i.e American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board, the National Safety Council, the International Association Chiefs of Police, the Governor’s Highway Safety Association, the Surgeon General of the U.S., as well as the U.S. Transportation Secretary) that support keeping the age at 21.
The first text that will be analyzed, will be an article written by the American Observer—American University’s graduate journalism magazine. One of the major opponents of lowering the drinking age would be the Support 21 Coalition. Support 21 was founded by MADD [Mother's Against Drunk Driving] and has been supported by other organizations such as the 'Insurance Institute for Highway Safety' and the 'American Medical Association' and other such prominent government groups. Support 21 is vehemently against lowering the drinking age.
Their main claim is that the current minimum drinking age saves lives. Their concern is that drinking is a public health concern; they have zero tolerance for anyone over the age of 21 purchasing alcohol for teens. Support 21 appeals to not just people who are under 21 but above 21 as well. By claiming drinking as a public health concern; it also appeals to adults who deal with alcoholism and those that have been victims of knowing alcoholics. By turning the argument into a public health concern, this provides a way for the argument to open up not just for those concerned in the battle, but for everyone (regardless of age or how these matters concerns them) to get involved—because in some way or the other, their health might or might not be at risk. The powerful use of this argument is an effective strategy: include the masses and try to at least get them on your side.
The next medium that will be critiqued will be an online video segment that ’60 Minutes’ did on this topic. They begin by showcasing the supporters’ reasoning for lowering the drinking age. Two years ago, one hundred college presidents (including the heads of Dartmouth, Virginia Tech and Duke) across the country signed a petition to lower the drinking age from 21 to 18. The movement was started by John McCardell; former president of Middlebury College in Vermont. As one of the main pioneers behind this movement, McCardell got what he wanted people to do: to talk about this topic again. The segment continues to discuss the meaningless deaths that occur on college campuses. Fraternities are a good example to see the abuse of alcohol. There are many case studies that discuss how kids don’t want to get in trouble, so they won’t dial 911 if their friend has alcohol poisoning.
The debate that McCardell has been trying to provoke is that he does not think the current law is working at all—and instead of pushing kids to begin drinking at 21; kids have taken it underground, behind closed doors, allowing them to become uneducated in alcohol and instead abusing it heavily and binging on it excessively. McCardell’s petition was the driving force behind his success in either persuading people to his cause or to dissuade people into joining the other side. By having presidents from prestigious schools sign this petition, McCardell was showing that adults are signing this and that they are all in agreement. It was not just mere college students that signed the petition to quickly lower the drinking age—there was more to this logic—and that was to also save lives.
In an opinion editorial, written by Robert Schlesinger for US News, Schlesinger sides with lowering the drinking age, but agrees that it will be a difficult transition to make. By allowing the idea of ‘possibility’ of lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18 into the picture, this provides a common thread for both sides of the argument. What would the future look like if the drinking age is lowered to 18? Would everyone be safer or will things get significantly worse? He agrees that alcohol education should begin at home but also that it lays in the government as well. It isn’t just the forbidden fruit to those under 21, but it is the forbidden fruit to everyone in the U.S.
“First, alcohol education starts at home: Parents are the first line of education when it comes to liquor and how teens deal with alcohol will reflect at least in part how it is regarded at home. More broadly, as Maureen Ogle, author of a history of beer, wrote in this space in December, this country still has a prohibition hangover. We repealed the prohibition laws but still treat booze like it ought to be illegal.” [USNews.com]
He makes a claim that the country is still in a “prohibition hangover”—this means that although alcohol is legal now, people still treat it as if it were still illegal; which in this case, it is for those under 21. The ‘degree’ of how law enforcers treat alcohol creates a movement to drive it all underground—to avoid being simply categorized as ‘bad’, people avoid being seen in public drinking at all. Schlesinger’s op-ed, though modest in its length, managed to appeal to a younger audience by telling his own personal account of his college life. It was effective in how it connected with the audience.
