A textbook is literally
a book full of text
pages upon pages of
contrasting values
yet uniform
this book of text makes no reference
to and understanding
I can read, but i do not
know what it means
reading, itself, please explain
this language of yours
the tool lack the reasonING
is my brain without mind
so they give us the textbook
and they tell you to
read, and write, what you read, no more
as a baby would feast upon airplanes
descending
i choose to vomit, so to speak
this paper does not teach, it tells
i am not learning, i am doing
and when i have forgot what was taught and never learned
what shall i do
I WANT TO KNOW WHY
i crave the carnivorous consumption
of the curiousity that calls
he knows the nile, but what does
it mean?
WHAT DOES IT MEAN?
i would rather concieve my condition
than narrate the nile
We cannot fathom.
Footprints.
If we were to walk
through this forest at hand
your presence would echo
and bring life to the land,
the earth would rupture
distort at it's seams;
for a vain presentation
rivaling 'wildest dreams,
but the play falls subconscious;
upon transparency, you bear
all heaven in your eyes
falls equal and fair
to the rest of the planet
oh, the world that you see
your company’s a gift
that sees blind honesty.
Our footprints on paths
moss floored, just for you
but you’ll insist the dirt trail
since we’re just people too,
as we float on past the statues
they’ll all know your name
these gods, will admire
your essence, lest fame.
Though the daisies, they cry
for they are low to the floor
whilst the trees up above
view heavens, galore
why must they live so small
so discrete in this place?
while the foliage above
glares up into space?
but your wisdom, surpass
will shine light upon woes
you seek the same happiness
only your presence knows
that the daisies have friends
on that forest floor
All the animals, plants
have much wisdom in store;
the trees with their height
they feel hardship their own
come storm, wind or heat
they shall be your home.
You’re spreading your brilliance
this happiness untold
as you search for your own,
whilst you inspire and unfold
this path does soon end
through the forest today
and once more one has witnessed
vitality, you portray
And so time will erase the footprints we made
but the light of your presence
Will remain, Never fade.
"Dear Mr.McGuinty. My son is dead. It's not your fault, but you can help."
So you know the story. Early september, Tyler Mulcahy goes up north with three friends. They Drink Completely Irresponsibly, they swerve off a cliff, three die.
September 6th, Tim Mulcahy buys a full page ad in the Toronto Star, stating the above guote, or something along the lines.
Two Months later, a new legislation is born. It restricts teenage driving regulations, in hopes of preventing such incidents.
Dear Mr.Mcguinty. My Privelages are being taken away. It's not your fault...wait, it kind of is. So I guess, that means you could probably help.
I'd write more about how I disagree with the new laws, but I'm sure, along with your own opinions, you've heard enough. Besides, Mr.McGuinty seems to have a 'selective hearing', so to speak. I make this claim with regards to an article in the Toronto star, which Considers the amount of attention the government has paid to a single car crash, while thousands of african-american mothers plead for help while their sons die of gang violence on the streets of Toronto.
The general response to this legislation seems to be fairly negative in the eyes of the teenage population, as expected, yet the older crowd seems to be fairly divided on the issue. I have no proof of the latter statement, its just a logical estimation based on responses to published pieces, and articles I have read. Now, I know that us, being 'irresponsible and irrational teens', would seemingly have to oppose this law, because it hinders our privelages. But I find it funny how everyone who is affected by the law, disagrees with it. That being said, the last time I checked, a democracy was 'a government of the people', not 'a government of the people who agree with the legislations', or a' government of the people above 21'.
That being said, why would the governemnt listen to us? They think wer're irresponsible and irrational. Well, sometimes we are, but alot of us aren't. Hey, I think they call that a generalization. Wait a minute! Assuming that the entire teenage population are irresponsible drivers and require this legislation in order to be safe based on very few incidents is also a generalization! So maybe the government should stop generalizing.
so...what does this mean for me? If this goes through, and the protests don't work, and my hunger-strike in Jail is my only ticket out, what consequesnces am I, as a teenage driver, going to face?
Well It's going to take you 30-34 months to get your full G license, as opposed to the traditional 20-24 months.
Also, assuming Brendan can't drive me everywhere (I love ya man), I now need bus passes. 2 zone, thats $100 a month. from now until Next september, that's $1000. Oh boy, as a teenager preparing for university, do I ever love paying people! that's the equivelant of, depending on where you go, most of your first year textbooks.
Graduation Roadtrip! Two people to a car that seats five! let's all pay five times for the amount of gas!
So that's all i can think of for now, but there are many more. if you guys can think of consequences, post them up, let's hear what you guys got to say!
