Ali S. Tartacoff Phil 320 Dr. Satris December 15, 2011 * Should Laws Against Drug Use Remain Restrictive? * Both liberals and conservatives hold conflicting views on weather drug prohibition legislation has accomplished its job in curving the problems associated with drug use. Furthermore, they argue weather the current laws, banning drug use, should remain restrictive. After reading both sides of the debate, I believe that laws against drug use should indeed remain restrictive. I believe that they should remain restrictive because less restrictive drug laws are not the solution to our drug problem, and instead, less restrictive laws are an extremely dangerous idea.
Oxholm 1 Olivia Oxholm Cole AP Lang October 7, 2012 Civil Disobedience and Letter From A Birmingham Jail Comparison In writing Civil Disobedience , Thoreau attempts to motivate the American people to change. He stresses the responsibility of citizens to protest and take action against corrupt and unjust laws of the government. His angry disposition is obvious from the beginning through the fact that he chooses to start with the statement that “government is best which governs least” and takes it a step further to say that “government is best which governs not at all”. Meaning, that the most ideal form of government is one that enforces the least amount of power over its people. As for Martin Luther King Jr., he also writes to show
Running head: COMPARATIVE REVIEW Introduction The article “Why Prostitution Initiative Misses” was written by Ronald Weitzer, a professor at George Washington University who specializes in criminology. The article is about prostitution and the proposed Measure Q a bill initiated by the city of Berkeley. The second article “The Legalization of Prostitution” was written by James Bovard a libertarian author and lecturer who have written several books on social issues. The article states several reasons of why legalizing prostitution is important. Article One The purpose of the article is to state why Measure Q, a proposition on the November 2004 ballot in the city of Berkeley, is negative and should not be passed.
He, therefore, calls for a broader agenda: elimination of poverty, abolition of prisons, and end to immigration enforcement and full access to health care. Spade submits that these goals cannot be conceptualized or won in the realm of US law. Spade questions the concentration of antidiscrimination regulations on violation of individual rights, which, he argues, is inclined to obscure more methodical and structural kinds of disadvantage. Spade documents that rather than pushing for rights-based law reforms, the trans-movement should instead focus on population- level operations of power. Such operation might include an ending to mass incarcerations.
The argument on my brochure is that not banning plastic bags and instead, finding an alternative solution, such as recycling is the logical choice. Throughout my entire argument, I used quite a few rhetorical devices to help convince my audience, the Californian environmentalist, that banning plastic bags doesn’t help the environment. Three main rhetorical devices that I used are the appeal to logos, pathos, and environmental dictions. First of all, I used the appeal of logos to convince my audience why they shouldn’t considered banning plastic bags. On my brochure, I used credible testimonial from important figures such as Stephen Joseph, founder of Save The Plastic Bags Coalition, David Santillo, Marine Biologist at Greenpeace, and Dani
Damien’s article also suggest that the 2am lockout is pointless, but leans more towards the fact the John Brumby is really just out of ideas. With a sophisticated and bitter tone, the writher also aims his article at the party goers, but more in particular to those who are interested in government issues.
There should not be an amendment against flag burning in the United States. Burning the flag is encouraged by Congress to retire the colors, so an alternative means of respectful disposal would need to be found. (http://www.youdebate.com/debates/flag_burning.htm). The action of burning the flag of the United States is seen as an act of the highest disrespect and offence; however, free speech is protected by the First Amendment, and that includes the right to burn a flag in protest. If the government were to ban this because of its highly offensive and challenging nature, the people might slowly see their freedom of speech disappear as more and more ‘offensive’ actions were banned.
Shirky starts by revealing the case about how our new technology has enabled amateurs to make a large number of average grade information and products, lowering our levels of what is considered acceptable. Shirky then provides horrid predictions of the future caused by the collapse of culture. He adds that these fears are actually true and have been around for a long period of time, proving this claim through historical references of the Guttenberg’s press and the Protestant reformation. Shirky shifts to focus on the importance of the innovations that occur after: the new norms are increasingly made the “intellectual output” of society. In the article Shirky establishes the point that we are now going through a similar growth in our publishing capability as we had in our past.
When you think of advertising when it comes to traditional media, most think of tv-commericals, magazines, radio, etc. When you think of new media most think internet. With traditional media advertisements have to find a way to grab consumer’s attention, whereas with new media advertisements already have your attention. Traditional media has to find different tricks to help keep consumers attention and not change the channel. As Brain Williams writes in "Enough about you", depending on the type of show, television was made to “already agree with your views.”(473).
You’ve to find out who has the access to those guns, especially when people are irrational, deranged and so forth. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) stated “the worst thing we can do is create a false sense of security. Graham also states that he’s open o establishing a commission to help members understand what they could logically do to prevent mass murder. Sen. Marco Rubio (R. Fla.) said there were “specific ideas” that could be debated, but he is committed to protect what is a constitutional right. Analysis Republicans don’t agree with the assault weapon bans.