The last and final text that will be examined, is the website and homepage of the group, Choose Responsibility—the group in favor of lowering the drinking age. Their main catchphrase is: Balance, Maturity, Common Sense. Their proposal, to allow those who are 18-20 the ability to purchase and consume alcohol. They believe that by having an age minimum to drink only treats them as if they are not responsible adults; so why should they act like adults? Under their proposal link, it says: “Current drinking laws infantilize young adults. We should not be surprised, then, by infantile behavior from otherwise responsible adults.” Their main goal is to produce a successful program that will use education as a main force in helping kids choose wisely when it comes to alcohol. According to a study they did: “Though its legal drinking age is highest among all the countries surveyed, the United States has a higher rate of dangerous intoxication occasions than many countries that not only have drinking ages that are lower or nonexistent, but also have much higher levels of per capita consumption.” This makes us wonder, is the age minimum requirement really working? The statistics are shocking when you go past the college campuses and into a broader scope of the issue.
It seems as if the prevention of death is the value that both sides would put at number one on their hierarchy list. Safety, is what every parent wants. Deaths that were a result of alcohol poisoning or out of poor judgment seem inexcusable if better alcohol education and trust would have more of an impact.
For the opposing side, MADD obviously does not want more drunk drivers on the road—and their fear is that if the age is lowered, kids will be out of control when it comes to drinking and driving. But one has to ask the question then, should the driving age also be raised? It brings a whole new argument into the picture. The second tier that both sides would place in their hierarchy system would involve education. Being educated about alcohol and being first taught in a responsible home environment is the first step towards making good choices.
The argument seems valid on both ends. But the ultimate question to be asked is: which side will end up possibly and potentially saving more lives? On one side, you have professors from universities who are on board with the idea of lowering the age due to their experiences of being involved firsthand with students who binge-drink. The other side presenting their argument is Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)—who are concerned with the idea that there will be more drunk drivers on the road. Both sides represent good arguments; and the key arguments involved include a sense of trust and a responsibility to educate youth.
This debate is important because it asks us all as citizens to enter into the conversation and argue for a better public health. What will be the better choice for all of us? Will we be able to drive safely on the highway without the fear of an irresponsible drunk 18 year old behind the wheel? You enter into the conversation with a concern for yourself, your friends and your family. If the potential to lower the drinking age is imminent, how will we go about advocating safety and making sure that our kids are safe? These are important questions and key issues surrounding the argument that needs to be addressed. At 18, if you can vote, buy cigarettes and be chosen to stand in the front lines in war to face death—than do you also have the ability to drink a beer? Possibly, if they are educated first and than trusted afterwards as well.
Sources:
http://inews6.americanobserver.net/articles/campaign-lower-drinking-age-faces-sobering-reality
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/19/60minutes/main4813571.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/robert-schlesinger/2009/02/23/the-drinking-age-debate-time-to-go-from-21-to-18-but-its-not-an-easy-call.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/20/local/me-drinking20
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3708133&page=1
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/aug/19/health/chi-college-drinkingaug19
Thursday, February 18, 2010
TV. Review: 30 Rock
In its fourth season, Tina Fey still manages to make me laugh out loud to her zany pseudo alter-ego "Liz Lemon".30 Rock has managed to last one season more than Arrested Development, and unfortunately, like all great comedies that critics give two thumbs up, the audience response seems to be mildly lukewarm. So goes the formula when it comes to witty comedy.
The fourth season continues where the last season left off with Liz Lemon, played by the charming Tina Fey, continue to be the head writer for The TGS with Tracy Jordan (played of course by the unpredictable and often times unnecessarily obnoxious Tracy Morgan). A common plot for the beginning of the fourth season includes finding a new cast member to join the show. Of course, egos clash between Jenna Maroney (of Ally McBeal fame, who basically plays the same character she did for Fox as she does for NBC) and Tracy Jordan who fears that a new cast mate will steal the spotlight from their comedic (only in the actual real characters that they portray) faces.
