http://www.spellnyra.org/board/ Fri, 21 Nov 2008 22:59:10 -0500 MyBB 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=51 Thu, 08 May 2008 23:23:22 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=51 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.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=46 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:54:24 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=46 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=45 Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:48:44 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=45
Caption.]]>
Caption.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=44 Tue, 25 Dec 2007 02:05:56 -0500 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=44
Happy Santa Day, by the way.]]>
Happy Santa Day, by the way.]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=43 Tue, 16 Oct 2007 07:10:40 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=43 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=42 Tue, 16 Oct 2007 02:11:25 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=42
Anyway, a few weeks ago I read an article in my local newspaper about homeless youth in Indiana. Young people are being turned away from homeless shelters, free medical clinics, food banks, etc., because they're younger than 18. How sick is that? These people need help, and we turn them away because their age somehow makes them undeserving? :mad:

The article mentioned a committee in the state legislature, the Interim Study Committee on Missing Children, that was looking into the issue. The vice chairwoman of that committee is state Sen. Vaneta Becker, who I got to meet earlier today. The committee is considering a few (positive, but insufficient) solutions to this problem, including allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to use these services, and extending the deadline to notify their parents from 24 hours up to 72 hours (the maximum allowed under federal law) to give them more time to investigate the teen's family situation to see if there's abuse or neglect involved.

I had the chance to talk with Sen. Becker today for a few minutes about the issue, and she was largely receptive. She agreed that something needs to be done and indicated that she supports the above ideas. I mentioned to her that people younger than 16 should also have access to these resources, that young people generally do not run away for trivial reasons (there's usually abuse, neglect, or some other very serious issue behind it), and that we should not use emancipation as a standard (due to the difficulty in obtaining emancipation and the general ignorance of most young people as to the option's existence) and she seemed to agree with that as well. I think that the committee will recommend lowering the age limit to 16, but probably not below that.

Anyway, I'm glad that I did this (talking to Sen. Becker). Sure, I've written letters and such, but this feels more "real." Kinda like, "holy crap, I actually did something that might, but probably won't, make a real difference," you know? I'm kinda proud of myself. :lol:

I'm also wondering what you ("you" probably just meaning Katrina, since I don't know if anyone else even checks these forums) think the ideal case is with this issue. Should all age limits to access to shelters, etc., be removed completely, and all young people allowed unfettered use of these resources with no questions asked? Should it require emancipation? If there should be an age limit, what should it be? Should agencies be required to notify a young person's parents that he or she is seeking these services? Should reuniting them with their parents be the preferred option, or emancipation, or placement in a foster home?

Young people can't access homeless shelters, food stamps, soup kitchens, free clinics, and any number of other resources for the homeless and poor, simply because of their age. This seems like a very serious issue to me. More important than the drinking age, anyway. Should NYRA take a specific stand on this issue?]]>
Anyway, a few weeks ago I read an article in my local newspaper about homeless youth in Indiana. Young people are being turned away from homeless shelters, free medical clinics, food banks, etc., because they're younger than 18. How sick is that? These people need help, and we turn them away because their age somehow makes them undeserving? :mad:

The article mentioned a committee in the state legislature, the Interim Study Committee on Missing Children, that was looking into the issue. The vice chairwoman of that committee is state Sen. Vaneta Becker, who I got to meet earlier today. The committee is considering a few (positive, but insufficient) solutions to this problem, including allowing 16- and 17-year-olds to use these services, and extending the deadline to notify their parents from 24 hours up to 72 hours (the maximum allowed under federal law) to give them more time to investigate the teen's family situation to see if there's abuse or neglect involved.

I had the chance to talk with Sen. Becker today for a few minutes about the issue, and she was largely receptive. She agreed that something needs to be done and indicated that she supports the above ideas. I mentioned to her that people younger than 16 should also have access to these resources, that young people generally do not run away for trivial reasons (there's usually abuse, neglect, or some other very serious issue behind it), and that we should not use emancipation as a standard (due to the difficulty in obtaining emancipation and the general ignorance of most young people as to the option's existence) and she seemed to agree with that as well. I think that the committee will recommend lowering the age limit to 16, but probably not below that.

Anyway, I'm glad that I did this (talking to Sen. Becker). Sure, I've written letters and such, but this feels more "real." Kinda like, "holy crap, I actually did something that might, but probably won't, make a real difference," you know? I'm kinda proud of myself. :lol:

I'm also wondering what you ("you" probably just meaning Katrina, since I don't know if anyone else even checks these forums) think the ideal case is with this issue. Should all age limits to access to shelters, etc., be removed completely, and all young people allowed unfettered use of these resources with no questions asked? Should it require emancipation? If there should be an age limit, what should it be? Should agencies be required to notify a young person's parents that he or she is seeking these services? Should reuniting them with their parents be the preferred option, or emancipation, or placement in a foster home?

