Drinking Age

The controversy of what age you should legally be allowed to drink alcohol has been a very controversial issue for a very long time. All 50 of the states in the United States have in law that no one under the age of twenty one is allowed to drink but there are minor exceptions in some states like if you are under parental supervision, at home, or it is for a medical purpose. In twenty nine states if you drink underage privately with parental consent it is allowed. In thirty states you are allowed to drink for religious purposes. In thirteen states you are allowed to drink for educational purposes. People who want the age to be lowered say that having in law that you can't drink until you are twenty one only makes drinking look even cooler and pushes drinking into private and not as controlled environments leading to more health and life endangering behaviors. People who oppose lowering the minimum drinking age from twenty one say that teens can not handle the responsibility of alcohol and that they are more likely to harm or even kill someone by drinking before they are twenty one. They back this up with the fact that traffic fatalities decreased when the MLDA increased. I think the drinking age should not be lowered because there is not reason for it. All that drinking does is lead to some kind of problem. There is no real benefit to drinking. It can lead to alcoholism, death from diseases, and drunkenness which leads to a lot more problems. If the age was lowered I think America would be in an even bigger mess then what we are in now. So, I think the age should stay the same.

Sources:
http://drinkingage.procon.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nj_ayQtv7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qQzYUZ_MNU&feature=related

Health Care Reform

When Barack Obama started campaigning in 2008 he urged for a reform in health care because he thought that health care was a threat to our economy and should be a right for every American to have health care. So, in March of 2010, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and they also passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. President Barack Obama signed both of them into law. He also signed into law Executive Order 13535 which states that no federal funds are to be used for abortion services. These new laws reform our health care greatly. People who support the health care reform and these new laws say that it is a "historic victory" and a "landmark legislation". They also say that it will cut costs greatly, make health care more affordable, and protect consumers from unfair insurance practices. They propose that with this reform the nations debt by $100 billion by 2020 and by $1 trillion by 2030. President Obama said that tens of thousands of uninsured Americans with preexisting conditions will finally be able to purchase health care. The people who do not like the new reform say that it is a "socialist" and "unconstitutional" takeover of health care that will be raising the cost of health care and decreasing the quality of the health care we would get. Also, they say that over a ten year span this new bill will cost more than $2.5 trillion and will put the United States deeper into debt. They say there are a lot of questions that are unanswered that are very important for America to know. I think that health care should be a personal thing. I do not think that everyone should have the same health care because some people are poor and others are not. I also do not think that you should punish the people who have good health care because they have money and give them not so good health care just because they can not afford it.





Sources:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-6Pht8HdO8
http://healthcarereform.procon.org/
http://www.google.com/

Death Penalty

The death penalty has been very controversial for a long time. 1136 people have been executed from 1997 to 2008. Most of these executions have been from lethal injection. Lethal injection is when they give you a shot that kills you. Most of the people that have to face the death penalty are murderers, treason, espionage, and other crimes. 72% of the public support the death penalty, 25% say that they oppose it, and 5% have no say on the topic. People who oppose the death penalty say that it doesn't stop crime at all, wrongly gives the government the power to take life, and they say that it creates social injustices by targeting colored people and people who can't afford attorneys more than other people. The people who support the death penalty support it because they say that it is a great tool for preserving law and order, that it helps stop crime, and it costs less than having people going to prison for life. They also try to say that it is alright because of the "eye for an eye" saying. That means if you were able to take a life that you should have your own life taken in return. Another argument for having the death penalty is that it helps families who have lost a loved one to come to some kind of closure and that if someone killed someone and they have to face the death penalty it ensures that they will never do it again. I think that the death penalty is not alright. The majority of America support the death penalty but there has been a slight decline since there was a peak in 1994. I think it is not good because I think that everyone deserves a second chance. You can always change someone, even if they have done something really bad. I also think it is bad because I can't think of any crime that you should be killed over. Another reason I think it is not good because I think that a prisoner would prefer to have the death penalty than spend the rest of his life in prison so why give him the satisfaction. The public opinion is that if they had to choose between life in prison with no possibility of parole or have the death penalty, 52% prefer the death penalty and 43% prefer the life imprisonment.

Sources:
http://deathpenalty.procon.org/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/9913/Death-Penalty.aspx#3

Reflection Assignment

Republicans are rising to power and are winning the battle against the new healthcare law. In Wisconsin there was a major change in their political ideology. They went from being highly democratic with liberal views and being a front runner in wanting to carry out the new federal health care law and using it to regulate and change the medical delivery system, to being very republican and conservative by electing in a new republican governor and having all of the progress they made in getting the new health care law to pass to a halt. The new governor's name is Scott Walker. He said that on the first day of his term he will put all the progress of getting the new law to pass to a halt and he will have Wisconsin join the multistate lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the new law. Since this happened, the public opinion of Wisconsin's people has changed to oppose the bill rather than supporting it. The public opinion of the United States is really unknown because most people have litttle knowledge on what the new law will do.They have become a state of no enthusiasm or with somewhat of a moderate view of things. I don't think that the are many political cleavages in this event because it treats all people the same way. The bill is trying to give all people the same health care so there is really no differences in it. The political elite who oppose this new law are having million dollar campaigns that are national, to try to oppose this law. An example of someone doing this would be Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, who used to be a hospital chain executive who spent 5 million dollars on a national campaign against this new democratic health care law. Mr. Walker, the governor of Wisconsin, said that he thinks that when the government gets too involved it messes up the marketplace and just makes the costs go up, which is an example of political socialization because i think he probably said this because of something he witnessed during his life. "Now on you are going to see a very cautious Wisconsin", said State Senator Alberta Darling. All the progress they made at getting this new law established has gone down the drain and has had the breaks put on. I really do not know what to think on this because I don' t pay for my health care but my parents do and I have listened to what they have said. This is political sociology by the way. They have had questions like " what happens to people who get health care from their employers" and " who's going to pay for it" and that made me think that I really don't like this new law because there is so much uncertainty involved. I predict that the new law will not be passed and will not go through because 82% of people rate their healthcare as excellent or good, which I think means that if people think that their healthcare is good enough and they are satisfied they will not want change. Another reason I don't think that the new law will pass because 61% of people prefer a private healthcare and only 34% want a government run system for healthcare.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_socialization
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/us/politics/19wisconsin.html?_r=2&ref=politics
http://www.youtube.com/
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144869/Americans-Ratings-Own-Healthcare-Quality-Remain-High.aspx
http://www.gallup.com/poll/144839/Split-Whether-Gov-Ensure-Healthcare.aspx