The requisite and brilliant Alec Baldwin continues his role as Jack Donaughy, an NBC executive who is Lemon's superior and who enjoys making appearances every now and then to suggest ways on how to improve the show (often times when it will benefit his career). Personal lives interconnect between Lemon and Baldwin as they look towards each other for relationship advice and overall well-being--which often never works out for any of them, considering most of their advice turns out to be crap.
Despite the humor that these two evoke when they play a game of witty remarks ping-pong style, it is the supporting cast that truly makes the show radiate with warm humor. With their one-liners and quirky off-the-wall personalities, the rest of the writers that write for the show emanate and exaggerate the stereotypes that come with television writers who write for a mediocre sketch-comedy show: they really don't care that much. This extreme apathy shows not only in their perfect delivery but in their facial and body expressions as well. No one can piss out a window better than Frank Rossitano, played by comedian Judah Friedlander--who also obviously has an identity esteem problem with his image, considering he has to change his hat every single day in order to pretend and convince himself that he is funny. And no one can put on airs like Toofer, who is convinced that his Ivy-league educated brain is more funny than anyone else. And who doesn't love NBC page, Kenneth Parcell, played by Jack McBrayer? You'd have to be a robot not to love that kid.
Overall, the show is charming, even the token black man playing the token black man along with his articulate entourage following him like dogs manages to crack me up every once in awhile--even when he is being over-the-top loud. The show is full of great dialogue, with many references to pop culture, and with an ensemble that comes off as one big Jewish family--because they sure seem to know how to bug the heck out of one another, they are always eating, and they always know how to be in each other's business--even when it has nothing to do with writing a television show.
The fourth season continues where the last season left off with Liz Lemon, played by the charming Tina Fey, continue to be the head writer for The TGS with Tracy Jordan (played of course by the unpredictable and often times unnecessarily obnoxious Tracy Morgan). A common plot for the beginning of the fourth season includes finding a new cast member to join the show. Of course, egos clash between Jenna Maroney (of Ally McBeal fame, who basically plays the same character she did for Fox as she does for NBC) and Tracy Jordan who fears that a new cast mate will steal the spotlight from their comedic (only in the actual real characters that they portray) faces.
The requisite and brilliant Alec Baldwin continues his role as Jack Donaughy, an NBC executive who is Lemon's superior and who enjoys making appearances every now and then to suggest ways on how to improve the show (often times when it will benefit his career). Personal lives interconnect between Lemon and Baldwin as they look towards each other for relationship advice and overall well-being--which often never works out for any of them, considering most of their advice turns out to be crap.
Despite the humor that these two evoke when they play a game of witty remarks ping-pong style, it is the supporting cast that truly makes the show radiate with warm humor. With their one-liners and quirky off-the-wall personalities, the rest of the writers that write for the show emanate and exaggerate the stereotypes that come with television writers who write for a mediocre sketch-comedy show: they really don't care that much. This extreme apathy shows not only in their perfect delivery but in their facial and body expressions as well. No one can piss out a window better than Frank Rossitano, played by comedian Judah Friedlander--who also obviously has an identity esteem problem with his image, considering he has to change his hat every single day in order to pretend and convince himself that he is funny. And no one can put on airs like Toofer, who is convinced that his Ivy-league educated brain is more funny than anyone else. And who doesn't love NBC page, Kenneth Parcell, played by Jack McBrayer? You'd have to be a robot not to love that kid.
Overall, the show is charming, even the token black man playing the token black man along with his articulate entourage following him like dogs manages to crack me up every once in awhile--even when he is being over-the-top loud. The show is full of great dialogue, with many references to pop culture, and with an ensemble that comes off as one big Jewish family--because they sure seem to know how to bug the heck out of one another, they are always eating, and they always know how to be in each other's business--even when it has nothing to do with writing a television show.
Ethos: Developing Voice
This analysis is in response to the article found here.
