Underage Drinking

Last night my mother was driving me home after spending time at my friend's house, and with no warning she brings up the topic of drinking. My mom is pleased that I don't drink, but for some reason she decided to give me a lecture of all the horrible effects of underage drinking. I was getting pretty irritated because I had heard this all before a number of times, so I decided to bring my sister up just to get my mom off my case. My sister is 21 and in college, but she did drink her freshmen and sophomore year. As I pointed this underage drinking fact out to my mom, she bluntly said, "Well, it's different in college". This made me frustrated. Why was it okay for my sibling to consume alcohol when they were 19 and 20? I don't think it's very fair that my sister got off the hook for underage drinking, while I get a lesson every time I hang out with my friends. I don't care that "most people drink in college" as my mother stated. Shouldn't she still get in trouble by my parents?

What's your take on underage drinking?

The Average American Worker

In class before winter break, we talked about a symbol that represents U.S.A. - the average American worker. When we were told to picture an average American worker, the majority of the class came up with the image of a male laborer (mailman, policeman, firefighter). Why all physical laborers? And the better question, why all men? I think it has to do with what we see and hear from the media while growing up. We obviously know there are other jobs out there and we obviously know women work, but as a child we aren't taught that there are jobs like stock brokers or accountants. We're only used to seeing the "male laborer" job. I remember reading a book when I was younger about jobs. Of course it had the big colorful pictures of firefighters, policemen, and even milkmen. I can only remember there being one woman in the book: the stereotypical teacher. So, yeah, we do know what kind of jobs there are besides the laborers, that include both men and women. But I think it's just that we've still got that male laborer image stuck in our heads from when we were little.

I actually pictured someone different for the average American worker. I had the "businessman" image in my head. It was a man, yet not a physical laborer. I think it's, again, because of the media. I've watched so many movies and T.V. shows that depict the man that goes to the office every day with his briefcase and coffee (like The Office, although not as comical). The media clearly plays a huge role in our lives.

What was your "average American worker"?

The Impeachment of Bush

In class yesterday and today, we discussed whether or not we should impeach Bush and if the impeachment of Clinton was essential. After reading Al Gore's writing, The Assault on Reason, and analyzing the evidence he provided, I decided that Bush should be impeached. Although some say that the "crimes" Bush committed weren't really crimes at all, Bush did violate the laws of the Constitution. The Constitution was set up to provide the government rules to abide by in order for the country to be run smoothly. When Bush became president, he vowed to follow these laws; yet he's gone against them. To go against the Constitution is, I think, a high crime. Committing a high crime, as stated in the Constitution, is a reason for impeachment; therefore, Bush should be taken out of office.

As for Clinton, I'm undecided. Although he lied under oath, which should be enough reason for him to be impeached, what he lied about isn't strong enough for him to be taken out of office. It doesn't bother me to have a president who had a sexual affair with someone. I really don't think that affects how someone runs the country. Apparently, Clinton had done other crimes besides his affair. Why they chose to impeach him for lying about his affair, I don't know. If it were me to decide if he should be impeached, I'd still be unresolved.

What is your stance on Bush's and Clinton's impeachment?

Injustice During 1984

Friday, in class, we watched a movie called Minority Report where they would arrest people for murder before they actually committed the crime. This reminded me of a book I read last year called 1984. It was based on a totalitarian government (dictatorship). A principle they followed was arresting people based on thoughtcrime. Basically, if a person even hinted at being against the government, even if it was a twitch of an eye, they'd arrest the person and they'd probably end up being killed. This is wrong. I think it's wrong if a government accuses people and then arrests them just off of a hunch. This also clearly violates freedom of speech. A person should be allowed to voice their own opinions on something without being killed. I believe there should be diversity in a country, not have everyone blindly follow and agree what one ruler says.