Katie Rupp
June 30, 2007
#7
Chapter 17 of our book discusses the positives, and the negatives of cell phone use while driving. The first essay entitled, "Yes, Prohibit Their Use" appeared on the Congressional Quarterly's website, www.cq.com. These advocates for cell phone safety argue that using a cell phone while driving causes accidents, property damage, and even fatalities. The advocates claim that they cause more damage then we know because of the lack of reliable data collection. In Japan, where data was collected, it showed cell phone related accidents "dropped by 75%" after being banned.
Robert W. Hahn and Paul Tetlock believe that cell phones should not be prohibited while driving. Their essay, "No, Don't Prohibit Their Use" argues a ban would not make sense. They admit that cell phones do cause accidents and fatalities, but argue that the vennefits outway the risks. Claiming that cell phone accidents only make up less than 1% of the annual total.
I agree with Hahn and Tetlock, like them I concede that cell phones do play a part in many traffic accidents. I can not deny that I have mumbled a few curse words at fellow drivers who were not paying attention because of their cell phone use. I understand the negatives taht go along with it. If calls were banned, how many accidents would acure because of drivers urgently pulling to the side of the highway, or interstates? Would more accidents occur from drivers falling asleep becuase they had noone to keep them company? How much money would people lose because they were unable to conduct business over the phone on their comute.
If we take away our right to talk on a cell phone ( in a car ) what is next? No radio, no smoking, no passengers to disract you. Until real evidence can be given on this matter, I believe that it should be left alone.
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Gays and Marriage; Do they mix?
I don't understand the gay life. As a Male, I don't understand how a man could not be attracted to a woman, yet be attracted to another man, but I do not have to understand them to accept them. Gay individuals need to be entitled to all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals. Their sexual orientation does not dictate what kind of a person they are. It does not predispose them to molesting children, being bad parents, or sexual promiscuity. If two gay individuals wish to marry, more power to them.
In Lisa Schiffren's essay "Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron" Schiffren condemns gay marriages, she states that gay marriages cannot provide pro-creation and sexual exclusivity that heterosexual marriages do. Schiffren also goes on to state that Society cares about heterosexual relationships because they are critical for raising children and instilling our values as a culture and that whether or not homosexual relationships endure is of little concern to society, as are childless heterosexual marriages. Schiffren states that the tie that really binds together a marriage is the responsibility of children and without this, what will keep gay marriages together? Schiffren makes the statement that legal marriage will not end the promiscuity of gay males, she points out that the threat of AIDS has not ended it, what will a piece of paper do? Schiffen argues that government tax breaks and other financial incentives given to married couples are for the sole purpose of helping to raise children. Schiffren ends by stating that the political process is the route gay marriage's should take.
Lisa Schiffren's arguments are for the most part just offensive, not only to gay couples, but also to heterosexual couples. Schifferen's arguments put more emphasis on the child of a marriage then the actual love between two people who are married. Which is where the value of any marriage should be. Schiffren's statements that tax breaks are for helping to raise children is off base. What about married couples who have no children? Should we take away their tax breaks? Schiffren needs to focus more on the foundation of marriage; love, not children.
As a society, we really need to get it together. Who are we to tell two people,regardless of sexual orientation, that they cannot be married? Because as a society we think that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong? Because marriage is holy? Is allowing two individuals to marry at the age of 16 morally right? probably not, but many states allow it. We send 18 year old boys off to die in someone else's war, but prohibit them from drinking alcohol. Is this morally right? Heterosexual couples are married all the time in non-religious weddings, where is the holiness of their marriage? We should also never assume that the power to procreate makes one marriage stronger then another. There are many children in state services who came from marriages that procreated.
Thomas B Stoddard's essay " Gay Marriages: Make them legal" presents a much more fair picture of marriage in general. Stoddard points out that marriage is beneficial to one's emotional and spiritual health, along with providing them with the same financial rights that is granted to heterosexual married couples. Stoddard states that marriage's in general are created to promote family and social stability, and those wishing to pursue this should be encouraged not deprived because of their sexual orientation. Stoddard's strongest statement "Government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed" is so true, I mean according to our constitution, isn't state and religion supposed to be separate?
While we may not agree with the gay lifestyle, it is not our place to judge the love of two individuals. We must realize that marriage is built on love, not children and to raise healthy and happy children, two people must love one another; regardless of their sexual orientation.
Matthew Smith
In Lisa Schiffren's essay "Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron" Schiffren condemns gay marriages, she states that gay marriages cannot provide pro-creation and sexual exclusivity that heterosexual marriages do. Schiffren also goes on to state that Society cares about heterosexual relationships because they are critical for raising children and instilling our values as a culture and that whether or not homosexual relationships endure is of little concern to society, as are childless heterosexual marriages. Schiffren states that the tie that really binds together a marriage is the responsibility of children and without this, what will keep gay marriages together? Schiffren makes the statement that legal marriage will not end the promiscuity of gay males, she points out that the threat of AIDS has not ended it, what will a piece of paper do? Schiffen argues that government tax breaks and other financial incentives given to married couples are for the sole purpose of helping to raise children. Schiffren ends by stating that the political process is the route gay marriage's should take.
Lisa Schiffren's arguments are for the most part just offensive, not only to gay couples, but also to heterosexual couples. Schifferen's arguments put more emphasis on the child of a marriage then the actual love between two people who are married. Which is where the value of any marriage should be. Schiffren's statements that tax breaks are for helping to raise children is off base. What about married couples who have no children? Should we take away their tax breaks? Schiffren needs to focus more on the foundation of marriage; love, not children.
As a society, we really need to get it together. Who are we to tell two people,regardless of sexual orientation, that they cannot be married? Because as a society we think that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong? Because marriage is holy? Is allowing two individuals to marry at the age of 16 morally right? probably not, but many states allow it. We send 18 year old boys off to die in someone else's war, but prohibit them from drinking alcohol. Is this morally right? Heterosexual couples are married all the time in non-religious weddings, where is the holiness of their marriage? We should also never assume that the power to procreate makes one marriage stronger then another. There are many children in state services who came from marriages that procreated.
Thomas B Stoddard's essay " Gay Marriages: Make them legal" presents a much more fair picture of marriage in general. Stoddard points out that marriage is beneficial to one's emotional and spiritual health, along with providing them with the same financial rights that is granted to heterosexual married couples. Stoddard states that marriage's in general are created to promote family and social stability, and those wishing to pursue this should be encouraged not deprived because of their sexual orientation. Stoddard's strongest statement "Government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed" is so true, I mean according to our constitution, isn't state and religion supposed to be separate?
While we may not agree with the gay lifestyle, it is not our place to judge the love of two individuals. We must realize that marriage is built on love, not children and to raise healthy and happy children, two people must love one another; regardless of their sexual orientation.
Matthew Smith
Friday, June 29, 2007
Society just needs more time to accept gay marriages
Glen Drew
Argumentative Essay
June 29, 2007
Gay marriage should be legal. However, most Americans have not had enough time or societal relationships with gays to make it legal. I was just talking to my father the other day about how it's socially acceptable for people to still be prejudiced against gay men and women. I work in the restaurant industry and know some guys in the construction business. They talk pretty openly about not liking those "f---ots". I find it offensive, but then of course I'm accused of being gay and it get's me nowhere. I have now and then been known to say something is gay, but I'm working on it. The reason it surprises me is that these guys are manly white men, and also prejudiced against blacks and treat women like crap. But they don't go around calling them "n---ers" and "c---s". It's socially unacceptable. Somebody would definitely speak up or file a complaint. Women and African American rights have been in play for a couple of hundred years and that's why they're acceptable in society. Gay rights may have started in the 60's, but it really wasn't prominent in our culture until the 80's. That's only twenty five years in our history. As Americans come into more contact socially and culturally with gay people (as they are now), we will eventually let down our guard and say they have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.
Lisa Schiffen does not believe that gay marriages should be legal. She argues that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage is clearly not open to gay marriage. She believes that the lifestyles of gay people are not in tradition with the morals of heterosexual married couples (554). Her main argument is that marriage is "a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring." (554) Schiffen makes the mistake of attacking the homosexual lifestyle and assuming that most gay marriages will not result in monogamy or the raising of children. She also states a very offensive question: Without children, "What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?" (554) Her arguments are offensive and tend to assume that gay people have no morals or sexual scruples. She tries to use religion on her side, but the Bible clearly states it is against gay people, and that they are living in sin. How can one believe that a book writtten on morals over 2000 years ago should say how we dictate our society. During the time the bible was written, slavery was rampant, women had no rights, and older men used young boys as sex toys. Gay people today can have morals and be monogamous and raise a family of their own. Schiffen's argument against them is religioulsly biased and makes too many assumptions about the morality of gay men and women.
Thomas B. Stoddard is for legalizing gay marriages. His main argument is that the decision to marry belongs properly to individuals - not the government. He argues that it was illegal for different races to marry before 1967. It was very clear why this law was still in effect. The Supreme Court stated it was "to maintain white supremacy". Stoddard also has a very strong argument for marriage. Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. He also states that marriage is no longer a fundamentally procreative unit. Many people are divorced, have children without marriage, and some couples don't even have children. There is no reason to stop two people regardless of sex to get married in this day and age.
Today, gay marriage is still very controversial to many in our society. The gay lifestyle and the bible's strict adherence will keep many people against gay marriages. However, society has overcome prejudice against women and African Americans and many religions. Given time, gay marriage will no longer be a hot topic, but a societal norm.
Argumentative Essay
June 29, 2007
Gay marriage should be legal. However, most Americans have not had enough time or societal relationships with gays to make it legal. I was just talking to my father the other day about how it's socially acceptable for people to still be prejudiced against gay men and women. I work in the restaurant industry and know some guys in the construction business. They talk pretty openly about not liking those "f---ots". I find it offensive, but then of course I'm accused of being gay and it get's me nowhere. I have now and then been known to say something is gay, but I'm working on it. The reason it surprises me is that these guys are manly white men, and also prejudiced against blacks and treat women like crap. But they don't go around calling them "n---ers" and "c---s". It's socially unacceptable. Somebody would definitely speak up or file a complaint. Women and African American rights have been in play for a couple of hundred years and that's why they're acceptable in society. Gay rights may have started in the 60's, but it really wasn't prominent in our culture until the 80's. That's only twenty five years in our history. As Americans come into more contact socially and culturally with gay people (as they are now), we will eventually let down our guard and say they have the same rights as any heterosexual couple.
Lisa Schiffen does not believe that gay marriages should be legal. She argues that the Judeo-Christian tradition of marriage is clearly not open to gay marriage. She believes that the lifestyles of gay people are not in tradition with the morals of heterosexual married couples (554). Her main argument is that marriage is "a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring." (554) Schiffen makes the mistake of attacking the homosexual lifestyle and assuming that most gay marriages will not result in monogamy or the raising of children. She also states a very offensive question: Without children, "What will keep gay marriages together when individuals tire of each other?" (554) Her arguments are offensive and tend to assume that gay people have no morals or sexual scruples. She tries to use religion on her side, but the Bible clearly states it is against gay people, and that they are living in sin. How can one believe that a book writtten on morals over 2000 years ago should say how we dictate our society. During the time the bible was written, slavery was rampant, women had no rights, and older men used young boys as sex toys. Gay people today can have morals and be monogamous and raise a family of their own. Schiffen's argument against them is religioulsly biased and makes too many assumptions about the morality of gay men and women.