Video Games and Violence

Over the past years the big video game companies have started to come out with games that are violent and do things that you are not supposed to do in the real world but of course what happens in theses games is fake and is not telling you to go out and do this. In 1993 congress had to hold hearings on violent video games when Mortal Combat and Night Trap came out because the person said that violent video games have " a desensitizing impact on young, impressionable minds". So in response to this the video game industry voluntarily made a rating system called the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) on September 1, 1994. Some people think that playing violent video games has led kids that play them to do violent things. The people that support this blame things like school shootings, increases in bullying, and more violence toward women. They also say that when these kids play these violent games so much they come to see violence as not that bad of a thing because in the game they award you for being violent and show the kids that violence is a good way to resolve things. The people that oppose this and think that it is crazy, like me, think this because there has never been any clear relationship between violence and these games and that the research is not that well done. They also say that playing these violent games is a way to stop violence because it an outlet for kids who need to let off some steam in a safe and not harmful way. My thoughts on this topic are that playing video games has absolutely no affect on why kids do violent things. The games are just for fun and aren't telling you to go out and do whatever you are doing. I think it is stupid that people say that. When parents say that I think that it is just because they don't like the fact that their child is not outside playing or doing something else but if that is fun to them they should be allowed to play. I also think video games have no affect on violence because I have played video games and have never had any thought of doing something I did in a game to someone, that is insane. The video game companies put what rating the game is on the back of the box so you know what you are getting into and you know whats in the game. If the games the companies made were not violent and did not have anything fun in them no one would play the games and they would go out of business. I just think that there is no way playing a GAME could result in actual violence because it's just a game.




 Sources:
http://videogames.procon.org/#Background
http://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003953

Abortions: Good or Bad?

The debate over whether abortions should be allowed or should not be allowed has been highly controversial for a very long time even though in the supreme court decision Roe v. Wade the supreme court said that abortions were a "fundamental right" and that women could have abortions. There are a lot of people who are pro abortions and anti abortions. The people that are pro abortions say that having abortions is a right and  should not be limited by the government or by any religion because the right of the women having the abortion is a lot greater than the right of the fetus who is not even born yet. They also say that if the government takes away the ability to have an abortion legally that women who are having a baby that they do not want will resort to life threatening things to do the abortion on their own illegally. Some people pro abortion say that abortions should be used only in life threatening situations, rape, or incest and other want to be able to have one any time. There are a lot of organizations that support abortions. The people that are against having abortions, which I agree with, say that becoming a person (personhood) begins at conception and that means that it is not right to kill an innocent human being. They also say that having an abortion is painful to the fetus and is not right to hurt something so innocent. There are also many organizations that are against abortions. My opinion on abortions is that they are wrong. I think that it is like killing someone who go no chance to live and that is not fair. Some lady should not be able to decide if she wants this child to live and grow up and have a life or say that she doesn't want the baby so they should kill it. I do not think that is right. In the U.S. 51 percent of people are against abortions and 42 percent were for abortions. That is the first time since the survey started that the majority were against abortions so hopefully people are starting to see that what they are doing is wrong.

http://abortion.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003914 This is a political cartoon talking about abortions.

Under God in the Pledge

Having "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has been very controversial topic for many years. 1954 was when "under God" was officially added to the pledge by president Eisenhower and Congress. The people that appose having it in the pledge say that church and state have to be completely separate as intended to by the founding fathers. They also say that the constitution protects minority rights against majority will. They say that having under God in the pledge violated the establishment clause of the first amendment because it is a religious phrase. People that support having under God in the pledge say that America is a Christian nation. 80 percent of Americans support the phrase. They say that under God is a reflection of our cultural heritage and that it is not prompting the United States to be pro Christian. They argue that having under God is alright to have because in the presidential oath there is a reference to God thus if you want to take it out of the pledge you would have to take it out of the presidential oath as well. My thoughts on this issue is that it is perfectly fine to have under God in the pledge because there is nothing saying you have to say the pledge or you have to worship God or bow down to him or anything. I think that if you oppose having it in the constitution you just should not say it or just ignore it because it brings no harm to anyone. Saying under God could only bring good not bad because nothing bad could possibly come out of it unless someone hates it so much that they do something radical or something. In the supreme court case Lynch v. Donnelly the court said that if the city of Pawtucket wanted to display a nativity scene they could because there was no obvious attempt at advancing any religion it was just an acknowledgment of our religious heritage. Since a nativity scene is able to be put out by the city and be constitutional having under God in the pledge is just the same we are acknowledging our religious heritage and not advancing religion in any way.





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment
This can help you understand what the establishment clause is when it is talked about in the first video and in my writhing.