http://www.spellnyra.org/board/ Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:54:19 -0400 MyBB http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=98 Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:23:37 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=98









]]>









]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=70 Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:37:51 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=70
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.]]>
Forbidden

You don't have permission to access / on this server.
Additionally, a 403 Forbidden error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=67 Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:25:59 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=67 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=66 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:06:55 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=66 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=65 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 17:47:23 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=65 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=64 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:38:06 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=64 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=63 Sat, 13 Dec 2008 08:32:58 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=63
Go to 30:20.]]>
Go to 30:20.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=62 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:24:33 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=62 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=61 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:03:17 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=61
I want to point out that CPCs are NOT clinics. They are resource centers. They provide free baby clothes, ultrasounds, etc. This is all done out of charity. I find this article ironic because pro-lifers are always critcised that they should provide birth control and help for pregnant mothers if they want to reduce the abortion rate. Look what happens when we do! I want to stabstabstabstab the author of this article. But, of course, you aren't a good charity unless you offer baby-killing ("all the options"). We should only expect, no we should only ALLOW, clinics to offer the services that are ethical. NOBODY should offer "all the options" for anything. Just like parenting cervices should not offer referals to Gulag Schools. Now, of course, I don't support the abstinence-only ones, but I think we need more of these.]]>
I want to point out that CPCs are NOT clinics. They are resource centers. They provide free baby clothes, ultrasounds, etc. This is all done out of charity. I find this article ironic because pro-lifers are always critcised that they should provide birth control and help for pregnant mothers if they want to reduce the abortion rate. Look what happens when we do! I want to stabstabstabstab the author of this article. But, of course, you aren't a good charity unless you offer baby-killing ("all the options"). We should only expect, no we should only ALLOW, clinics to offer the services that are ethical. NOBODY should offer "all the options" for anything. Just like parenting cervices should not offer referals to Gulag Schools. Now, of course, I don't support the abstinence-only ones, but I think we need more of these.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=60 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:10:54 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=60
So I decided to post here a letter that I just wrote to my state senator about a bill before the senate that would impose more restrictions on young drivers.

Here it is (warning: tl;dr).


Quote:Senator Becker,

I am a resident of Newburgh, in your district. I am writing you about Senate Bill 16, which would pile more restrictions on young drivers. The writers of this proposed law have good intentions, but I believe the law would be ineffective and unfair, and I am asking you to oppose it unless it is substantially changed.

Drivers younger than 18 already cannot carry any passengers during the first 90 days after they attain their license, unless a licensed driver age 25 or older is seated in the front passenger seat. The bill would extend that to 180 days, a full half year. Such a long time period is excessive, especially since they have already had a learner's permit for a period of time, and would, under this bill, be required to have even more training.

Also, according to the Evansville Courier and Press (at the time I write this the full text of the bill is not yet available on the state government website), there are exceptions for carrying siblings or the driver's own children, but there should be exceptions for other family members as well. Parents (who may not have driver's licenses) and spouses come to mind. Two 17-year-olds who are married (which is legal in Indiana with parental consent) may not be able to drive each other around.

Drivers under 18 also currently cannot drive after 1 AM on Friday and Saturday nights, and after 11 PM the rest of the week. This bill would push that time back to 10 PM on any day of the week for the first 180 days. 10 PM is too early. There are many legitimate reasons, outside the existing legal exceptions, for one to be out after 10, including shopping for things which are needed but forgotten during the day, or filling up the gas tank with enough to get to school or work the next morning, or traveling to the house of a relative or friend to spend the night.

Also, current law provides an exception for any activity that involves the exercise of one's civil rights. I would hope that this new restriction also includes such an exception; otherwise, the law could not withstand constitutional muster. Exceptions for work, school, or religious functions are very good, but they are not enough.

This bill would require any driver with a probationary driver's license (any driver under 18) to display a special sticker or placard in the rear window of their vehicle. Not only will their license itself be different from everyone else's, but they may feel ashamed at having to drive around in a car with a sticker that sends the message: "I'm a bad driver."