Thomas B. Stoddard is for legalizing gay marriages. His main argument is that the decision to marry belongs properly to individuals - not the government. He argues that it was illegal for different races to marry before 1967. It was very clear why this law was still in effect. The Supreme Court stated it was "to maintain white supremacy". Stoddard also has a very strong argument for marriage. Marriage creates families and promotes social stability. He also states that marriage is no longer a fundamentally procreative unit. Many people are divorced, have children without marriage, and some couples don't even have children. There is no reason to stop two people regardless of sex to get married in this day and age.
Today, gay marriage is still very controversial to many in our society. The gay lifestyle and the bible's strict adherence will keep many people against gay marriages. However, society has overcome prejudice against women and African Americans and many religions. Given time, gay marriage will no longer be a hot topic, but a societal norm.
Ban the Use of Cell Phones While Driving? What's next...the Radio, Mascara, and Drive-Thru Food?
Ban Cell Phones When Driving? What’s next, the Radio, Mascara or Drive Thru-Food?
Brenda Porter June 29, 2007
The article from Advocates for Cell Phone Safety entitled “Yes, Prohibit Their Use,” published on the Congressional Quarterly’s Web site, www.cq.com, on March 16, 2001, states a case for the ban of cell phone use while driving according to the accident statistics collected from Oklahoma, Minnesota, and overseas from Japan. Unofficial estimates were made from other areas of the country, but there are no recorded statistics except for Oklahoma and Minnesota. The article states that cell phones cause fatal accidents and should be given more attention by the government to ban or control use. Although it is unfortunate for any accidents or fatalities caused by cell phone use while driving, I must disagree with the article and stand on the side of personal choice and responsibility while using cell phones anywhere.
The Advocates for Cell Phone Safety supply convincing evidence with information from The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis stating there are approximately 450 to 1,000 fatalities each year(Advocates…). Also, the Advocates cite data from The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration stating that for every fatality, there are 666 property-damage and injury-producing crashes(Advocates…). Indeed, this is an astonishing calculation for cost of lives and property. On the other hand, when considering the possible cost of losing freedom of choice, this estimate comes up short in comparison. What price do you put on your freedom of choice to conduct your daily routine within the limits of the law?
Therefore, I must agree with the article titled “No, Don’t Prohibit Their Use,” written by Robert W. Hahn and Paul Tetlock published on the Congressional Quarterly’s Web site, www.cq.com, on March 16, 2001. The article was originally published in Policy Matters entitled “Driving and Talking Do Mix,” in November 1999. Hahn and Tetlock advocate freedom of choice to use cell phones while driving and solidify their standpoint with cost analysis concerning loss of time if cell phones were banned while driving. Although there are no concrete recordings for this information, they base the estimate on the value Americans put on their time. With this configuration in mind, Hahn and Tetlock estimate that it costs the American cell phone using public approximately $24 billion per year if not allowed to use cell phones while driving compared to $1 billion in loss of life and property caused by auto accidents while using cell phones when driving. To me it is obvious that even with the possible fatalities and property damage that not being able to use our cell phones in the car costs more.
Neither article has many official recordings to base their claims on, but both use common knowledge of daily cost for the average American household. I can accept both articles’ figures because I know how much I spend to live every month and what time spent multi-tasking saves me including using a cell phone and driving at the same time.
I also use a cell phone and vacuum, and I use my cell phone and do my dishes. I watch friends watch their children and talk on their cell phones as well, but I wouldn’t tell them they couldn’t talk and watch minor children at the same time. They would think I was insane for even suggesting it.
Overall, I am unsettled by the fatality and damage statistics, but just as Hahn and Tetlock state that there are other circumstances that sum up to the same type of numbers including driving and adjusting the radio. There are dangers everywhere. If we start to whittle away at every personal choice for every action we take each day as Americans and let the government decide for us. Well, then we really won’t be living in America anymore, will we?
Brenda Porter June 29, 2007
The article from Advocates for Cell Phone Safety entitled “Yes, Prohibit Their Use,” published on the Congressional Quarterly’s Web site, www.cq.com, on March 16, 2001, states a case for the ban of cell phone use while driving according to the accident statistics collected from Oklahoma, Minnesota, and overseas from Japan. Unofficial estimates were made from other areas of the country, but there are no recorded statistics except for Oklahoma and Minnesota. The article states that cell phones cause fatal accidents and should be given more attention by the government to ban or control use. Although it is unfortunate for any accidents or fatalities caused by cell phone use while driving, I must disagree with the article and stand on the side of personal choice and responsibility while using cell phones anywhere.
The Advocates for Cell Phone Safety supply convincing evidence with information from The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis stating there are approximately 450 to 1,000 fatalities each year(Advocates…). Also, the Advocates cite data from The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration stating that for every fatality, there are 666 property-damage and injury-producing crashes(Advocates…). Indeed, this is an astonishing calculation for cost of lives and property. On the other hand, when considering the possible cost of losing freedom of choice, this estimate comes up short in comparison. What price do you put on your freedom of choice to conduct your daily routine within the limits of the law?
Therefore, I must agree with the article titled “No, Don’t Prohibit Their Use,” written by Robert W. Hahn and Paul Tetlock published on the Congressional Quarterly’s Web site, www.cq.com, on March 16, 2001. The article was originally published in Policy Matters entitled “Driving and Talking Do Mix,” in November 1999. Hahn and Tetlock advocate freedom of choice to use cell phones while driving and solidify their standpoint with cost analysis concerning loss of time if cell phones were banned while driving. Although there are no concrete recordings for this information, they base the estimate on the value Americans put on their time. With this configuration in mind, Hahn and Tetlock estimate that it costs the American cell phone using public approximately $24 billion per year if not allowed to use cell phones while driving compared to $1 billion in loss of life and property caused by auto accidents while using cell phones when driving. To me it is obvious that even with the possible fatalities and property damage that not being able to use our cell phones in the car costs more.
Neither article has many official recordings to base their claims on, but both use common knowledge of daily cost for the average American household. I can accept both articles’ figures because I know how much I spend to live every month and what time spent multi-tasking saves me including using a cell phone and driving at the same time.
I also use a cell phone and vacuum, and I use my cell phone and do my dishes. I watch friends watch their children and talk on their cell phones as well, but I wouldn’t tell them they couldn’t talk and watch minor children at the same time. They would think I was insane for even suggesting it.
Overall, I am unsettled by the fatality and damage statistics, but just as Hahn and Tetlock state that there are other circumstances that sum up to the same type of numbers including driving and adjusting the radio. There are dangers everywhere. If we start to whittle away at every personal choice for every action we take each day as Americans and let the government decide for us. Well, then we really won’t be living in America anymore, will we?
Don't Prohibit Their Use
Sara Tillman
June 29, 2007
In Chapter 17 of our book there are two points of view about cell phones. Once side argues that cell phones should be banned because of the increases accidents and even deaths because of cell phone use in cars. The other side states that the cell phones aren't the thing to blame. Each author makes many valid points, but I believe that cell phones shouldn't be banned. The article "Yes, Prohibit Their Use" states that "as of summer 2000, it comes out to 450 to 1,000 fatalities each year" due to cell phone distracting the driver. However, Hahn and Tetlock state that the actual percentage of fatalities is "less than 1 percent of annual total". Furthermore, if we ban cell phones then we will have to ban every other car gadget that could be a distraction to driver. This includes G.P.S. systems, ipods, and even simply "tuning the radio" as Hahn and Tetlock say. The real problem isn't our "toys" like cell phones, the problem is us. Today it is very common to see people reading in cars, putting on makeup and doing other hazardous activities while driving. The billboard on the first page of chapter 17 says it best, it has a picture of a man in his car messing with his computer while going down the wrong lane of traffic. This billboard says "World's deadliest office. Just drive". This is a great message, and banning just cell phones will take the office out of the car.
Hahn and Tetlock disagree with the Congressional Quarterly's web site. They say that cell phones are not the ones to blame, and that they are actually beneficial to drivers. I agree that cell phones aren't to blame, but I don't think that the main concern about this issue is how much productivity we have increased in the office due to cell phones communication in the car. The real issue should be about how much safer a driver is with their cell phone accessible in the car. Two weeks ago I lost my cell phone and had to drive from Vermillion to Pierre, SD with no form of communication. This was the most horrifying trip of my life. If I would have had car trouble I would have to rely on someone else to help me, and anymore it is hard to know who can be trusted. Furthermore, cell phones are becoming hands free. This type of communication is the same as having a conversation with another person in the car. I have also heard of people calling in drunk drivers on their cell phones which is actually making the roads safer.
June 29, 2007
In Chapter 17 of our book there are two points of view about cell phones. Once side argues that cell phones should be banned because of the increases accidents and even deaths because of cell phone use in cars. The other side states that the cell phones aren't the thing to blame. Each author makes many valid points, but I believe that cell phones shouldn't be banned. The article "Yes, Prohibit Their Use" states that "as of summer 2000, it comes out to 450 to 1,000 fatalities each year" due to cell phone distracting the driver. However, Hahn and Tetlock state that the actual percentage of fatalities is "less than 1 percent of annual total". Furthermore, if we ban cell phones then we will have to ban every other car gadget that could be a distraction to driver. This includes G.P.S. systems, ipods, and even simply "tuning the radio" as Hahn and Tetlock say. The real problem isn't our "toys" like cell phones, the problem is us. Today it is very common to see people reading in cars, putting on makeup and doing other hazardous activities while driving. The billboard on the first page of chapter 17 says it best, it has a picture of a man in his car messing with his computer while going down the wrong lane of traffic. This billboard says "World's deadliest office. Just drive". This is a great message, and banning just cell phones will take the office out of the car.
Hahn and Tetlock disagree with the Congressional Quarterly's web site. They say that cell phones are not the ones to blame, and that they are actually beneficial to drivers. I agree that cell phones aren't to blame, but I don't think that the main concern about this issue is how much productivity we have increased in the office due to cell phones communication in the car. The real issue should be about how much safer a driver is with their cell phone accessible in the car. Two weeks ago I lost my cell phone and had to drive from Vermillion to Pierre, SD with no form of communication. This was the most horrifying trip of my life. If I would have had car trouble I would have to rely on someone else to help me, and anymore it is hard to know who can be trusted. Furthermore, cell phones are becoming hands free. This type of communication is the same as having a conversation with another person in the car. I have also heard of people calling in drunk drivers on their cell phones which is actually making the roads safer.
Prohibit Cell Phone Use: A Good Idea or Not?
Carrie Egging
6/29/2007
Comp II
Prohibit Cell Phone Use: A Good Idea or Not?