Young people can't access homeless shelters, food stamps, soup kitchens, free clinics, and any number of other resources for the homeless and poor, simply because of their age. This seems like a very serious issue to me. More important than the drinking age, anyway. Should NYRA take a specific stand on this issue?]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=41 Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:31:45 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=41 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=40 Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:07:03 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=40 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=39 Fri, 17 Aug 2007 18:06:31 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=39

Quote:Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up
Source

Over the strong objection of federal safety officials, a quiet movement to lower the legal drinking age to 18 is taking root as advocates argue that teenagers who are allowed to vote and fight for their country should also be able to enjoy a beer or two.

The proposal, which is the subject of a national petition drive by the National Youth Rights Association, has been studied in a handful of states in recent years, including Florida, Wisconsin, Vermont and Missouri, where supporters are pushing a ballot initiative.

Opponents of the idea point to a reported rise in binge drinking as teenagers increasingly turn to hard liquor as proof that minors should not be allowed to drink, but proponents look at the same data and draw the opposite conclusion.

“Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it’s had the very worst of outcomes,” said David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert at the State University of New York-Potsdam. “Just like during national Prohibition, the law has pushed and forced underage drinking and youthful drinking underground, where we have no control over it.”

But Mark Rosenker, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, countered: “Why would we repeal or weaken laws that save lives? It doesn’t make sense.”

Different laws in different states
As it happens, there is no such thing as a “federal legal drinking age.” Many states do not expressly prohibit minors from drinking alcohol, although most of those do set certain conditions, such as its use in a religious ceremony or in the presence of a parent or other guardian.

The phrase refers instead to a patchwork of state laws adopted in the mid-1980s under pressure from Congress, which threatened in 1984 to withhold 10 percent of federal highway funds from states that did not prohibit selling alcohol to those under the age of 21. By 1988, 49 states had complied; after years of court fights, Louisiana joined the crowd in 1995.

Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age. But in recent years, many academics and non-partisan policy groups have joined their cause for a different reason: The age restriction does not work, they say. Drinking has gone on behind closed doors and underground, where responsible adults cannot keep an eye on it.

“It does not reduce drinking. It has simply put young adults at greater risk,” said John M. McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who this year set up a non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility to push for a lower drinking age.

McCardell offers what he calls a simple challenge:

“The law was changed in 1984, and the law had a very specific purpose, and that was to prohibit drinking among those under the age of 21,” he said. “The only way to measure the success of that law is to ask ourselves whether, 23 years later, those under 21 are not drinking.”

So are they?

The federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that in 2005, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, 85 percent of 20-year-old Americans reported that they had used alcohol. Two out of five said they had binged — that is, consumed five or more drinks at one time — within the previous month.

“The evidence is very clear,” McCardell said. “It has had no effect.”

James C. Fell, a former federal highway safety administrator who is a senior researcher on alcohol policy with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, acknowledged that “it’s not a perfect law. It doesn’t totally prevent underage drinking.”

But Fell said the age restriction “does save lives. We have the evidence.”

Lower deaths rates disputed
The evidence, widely touted by Rosenker of the NTSB, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other activist groups, rests in a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, which estimated that from 1975 to 2003, higher drinking ages saved 22,798 lives on America’s roadways.

“Twenty-five thousand lives is a lot of people to set aside when you’re looking at a current problem,” said Brian Demers, a 20-year-old student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is a member of MADD’s board of directors.

That figure is disputed by proponents of lowering the drinking age. They have questioned the NHTSA study, which did not explain how it arrived at its estimate. Moreover, it counted any accident as “alcohol-related” if any participant was legally drunk — including victims who may not have been responsible for the accident.

“The methodology used has been widely criticized by scholars,” said Hanson, of SUNY-Potsdam, who called the report “really more of a guesstimate” that showed only a correlation of numbers, not a causal relationship. In fact, he said, alcohol-related traffic fatalities among minor drivers were already declining before 1984, when the drinking-age measure was passed.

Barrett Seaman, author of “Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You,” echoed Hanson’s assessment, saying, “Those statistics are a little suspicious.”

Even so, Rosenker said Tuesday, alcohol is still the leading cause of death among teenagers in highway crashes.

“The data show that when teens drink and drive they are highly unlikely to use seat belts,” he said. “These are the facts, and it would be a serious mistake and a national tragedy to weaken existing drinking age laws.”

Adults ‘written out of the equation’
To McCardell, however, the real problem is that we are not teaching teenagers how to drink responsibly.