Oprah Magazine: "I will never know why"; written by Susan Klebold, mother of Dylan Klebold--one of the shooters responsible for Columbine
Klebold writes to O Magazine to speak out about her son's actions and his attacks on Columbine; the deadliest and most devasting shooting attack on a high school in American history. This is her first attempt at speaking to the public on the aftermath.
The author, speaking as a mother, writes the article in the first person--making it a personal narrative. Klebold recounts the day as clear as her memory allows, from the first moment of receiving an urgent phone call from her husband to the police raiding her house, all the way to her deep fears and her role as a mother being questioned by society. She manages to invite the audience in by allowing them to see her side of things from her perspective--a side no one even bothered to consider.
By creating her personal narrative, Klebold boldly and fondly remembers her son as the perfect son that was in her mind; from his childhood all the way to him being accepting into the University of Arizona. Considering a majority of O magazine readers are adult women and mothers, the audience is able to relate to the joy of seeing a child grow into an adult. Klebold's voice develops from a mother who deeply loves her son, to a mother that questions herself and is left in a black hole of unanswered questions. She makes us feel empathy for her, as she remembers that she stopped using her last name in public after the attacks (a recognition that she no longer considers herself a positive contributing member to society) and that during the raid, she was concerned for her son's safety--as all parents feel when imminent danger is close to their children.
Klebold moves from first to third person a lot in her narrative; but considering she is the woman that raised Dylan (a person seen as a monster in society), she has the authority to defend him. She has the authority to defend that he was a lonely person who never felt he fit in society, who often wanted to escape. And despite being asked, "how could she not see this coming?" she has no answers for that, she speaks as a parent that deeply loved her child and was blinded by her affections to be unable to see past his flaws. Any parent is guilty of that; they only want to see the best in them.
However, Klebold ends the article abruptly by announcing and promoting suicide research and prevention. Klebold seems to glaze over the fact that her son only committed suicide after the shootings--after the homicide. Klebold, though she makes herself out as a victim, seems to forget that her son is a killer--she is stuck on the idea that he is still her son and always will be.
Oprah Magazine: "I will never know why"; written by Susan Klebold, mother of Dylan Klebold--one of the shooters responsible for Columbine
Klebold writes to O Magazine to speak out about her son's actions and his attacks on Columbine; the deadliest and most devasting shooting attack on a high school in American history. This is her first attempt at speaking to the public on the aftermath.
The author, speaking as a mother, writes the article in the first person--making it a personal narrative. Klebold recounts the day as clear as her memory allows, from the first moment of receiving an urgent phone call from her husband to the police raiding her house, all the way to her deep fears and her role as a mother being questioned by society. She manages to invite the audience in by allowing them to see her side of things from her perspective--a side no one even bothered to consider.
By creating her personal narrative, Klebold boldly and fondly remembers her son as the perfect son that was in her mind; from his childhood all the way to him being accepting into the University of Arizona. Considering a majority of O magazine readers are adult women and mothers, the audience is able to relate to the joy of seeing a child grow into an adult. Klebold's voice develops from a mother who deeply loves her son, to a mother that questions herself and is left in a black hole of unanswered questions. She makes us feel empathy for her, as she remembers that she stopped using her last name in public after the attacks (a recognition that she no longer considers herself a positive contributing member to society) and that during the raid, she was concerned for her son's safety--as all parents feel when imminent danger is close to their children.
Klebold moves from first to third person a lot in her narrative; but considering she is the woman that raised Dylan (a person seen as a monster in society), she has the authority to defend him. She has the authority to defend that he was a lonely person who never felt he fit in society, who often wanted to escape. And despite being asked, "how could she not see this coming?" she has no answers for that, she speaks as a parent that deeply loved her child and was blinded by her affections to be unable to see past his flaws. Any parent is guilty of that; they only want to see the best in them.
However, Klebold ends the article abruptly by announcing and promoting suicide research and prevention. Klebold seems to glaze over the fact that her son only committed suicide after the shootings--after the homicide. Klebold, though she makes herself out as a victim, seems to forget that her son is a killer--she is stuck on the idea that he is still her son and always will be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)