It would also be inconvenient for them to have to swap the sticker or placard from one vehicle to another whenever they drive a different car (the family car vs. their personal vehicle, for example), and simply forgetting or not having the time to do so could result in a ticket or worse punishment. In addition, with these stickers, depending upon their visibility, I suspect that young drivers who drive at night would find themselves being pulled over by the police with some regularity, even if they have had their license for 180 days or if they are covered by one of the legal exceptions.

Another unfair and unneeded (and in my view counterproductive) change that this bill would make is to increase the minimum age for a learner's permit and a probationary license. The minimum age to obtain a driver's education learner's permit would increase from 15 years to 15 years and six months. The age to obtain a driver's license would increase from 16 years and one month to 16 years and six months (or from 16 years and six months to 17 years without driver’s ed).

It is inexperience that makes new drivers potentially dangerous on the roads, not youth. An inexperienced 17-year-old driver (or an inexperienced 25-year-old driver) is as potentially dangerous as an inexperienced 16-year-old driver. The solution is to increase the amount of experience that new drivers get, not to prohibit them from gaining that experience until even later ages, thereby discouraging them from gaining the experience at all.

Also, it is a simple fact of life that many young people, including 16-year-olds, need to drive. They have school and work obligations, and parents often cannot always provide transportation (and quality public transportation in Indiana is almost nonexistent). Many have family obligations that necessitate driving. Increasing the minimum age at which one is allowed to drive (especially if this is followed by another age limit increase down the line) would be very harmful to some teens and their families.

If anything, we should lower the minimum age, at least for a learner's permit, to allow young people to gain more experience and practice behind the wheel in a relatively safe environment, so that they will be safer drivers when they obtain a driver's license.

In addition to all these additional restrictions that this bill piles upon young drivers, it also prohibits them, and only them, from driving while talking on cell phones or hands-free devices. Banning driving while talking on a cell phone is a logical safety measure, but if it is going to be taken, it should apply to everyone regardless of age, not just to people younger than 18.

Drivers in their 30s talk on cell phones as well, and it is just as dangerous for them as it is for 17-year-olds. Even if teenagers drive while talking on a cell phone more often (which may or may not be the case), it does not make it any more dangerous for them than for others. Cell phones could be easily banned for all drivers regardless of age, or only for all new drivers until a certain length of time has passed, but banning them only for drivers under a certain age is discriminatory and unfair, not to mention unsafe for older drivers.

The final aspect of the bill mentioned in the Courier and Press article is a requirement for new young drivers to obtain 50 hours of supervised training with a licensed driver age 25 or older before a driver's license can be issued. I would not have a problem with this if it applied to all new drivers, regardless of age, but it is implied in the article that the requirement applies only to learner's permit holders under 18. Additional experience driving with a licensed, presumably experienced, driver is beneficial for everyone's safety, not just that of young people. If this requirement is kept, it should be changed to apply to everyone.

Below are some specific recommendations for alterations to this bill, in the interests of both fairness and safety:

- Keep the ban on cell phones and hands-free devices, but make it apply to all new drivers, regardless of age, during the first year of their license. Alternatively, extend the ban to all drivers regardless of experience. This change would enhance safety for all drivers and would not be unfairly discriminatory.

- Require that all new drivers, regardless of age, complete 50 hours of supervised training before being issued a driver's license. Instead of requiring that the driver doing the supervision be at least 25 years old, require that he or she have held his or her driver's license for at least five years, possibly without interruption. This would ensure that all new licensees, regardless of age, have a good amount of experience behind the wheel before being issued a license, and would also prevent a newly licensed 25-year-old driver from taking the supervisory role.

- Eliminate the requirement that probationary drivers display a special sticker or placard in their window. This would help to prevent feelings of shame and incompetence among young drivers, and would possibly avoid undue police stops.

- Eliminate the time-of-day restrictions for new drivers. Instead, require that a portion of the mandatory 50 hours of training (perhaps 10 hours) take place at night, after dusk and before dawn. The current time restrictions, as well as the new time of 10 PM in the proposed law, are not rationally related to actual driving safety concerns. It generally gets dark well before 11 or 10 PM. The additional hazards of driving when it is dark are a legitimate concern, and that concern can be addressed with training requirements before a license is issued instead of time-of-day restrictions that put an undue burden on new drivers.