Choose Responsibility proposes lowering the drinking age to 18, but only in conjunction with “drinking licenses,” similar to driver’s licenses, mandating alcohol education for those ages 18 to 21.

“Education works,” McCardell said, but “it’s never been tried. Now it’s mandatory only after you’ve been convicted of DUI. That is not an act of genius.”

Choose Responsibility and its allies face a tough task convincing the public. In a Gallup poll released last week, 77 percent of Americans opposed lowering the drinking age to 18. But Seaman argued that it was the wisdom of the drinker that mattered, not his or her age.

“The problem we have is that since the 21-year-old age limit has been in effect, we have effectively written adults out of the equation, so that they really have nothing to do with young people who are drinking alcohol furtively, viewing alcohol as a forbidden fruit and drinking to excesses that I don’t think were evident back in the years before the law was passed,” said Seaman, who lived on the campuses of 12 U.S. and Canadian colleges while researching his book.

“If you lower that drinking age — make drinking no longer a forbidden fruit but rather something that younger adults do with older adults who have learned how to handle alcohol responsibly — then you reduce those behaviors rather than increase them,” he said.


Since this article appeared, Alex Koroknay-Palicz and other NYRA folks have been making dozens of media appearances supporting the lower drinking age. This is the biggest media surge in NYRA's history! It is so exciting! :hyper:

In short, NYRA is awesome. :nod:]]>

Quote:Debate on lower drinking age bubbling up
Source

Over the strong objection of federal safety officials, a quiet movement to lower the legal drinking age to 18 is taking root as advocates argue that teenagers who are allowed to vote and fight for their country should also be able to enjoy a beer or two.

The proposal, which is the subject of a national petition drive by the National Youth Rights Association, has been studied in a handful of states in recent years, including Florida, Wisconsin, Vermont and Missouri, where supporters are pushing a ballot initiative.

Opponents of the idea point to a reported rise in binge drinking as teenagers increasingly turn to hard liquor as proof that minors should not be allowed to drink, but proponents look at the same data and draw the opposite conclusion.

“Raising the drinking age to 21 was passed with the very best of intentions, but it’s had the very worst of outcomes,” said David J. Hanson, an alcohol policy expert at the State University of New York-Potsdam. “Just like during national Prohibition, the law has pushed and forced underage drinking and youthful drinking underground, where we have no control over it.”

But Mark Rosenker, chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, countered: “Why would we repeal or weaken laws that save lives? It doesn’t make sense.”

Different laws in different states
As it happens, there is no such thing as a “federal legal drinking age.” Many states do not expressly prohibit minors from drinking alcohol, although most of those do set certain conditions, such as its use in a religious ceremony or in the presence of a parent or other guardian.

The phrase refers instead to a patchwork of state laws adopted in the mid-1980s under pressure from Congress, which threatened in 1984 to withhold 10 percent of federal highway funds from states that did not prohibit selling alcohol to those under the age of 21. By 1988, 49 states had complied; after years of court fights, Louisiana joined the crowd in 1995.

Libertarian groups and some conservative economic foundations, seeing the age limits as having been extorted by Washington, have long championed lowering the drinking age. But in recent years, many academics and non-partisan policy groups have joined their cause for a different reason: The age restriction does not work, they say. Drinking has gone on behind closed doors and underground, where responsible adults cannot keep an eye on it.

“It does not reduce drinking. It has simply put young adults at greater risk,” said John M. McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who this year set up a non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility to push for a lower drinking age.

McCardell offers what he calls a simple challenge:

“The law was changed in 1984, and the law had a very specific purpose, and that was to prohibit drinking among those under the age of 21,” he said. “The only way to measure the success of that law is to ask ourselves whether, 23 years later, those under 21 are not drinking.”

So are they?

The federal government’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health found that in 2005, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, 85 percent of 20-year-old Americans reported that they had used alcohol. Two out of five said they had binged — that is, consumed five or more drinks at one time — within the previous month.

“The evidence is very clear,” McCardell said. “It has had no effect.”

James C. Fell, a former federal highway safety administrator who is a senior researcher on alcohol policy with the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, acknowledged that “it’s not a perfect law. It doesn’t totally prevent underage drinking.”

But Fell said the age restriction “does save lives. We have the evidence.”

Lower deaths rates disputed
The evidence, widely touted by Rosenker of the NTSB, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other activist groups, rests in a study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, or NHTSA, which estimated that from 1975 to 2003, higher drinking ages saved 22,798 lives on America’s roadways.

“Twenty-five thousand lives is a lot of people to set aside when you’re looking at a current problem,” said Brian Demers, a 20-year-old student at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is a member of MADD’s board of directors.

