Punk

Punk Punk Punk By Maeve Maddox One post often leads to another. When I wrote about the word steampunk, I learned things about the word punk that I hadn’t known before. Three meanings I’ve always attached to the word punk are: 1. punk (noun): a smart-alecky, no-account adolescent boy. Leo [Gorcey] was the filmic prototype of the young  punk. Justin Bieber is a punk, a product of social media. 2. punk (noun): a long skinny taper used to light fireworks. Fireworks should be lit with  punk  or an extended butane  lighting  device.   Dont leave matches and  lighted punk  where ladies may tread on them.   3. punk (adjective): in poor health, under the weather. Sadie is feeling punk: I think her tooth is bothering her. I woke up feeling punk, but now I feel better. Here are some other uses of the noun punk: Note: The dates refer to citations in the Oxford English Dictionary. The first is the earliest citation; the second is the most recent. a prostitute (1575-1983) a boy or young man kept as a passive sexual partner by an older man (1698-2001) the young male companion of a tramp, especially one kept for sexual purposes (1907-2002) derogatory term for a homosexual man (1935-1999) a person of no account; a petty criminal; a hoodlum, a thug (1893-2004) a coward or a weakling (1939-2003) an amateur; an apprentice (1920-1989) a performer or fan of punk rock (1976-2003) Meanings of punk as an adjective include: contemptible, despicable; thuggish; inexperienced (1907-2001) The OED offers the following definition of the word punk relating to the lighting of fireworks: soft decayed or rotten wood, especially as used for tinder 1678-1994) slang term for bread (1891-1991) incense, especially Chinese incense (1844-2000) A piece of a material that smolders when ignited, used to light fireworks or the like (1852-2005) something worthless; foolish or meaningless talk; nonsense, rubbish 1869-1973) New meanings for this old word are still developing, including a verb, â€Å"to punk.† Apparently the past participle is punk’d: Taylor Swift gets Punk’d by Justin Bieber Jusin Bieber gets punk’d by Ashton Kutcher. The odd spelling is from a candid camera show called Punk’d. Want to improve your English in five minutes a day? Get a subscription and start receiving our writing tips and exercises daily! Keep learning! Browse the Vocabulary category, check our popular posts, or choose a related post below:Direct and Indirect ObjectsHow to spell "in lieu of"Few vs. Several

Direct Democracy Pros and Cons

Direct Democracy Pros and Cons Direct democracy, sometimes called pure democracy, is a form of democracy in which all laws and policies imposed by governments are determined by the people themselves, rather than by representatives who are elected by the people. In a true direct democracy, all laws, bills and even court decisions are voted on by all citizens. Direct vs. Representative Democracy Direct democracy is the opposite of the more common representative democracy, under which the people elect representatives who are empowered to create laws and policies for them. Ideally, the laws and policies enacted by the elected representatives should closely reflect the will of the majority of the people. While the United States, with the protections of its federal system of â€Å"checks and balances,† practices representative democracy, as embodied in the U.S. Congress and the state legislatures, two forms of limited direct democracy are practiced at the state and local level: ballot initiatives and binding referendums, and recall of elected officials. Ballot initiatives and referendums allow citizens to place – by petition – laws or spending measures typically considered by state and local legislative bodies on statewide or local ballots. Through successful ballot initiatives and referendums, citizens can create, amend or repeal laws, as well as amend state constitutions and local charters. Examples of Direct Democracy: Athens and Switzerland Perhaps the best example of direct democracy existed in ancient Athens, Greece.  While it excluded women, slaves, and immigrants from voting, Athenian direct democracy required all citizens to vote on all major issues of government. Even the verdict of every court case was determined by a vote of all the people. In the most prominent example in modern society, Switzerland practices a modified form of direct democracy under which any law enacted by the nation’s elected legislative branch can be vetoed by a vote of the general public. In addition, citizens can vote to require the national legislature to consider amendments to the Swiss constitution. Pros and Cons of Direct Democracy While the idea of having the ultimate say-so over the affairs of government might sound tempting, there are some good – and bad – aspects of direct democracy that need to be considered: 3 Pros of Direct Democracy Full Government Transparency: Without a doubt, no other form of democracy ensures a greater degree of openness and transparency between the people and their government. Discussions and debates on major issues are held in public. In addition, all successes or failures of the society can be credited to – or blamed on – the people, rather than the government.  More Government Accountability: By offering the people a direct and unmistakable voice through their votes, direct democracy demands a great level of accountability on the part of the government. The government cannot claim it was unaware of or unclear on the will of the people. Interference in the legislative process from partisan political parties and special interest groups are largely eliminated.Greater Citizen Cooperation: In theory at least, people are more likely to happily comply with laws they create themselves. Moreover, people who know that their opinions will make a difference, they more eager to take p art in the processes of government. 3 Cons of Direct Democracy We Might Never Decide: If every American citizen were expected to vote on every issue considered at every level of government, we might never decide on anything. Between all of the issues considered by local, state and federal governments, citizens could literally spend all day, every single day voting.Public Involvement Would Drop: Direct democracy best serves the interest of the people when most people take part in it. As the time required for debating and voting increases, public interest, and participation in the process would quickly decrease, leading to decisions which did not truly reflect the will of the majority. In the end, small groups of people often with dangerous axes to grind, could control the government.One Tense Situation After Another: In any society as large and diverse as that in the United States, what is the chance of that everyone will ever happily agree with or at least peacefully accept decisions on major issues? As recent history has shown, not much.