- Make the restrictions on carrying passengers apply to all new drivers, regardless of age, during the first 90 days of their license, and include exceptions for all immediate family members. An exception for emergency situations may also be a good idea. This would give all new drivers, including older new drivers, time to get used to driving alone before carrying passengers, and it would also include reasonable exceptions for family. With the requirement that all new drivers complete 50 hours of training, extending the passenger-carrying restriction to 180 days is not necessary.

- Lower the minimum age to obtain a learner's permit to 14 years with driver's education and to 14 years and six months without driver's ed. Lower the minimum age to obtain a probationary driver's license to 15 years and six months with driver's ed and to 16 years without driver's ed, and require that a learner's permit have been held for at least six months (as opposed to the current 60 days) before a probationary driver's license can be issued. This will actually enhance safety by requiring more time to acquire the necessary experience before a driver's license can be issued, and it will allow people to obtain such experience earlier, encouraging more young people to put in the work required to get their license.

- Make the probationary license period apply to all new drivers, regardless of age, during the first year. All drivers would graduate to a full license after one year. This would recognize that it is inexperience, not age, that makes new drivers potentially dangerous on the roads, and it would ensure that all new drivers get the guidance and experience necessary to drive safely on a full license.

Senate Bill 16, as it is now, is both unfair to our young people and ineffective at improving safety. However, the bill can be amended, using the recommendations above or other reasonable measures that do not discriminate on the basis of age, to provide a fair and effective safety enhancement on Indiana's roads.

I hope you will consider both fairness and safety as you work in Indianapolis for the people of your district. Please either oppose Senate Bill 16 or amend it so that it is fair in improving the safety of all Indiana drivers.

Yours truly,

Justin Graham
Board of Directors
National Youth Rights Association

]]>
So I decided to post here a letter that I just wrote to my state senator about a bill before the senate that would impose more restrictions on young drivers.

Here it is (warning: tl;dr).


Quote:Senator Becker,

I am a resident of Newburgh, in your district. I am writing you about Senate Bill 16, which would pile more restrictions on young drivers. The writers of this proposed law have good intentions, but I believe the law would be ineffective and unfair, and I am asking you to oppose it unless it is substantially changed.

Drivers younger than 18 already cannot carry any passengers during the first 90 days after they attain their license, unless a licensed driver age 25 or older is seated in the front passenger seat. The bill would extend that to 180 days, a full half year. Such a long time period is excessive, especially since they have already had a learner's permit for a period of time, and would, under this bill, be required to have even more training.

Also, according to the Evansville Courier and Press (at the time I write this the full text of the bill is not yet available on the state government website), there are exceptions for carrying siblings or the driver's own children, but there should be exceptions for other family members as well. Parents (who may not have driver's licenses) and spouses come to mind. Two 17-year-olds who are married (which is legal in Indiana with parental consent) may not be able to drive each other around.

Drivers under 18 also currently cannot drive after 1 AM on Friday and Saturday nights, and after 11 PM the rest of the week. This bill would push that time back to 10 PM on any day of the week for the first 180 days. 10 PM is too early. There are many legitimate reasons, outside the existing legal exceptions, for one to be out after 10, including shopping for things which are needed but forgotten during the day, or filling up the gas tank with enough to get to school or work the next morning, or traveling to the house of a relative or friend to spend the night.

Also, current law provides an exception for any activity that involves the exercise of one's civil rights. I would hope that this new restriction also includes such an exception; otherwise, the law could not withstand constitutional muster. Exceptions for work, school, or religious functions are very good, but they are not enough.

This bill would require any driver with a probationary driver's license (any driver under 18) to display a special sticker or placard in the rear window of their vehicle. Not only will their license itself be different from everyone else's, but they may feel ashamed at having to drive around in a car with a sticker that sends the message: "I'm a bad driver."

It would also be inconvenient for them to have to swap the sticker or placard from one vehicle to another whenever they drive a different car (the family car vs. their personal vehicle, for example), and simply forgetting or not having the time to do so could result in a ticket or worse punishment. In addition, with these stickers, depending upon their visibility, I suspect that young drivers who drive at night would find themselves being pulled over by the police with some regularity, even if they have had their license for 180 days or if they are covered by one of the legal exceptions.

