Should teens be driving?

Should 16-year-old's drive? Report says raising age would save lives By Ted Gregory Chicago Tribune reporter

The main idea of this article is that people have been questioning for years "should 16-year-old's be able to drive?" They ask this question because over 5,000 teens die every year from car crashes on the road. 

Details or evidence i have to support my main idea for this article is when institute President Adam Lung says "We're still losing a lot of teens on the road each year." Lund was discussing the topic about how motor vehicle crashes kill more than 5,000 teens every year which adds on to my main idea in many ways. Another piece of evidence I have from the text is when the article brings up how Illinois has already took steps to reducing teen deaths due to car crashes with a award/punishment system basically. There is also people who appose this however and one of them is Linnea Greci who was 15 at the time of this article. Linnea said "I don't think it matters what age you are, as long as you have the practice and experience." That quote shows that she doesn't exactly agree with what people and officials are saying. 

In my opinion I also disagree with what people/officials are saying because to me driving skills depend on the maturity and intellect of the driver. There is no connection I can make but I do have an inference. 

This article has helped me to think more of the topic because now I have a idea why my mother won't let me drive until I am 18 because of this type of stuff that is going on in the world today. I can't think of any questions I might want to ask on this article however.

Strong center with jelly knees?

Pinhead setback for Sixers'Bynum by John Smallwood, Daily News Sports Columnist

The main idea of this article is that 76er's center Andrew Bynum got hurt while bowling. He was out from practice and plays with the sixers because he injured his right knee and couldnt play on it. Despite that fact Bynum went bowling and after bowling he hurt his good knee and claims he doesn't know how it happened.
 

Details/Evidence I have on this article is when Bynum answered a question for interviewers he said "I didn't do anything [while bowling]. I didn't twist it or fall or nothing. [The left knee] got big [after bowling]." He may be telling the truth and really didn't do anything, Then again he could be hiding something he doesn't want to tell interviewers. Another detail i picked up from this article is when Bynum told interviewers that his doctor told him that both of his knees were in a "weakened cartilage state." However of course on Friday, Bynum left out the small detail that he had hurt the left knee while bowling a week earlier.
 

In my opinion I think the center was foolish for going bowling for many reasons but I'll only state 3. My first reason is because the sport of bowling requires bent knees in proper form for one thing and Bynum knew he had a bad knee already yet he decided to play anyway. My second reason is because if you're supposed to be at home resting and trying not to damage that knee anymore why would you even think about going bowling? In my opinion that was a rediculous move. My third and final reason is that if I was him I would've just stayed at home trying to rest and allow my knee to heal a bit unless I have to go in for a check up or something but other than that I'd rest as much as possible so I could get back on the court as fast as possible.

 
Honestly there isn't any connections I can make because I've never went through anything like this before.

 
However this article did help me to think more deeply about the topic because I just think to myself with someone with such a critical condition in his knee why would Bynum go bowling just to mess up his other knee instead of just staying at home like I said and resting."
 
My only question now is what is Bynum and the 76ers going to do about Bynum and his weakened knees? Because that isn't a good way to step out on the court unless you're just looking to hurt yourself.

Many different opinions arise for the election of Obama v. Romney

Yay! Boo! So? Reactions to Obama win vary by Peter Mucha, Breaking News Desk, Philadelphia Daily News

The main idea of the article is that many people are giving their opinion on the election of 2012 and according to the writer Peter Mucha there were a lot of people who were glad for Obama's reelection, A lot of people who were disappointed that Romney didn't win, and even people who just didn't care at all who won because they didn't agree with either candidate.

Evidence that I have found while reading this is when people were giving their opinions and 1 of them said "I'm a little bit disappointed. I wasn't really happy with either candidate," quoted by Marty Brenna, 49. This is one of the people who would go under the category "So?" Another piece of evidence I have about this article is when someone who'd fall under the "Yay!" category said "I'm thrilled to death, I would never have voted for Romney on women's issues alone," said Barbara Drucker, 61. That piece of evidence showed how some people are actually glad to see Obama in his 2nd term, My final piece of evidence is someone who'd fit in the "Boo!" category as he was ashamed that Romney hadn't got in office, Len Burkhardt, 53 said he would have preferred Romney over Obama because Romney was more of a "businessman" and that Obama is "not as fiscally smart of responsible" according to the article.

In my opinion Obama and Romney had a great debate and both their arguments were persuading but I think Obama was the better man in this election because taking down a terrorist and saving the auto industry really boosted his statistics of winning which I think is a good thing because I would've also liked to have seen Obama in for four more years just as well as anyone else.

This article has helped me to think more about this topic because I'm soon going to be voting in four more years so I'm trying to gather as much information as I can before I myself go out to vote like I said in four more years. The article has also helped me to think more about the topic at hand because even though I already knew that people weren't going to be happy with Obama getting back in office but the article has helped me to get their side of the story just a little and be able to know why they weren't happy with Obama getting back in office.

I don't have a connection that I can make because I do not know how i can relate to this topic as you may have already noticed. I do have a question however and that question is are you happy to see Obama back in office for four more years? or are you mad because Romney never got his "time to shine" in the white house?

Proper Respect for Mother Nature

Will Climate Change Get Some Respect Now? By Nicholas D. Kristof, Columnist, THE NY TIMES

The main idea of the article is that people feel as though climate change is not getting as much attention in debates, or interviews as it should be getting according to Nicholas D. Kristof. Now many scientist and researchers are trying to discuss how we can improve and reduce climate change.

Evidence or details I have about the main idea is in the article when talking about Gov. Andrew Cuomo of NY it says that he told President Obama "It seems we have a 100-year flood every two years now." and the NY Times did the research and found this to be indeed a fact. Another detail that can be added is that many people are already taking steps to brace themselves for hurricanes and some of the steps are to watch out for warm oceans because this can fuel the beginning of a hurricane, Another step is that computer model research suggests that hurricanes aren't becoming more frequent but they are getting more powerful and said to be getting more powerful in this century, Last but not lease researches say that hurricanes may come with more rain and flooding because climate change adds moisture to the atmosphere.

My opinion on the topic is that I think people should come to there senses and start thinking of better ways to do thing in life without risk of harming the atmosphere because all the chemicals scientists and testers use you never know what they're actually doing to the climate to harm, and change it. People are already changing to green house energy and other alternative fuels but not enough people are willing to take the commitment.

This article reminded me about how foolish some people in the world can be without all the negative news reports or negative articles because people know they're hurting the planet with the chemicals and gas they come up with yet they still continue to use that chemical or gas just to get a quick dollar in their pocket and I think that isn't right.

This article has indeed helped me to think deeper on the subject. I must say it has reminded me that having common sense is a pain in the butt because I have to deal with all the people around me today who don't have any source of common sense what so ever.

My one and only question I have about this article is how could so many people over look climate change when it's one of the most important things in the environment today?