Cell phones can be very advantageous to everyone who owns one. Cell phones allow a person to be able to call home and tell their loved ones that they are on their way and not to worry, or they allow for someone to be able to call for help during an emergency. I would have to agree with Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock that it would not be extremely reasonable to ban cell phone use. However I do feel that the way people use their cell phones needs to be considered when discussing whether cell phone use is appropriate or not. The two essays we were giving to analyze both have very separate ideas about the appropriateness of cell phones usage while driving, but they don’t give very good evidence to back up their arguments.
The advocates for cell phone safety begin their essay with a quote stating, “There isn’t enough evidence to prove that using a cell phone while driving causes accidents.” (Advocates 542) Later in the essay they claim that cell phones are the cause of 450 to 1,000 fatalities in a year. How can they make this claim when they just stated that there is no evidence to cell phones being related to accidents? Also, they don’t give a source for these numbers they came up with.
The advocates for cell phone safety also stated that after Japan banned cell phones, the accidents associated with cell phones dropped by 70%. (542) Once again they did not state where they received this information or why someone should believe that this was due to banning cell phones. It could have been that that month that they tested had fewer accidents in it anyway.
Similarly, Hahn and Tetlock’s first paragraph seems to be giving reasons for prohibiting cell phone use while driving, but they are actually in support of not banning cell phones. I feel however that Hahn and Tetlock have a good argument about how cell phone usage is not any different then “tuning the radio, drinking double lattes, or refereeing the sibling wars in the back seat.” (Hahn 544) All these things increase the risk while driving but they are still allowed.
I also agree with Hahn and Tetlock’s last paragraph. Until there has been specific research done to test the danger of cell phone use while driving, let drivers use cell phones at their own judgment. Common sense says that cell phones can be distracting, let a person have enough common sense to know whether they are capable of using a cell phone while driving and whether the conditions are suitable for cell phone use. However I do think that hands free communication in the car would be very acceptable and much safer, but once again it should be up to the individual driving, for the time being.
6/29/2007
Comp II
Prohibit Cell Phone Use: A Good Idea or Not?
Cell phones can be very advantageous to everyone who owns one. Cell phones allow a person to be able to call home and tell their loved ones that they are on their way and not to worry, or they allow for someone to be able to call for help during an emergency. I would have to agree with Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock that it would not be extremely reasonable to ban cell phone use. However I do feel that the way people use their cell phones needs to be considered when discussing whether cell phone use is appropriate or not. The two essays we were giving to analyze both have very separate ideas about the appropriateness of cell phones usage while driving, but they don’t give very good evidence to back up their arguments.
The advocates for cell phone safety begin their essay with a quote stating, “There isn’t enough evidence to prove that using a cell phone while driving causes accidents.” (Advocates 542) Later in the essay they claim that cell phones are the cause of 450 to 1,000 fatalities in a year. How can they make this claim when they just stated that there is no evidence to cell phones being related to accidents? Also, they don’t give a source for these numbers they came up with.
The advocates for cell phone safety also stated that after Japan banned cell phones, the accidents associated with cell phones dropped by 70%. (542) Once again they did not state where they received this information or why someone should believe that this was due to banning cell phones. It could have been that that month that they tested had fewer accidents in it anyway.
Similarly, Hahn and Tetlock’s first paragraph seems to be giving reasons for prohibiting cell phone use while driving, but they are actually in support of not banning cell phones. I feel however that Hahn and Tetlock have a good argument about how cell phone usage is not any different then “tuning the radio, drinking double lattes, or refereeing the sibling wars in the back seat.” (Hahn 544) All these things increase the risk while driving but they are still allowed.
I also agree with Hahn and Tetlock’s last paragraph. Until there has been specific research done to test the danger of cell phone use while driving, let drivers use cell phones at their own judgment. Common sense says that cell phones can be distracting, let a person have enough common sense to know whether they are capable of using a cell phone while driving and whether the conditions are suitable for cell phone use. However I do think that hands free communication in the car would be very acceptable and much safer, but once again it should be up to the individual driving, for the time being.
Banning Cell Phones While Driving
Cell Phones:
Should Their Use While Driving Be Prohibited?
Brittany Lake
This essay explains the two sides to using a cell phone while driving. Both sides, advocates and prohibitionists for cell phone banning, successfully pointed out some issues that persuade readers. The cell phone banning advocates showed an estimate of how many accidents occurred while the driver was using a cell phone. Even though 450 to 1,000 fatalities is a rough estimate, it caught my attention, because I believe the numbers should not be that high. And although there was a lack of evidence on the statistics of accicent rates going down 75% in Japan when cell phones were banned, I still believe it is true. This statistic shows the impact of distractions that cell phones have when using them while driving. While air bags and tires are neccessary in order to drive, cell phones are not. Because they are not neccessary, it should be easy to ban them and give them up while driving. But some people have them attached to their ear, making the roads unsafe.
The other part to the argument, the cell phone banning prohibitionists, states that although there is an increased risk of accidents while using a phone when driving, the costs outweigh the benefits. Hahn and Tetlock explain that a household will lose $200 anually because they aren't able to conduct business from their cell phone. The statistics used here are 10,000 serious accidents and 100 fatalities caused by cell phone use when driving. The estimates used by both sides are not very similar and that is because no one knows the actual numbers. Police don't take note when they report to an accident on who was using a cell phone at the time. Also, there isn't many eyewitnesses to report the fact.
I support the banning of cell phone use while driving, or at least banning handheld cell phones. The roads would be a lot safer if cell phones were restricted to hands free ones, because the driver could keep both hands on the wheel and pay more attention to what he/she is doing. I do understand that cell phones are good for emergencies, but it's easy to pull over and talk while stopped than to try and multi-task while driving. This includes texting! I've taken notice on what people are like when talking on cell phones or texting; they cut you off, tailgate, and don't use blinkers because of not paying attention. This could also introduce the idea if cell phones are really the issue, or if it's just the people who use the cell phones while driving. Either way, cell phone use while driving is not making the roads any safer.
Should Their Use While Driving Be Prohibited?
Brittany Lake
This essay explains the two sides to using a cell phone while driving. Both sides, advocates and prohibitionists for cell phone banning, successfully pointed out some issues that persuade readers. The cell phone banning advocates showed an estimate of how many accidents occurred while the driver was using a cell phone. Even though 450 to 1,000 fatalities is a rough estimate, it caught my attention, because I believe the numbers should not be that high. And although there was a lack of evidence on the statistics of accicent rates going down 75% in Japan when cell phones were banned, I still believe it is true. This statistic shows the impact of distractions that cell phones have when using them while driving. While air bags and tires are neccessary in order to drive, cell phones are not. Because they are not neccessary, it should be easy to ban them and give them up while driving. But some people have them attached to their ear, making the roads unsafe.
The other part to the argument, the cell phone banning prohibitionists, states that although there is an increased risk of accidents while using a phone when driving, the costs outweigh the benefits. Hahn and Tetlock explain that a household will lose $200 anually because they aren't able to conduct business from their cell phone. The statistics used here are 10,000 serious accidents and 100 fatalities caused by cell phone use when driving. The estimates used by both sides are not very similar and that is because no one knows the actual numbers. Police don't take note when they report to an accident on who was using a cell phone at the time. Also, there isn't many eyewitnesses to report the fact.
I support the banning of cell phone use while driving, or at least banning handheld cell phones. The roads would be a lot safer if cell phones were restricted to hands free ones, because the driver could keep both hands on the wheel and pay more attention to what he/she is doing. I do understand that cell phones are good for emergencies, but it's easy to pull over and talk while stopped than to try and multi-task while driving. This includes texting! I've taken notice on what people are like when talking on cell phones or texting; they cut you off, tailgate, and don't use blinkers because of not paying attention. This could also introduce the idea if cell phones are really the issue, or if it's just the people who use the cell phones while driving. Either way, cell phone use while driving is not making the roads any safer.
Cell Phones and Driving Do Mix, with the Proper Ingredients
At one time or another anyone who’s ever owned a cell phone and a motor vehicle, have used the two at the same time. While calling and checking in at the office, calling home to verify dinner plans, scheduling a doctor’s appointment or just chatting with your friend may seem harmless enough, the fact of the matter is that the use of handheld cell phones while operating a motor vehicle is not the safest idea. Just earlier this week I saw a woman driving a Ford Excursion and talking on the cell phone in one hand while holding a cheeseburger in the other. I thought to myself, how is she able to control the 6500 pound vehicle with no hands on the wheel at 45 miles an hour? Does this seem safe to you?
While I do agree that the use of handheld cell phones while driving is unsafe, I do not support an entire ban on the use of cell phones and motor vehicles. I feel that the safety issue is in the occupation of the driver’s hands by the cell phone, and not in the conversation itself. Evidence of the increase in safety by banning the use of handheld communication devices while driving is stated on page 542 in the untitled essay calling for prohibition of their use. According to the essay, Japan banned the use of handheld phones and within one month the number of mobile phone calls accidents dropped by 75 percent. Therefore, I am not in support of an entire ban on the use of cell phones in vehicles however, a requirement to use hands free devices for all calls. There are many such devices on the market that can be purchased relatively inexpensively and are quite simple to use. The use of these devices free up both hands of the caller so that they can be used for control of the vehicle rather than fumbling with a handheld phone.
I find it quite difficult to agree with Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock’s comparison of bottom line costs with human life and safety in their essay titled “Driving and Talking Do Mix.” In their essay, they estimate that banning cell phone usage while driving would cost about $24 billion annually in lost time and productivity. They further state that their best estimate is only 10,000 serious accidents and 100 traffic fatalities with an estimated cost of $1 billion annually that can be attributed to cell phone usage. They argue that the loss of productivity far out ways the loss of human life. The statistics are listed without sources or studies to back up their claims. Even if these statistics claimed were true, what price should be placed on human life? Of course if we continued to allow the use of cell phones in motor vehicles, but require the use of hands free devices, the loss of time and productivity would not be an issue. The estimated $1 billion cost would be reduced along with the number of serious accidents and traffic fatalities. Therefore, I do not find the relevance in their claim.
The government should not ban the use of cell phones while operating a vehicle altogether. However, just as it has required the use of seat belts and the installation of air bags in new vehicles, it should regulate the way in which cell phones are used while operating a vehicle. To protect the safety of citizens driving on our streets, laws should be enacted to require the use of hands free devices. Therefore, not only would it save lives but also let us continue to enjoy the convenience afforded by the invention of the cellular phone.
While I do agree that the use of handheld cell phones while driving is unsafe, I do not support an entire ban on the use of cell phones and motor vehicles. I feel that the safety issue is in the occupation of the driver’s hands by the cell phone, and not in the conversation itself. Evidence of the increase in safety by banning the use of handheld communication devices while driving is stated on page 542 in the untitled essay calling for prohibition of their use. According to the essay, Japan banned the use of handheld phones and within one month the number of mobile phone calls accidents dropped by 75 percent. Therefore, I am not in support of an entire ban on the use of cell phones in vehicles however, a requirement to use hands free devices for all calls. There are many such devices on the market that can be purchased relatively inexpensively and are quite simple to use. The use of these devices free up both hands of the caller so that they can be used for control of the vehicle rather than fumbling with a handheld phone.