Another unfair and unneeded (and in my view counterproductive) change that this bill would make is to increase the minimum age for a learner's permit and a probationary license. The minimum age to obtain a driver's education learner's permit would increase from 15 years to 15 years and six months. The age to obtain a driver's license would increase from 16 years and one month to 16 years and six months (or from 16 years and six months to 17 years without driver’s ed).

It is inexperience that makes new drivers potentially dangerous on the roads, not youth. An inexperienced 17-year-old driver (or an inexperienced 25-year-old driver) is as potentially dangerous as an inexperienced 16-year-old driver. The solution is to increase the amount of experience that new drivers get, not to prohibit them from gaining that experience until even later ages, thereby discouraging them from gaining the experience at all.

Also, it is a simple fact of life that many young people, including 16-year-olds, need to drive. They have school and work obligations, and parents often cannot always provide transportation (and quality public transportation in Indiana is almost nonexistent). Many have family obligations that necessitate driving. Increasing the minimum age at which one is allowed to drive (especially if this is followed by another age limit increase down the line) would be very harmful to some teens and their families.

If anything, we should lower the minimum age, at least for a learner's permit, to allow young people to gain more experience and practice behind the wheel in a relatively safe environment, so that they will be safer drivers when they obtain a driver's license.

In addition to all these additional restrictions that this bill piles upon young drivers, it also prohibits them, and only them, from driving while talking on cell phones or hands-free devices. Banning driving while talking on a cell phone is a logical safety measure, but if it is going to be taken, it should apply to everyone regardless of age, not just to people younger than 18.

Drivers in their 30s talk on cell phones as well, and it is just as dangerous for them as it is for 17-year-olds. Even if teenagers drive while talking on a cell phone more often (which may or may not be the case), it does not make it any more dangerous for them than for others. Cell phones could be easily banned for all drivers regardless of age, or only for all new drivers until a certain length of time has passed, but banning them only for drivers under a certain age is discriminatory and unfair, not to mention unsafe for older drivers.

The final aspect of the bill mentioned in the Courier and Press article is a requirement for new young drivers to obtain 50 hours of supervised training with a licensed driver age 25 or older before a driver's license can be issued. I would not have a problem with this if it applied to all new drivers, regardless of age, but it is implied in the article that the requirement applies only to learner's permit holders under 18. Additional experience driving with a licensed, presumably experienced, driver is beneficial for everyone's safety, not just that of young people. If this requirement is kept, it should be changed to apply to everyone.

Below are some specific recommendations for alterations to this bill, in the interests of both fairness and safety:

- Keep the ban on cell phones and hands-free devices, but make it apply to all new drivers, regardless of age, during the first year of their license. Alternatively, extend the ban to all drivers regardless of experience. This change would enhance safety for all drivers and would not be unfairly discriminatory.

- Require that all new drivers, regardless of age, complete 50 hours of supervised training before being issued a driver's license. Instead of requiring that the driver doing the supervision be at least 25 years old, require that he or she have held his or her driver's license for at least five years, possibly without interruption. This would ensure that all new licensees, regardless of age, have a good amount of experience behind the wheel before being issued a license, and would also prevent a newly licensed 25-year-old driver from taking the supervisory role.

- Eliminate the requirement that probationary drivers display a special sticker or placard in their window. This would help to prevent feelings of shame and incompetence among young drivers, and would possibly avoid undue police stops.

- Eliminate the time-of-day restrictions for new drivers. Instead, require that a portion of the mandatory 50 hours of training (perhaps 10 hours) take place at night, after dusk and before dawn. The current time restrictions, as well as the new time of 10 PM in the proposed law, are not rationally related to actual driving safety concerns. It generally gets dark well before 11 or 10 PM. The additional hazards of driving when it is dark are a legitimate concern, and that concern can be addressed with training requirements before a license is issued instead of time-of-day restrictions that put an undue burden on new drivers.

- Make the restrictions on carrying passengers apply to all new drivers, regardless of age, during the first 90 days of their license, and include exceptions for all immediate family members. An exception for emergency situations may also be a good idea. This would give all new drivers, including older new drivers, time to get used to driving alone before carrying passengers, and it would also include reasonable exceptions for family. With the requirement that all new drivers complete 50 hours of training, extending the passenger-carrying restriction to 180 days is not necessary.