That figure is disputed by proponents of lowering the drinking age. They have questioned the NHTSA study, which did not explain how it arrived at its estimate. Moreover, it counted any accident as “alcohol-related” if any participant was legally drunk — including victims who may not have been responsible for the accident.

“The methodology used has been widely criticized by scholars,” said Hanson, of SUNY-Potsdam, who called the report “really more of a guesstimate” that showed only a correlation of numbers, not a causal relationship. In fact, he said, alcohol-related traffic fatalities among minor drivers were already declining before 1984, when the drinking-age measure was passed.

Barrett Seaman, author of “Binge: What Your College Student Won’t Tell You,” echoed Hanson’s assessment, saying, “Those statistics are a little suspicious.”

Even so, Rosenker said Tuesday, alcohol is still the leading cause of death among teenagers in highway crashes.

“The data show that when teens drink and drive they are highly unlikely to use seat belts,” he said. “These are the facts, and it would be a serious mistake and a national tragedy to weaken existing drinking age laws.”

Adults ‘written out of the equation’
To McCardell, however, the real problem is that we are not teaching teenagers how to drink responsibly.

Choose Responsibility proposes lowering the drinking age to 18, but only in conjunction with “drinking licenses,” similar to driver’s licenses, mandating alcohol education for those ages 18 to 21.

“Education works,” McCardell said, but “it’s never been tried. Now it’s mandatory only after you’ve been convicted of DUI. That is not an act of genius.”

Choose Responsibility and its allies face a tough task convincing the public. In a Gallup poll released last week, 77 percent of Americans opposed lowering the drinking age to 18. But Seaman argued that it was the wisdom of the drinker that mattered, not his or her age.

“The problem we have is that since the 21-year-old age limit has been in effect, we have effectively written adults out of the equation, so that they really have nothing to do with young people who are drinking alcohol furtively, viewing alcohol as a forbidden fruit and drinking to excesses that I don’t think were evident back in the years before the law was passed,” said Seaman, who lived on the campuses of 12 U.S. and Canadian colleges while researching his book.

“If you lower that drinking age — make drinking no longer a forbidden fruit but rather something that younger adults do with older adults who have learned how to handle alcohol responsibly — then you reduce those behaviors rather than increase them,” he said.


Since this article appeared, Alex Koroknay-Palicz and other NYRA folks have been making dozens of media appearances supporting the lower drinking age. This is the biggest media surge in NYRA's history! It is so exciting! :hyper:

In short, NYRA is awesome. :nod:]]> http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=38 Sun, 12 Aug 2007 04:57:38 -0400 http://www.spellnyra.org/board/showthread.php?tid=38
It's basically a list of various organizations/associations/groups. I only included the ones I could think of easily, so if your favorite organization isn't included, tough. :P

We all know who would win anyway. :)



10 - American Civil Liberties Union
10 - Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions
10 - Amnesty International
10 - Christian Coalition
10 - Earth Liberation Front
10 - Hezbollah
10 - Human Rights Watch
10 - Mothers Against Drunk Driving
10 - Nation of Islam
10 - National Abortion Federation
10 - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
10 - National Education Association
10 - National Institute for Latino Policy
10 - National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
10 - National Organization for Women
10 - National Rifle Association
10 - National Right-to-Life Committee
10 - National Youth Rights Association
10 - North American Man/Boy Love Association
10 - North American Treaty Organization
10 - Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
10 - Perverted Justice
10 - Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
10 - Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia
10 - Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
10 - Sierra Club
10 - Students for Sensible Drug Policy
10 - Tamil Tigers
10 - United Nations
10 - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
10 - World Jewish Congress
10 - Young Naturists Association International]]>
It's basically a list of various organizations/associations/groups. I only included the ones I could think of easily, so if your favorite organization isn't included, tough. :P

We all know who would win anyway. :)



10 - American Civil Liberties Union
10 - Americans for a Society Free from Age Restrictions
10 - Amnesty International
10 - Christian Coalition
10 - Earth Liberation Front
10 - Hezbollah
10 - Human Rights Watch
10 - Mothers Against Drunk Driving
10 - Nation of Islam
10 - National Abortion Federation
10 - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
10 - National Education Association
10 - National Institute for Latino Policy
10 - National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
10 - National Organization for Women
10 - National Rifle Association
10 - National Right-to-Life Committee
10 - National Youth Rights Association
10 - North American Man/Boy Love Association
10 - North American Treaty Organization
10 - Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays
10 - Perverted Justice
10 - Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
10 - Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia
10 - Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
10 - Sierra Club
10 - Students for Sensible Drug Policy
10 - Tamil Tigers
10 - United Nations
10 - Voluntary Human Extinction Movement
10 - World Jewish Congress
10 - Young Naturists Association International]]>