Good Breathe or a Person can not Move

. “Progress on Drunken Driving.” New York Times. New York Times, 21 October 2009. Web. 28 October 2009<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/22/opinion/22thu3.html>.

Read this article

The main purpose of this article is to explain California’s new laws that are being enacted to lower the drunken driving percentage. California’s governor is trying to put a stop to this problem with the new machinery that will be placed in the convicted cars’. This machinery will be for those convicted with a DUI, even if it is there first time offence. Their car will not be able to start until they breathe into a breathalyzer and blow of the legal limit. The author supports this decision of California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, to install these new devices into those who have been convicted. The author favors the installation of these devices rather than a suspended license. He believes that a suspended license does not limit someone from driving; a piece of paper will not stop someone from driving. Arnold and the author agree that this new device is the only logical way to decrease the percentage of those who drink and drive. The author also focuses on the effects of this new machinery in other states and how it has ultimately decreased the drinking and driving percentage. The idea of the article is that the government must do anything and everything to lower these percentages. The author is a strong supporter in this new idea of the governor adding these machines.

I support every aspect of what the governor is trying to do to deal with the current problems on drunk driving. The author and I agree on the idea that the new installation in cars will be more effective rather than a suspended license as the author said before. A person with a suspended license is still going to continue to drive; a slip of paper is not going to drop them. Legally there are not allowed to drive but the government did not set forth any other actions besides taking their license. If the person becomes more careful then they will find ways around the restricted license. This new installation still has me questioning a few things about it though. I start to question if there are other ways around this new idea too. A person may have a friend blow for them so they can drive or does this machine pick up certain salvia? The article needs more details on the installation as a whole and how it distinguishes between people. Another thing this article made me think about what the percentage worldwide. Would the drunken driving percentage decrease if these machines were placed in every ones cars even of those who not been convicted of the crime.

Everyone Needs a Home

. “New York City and the Homeless.” New York Times. New York Times, 13th October 2009. Web. 15 October 2009<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/15/opinion/15thu3.html?ref=todayspaper>.

Read this article

New York City has reached a record high in the amounts of homeless people throughout the city. These statics show that homelessness has risen and reached the highest record ever, of 120,000 people. These people ranged from children to adults of both sexes. The fact that these people were left without homes gave them no other choice but rely on the government. These people were resorting to the shelters and other types of help during this harsh finical crisis. The fact that New York City’s weather has started to become a little chilly has started to frighten the government. Chilly weather results to people trying to stay off the streets which in time results in over crowed shelters. The Boomberg Administration began preparing for this experience approximately two years ago and seemed to be ready for what this winter chill will bring. In my eyes, I believe that is writing some of this section about how he believes N.Y truly is not ready and is underprepared. I believe that in this article, the author is trying to say that this city honestly does not know what they are about to receive. In this article, the city blames most of its problems with homelessness on the economy. One view of the author that I see pop out, is how he believes that it is not just the economy causing this homelessness and that the city needs to take some responsibility upon it. In conclusion, I think the author is trying to make everyone aware of NYC circumstances these numbers do not keep increasing. The author is also trying to express the fact that cities need to take precautions for their selves and not just blame the economy and look at the bigger picture.

This article has stirred up several controversial ideas in my mind. First off, I knew the homelessness numbers had reached high numbers but I didn’t realize it had raised that sharply. The statement in this article about how “The city has driven some vulnerable families to the brink with bureaucratic obstacles that make it difficult for qualified families to receive welfare and food-stamp benefits,” has me questioning some things. I agree with this statement because I know that New York City has some of the highest prices on items that I can find or eat an hour away for three fourths less the price. The city does this because it was one of the highest tourist spots in the U.S. To some degree I believe if they lowered the price of housing and even parking in this city more people would come to the city and civilians could afford to keep their houses. By the city lowering the prices this would gain the city more money, in which return with the money could build bigger shelters. My position within this article would be along the same lines as the author. I do believe that these numbers were caused by the economy to a certain extent but it is also N.Y.C fault partially. I also agree on the author’s point of view where he thinks that the city is not ready for this winter. In all honestly, the economy is still down and the fact that half the reason for the homelessness in NYC and it being winter worries me. I feel as if this winter is going to be of the worst for shelters.

Flavorful Or Not?

. “Cigarette Ban With a Loophole .” New York Times. New York Times, 23 September 2009. Web. 23 September 2009<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/24/opinion/24thu2.html>.

Read this article

The Food and Drug Administration was granted the right to control and regulate tobacco sells back in June of 2009. The United States as a whole is trying to lower to number of under aged children that get drug into the cigarette world. This following week the FDA passed a law that banned any cigarettes with candy, fruit or any other taste to be sold in stores. The United States believes that sweet tasting candy like cigarettes are targeting young teenagers. The only problem within this new law is that the definition of what a cigarette is not defined. The cigarette companies that promote flavorful cigarettes are losing their best consumers, which are young teenagers. The fact that the law does not clearly state what a cigarette is allows these cigarette companies to promise flavorful cigars. I believe that this law needs to be rewritten with clear definitions. From what the author has written I think that he is trying to make it clear that cigarettes are not for children and cigarette companies need to change their advertising. I believe that the author is a strong promoter of this law. The author believes that this law needs to more clearly so that cigarette companies cannot even sell flavorful cigars either.

I have a strong option to this topic. I am a believer in this law because in my eyes these companies know what they are doing when they create flavorful cigars or cigarettes. I believe that the smoking age is already too low. Eighteen years old is pretty young already, companies are always trying to promote to the ones under the legal age limit. It is human nature for a young teenager to like things with flavor and in most cases old people do not want to smoke on something fruity. This article challenges me to think about a lot of things though. I want to know the ratio of young teens who smoke non flavorful to flavorful cigarettes. Of course the flavorful cigarettes are going to be higher but how much higher? Does flavor honestly have anything to do with these children smoking? In my eyes I see any teenager just trying to fit it with someone who is smoking. So this article challenges me to think about a few questions. Is it really the flavorful ones attracting teens or it is younger kids wanting to just be cool with the older kids? I would like to know the percentages of young teenagers who still smoke cigarettes even without the flavorful ones available. So in conclusion, I will support this law if it is rewritten with clear and specific definitions.