- Lower the minimum age to obtain a learner's permit to 14 years with driver's education and to 14 years and six months without driver's ed. Lower the minimum age to obtain a probationary driver's license to 15 years and six months with driver's ed and to 16 years without driver's ed, and require that a learner's permit have been held for at least six months (as opposed to the current 60 days) before a probationary driver's license can be issued. This will actually enhance safety by requiring more time to acquire the necessary experience before a driver's license can be issued, and it will allow people to obtain such experience earlier, encouraging more young people to put in the work required to get their license.

- Make the probationary license period apply to all new drivers, regardless of age, during the first year. All drivers would graduate to a full license after one year. This would recognize that it is inexperience, not age, that makes new drivers potentially dangerous on the roads, and it would ensure that all new drivers get the guidance and experience necessary to drive safely on a full license.

Senate Bill 16, as it is now, is both unfair to our young people and ineffective at improving safety. However, the bill can be amended, using the recommendations above or other reasonable measures that do not discriminate on the basis of age, to provide a fair and effective safety enhancement on Indiana's roads.

I hope you will consider both fairness and safety as you work in Indianapolis for the people of your district. Please either oppose Senate Bill 16 or amend it so that it is fair in improving the safety of all Indiana drivers.

Yours truly,

Justin Graham
Board of Directors
National Youth Rights Association

]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=58 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:50:02 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=58
Nothing since late July, but recently Galen finally put some new content in every section.

Have to agree on the lefty thing. The idea that there are STILL idiots who think being left-handed is evil... :dubious:

Of course, it IS sinister. :cute: *dodges veggies*]]>
Nothing since late July, but recently Galen finally put some new content in every section.

Have to agree on the lefty thing. The idea that there are STILL idiots who think being left-handed is evil... :dubious:

Of course, it IS sinister. :cute: *dodges veggies*]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=57 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:44:07 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=57
The rather neglected blog of Alex Koroknay-Palicz. But he did finally update like a couple days ago. First entry in like four months. :snicker:

It seems youth rights may or may not have a theory. :coffee:

Whatever. I commented.]]>
The rather neglected blog of Alex Koroknay-Palicz. But he did finally update like a couple days ago. First entry in like four months. :snicker:

It seems youth rights may or may not have a theory. :coffee:

Whatever. I commented.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=56 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:40:43 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=56
Each website gets its own thread. Discuss the site's content or announce updates or whatever else.

Any threads about a website not fitting this forum's criteria (at my discretion) will be moved out of here.

Enjoy! :bananacouchdance: :cheers:]]>
Each website gets its own thread. Discuss the site's content or announce updates or whatever else.

Any threads about a website not fitting this forum's criteria (at my discretion) will be moved out of here.

Enjoy! :bananacouchdance: :cheers:]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=55 Sun, 07 Sep 2008 20:05:20 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=55 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=54 Sun, 07 Sep 2008 19:40:56 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=54
What do you guys think?]]>
What do you guys think?]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=53 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 19:29:44 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=53 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=52 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:24:44 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=52
Unfortunately, I predict this board will stay relatively inactive.

But, if I'm wrong: :waves: :waves: :waves::rainbow::welcome:]]>
Unfortunately, I predict this board will stay relatively inactive.

But, if I'm wrong: :waves: :waves: :waves::rainbow::welcome:]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=49 Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:29:37 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=49 :hungry::juggle::bananacouchdance::birthday::cheers::rockon::banana2:

No.
The political kind.

I wanna know what I am. Any quizzes I could take? I also wanna know libertarian, conservative, egalitarian, etc.]]> :hungry::juggle::bananacouchdance::birthday::cheers::rockon::banana2:

No.
The political kind.

I wanna know what I am. Any quizzes I could take? I also wanna know libertarian, conservative, egalitarian, etc.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=48 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 19:36:46 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=48 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=47 Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:24:32 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=47 Why?

Our base-10 counting system is based on the biological accident that we have 10 fingers. Base-12 is clearly superior. Base-60 is better, but it's too big.]]> Why?

Our base-10 counting system is based on the biological accident that we have 10 fingers. Base-12 is clearly superior. Base-60 is better, but it's too big.]]>