Tim Mulcahy. I am sorry about your loss, and understand the pain you must be going though. I also recognice and commemorate how you are trying to place a positive example for teenage drivers as a result. However, I do not agree with your son's incident's involvement with this legislation. your son's death is quite irrelevant to the proposed bills, other than the fact that these bills are based on death prevention. Also on account of your son's multiple speeding tickets, and irresponsibilty regarding drinking and driving, your son's case should not have any influence on a law adressing a large, and hopefully more responsible general population.
Some links to related articles:
I LOVE THIS ONE!!! It's responses to the article I last posted, they are really good. I don't think mine will ever get chosen, because I do not write professionally enough.
http://www.thestar.com/article/538507
One about a seventeen year old who complains about not being able to take his friends around in his SUV:
http://www.thestar.com/News/Ontario/article/539502
The Ontario government is expected to introduce tough new legislation tomorrow that will further restrict the privileges of young drivers.
The move comes after a long lobbying campaign, led by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) and Tim Mulcahy, the father of one of the three young people killed in a drunk-driving accident in Muskoka on July 3.
New measures affecting young new drivers are expected to include:
"We've been advocating this for a long time," said Carolyn Swinson, Toronto spokeswoman for MADD.
"Manitoba has already brought that in – it's already zero blood alcohol for drivers up to the age of 21 and for the first five years for new drivers.
"We've been asking Ontario to follow suit for a while."
In Ontario's current graduated licensing system – introduced in 1994 – young drivers can obtain a full driver's licence after just two years of driving experience, making it legal for them to drive after having a drink, and placing them on the standard demerit point system for speeding and other moving infractions.
Mulcahy began echoing MADD's calls for action shortly after his son's death when he learned that his son had a history of speeding and that alcohol had been a factor in his deadly car crash.
On July 3, Tyler Mulcahy, 20, his girlfriend Nastasia Inez Elzinga, 19, and friends Kourosh Totonchian, 19, and Cory Mintz, 20, spent the afternoon drinking 31 drinks over a three-hour period at a restaurant in Port Carling.
They left that evening in Mulcahy's Audi, but they never made it home.
Tyler Mulcahy was driving when he crashed the car into the Joseph River.
Only Elzinga escaped the sinking car with her life.
His son's death launched Mulcahy on a crusade to change the laws that bind young drivers in the province, to stop other youth from following his son's fatal journey.
First he began a petition for a revamping of the laws.
Then he began taking out full-page ads in the Star and other local newspapers that urged the province to revoke the licences of those under the age of 21 should they be caught speeding or driving with any alcohol in their system.
"Dear Mr. McGuinty, my son is dead," the ads began.
"It is not your fault, but you can make a difference and reduce future suffering."
It was enough to earn him a private meeting with the premier and, according to a note posted to his blog last Thursday, the drive produced results.
"Mr. McGuinty called me this morning and told me that both laws are being introduced into the legislature on Tuesday," Mulcahy wrote last week.
"I could not believe my ears and wept with Mr. McGuinty on the phone. If these bills are passed, Ontario will be the safest jurisdiction for young drivers in the world."
A spokesperson for the ministry of transportation could not be reached for comment.
Mulcahy wasn't available for comment yesterday, but in August he told the Star: "I'd like Tyler's accident to make a difference.
"I really feel there needs to be zero tolerance for alcohol up to the age of 21. Once someone takes one drink, it's easy to take two, three, four or 10 because we stop thinking," he added.
"I feel that speeding is at least as much of an issue as drinking and driving. If there was a zero tolerance for speeding and the licence was revoked for one speeding incident, then word would quickly get around that you can't speed and (keep) your licence.
"I want the law changed immediately so that I don't have to worry as much when my daughters are out partying and driving around in vehicles."
So this is what us kids have in store for us. I think I'm going to tackle the so-called reasoning behind this, then the three main enforcements the legislation proposes.
"...MADD's calls for action..." Ahh, MADD. Now, as far as I'm concerned, MADD has done some great things for us. They're really helped boost awareness of a serious issue, and in turn has made driving a bit safer through the production of new bills, such as the one outlined above. but the new amendments seem to be coming from a group that should be titled 'Mothers against driving. Period.' I mean, these don't really have anything to do with drinking and driving... I'll get back to this.
As for the death of the three young adults, I remember hearing about that, and even learning about it when MADD came and campaigned at my school. It was tragic, and of course, something I wish never happened. However, I believe it's roll in this legislation is mislead and somewhat out of place. I will involve these causes into my arguments below.
" A total ban on alcohol consumption [until the age of 21]"P.S. please remember this blog is opinionated, and therefore perspective plays a large roll in this. If i have any false information, please let me know, I hate to be making claims on false facts. I'd love to hear anyone else's opinion. I did not mean to offend anyone in the writing of this article. If I did, please let me know, and accept my apology.