I find it quite difficult to agree with Robert Hahn and Paul Tetlock’s comparison of bottom line costs with human life and safety in their essay titled “Driving and Talking Do Mix.” In their essay, they estimate that banning cell phone usage while driving would cost about $24 billion annually in lost time and productivity. They further state that their best estimate is only 10,000 serious accidents and 100 traffic fatalities with an estimated cost of $1 billion annually that can be attributed to cell phone usage. They argue that the loss of productivity far out ways the loss of human life. The statistics are listed without sources or studies to back up their claims. Even if these statistics claimed were true, what price should be placed on human life? Of course if we continued to allow the use of cell phones in motor vehicles, but require the use of hands free devices, the loss of time and productivity would not be an issue. The estimated $1 billion cost would be reduced along with the number of serious accidents and traffic fatalities. Therefore, I do not find the relevance in their claim.
The government should not ban the use of cell phones while operating a vehicle altogether. However, just as it has required the use of seat belts and the installation of air bags in new vehicles, it should regulate the way in which cell phones are used while operating a vehicle. To protect the safety of citizens driving on our streets, laws should be enacted to require the use of hands free devices. Therefore, not only would it save lives but also let us continue to enjoy the convenience afforded by the invention of the cellular phone.
Living in a Country with So-Called Rights: Gay Marriage Controversy
In a world where society is said to be free and just, we as individuals know that that aspect is far from being completely true. I firmly agree with Thomas B. Stoddard and his stand for legal marriage of the gay and lesbian society. We are all born into this world with the same rights, therefore the marriage aspect and issue of society should be no different.
Stoddard makes a very strong and valid point when he states, “The decision whether or not to marry belongs properly to individuals-not the government”. In the end, it is us as individuals that lives our lives and suffers the consequences of our mistakes within society, not the government. I firmly believe that if one wishes to go against the rules of the bible, than that is their decision that they are choosing to make, knowing full well the consequences and wrongness of their actions.
I come from a family where the bible and Christian living is an important and vital part of our lifestyle. No we are not bible huggers by any means, but we do try to follow God’s word as much as possible, but knowing full well that we will sin and we are all sinners. My mom and I take very different stances when it comes to gay marriage and even just acceptance of the homosexual aspect all-together. My mom therefore would agree with Lisa Schiffren and he her stance against gay marriage. What it all comes down to is making those who are opposed to gay marriage comfortable, while at the same time violating the rights of the homosexual society.
Schiffren makes the statement in her essay, “’Same-sex marriage’ is inherently incompatible with our culture’s understanding of the institution”. This comment is strictly opinionated and I don’t agree with her at all. If homosexual marriage was legalized society wouldn’t have much of a problem with cultural understanding later on down the line. How fair is it for parent’s to marry their daughters at the age of 13 to a man in his 20’s? We have had to learn to accept that culturally so why can’t we just accept homosexual union as well?
Schiffren also goes on to bring up the subject of children and how those in a gay relationship end up sharing responsibility of children. I theorize that if gay marriage was legalized their would be more children adopted. Think about it realistically. They obviously can’t have children of their own unless they have children previously from the opposite sex. Therefore, their only other option would be to adopt in-order-to create a family of their own.
All-in-all I strongly take the stance of legalizing gay marriage. For the first time in my life I have come to get to know a man from the work that is gay. I look at him no different than I do anyone else. He’s funny, outgoing, and always knows how to make me life. He looks no different than any other human being and therefore should be given the right to live his life to the fullest and be as happy as anyone else. After all, that is what it means to live in a free country, right?
Stoddard makes a very strong and valid point when he states, “The decision whether or not to marry belongs properly to individuals-not the government”. In the end, it is us as individuals that lives our lives and suffers the consequences of our mistakes within society, not the government. I firmly believe that if one wishes to go against the rules of the bible, than that is their decision that they are choosing to make, knowing full well the consequences and wrongness of their actions.
I come from a family where the bible and Christian living is an important and vital part of our lifestyle. No we are not bible huggers by any means, but we do try to follow God’s word as much as possible, but knowing full well that we will sin and we are all sinners. My mom and I take very different stances when it comes to gay marriage and even just acceptance of the homosexual aspect all-together. My mom therefore would agree with Lisa Schiffren and he her stance against gay marriage. What it all comes down to is making those who are opposed to gay marriage comfortable, while at the same time violating the rights of the homosexual society.
Schiffren makes the statement in her essay, “’Same-sex marriage’ is inherently incompatible with our culture’s understanding of the institution”. This comment is strictly opinionated and I don’t agree with her at all. If homosexual marriage was legalized society wouldn’t have much of a problem with cultural understanding later on down the line. How fair is it for parent’s to marry their daughters at the age of 13 to a man in his 20’s? We have had to learn to accept that culturally so why can’t we just accept homosexual union as well?
Schiffren also goes on to bring up the subject of children and how those in a gay relationship end up sharing responsibility of children. I theorize that if gay marriage was legalized their would be more children adopted. Think about it realistically. They obviously can’t have children of their own unless they have children previously from the opposite sex. Therefore, their only other option would be to adopt in-order-to create a family of their own.
All-in-all I strongly take the stance of legalizing gay marriage. For the first time in my life I have come to get to know a man from the work that is gay. I look at him no different than I do anyone else. He’s funny, outgoing, and always knows how to make me life. He looks no different than any other human being and therefore should be given the right to live his life to the fullest and be as happy as anyone else. After all, that is what it means to live in a free country, right?
Cell Time- Phone or Jail by Matt Pepin
Cell Time- Phone or Jail?
The two essays in Chapter 17 argue whether cell phone use while driving should be prohibited or allowed. Both sides agree that the use of cell phones while driving cause accidents. At issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. I don’t think either side adequately defends or substantiates their side of the issue. Because of personal incidents involving near accidents and because I think the preponderance of convincing evidence was submitted by the Advocates for Cell Phone Safety, I support prohibiting handheld cell phones while driving.
Advocates for Cell Phone Safety base their statistics that cell phones are a problem upon a risk analysis program run by Harvard and funded by AT&T. Hard evidence is lacking because in many states police do not note whether or not a driver involved in an accident had been on the phone. If there was no evidence or eyewitness to prove or disprove if a driver had been using a phone when an accident occurred, would most drivers admit to the fact if doing so put them at fault?
The group states that 120 kids and small stature women were killed by airbags and 150 people with Firestone tires. They consider airbags and tires essential for driving and cell phones are not. They didn’t mention that the Firestone tires were defective and eventually recalled, nor did they mention the fact that air bags save far more people than they kill. I believe this detracted from their essay. Their estimate of fatalities caused by cell phones range from 450-1000 people a year, while advocates for cell phone use put yearly fatalities at about 100 per year. Both sides agree to the fact that there is very little data to base these estimates on. Proponents of prohibition state that in November of 2000, Japan became one of 14 countries that banned handheld phone use while driving. “Accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped 75% the next month”, said Mark Burris of the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research. No mention was made of how evidence for cell phone related accidents was collected to conclusively prove that the 75 percent drop in accident rate was exclusively the result of banning handheld cell phones. Fatalities in every location I checked did drop after banning handheld cell phones. One can infer from this that legislation concerning cell phones has had an effect on auto accidents.
Hahn and Tetlock’s essay advocates the use of handheld cell phone use while driving. The major thrust of their argument is the cost of not being able to conduct business on the phone, not being able to call home on the fly and the security and life saving capabilities of having a phone in case of an emergency. A driver would still have all these options by using a hands-free phone or pulling out of the flow of traffic and using their handheld phones.
One would be hard pressed to find a driver who has either been in an accident or had a close call. In a split second a casual driving experience can change into a trip of terror. Once control of a vehicle is lost it can turn into a lethal instrument to the driver and passengers or others in the path of the out of control vehicle. Talking pleasure or business with one on the steering wheel and the other on a phone is not defensive driving; it is an accident waiting to happen.
The two essays in Chapter 17 argue whether cell phone use while driving should be prohibited or allowed. Both sides agree that the use of cell phones while driving cause accidents. At issue is whether the benefits outweigh the risks. I don’t think either side adequately defends or substantiates their side of the issue. Because of personal incidents involving near accidents and because I think the preponderance of convincing evidence was submitted by the Advocates for Cell Phone Safety, I support prohibiting handheld cell phones while driving.
Advocates for Cell Phone Safety base their statistics that cell phones are a problem upon a risk analysis program run by Harvard and funded by AT&T. Hard evidence is lacking because in many states police do not note whether or not a driver involved in an accident had been on the phone. If there was no evidence or eyewitness to prove or disprove if a driver had been using a phone when an accident occurred, would most drivers admit to the fact if doing so put them at fault?
The group states that 120 kids and small stature women were killed by airbags and 150 people with Firestone tires. They consider airbags and tires essential for driving and cell phones are not. They didn’t mention that the Firestone tires were defective and eventually recalled, nor did they mention the fact that air bags save far more people than they kill. I believe this detracted from their essay. Their estimate of fatalities caused by cell phones range from 450-1000 people a year, while advocates for cell phone use put yearly fatalities at about 100 per year. Both sides agree to the fact that there is very little data to base these estimates on. Proponents of prohibition state that in November of 2000, Japan became one of 14 countries that banned handheld phone use while driving. “Accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped 75% the next month”, said Mark Burris of the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research. No mention was made of how evidence for cell phone related accidents was collected to conclusively prove that the 75 percent drop in accident rate was exclusively the result of banning handheld cell phones. Fatalities in every location I checked did drop after banning handheld cell phones. One can infer from this that legislation concerning cell phones has had an effect on auto accidents.
Hahn and Tetlock’s essay advocates the use of handheld cell phone use while driving. The major thrust of their argument is the cost of not being able to conduct business on the phone, not being able to call home on the fly and the security and life saving capabilities of having a phone in case of an emergency. A driver would still have all these options by using a hands-free phone or pulling out of the flow of traffic and using their handheld phones.
One would be hard pressed to find a driver who has either been in an accident or had a close call. In a split second a casual driving experience can change into a trip of terror. Once control of a vehicle is lost it can turn into a lethal instrument to the driver and passengers or others in the path of the out of control vehicle. Talking pleasure or business with one on the steering wheel and the other on a phone is not defensive driving; it is an accident waiting to happen.
Safety First: Ban Handheld Cell Phones
Taylor Effling
6/29/07
Are you a cell phone junkie who is a danger to the rest of us on our public roads? Talking on a handheld cell phone while driving is a threat to public safety and it should be banned. When your full attention is not on driving, you are putting yourself, your car occupants, and those individuals in your path in a situation of unnecessary risk.
