Causing Problems for Candidates

I agree with my classmate’s blog about the over exaggeration of race and gender in the Democratic primaries. I think that the media over inflates these issues and exaggerates in order to gain more viewers. Unfortunately, this leaves candidate’s actual political views in the background. This is inappropriate, as we are deciding on the potential leader of our country, not a popularly contest between African Americans and girls.

Lowering the Age!

I believe that the United States ought to lower the drinking age to eighteen and implement a responsible drinking program, not alcohol abstinence, in high school. Much like lowering the voting age to eighteen, it seems unreasonable that a citizen can join the military and die for his or her country, yet still not be able to go to the grocery store to legally pick up a six pack.

Evidence suggests that the drinking age being twenty-one is no more beneficial than a drinking age of eighteen. In fact, the District of Columbia produced a report that showed a positive correlation between higher drinking ages and higher single–vehicle fatalities. And let’s face it, kids are going to get a hold of alcohol before they are legally of age, and lowering the drinking age would diminish the lure of doing something forbidden.

A progressive classroom education on the realities of drinking would be a necessary component, so that young adults would be better equipped to drink responsibly. “Just say no to alcohol” programs are not helpful for students. What students need are the facts so that they can make their own responsible decisions.

Only eight countries in the world have a drinking age as high as 21 (The United States, Indonesia, Oman, Pakistan, the United Arab Emirates, The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Fiji, and Kiribati) while most other developed countries have a drinking age of eighteen. The United States should emulate these countries and change the drinking age to eighteen as well.

Not my tax dollars!

I completely agree with my classmate’s blog about financial aid for sex offenders, in that I, too, would rather fund a drug addict’s education than a sex offender’s. I think that it is outrageous that these people are getting things from the government when they have already proven that they are a threat to other citizens. I find the very idea to be disgusting.

While I do agree that this could potentially cause some injustice with sex offenders charged with statutory rape of a technically consenting underage teenager, what they have done is still illegal in the eyes of the government and many of these people are still predators.

I volunteer with a rape and domestic violence crisis center. There are many barriers to proving and convicting a person of a sex crime in the United States, and in fact, most predators get off scott free. It is terrible to think that those who have committed a crime vicious enough to have actually been convicted are somehow given a leg up by the society that they have harmed.

Big Kids = Big Costs

According to the Surgeon General’s website, in 1999 14% of children ages twelve to nineteen were overweight or obese. While one might consider obesity to be a personal issue, not a government issue, in 2001 the economic cost of obesity in Texas, according to the Department of State Health Services website, was estimated around $10.5 billion and it is estimated that the cost will rise to $15.6 billion by 2010! Not to mention, these children are at a high risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cancer which are all costly problems that could be prevented.

I believe that the public educational system is contributing to this rise in childhood obesity. For most children the cause of obesity is a lack of exercises and eating too much unhealthy food. In many elementary schools across the United States, recess, a time for students to run around and play, is being cut in favor of more academic time for students.

There are elementary schools in Atlanta that are being built without playgrounds. Recess is a primary time for children to go outside and be active, and schools are eliminating it. Furthermore, public schools sport many non-nutritious lunch menus, with food like pizza, chili, and nachos. This is an unhealthy diet for these children, and, coupled with their loss of recess, it's no wonder that so many of these children are becoming overweight.

The United States needs to take a stand against this problem of overweight and obese children by making sure that schools offer healthy lunches and have enough time at school to exercise. These simple preventative measures could save many people from major illnesses and save the economy from these preventable illness costs.

Huh? -- Stage 3

In the New York Times there is an article concerning a law professor at George Washington University, George Duffy, who has uncovered a fundamental flaw in the appointment of judges in charge of patent appeals and arguments. The flaw suggests that the current method of appointment of these patent judges is unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, due to the confusing wording of this article, I am not entirely sure what the flaw is. I do not believe it is because I have missed something, I have read the article several times, I simply think that this article is badly written. The article begins by examining Mr. Duffy and his works as a law professor, and then continues by explaining the possible impact that could arise because of this uncovered flaw. “The problem Professor Duffy identified at least arguably invalidates every decision of the patent court decided by a three-judge panel that included at least one judge appointed after March 2000.” This sounds important, too bad I don’t know why.

The author then continues by describing the government’s unwillingness to comment. Then the author outhlines the rules for appointment for judges, though not the judges that the article is supposed to be discussing. No, the author discusses tax judges. There is a short paragraph suggesting that there has been a new law concerning the patent appointments, and that it is unconstitutional, but there is no description in this article as to why this is unconstitutional.

I, on the whole, found this article to be terribly irritating. I kept waiting for an explanation to understand what the “flaw” actually was, but I never received one. I have actually begun to wonder if the author even knows what he’s talking about.