In general, people realize they are assuming a risk when talking on the cell while driving even without reading the warnings provided in the literature that most of us never take out of the box. As pointed out on the Congressional Quarterly’s Web site, there have been few statistics compiled to show the extent to which cell phones have attributed to accidents, but this does not mean they are not causing accidents. The study published in 1999 by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found there was a "crash risk factor to using cell phones" of " 450 to 1,000 fatalities each year" (542). The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's findings predict that there are "between 300,000 and 650,000 "other" crashes due to cell phone use" (542). I would bet that a couple of us know someone who has been involved in an accident-- even if it was only a minor fender-bender-- that could be attributed to cell phone use while driving. I agree with the Congressional Quarterly's comment that the public becomes outraged when a factory defect of a vehicle, which the driver had no control over, causes automobile deaths. The public should be just as upset over deaths caused by driving while using a cell phone, which is a controllable risk factor. Why do so many Americans seem willing to participate in risky behaviors that are a danger to themselves and others, I could list several of these, but those are for another time and discussion? Is it fair to put other drivers, who maybe unfortunate enough to encounter you on the road, at risk of death because of the inconvenience to you of pulling over and stopping before making or answering a call.
Hahn and Tetlock give a different estimate of "about 10,000 serious accidents and 100 traffic fatalities", which according to their information would be "less than 1% of the annual total number of accidents (544). Based on these statistics they compiled [they give no sources for their statistics] it is their opinion that banning cell phone use while driving would be too expensive. Hahn and Tetlock claim there would be "billions" lost if people could not do business using a phone from their car (544). A ban would not limit them from conducting business on a cell phone while in a car, it would merely require that the car be stopped. An arguement could be made that by stopping before using the cell phone a person could conduct their phone business more effectively and timely as their attention would not be divided between driving and conducting business, thus saving money and time. How many lives saved would it take to be a cost effective proposition to ban using handheld cell phones when driving?
Mark Burris of the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research reported that when Japan banned handheld phones while driving " accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped by 75% the next month" (542). America should join Japan and the other 14 countries who have banned handheld phone use while driving. A ban of handheld cell phone use while driving could save your life or that of a loved one.
6/29/07
Are you a cell phone junkie who is a danger to the rest of us on our public roads? Talking on a handheld cell phone while driving is a threat to public safety and it should be banned. When your full attention is not on driving, you are putting yourself, your car occupants, and those individuals in your path in a situation of unnecessary risk.
In general, people realize they are assuming a risk when talking on the cell while driving even without reading the warnings provided in the literature that most of us never take out of the box. As pointed out on the Congressional Quarterly’s Web site, there have been few statistics compiled to show the extent to which cell phones have attributed to accidents, but this does not mean they are not causing accidents. The study published in 1999 by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found there was a "crash risk factor to using cell phones" of " 450 to 1,000 fatalities each year" (542). The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration's findings predict that there are "between 300,000 and 650,000 "other" crashes due to cell phone use" (542). I would bet that a couple of us know someone who has been involved in an accident-- even if it was only a minor fender-bender-- that could be attributed to cell phone use while driving. I agree with the Congressional Quarterly's comment that the public becomes outraged when a factory defect of a vehicle, which the driver had no control over, causes automobile deaths. The public should be just as upset over deaths caused by driving while using a cell phone, which is a controllable risk factor. Why do so many Americans seem willing to participate in risky behaviors that are a danger to themselves and others, I could list several of these, but those are for another time and discussion? Is it fair to put other drivers, who maybe unfortunate enough to encounter you on the road, at risk of death because of the inconvenience to you of pulling over and stopping before making or answering a call.
Hahn and Tetlock give a different estimate of "about 10,000 serious accidents and 100 traffic fatalities", which according to their information would be "less than 1% of the annual total number of accidents (544). Based on these statistics they compiled [they give no sources for their statistics] it is their opinion that banning cell phone use while driving would be too expensive. Hahn and Tetlock claim there would be "billions" lost if people could not do business using a phone from their car (544). A ban would not limit them from conducting business on a cell phone while in a car, it would merely require that the car be stopped. An arguement could be made that by stopping before using the cell phone a person could conduct their phone business more effectively and timely as their attention would not be divided between driving and conducting business, thus saving money and time. How many lives saved would it take to be a cost effective proposition to ban using handheld cell phones when driving?
Mark Burris of the University of South Florida's Center for Urban Transportation Research reported that when Japan banned handheld phones while driving " accidents caused by the use of mobile phones dropped by 75% the next month" (542). America should join Japan and the other 14 countries who have banned handheld phone use while driving. A ban of handheld cell phone use while driving could save your life or that of a loved one.
Cell Phones: Should Not Be Prohibited Under the Circumstance
Laura Lukes
6/29/2007
Comp II
Cell Phones: Should Their Use While Driving Be Prohibited?
My friend and i were driving to Sioux Falls one day to go to a movie. It was dark outside and it was a little foggy. She was calling her mother to let her mother know that we were going to the movies and that we would be home late. We were heading around a curve when a deer popped out in front of the vehicle, but before we knew it, we were rolling down into the ditch. The police came and they were asking questions about what happened. We explained that a deer ran out in front of the vehicle and we had no time to stop. The police told my friend that if she watching the road and not on the phone, this would have never happened. I thought to myself that it would have happened even if she was not on her phone. There would have been no time to stop either way. The fact that she was on her phone had nothing to do with hitting that deer.
People like to blame the cause of an accident on cell phones to cover up the fact that maybe they are not good drivers or the fact that maybe it really was an accident that could not have been prevented. In the article, “Advocates for Cell Phone Safety,” they talk about other safety hazards that had happened in the past (542), such as Firestone tires and airbags. Both were accidents made by the companies that made them. Does that mean we are to prohibit the use of airbags and Firestone tires? Even though they did have callbacks about the tires, Firestone still makes tires. What about airbags? Since airbags killed 120 kids and women, does that mean that we are going to stop using airbags for safety? It just means that we have to find more ways to prevent these accidents and we have to find a way to make the product safer.
Cell phones are not the problem. The problem is the people using them unsafely. People need to take responsibility for their actions by using cell phones in a safe manner. I see the person next to me on the cell phone laughing and not paying attention. This may cause an accident later on. A person needs to pay attention when using cell phones. Cell phones are essential for driving in a car incase of a serious accident where the police are needed. Incase of an accident, we need a cell phone to call 911 or the police. If a person did not have a cell phone and was unable to call for help, it could lead to more of a serious incident.
A person needs a cell phone for emergencies and for communication. When practicing safe use, cell phones can be used in a good manner. Paying attention to our surroundings and paying attention to others, a person can use a cell phone safely while in the car.
6/29/2007
Comp II
Cell Phones: Should Their Use While Driving Be Prohibited?
My friend and i were driving to Sioux Falls one day to go to a movie. It was dark outside and it was a little foggy. She was calling her mother to let her mother know that we were going to the movies and that we would be home late. We were heading around a curve when a deer popped out in front of the vehicle, but before we knew it, we were rolling down into the ditch. The police came and they were asking questions about what happened. We explained that a deer ran out in front of the vehicle and we had no time to stop. The police told my friend that if she watching the road and not on the phone, this would have never happened. I thought to myself that it would have happened even if she was not on her phone. There would have been no time to stop either way. The fact that she was on her phone had nothing to do with hitting that deer.
People like to blame the cause of an accident on cell phones to cover up the fact that maybe they are not good drivers or the fact that maybe it really was an accident that could not have been prevented. In the article, “Advocates for Cell Phone Safety,” they talk about other safety hazards that had happened in the past (542), such as Firestone tires and airbags. Both were accidents made by the companies that made them. Does that mean we are to prohibit the use of airbags and Firestone tires? Even though they did have callbacks about the tires, Firestone still makes tires. What about airbags? Since airbags killed 120 kids and women, does that mean that we are going to stop using airbags for safety? It just means that we have to find more ways to prevent these accidents and we have to find a way to make the product safer.
Cell phones are not the problem. The problem is the people using them unsafely. People need to take responsibility for their actions by using cell phones in a safe manner. I see the person next to me on the cell phone laughing and not paying attention. This may cause an accident later on. A person needs to pay attention when using cell phones. Cell phones are essential for driving in a car incase of a serious accident where the police are needed. Incase of an accident, we need a cell phone to call 911 or the police. If a person did not have a cell phone and was unable to call for help, it could lead to more of a serious incident.
A person needs a cell phone for emergencies and for communication. When practicing safe use, cell phones can be used in a good manner. Paying attention to our surroundings and paying attention to others, a person can use a cell phone safely while in the car.
Cell Phones: Usage While Driving Should Be Prohibited
Kristin Gebel
Week 7 –blog
27 June 2007
We can all remember times when we have passed vehicles and found the drivers more involved in their conversations over the phone rather than their driving skills. These situations are potentially dangerous not only to the driver, but to everyone else who is driving on the same side of the street. For this specific reason cell phones should be prohibited while driving.
There is a long list of things that could potentially cause a car accident. By prohibiting cell phone usage while driving we would be taking one of those things off of the list. The first essay in the casebook said “we killed 120 kids and small-stature women with airbags and we killed 150 people with Firestone tires” (542). With both of these examples there were government issues taken into affect. Why can we not have a government say to prevent the use of phones while driving? It may not be much, but it may be just enough to save the life of a loved one. According to Robert W. Hahn and Paul Tetlock it would only work out to be roughly one percent less of the annual total of accidents (544). That one percent may not mean much, but what if someone told you that, that one percent represented a close neighbor, a best friend or even a close family member. Then would that one percent make an impact on your decisions?
There are still going to be car accidents occurring and there is nothing to prevent that, but take an obstacle such as cell phones out of the mix and we might be able to reduce the number of accidents. A great example of this can be seen in the first essay from the case book when Mark Burris of the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research, mentioned that “in November, Japan became one of the 14 countries to ban handheld phone use while driving.” This made the number of accidents caused by the use of a mobile phone, to drop 75 percent in the next month (542). This is huge. If by banning cell phones while driving could prevent 75 percent or even 50 percent of accidents caused by phone use, we would still better off than the present.
Now do not get me wrong, cell phones are “important devices for reporting emergencies” (542). Emergency calls should be made from stopped vehicles and in most circumstances witnesses calling in the crash are in traffic that has been stopped. This type of cell phone use is important and should be maintained. If someone needs to talk on the cell phone while driving they should pull the vehicle over to the side of the road to talk or they should not use the phone until they are parked. This way they are not only saving themselves from being in an accident, but they are also looking out for everyone around them.
Cell phones can be dangerous technology when used in the wrong situations. To prevent automotive accidents caused by cell phones, the government should place a ban on talking over the phone while driving. We know it is not going to prevent the majority of the accidents, but this is the first stepping stone to ending some of the accidents that could have been prevented. Let’s save that one percent that just might be someone close to you.
Week 7 –blog
27 June 2007
We can all remember times when we have passed vehicles and found the drivers more involved in their conversations over the phone rather than their driving skills. These situations are potentially dangerous not only to the driver, but to everyone else who is driving on the same side of the street. For this specific reason cell phones should be prohibited while driving.
There is a long list of things that could potentially cause a car accident. By prohibiting cell phone usage while driving we would be taking one of those things off of the list. The first essay in the casebook said “we killed 120 kids and small-stature women with airbags and we killed 150 people with Firestone tires” (542). With both of these examples there were government issues taken into affect. Why can we not have a government say to prevent the use of phones while driving? It may not be much, but it may be just enough to save the life of a loved one. According to Robert W. Hahn and Paul Tetlock it would only work out to be roughly one percent less of the annual total of accidents (544). That one percent may not mean much, but what if someone told you that, that one percent represented a close neighbor, a best friend or even a close family member. Then would that one percent make an impact on your decisions?
There are still going to be car accidents occurring and there is nothing to prevent that, but take an obstacle such as cell phones out of the mix and we might be able to reduce the number of accidents. A great example of this can be seen in the first essay from the case book when Mark Burris of the University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research, mentioned that “in November, Japan became one of the 14 countries to ban handheld phone use while driving.” This made the number of accidents caused by the use of a mobile phone, to drop 75 percent in the next month (542). This is huge. If by banning cell phones while driving could prevent 75 percent or even 50 percent of accidents caused by phone use, we would still better off than the present.
Now do not get me wrong, cell phones are “important devices for reporting emergencies” (542). Emergency calls should be made from stopped vehicles and in most circumstances witnesses calling in the crash are in traffic that has been stopped. This type of cell phone use is important and should be maintained. If someone needs to talk on the cell phone while driving they should pull the vehicle over to the side of the road to talk or they should not use the phone until they are parked. This way they are not only saving themselves from being in an accident, but they are also looking out for everyone around them.
Cell phones can be dangerous technology when used in the wrong situations. To prevent automotive accidents caused by cell phones, the government should place a ban on talking over the phone while driving. We know it is not going to prevent the majority of the accidents, but this is the first stepping stone to ending some of the accidents that could have been prevented. Let’s save that one percent that just might be someone close to you.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Week 1 Post
Michelle HornerWeek #1 Blog Entry
Regarding the Value of Testing
The three essays we read for this week offered a range of views about the value of testing. With views ranging from abolishing the grading system to a defense of grading, it forces a person to think about the issue of testing. I was especially intrigued because, as a college student, I have mixed feelings toward the grading system. There were pieces in all three writings that I agreed with and I am still on the fence about this issue.
The main idea behind Paul Goodman’s essay “A Proposal to Abolish Grading” was that the negative aspects of testing override the sense in testing at all. He remarked that grading will lead to cheating and does not encourage retention in the subject, testing is just striving for the grade. I particularly enjoyed his comment that “an employer [would] do far better to apply his own job-aptitude test rather than to rely on the vagaries of Harvard sectionmen” (Barnet 20). I really liked this idea because I could tell you many classes that I’ve “passed” but I could barely tell you specifics about what areas we were studying let alone more in depth details. There were, however, classes that I barely made a B in and I could name off cases and tell you what the facts and the holding were. Having a 4.0gpa could mean that a student is smart but it could also mean that they took easy courses. The flaw that I found in Goodman’s essay was that I don’t know what we would do without testing.
Howard Gardner had another approach to testing. His essay, “Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed,” Gardner asserts that he wants tests to test for knowledge, seriousness, and effort not the speed at which they can complete a test. At first, I was in agreement with Gardner. Then I began to think, and especially after reading the responses, I realized that his proposition was unrealistic. He doesn’t take into consideration the reason that the tests are timed. In college, as well as in a job, there will be pressures, and the time aspect of the test serves to simulate that pressure. One response actually asked if Gardner “assigns due dates for his assignments to his students” (Barnet 25). Gardner makes me realize that standardized tests are sometimes needed.
The essay we read by Diane Ravitch entitled “In Defense of Testing,” accomplished just that. Ravitch brought up some interesting points. She notes that “tests and standards are necessary fact of life” (Barnet 26). I do think that for now, tests are needed. We haven’t figured out anything that can test and provide the same amount of pressure to all students in the class yet. I do also like the point that she made that along with tests, there should be many things such as good teachers, improved education, access to high-quality education, better education for teachers, and better tests.
Overall, I believe that tests need to be improved, along with many education standards, especially in grade school. These essays all had their good points and their flaws but overall, they give us something to work towards.
Regarding the Value of Testing
The three essays we read for this week offered a range of views about the value of testing. With views ranging from abolishing the grading system to a defense of grading, it forces a person to think about the issue of testing. I was especially intrigued because, as a college student, I have mixed feelings toward the grading system. There were pieces in all three writings that I agreed with and I am still on the fence about this issue.
The main idea behind Paul Goodman’s essay “A Proposal to Abolish Grading” was that the negative aspects of testing override the sense in testing at all. He remarked that grading will lead to cheating and does not encourage retention in the subject, testing is just striving for the grade. I particularly enjoyed his comment that “an employer [would] do far better to apply his own job-aptitude test rather than to rely on the vagaries of Harvard sectionmen” (Barnet 20). I really liked this idea because I could tell you many classes that I’ve “passed” but I could barely tell you specifics about what areas we were studying let alone more in depth details. There were, however, classes that I barely made a B in and I could name off cases and tell you what the facts and the holding were. Having a 4.0gpa could mean that a student is smart but it could also mean that they took easy courses. The flaw that I found in Goodman’s essay was that I don’t know what we would do without testing.
Howard Gardner had another approach to testing. His essay, “Test for Aptitude, Not for Speed,” Gardner asserts that he wants tests to test for knowledge, seriousness, and effort not the speed at which they can complete a test. At first, I was in agreement with Gardner. Then I began to think, and especially after reading the responses, I realized that his proposition was unrealistic. He doesn’t take into consideration the reason that the tests are timed. In college, as well as in a job, there will be pressures, and the time aspect of the test serves to simulate that pressure. One response actually asked if Gardner “assigns due dates for his assignments to his students” (Barnet 25). Gardner makes me realize that standardized tests are sometimes needed.
The essay we read by Diane Ravitch entitled “In Defense of Testing,” accomplished just that. Ravitch brought up some interesting points. She notes that “tests and standards are necessary fact of life” (Barnet 26). I do think that for now, tests are needed. We haven’t figured out anything that can test and provide the same amount of pressure to all students in the class yet. I do also like the point that she made that along with tests, there should be many things such as good teachers, improved education, access to high-quality education, better education for teachers, and better tests.
Overall, I believe that tests need to be improved, along with many education standards, especially in grade school. These essays all had their good points and their flaws but overall, they give us something to work towards.
Gay Marriages Should be Legalized
Melanie E. Woldt
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 7 Blog Entry
Gay Marriage: Should it be legal or not?
“Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring.” This is stated by Lisa Schiffren in her essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron.” Why? Why does it have to be just between a man and a woman? Why can’t it be between two guys? So two guys love each other….who cares? If they want to get married, then by all means, they should get married.
Thomas B. Stoddard, in his essay “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal,” says “And it [marriage] can no longer be argued—if it ever could—that marriage is fundamentally a procreative unit.” Marriages are NOT about making babies and raising kids together. Sure, some people want that, but not everybody does. Marriages are about two people totally in love with each other that they want to be together for all eternity. If the person you happen to fall in love with is of the same sex, why should it matter?
Many argue that it is against their religious beliefs to see two people of the same sex legally married. In fact, that’s what I believe. I believe that it is against my religion as it does say it is a sin in the bible, but I believe that a homosexual couple should be allowed to marry. I just don’t believe that they should be married by a priest, or a pastor, or anyone else of religious nature, but I believe that they can certainly be married by a judge. As it does conflict with the religious views, it doesn’t make sense to me to have a religious patron marry the couple.
People can lead perfectly normal lives as homosexuals, so why should it matter if they are legally married to each other? The way the debates go, it makes homosexuality sound like one giant contagious disease. Sure, I don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t mean that I should prevent two people from being happy. The world needs more happiness in it.
I am a bit of a romantic. I believe that every person needs to have someone to love and needs to be loved in return. I am so much of a romantic that at the end of a great movie, if the villain does not have a significant other, I feel really sorry for that villain. I am not saying that homosexuality is a villainous act; I am just saying that every body needs to have somebody.
Everybody needs to have somebody to get up and live for. If that just so happens to be the love of your life gay spouse, so be it. To be ridiculed for whom you love or who makes you happy is not the way things need to be. Society needs to be more accepting of homosexual relationships and the first step in that is to legalize gay marriages.
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 7 Blog Entry
Gay Marriage: Should it be legal or not?
“Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring.” This is stated by Lisa Schiffren in her essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron.” Why? Why does it have to be just between a man and a woman? Why can’t it be between two guys? So two guys love each other….who cares? If they want to get married, then by all means, they should get married.
Thomas B. Stoddard, in his essay “Gay Marriages: Make Them Legal,” says “And it [marriage] can no longer be argued—if it ever could—that marriage is fundamentally a procreative unit.” Marriages are NOT about making babies and raising kids together. Sure, some people want that, but not everybody does. Marriages are about two people totally in love with each other that they want to be together for all eternity. If the person you happen to fall in love with is of the same sex, why should it matter?
Many argue that it is against their religious beliefs to see two people of the same sex legally married. In fact, that’s what I believe. I believe that it is against my religion as it does say it is a sin in the bible, but I believe that a homosexual couple should be allowed to marry. I just don’t believe that they should be married by a priest, or a pastor, or anyone else of religious nature, but I believe that they can certainly be married by a judge. As it does conflict with the religious views, it doesn’t make sense to me to have a religious patron marry the couple.
People can lead perfectly normal lives as homosexuals, so why should it matter if they are legally married to each other? The way the debates go, it makes homosexuality sound like one giant contagious disease. Sure, I don’t agree with it, but that doesn’t mean that I should prevent two people from being happy. The world needs more happiness in it.
I am a bit of a romantic. I believe that every person needs to have someone to love and needs to be loved in return. I am so much of a romantic that at the end of a great movie, if the villain does not have a significant other, I feel really sorry for that villain. I am not saying that homosexuality is a villainous act; I am just saying that every body needs to have somebody.
Everybody needs to have somebody to get up and live for. If that just so happens to be the love of your life gay spouse, so be it. To be ridiculed for whom you love or who makes you happy is not the way things need to be. Society needs to be more accepting of homosexual relationships and the first step in that is to legalize gay marriages.
United States Vs. Holmes
Melanie E. Woldt
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 6 Blog Entry
To Live or Die, That is the Question
Benjamin Cardozo was correct when he wrote “When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison.” I believe that every life is precious and should try to be saved. I believe that killing off a few people in order to save your own life and others in the boat is similar to playing God. We are not qualified for that. To choose who to kill off and who to save is not the answer to saving as many as possible. If the situation called for someone else to die in order to save more lives, then why didn’t the person whose brilliant idea it was die instead of killing off others?
I believe that there could have been a way to save more people. Perhaps the crew could have rethought of a better plan before the ship went down. Who is to say? But no matter the circumstance, killing off others in order for you to live is not moral. It is ethically irresponsible. It violates so many ethical social rules.
I would hate to live the rest of my life out knowing that I was living on a potentially stolen life. Who is to say that that was when you were meant to die? Killing another person in order to for you to survive is stealing that other person’s life line. It is wrong. Other than living through the stolen life, it would be a cursed life you would live. Everyday, you would feel guilty knowing that you could have done something helpful instead of adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. That guilt would gnaw at you every waking moment. It would torment you in nightmares each night. Knowing that you deliberately left someone to die is bad enough, but knowing you helped end that person’s life, would kill you. Why go through a stolen, tortured life? If someone ‘needs to die in order to let someone else live,’ then why not die yourself? Granted, giving up isn’t the best plan either, but at least then you would be remembered as someone who tried to make a difference. Not to mention the fact that killing is illegal. Why would it suddenly be legal in extreme circumstances? It is still a broken law.
June 28, 2007
Composition II
Week 6 Blog Entry
To Live or Die, That is the Question
Benjamin Cardozo was correct when he wrote “When two or more are overtaken by a common disaster, there is no right on the part of one to save the lives of some by killing another. There is no rule of human jettison.” I believe that every life is precious and should try to be saved. I believe that killing off a few people in order to save your own life and others in the boat is similar to playing God. We are not qualified for that. To choose who to kill off and who to save is not the answer to saving as many as possible. If the situation called for someone else to die in order to save more lives, then why didn’t the person whose brilliant idea it was die instead of killing off others?
I believe that there could have been a way to save more people. Perhaps the crew could have rethought of a better plan before the ship went down. Who is to say? But no matter the circumstance, killing off others in order for you to live is not moral. It is ethically irresponsible. It violates so many ethical social rules.
I would hate to live the rest of my life out knowing that I was living on a potentially stolen life. Who is to say that that was when you were meant to die? Killing another person in order to for you to survive is stealing that other person’s life line. It is wrong. Other than living through the stolen life, it would be a cursed life you would live. Everyday, you would feel guilty knowing that you could have done something helpful instead of adding fuel to the fire, so to speak. That guilt would gnaw at you every waking moment. It would torment you in nightmares each night. Knowing that you deliberately left someone to die is bad enough, but knowing you helped end that person’s life, would kill you. Why go through a stolen, tortured life? If someone ‘needs to die in order to let someone else live,’ then why not die yourself? Granted, giving up isn’t the best plan either, but at least then you would be remembered as someone who tried to make a difference. Not to mention the fact that killing is illegal. Why would it suddenly be legal in extreme circumstances? It is still a broken law.
Having never been in such extreme a circumstance, I do not know if I would be trying to save only my life or trying to save the lives of others. I do not know if I would be terrified out of my mind, I do not know if I would be able to do anything other than try to save my own life. But I can hope that I can reach out and help someone else instead of letting them hurt for me. I can hope that if I ever do get into such a situation, that I can live up to my personal morals.
Gay marriage: What is the purpose of marriage?
The Gay marriage debate is often framed in view of two different views on the purpose of marriage. One side says that the most important function of marriage is procreation, the creation of children between a man and a woman. Another side says that marriage is a public declaration of a spiritual, emotional bond between two people. I believe that marriage is a right that should not be based on the ability to create children, but on the simple promise between two people to love each other until death. My dad is a Lutheran pastor who has worked as a chaplain at major hospitals in Chicago and Yankton. When a person is admitted into intensive care, only immediate family is allowed access. My dad often counseled couples, both gay and lesbian, who had been committed to each other for decades but were separated at the time of death. It is a human need to say goodbye to a loved one as they die, but since in the eyes of the law they were not married-they were barred from the room. My dad began his chaplaincy against the concept of gay marriage, but after seeing the heartbreak over and over again he now supports equal marriage rights for all people regardless of sex.
The primary argument for gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is a human right. Thomas Stoddard quotes the 1967 supreme court ruling that " 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man' (and, presumably, of women as well). The freedom to marry, said the court, is 'essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness' " (551). In other words, marriage is a human right protected by the United States Constitution. Lisa Schiffren disagrees saying, "Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring" (554). Schiffren's narrow definition excludes many heterosexual couples. In Schiffren's world an infertile woman would have no need for marriage. Marriage would be pointless for any man with a vasectomy. Any senior citizens who fall in love shouldn't bother with marriage since they are past reproductive age. Today no person gets married for the sole purpose of bearing children. People get married for love. Love is blind. Love knows no boundaries. Love joins two people regardless of age, race, class or sex.
The secondary argument is about the legal and social benefits of marriage. Our society views a married couple as family, whereas two people living under one roof are simply roommates. The most heart breaking example of our society's discrimination is in the ICU. Stoddard relates the story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski (551) who were separated by the courts after a drunk driver struck Ms Kowalski. Their situation is unique only in that it was remedied in the courts. Many couples have no legal alternative when death strikes quickly. Marriage would legitimize the union and allow the sick, injured and dying person comfort from their spouse. Schiffren does not address this issue in her essay. She does mention that the government benefits "exist to help couples raise children" (555), but does not consider the adopted children of homosexual couples. In fact, if the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then the legalization of homosexual marriage would provide thousands of loving homes for all the unwanted children of heterosexual couples in foster care.
In the end, marriage is a human right protected by the constitution for all Americans. The legalization of homosexual marriage would allow loving and committed couples, regardless of sex or orientation, the social and political rights that heterosexual couples now enjoy.
Suzannah Bryan
The primary argument for gay marriage is that the institution of marriage is a human right. Thomas Stoddard quotes the 1967 supreme court ruling that " 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man' (and, presumably, of women as well). The freedom to marry, said the court, is 'essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness' " (551). In other words, marriage is a human right protected by the United States Constitution. Lisa Schiffren disagrees saying, "Marriage is essentially a lifelong compact between a man and a woman committed to sexual exclusivity and the creation and nurture of offspring" (554). Schiffren's narrow definition excludes many heterosexual couples. In Schiffren's world an infertile woman would have no need for marriage. Marriage would be pointless for any man with a vasectomy. Any senior citizens who fall in love shouldn't bother with marriage since they are past reproductive age. Today no person gets married for the sole purpose of bearing children. People get married for love. Love is blind. Love knows no boundaries. Love joins two people regardless of age, race, class or sex.
The secondary argument is about the legal and social benefits of marriage. Our society views a married couple as family, whereas two people living under one roof are simply roommates. The most heart breaking example of our society's discrimination is in the ICU. Stoddard relates the story of Karen Thompson and Sharon Kowalski (551) who were separated by the courts after a drunk driver struck Ms Kowalski. Their situation is unique only in that it was remedied in the courts. Many couples have no legal alternative when death strikes quickly. Marriage would legitimize the union and allow the sick, injured and dying person comfort from their spouse. Schiffren does not address this issue in her essay. She does mention that the government benefits "exist to help couples raise children" (555), but does not consider the adopted children of homosexual couples. In fact, if the purpose of marriage is to raise children, then the legalization of homosexual marriage would provide thousands of loving homes for all the unwanted children of heterosexual couples in foster care.
In the end, marriage is a human right protected by the constitution for all Americans. The legalization of homosexual marriage would allow loving and committed couples, regardless of sex or orientation, the social and political rights that heterosexual couples now enjoy.
Suzannah Bryan
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Taking a Stand for Gay Marriages
Michelle HornerBlog Post #7June 27, 2007
What’s the Deal with Gay Marriages?
I was brought up with the mentality “do what makes you happy.” How are we supposed to do this if people are restricted on their basic freedoms by the government? Marriage has been around as long as time it seems. One of the Ten Commandments forbids adultery. In the Christian view, marriage is one of the most holy sacraments. My question is when did the government begin to take religious views on its laws, namely the law of marriage? If all humans are equal, then why does it matter if I want to marry a woman or if my good male friend wants to marry his one true love, who just so happens to be another man. Marriage is marriage, and the law should say so.
The major opponents to the legalization of gay marriages offer seemingly great arguments, yet they have some large flaws. For example, in Lisa Schiffren’s essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron” she states that “in traditional marriage, the tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for children” (Barnet 554). She claims that any marriage that does not involve procreation should, in essence, be nullified in the legal sense. This is ultimately a flawed point of view. Schiffren does not take into account that in many states it is legal for any person to adopt children which is a good alternative for homosexuals who want children. She also fails to recognize one of the major reasons that people get married. People are married to join souls and to live happily with one another as life partners. It would be extremely outrageous to require those who get pregnant to marry the father to uphold the integrity of marriage, or to require those who are married to stay together just because they have children together. It is also ludicrous to have those who have chosen to devote their lives to one another and get married but later find out that they are infertile have their marriage nullified. What about the older generation that has been married or widowed that finds new love and wants that to be recognized, yet the law refuses to allow it because the female is too old and can’t produce more children. This position would be completely outrageous in practice.
There are many reasons that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to the issue of marriage laws. In his essay, Thomas B. Stoddard used an analogy to compare the issue we deal with now, gay marriage, with the older issue of race. He argued that it was “as recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court declared miscegenation statues unconstitutional, sixteen states still prohibited marriages between a white person and a black person” (Barnet 552). This analogy fits perfectly with the issue of gay marriage rights. What was seen at the time as a perfectly legal and morally correct law can now be viewed as an utterly discriminatory law that was rightfully overturned. Why must we go through such a long process to do the same thing with the discrimination against homosexuals’ right to marriage?
Our law has prided itself on maintaining equality for every individual. We have been battling for years to maintain a proper balance in our society following the slavery and segregation of African-American’s, now we are arriving at a new crossroads. This crossroad is one that is hurting the concept of marriage law. Two people who promise to devote their lives to one another should be able to do so legally, regardless of the sex of their partner. We need to learn from our past mistakes and end this discrimination. We must allow people to marry who they love. In the words of Thomas Stoddard, “government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed” (Barnet 552).
What’s the Deal with Gay Marriages?
I was brought up with the mentality “do what makes you happy.” How are we supposed to do this if people are restricted on their basic freedoms by the government? Marriage has been around as long as time it seems. One of the Ten Commandments forbids adultery. In the Christian view, marriage is one of the most holy sacraments. My question is when did the government begin to take religious views on its laws, namely the law of marriage? If all humans are equal, then why does it matter if I want to marry a woman or if my good male friend wants to marry his one true love, who just so happens to be another man. Marriage is marriage, and the law should say so.
The major opponents to the legalization of gay marriages offer seemingly great arguments, yet they have some large flaws. For example, in Lisa Schiffren’s essay “Gay Marriage, an Oxymoron” she states that “in traditional marriage, the tie that really binds for life is shared responsibility for children” (Barnet 554). She claims that any marriage that does not involve procreation should, in essence, be nullified in the legal sense. This is ultimately a flawed point of view. Schiffren does not take into account that in many states it is legal for any person to adopt children which is a good alternative for homosexuals who want children. She also fails to recognize one of the major reasons that people get married. People are married to join souls and to live happily with one another as life partners. It would be extremely outrageous to require those who get pregnant to marry the father to uphold the integrity of marriage, or to require those who are married to stay together just because they have children together. It is also ludicrous to have those who have chosen to devote their lives to one another and get married but later find out that they are infertile have their marriage nullified. What about the older generation that has been married or widowed that finds new love and wants that to be recognized, yet the law refuses to allow it because the female is too old and can’t produce more children. This position would be completely outrageous in practice.
There are many reasons that homosexuals should be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples when it comes to the issue of marriage laws. In his essay, Thomas B. Stoddard used an analogy to compare the issue we deal with now, gay marriage, with the older issue of race. He argued that it was “as recently as 1967, before the Supreme Court declared miscegenation statues unconstitutional, sixteen states still prohibited marriages between a white person and a black person” (Barnet 552). This analogy fits perfectly with the issue of gay marriage rights. What was seen at the time as a perfectly legal and morally correct law can now be viewed as an utterly discriminatory law that was rightfully overturned. Why must we go through such a long process to do the same thing with the discrimination against homosexuals’ right to marriage?
Our law has prided itself on maintaining equality for every individual. We have been battling for years to maintain a proper balance in our society following the slavery and segregation of African-American’s, now we are arriving at a new crossroads. This crossroad is one that is hurting the concept of marriage law. Two people who promise to devote their lives to one another should be able to do so legally, regardless of the sex of their partner. We need to learn from our past mistakes and end this discrimination. We must allow people to marry who they love. In the words of Thomas Stoddard, “government has no legitimate interest in how that love is expressed” (Barnet 552).
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Trouble with Title IX
Irving on Title IX
Brenda Porter, June 26, 2007
John Irving begins his essay about the federal law Title IX with a great title, “Wrestling with Title IX.” What makes it so interesting is the fact that Irving is a member of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and the essay focuses on facts surrounding the decline of programs for wrestling at the college level due to the enforcement of Title IX. The title itself also primes the tone that there is controversy surrounding the issue, and controversy is always a great motivator to keep me interested.
The basis Irving is making here is that Title IX is confusing due to two different rulings of Title IX, and the interpretation and enforcement of the current Title IX is producing nothing but biased gender quotas. This thesis is given in the second paragraph giving direction to the rest of the essay. It is clear what side of the issue Irving is on.
The purpose is to persuade the audience to side with Irving on the issue that Title IX is failing in its purpose to equalize gender in college sports. College sports and gender equality are both relevant issue in today’s society and compel further investigation. This gives validity to Irving’s topic.
In the following paragraphs facts including information about the 1979 law and the revised 1996 amendment to it give a foundation so that an informed conclusion can be reached. Irving provides empirical data about gender quota formulations used for determining percentages of allowed sports categories and participation in them. By doing this he is able to show the prejudice in the math reiterating the fact that the way the law is written and enforced is unfair towards males.
The tone of Irving’s argument is passionate enough to be intriguing, and his dissatisfaction with current legislation and the feminist attitude surrounding it incite agreement. He is definitely drawing lines over what is fair and unfair with this law.
The determination I come to, Irving is valid in his views. I agree with what he says concerning the misuse and misinterpretation of Title IX. The way the information is presented as well as the way it is presented, add not only conviction but also substance to Irving’s side of the issue.
Brenda Porter, June 26, 2007
John Irving begins his essay about the federal law Title IX with a great title, “Wrestling with Title IX.” What makes it so interesting is the fact that Irving is a member of the National Wrestling Hall of Fame, and the essay focuses on facts surrounding the decline of programs for wrestling at the college level due to the enforcement of Title IX. The title itself also primes the tone that there is controversy surrounding the issue, and controversy is always a great motivator to keep me interested.
The basis Irving is making here is that Title IX is confusing due to two different rulings of Title IX, and the interpretation and enforcement of the current Title IX is producing nothing but biased gender quotas. This thesis is given in the second paragraph giving direction to the rest of the essay. It is clear what side of the issue Irving is on.
The purpose is to persuade the audience to side with Irving on the issue that Title IX is failing in its purpose to equalize gender in college sports. College sports and gender equality are both relevant issue in today’s society and compel further investigation. This gives validity to Irving’s topic.
In the following paragraphs facts including information about the 1979 law and the revised 1996 amendment to it give a foundation so that an informed conclusion can be reached. Irving provides empirical data about gender quota formulations used for determining percentages of allowed sports categories and participation in them. By doing this he is able to show the prejudice in the math reiterating the fact that the way the law is written and enforced is unfair towards males.
The tone of Irving’s argument is passionate enough to be intriguing, and his dissatisfaction with current legislation and the feminist attitude surrounding it incite agreement. He is definitely drawing lines over what is fair and unfair with this law.
The determination I come to, Irving is valid in his views. I agree with what he says concerning the misuse and misinterpretation of Title IX. The way the information is presented as well as the way it is presented, add not only conviction but also substance to Irving’s side of the issue.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Wives and the Short End of the Stick & Judy Brady Essay
Wives and the Short End of the Stick….
Brenda Porter, June 25, 2007
Judy Brady’s essay, “I Want a Wife,” is a fairly accurate description of what it means to be a wife. Although the essay was published over thirty-five years ago, most of the points Brady makes still hold true today. The essay is sarcastic in style, but the statements made about what a husband expects of a wife and her duties are realistic. All anyone has to do is watch the television show, “Wife Swap,” to see the similarities to Brady’s essay and the relevance it has to today’s society.
The most interesting part of reading this essay was the fact that it was written in a sarcastic style to bring attention to how the daily hard work wives do does go greatly unappreciated. Every point made by Brady I found myself thinking how true it is. Most men today and in generations past expect wives to take care of the house, children, cooking, cleaning, laundry, appointments, perform sexually when called on, not to complain, and look as good as possible while doing all of it. Basically reiterating everything Brady said because it remains valid today as it did thirty-six years ago.
Brady may seem at first glance to be downing marriage life, but in fact she is bringing to light what we should be cherishing in wives. She is letting us know that wives are great, selfless, and sacrificing people who do whatever is needed for the one they love. The point is to show that to be a wife is to be dedicated to the needs of others just because you love them and want nothing but their success.
Also, even with statements referring to the husband easily disposing of an unacceptable performance of a wife by obtaining a “new” wife, Brady really is promoting keeping a marriage together through good and bad times. Once again she uses sarcasm to bring this out by using examples of ungrateful husbands leaving the dutiful wife once he’s gotten all the good out of her and free himself to please himself. Yes, there are men like this out there, but I really think Brady is trying to say that life is difficult and once a man and woman commit to be life partners that it has meaning and value not something easily discarded if one isn’t “happy”.
There have been a lot of things go wrong in marriages in the past and today. There have also been a lot of good things too. The institution of marriage is still one of the strongest values we as a society can have and must continue to pursue. Without it we are nothing but out for ourselves and very lonely in the end. Children can’t grow and thrive without some type example of caring. Without caring for the people we choose to marry and have children with, what legacy are we leaving the generations to come? Where will that leave us?
Brenda Porter, June 25, 2007
Judy Brady’s essay, “I Want a Wife,” is a fairly accurate description of what it means to be a wife. Although the essay was published over thirty-five years ago, most of the points Brady makes still hold true today. The essay is sarcastic in style, but the statements made about what a husband expects of a wife and her duties are realistic. All anyone has to do is watch the television show, “Wife Swap,” to see the similarities to Brady’s essay and the relevance it has to today’s society.
The most interesting part of reading this essay was the fact that it was written in a sarcastic style to bring attention to how the daily hard work wives do does go greatly unappreciated. Every point made by Brady I found myself thinking how true it is. Most men today and in generations past expect wives to take care of the house, children, cooking, cleaning, laundry, appointments, perform sexually when called on, not to complain, and look as good as possible while doing all of it. Basically reiterating everything Brady said because it remains valid today as it did thirty-six years ago.
Brady may seem at first glance to be downing marriage life, but in fact she is bringing to light what we should be cherishing in wives. She is letting us know that wives are great, selfless, and sacrificing people who do whatever is needed for the one they love. The point is to show that to be a wife is to be dedicated to the needs of others just because you love them and want nothing but their success.
Also, even with statements referring to the husband easily disposing of an unacceptable performance of a wife by obtaining a “new” wife, Brady really is promoting keeping a marriage together through good and bad times. Once again she uses sarcasm to bring this out by using examples of ungrateful husbands leaving the dutiful wife once he’s gotten all the good out of her and free himself to please himself. Yes, there are men like this out there, but I really think Brady is trying to say that life is difficult and once a man and woman commit to be life partners that it has meaning and value not something easily discarded if one isn’t “happy”.
There have been a lot of things go wrong in marriages in the past and today. There have also been a lot of good things too. The institution of marriage is still one of the strongest values we as a society can have and must continue to pursue. Without it we are nothing but out for ourselves and very lonely in the end. Children can’t grow and thrive without some type example of caring. Without caring for the people we choose to marry and have children with, what legacy are we leaving the generations to come? Where will that leave us?
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Sinking ship
Glen Drew
Week 6
I agree with Cardozo's argument. No one has any special privilege or power to sacrifice people's lives without their consent. In a sinking boat, it's every man (woman) for themselves. You do not throw off half the passengers to save your own neck. The sailors that acted harshly and threw passengers off the boat should be court-martialed and demoted.
The sailors have a duty to save as many passengers as possible. If anything, the sailors should have drawn straws to see who would sacrifice themselves for the passengers. The sailor know the perils of the sea and they are supposed to be strong, upstanding men. A defense for following orders should be brought up in a military court and not a civilian one. They should not be called sailors if they throw passengers off of the boat.
The circumstances surrounding the sinking boat were very grave, but there is no excuse for sacrificing innocent people if it's not absolutely necessary. Some homicide is justifiable, like self-defense or defending your country. Yet the sailors were not being attacked or at war. They simply acted hastily to save their own necks. The big question: Why weren't any sailors sacrificed? This fact alone proves to me that the sailors should be punished somehow.
The facts remain clear that sailors sacrificed the lives of the passengers they were supposed to be protecting. The sailors are better trained and probably more physically fit to survive the harsh conditions of the sea. The passengers were killed unjustly and some of the sailors should be punished for their harsh and selfish actions.
Week 6
I agree with Cardozo's argument. No one has any special privilege or power to sacrifice people's lives without their consent. In a sinking boat, it's every man (woman) for themselves. You do not throw off half the passengers to save your own neck. The sailors that acted harshly and threw passengers off the boat should be court-martialed and demoted.
The sailors have a duty to save as many passengers as possible. If anything, the sailors should have drawn straws to see who would sacrifice themselves for the passengers. The sailor know the perils of the sea and they are supposed to be strong, upstanding men. A defense for following orders should be brought up in a military court and not a civilian one. They should not be called sailors if they throw passengers off of the boat.
The circumstances surrounding the sinking boat were very grave, but there is no excuse for sacrificing innocent people if it's not absolutely necessary. Some homicide is justifiable, like self-defense or defending your country. Yet the sailors were not being attacked or at war. They simply acted hastily to save their own necks. The big question: Why weren't any sailors sacrificed? This fact alone proves to me that the sailors should be punished somehow.
The facts remain clear that sailors sacrificed the lives of the passengers they were supposed to be protecting. The sailors are better trained and probably more physically fit to survive the harsh conditions of the sea. The passengers were killed unjustly and some of the sailors should be punished for their harsh and selfish actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)