Assignment 17- Omer

The End of POVERTYYYYY???

Life over in Sudan is… complicated. It identifies itself as an arab country, but it’s not exactly Dubai. If you don’t skip any meals and you aren’t suffering, you’re basically upperclass. Which means that people that are engulfed in poverty have it bad. And I mean really bad.

While walking to the local store, I gave this scruffy looking dude 10 sudanese dollars, which is like 2 actual dollars. The look that this weathered man gave me in response took me by surprise. Wiping away tears, he asked me if i wanted to talk with him for a bit.

So we sat down on a little curb, and he told me all these stories of people; how they treated him worse than dirt and passed him by, as if he were a rotting sign inscribed with everything they hate. That’s why he was so happy that I stopped. It would have been easy to ignore him and move on, but I didn’t.

I would have spent that money on soda, and forgotten about said soda within a couple of hours. But that didn’t happen. The spare change in my pocket really raised that guys spirits.

Why don’t people help the poor? Why are there still families who need? Its because people simply don’t care enough. You don’t know that man sitting shamefully with a sign begging you for your spare change. For all you know, he could be a druggie, looking for the source of his next hit. He could be an alcoholic wanting money to spend at the bar later tonight.

But, he could be a man looking for the next meal for his kids. He could have been laid off work, and life just bested him. Poor people are still people; try to remember that.

Poverty isn’t a disability that limits people from being human. It’s a disease. A disease that can be cured only through the generosity of random strangers.

In 2010, 46 million americans were categorized by the National Poverty Center as living in poverty. The equivalent of nearly 700 Commonwealth stadiums packed to the brim with people, and all of them in poverty.

It would take 1% of the United States GDP to raise all americans above the poverty line. Thats 500 dollars per 1 american, and it would exterminate poverty in our nation. But forget 500 dollars, even a 20 dollar bill can brighten someones day.

The Youtube group GiveBackFilms embodies just that. If you haven’t watched the reactions they get from giving homeless people 100 dollar bills, you need to. Every person in the video reacts with disbelief after being handed something life-changing.

Getting handed money, along with the decency that the youtubers address them with is what teared up the homeless. They treat them like normal human beings, and have conversations with them. And it makes everyones day.

I assume that a few of you are of the mindset that poor people put themselves in bad situations. For a majority of cases, you are wrong and a jerk.

I watched a documentary called “The End of Poverty,” and it discussed how some people in other countries became poor or had their situation worsen. With the privatization of water, the Bolivian poor lost access to clean water.

In Kenya, native lands and agricultural fields were seized and intentionally flooded, dropping the now homeless natives into extreme poverty. What did these people do to deserve such treatment? Nothing at all. They were just in the way of companies trying to make money, and were thrown under the bus.

I’ll admit that there isn’t much we can do for people in other countries whose lives are in ruins. I guess you could take a pledge at thelifeyoucansave.org/, or donate at one of many websites dedicated to ending world hunger. Other than that, it’ll be hard to do anything for those people. What you can do is try to help the poor in our country. Donate a little bit of your time or money to help those in need. It’ll help them a lot more than it hurts you.

I’m sure a couple of you are zoning out right now, because you've heard this kind of speech before. These four or so minutes isn’t going to make you go out of your way to give someone you don’t know something major.

But just like the way Jeffrey Sachs outlined it in his Time magazine article, there are lots of little ways you can help those in poverty. But even in miniscule ways, most of you won’t do anything at all. Instead, I ask you to be kind to the poor whenever you get a chance.

When you’re driving around, and you see someone holding one of those cardboard signs asking for money, give them something. Whether it be a smile, time out of your day to just talk to them, or the few dollars you have in your pocket. Somehow, try to brighten their day.

Bibliography

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

http://prospect.org/article/how-much-money-would-it-take-eliminate-poverty-america

http://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G65z8p1YNhw

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1034738,00.html

Assignment 6- Omer

1. Why do we care what people think?
2. why do we accept things we don't like
3. what makes someone better that you, or vice versa?


Why do we care what people think? I don't know why. But I can share my own personal experiences. I realize that I shouldn't care. But I still do. When i'm calm and relaxed, I can actively contemlate how I am reacting to a certain situation. But when I get anxious or nervous, all my deeper thoughts leave. I don't have time to think about why I shouldn't care, because deep down, I do. For other people, i'm sure how they view others counts, along with how they view themselves. But for me, it's simply a matter of being stuck in the heat of the moment, and not caring about caring what people thing about me.

Assignment 17- Brittany

 Child obesity has become a serious problem in the United States and is growing. According to Stanford Hospital & Clinics, “obesity rates among children in the U.S. have doubled since 1980.” DOUBLED. This disease is clearly a concern in our country and while there have been many attempts to prevent the progress of the problem, it still remains an issue. To aid in preventing and combating childhood obesity, it is critical that we take steps to take care of our bodies by eating healthy diets AND exercising; one is simply not enough.

Eating a healthy diet is key in the fight against obesity and also necessary in staying healthy in general. Lee Fulkerson’s documentary, Forks over Knives, follows individuals who replace their poor diets with a healthy one consisting largely of fruits and vegetables. The documentary shows that those who began to eat healthy foods not only lost weight, but saw significant reversal in disease and other health-related issues. It is imperative that people make an effort to consume a healthy diet because it could save your life, as well as your children’s lives. According to the Center for Disease Control, obesity causes a myriad of consequences including coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia.  Many diseases and problems follow obesity, but eating a healthy diet can prevent them.

Telling others to make the healthy choice and place the right foods on the dining room table is all good and well, but following through with it is harder than it seems. The reality is that junk foods cost far less than their healthy alternatives and are far more readily available to consumers. Overall, most unhealthy foods look more appealing to the common consumer. However, the long-term benefits of choosing the healthier, though slightly more expensive and less sweet, foods outweigh the shallow benefits of the cheap bag of chips or tray of cookies. In an interview by Dr. Hetal B. Gore, it is explained that eating healthy foods like fruits and vegetables can help you to lose weight and actually reverse chronic diseases, like diabetes, that can be results of obesity.

A healthy diet is certainly important, but it is simply not enough. It must be consumed in conjunction with a consistent exercise routine. One of the main reasons for obesity in adolescents is an absence of physical activity. Simple things like walking to school or to the grocery store can constitute physical activity and are helpful. If you cut back on some of the hours spent watching TV, playing video games, or using other electronics and replace them with an hour or two of exercise, then you’re already on your way.

While yes, schools already do have physical education and exercise programs to help promote physical activity and healthy living, research shows that these programs aren't sufficient. A study by University of Georgia professor Bryan McCullick shows “only six states nationwide require the recommended 150 minutes of elementary school-based physical education.” Instituting more vigorous exercise programs in schools would help resolve this problem. If schools expanded and intensified their P.E. programs, then obesity could potentially be significantly decreased among children and teenagers.

Child obesity is a pressing issue here in our country, but the good thing is that it can be prevented. Through a combination of healthy eating and exercise, we can all maintain a healthy and balanced lifestyle. Although it is not always easy to do so, at the end of the day it is more beneficial if you eat healthily and incorporate physical activity into your life. It is your choice to make. Will you choose the right one?

Bibliography:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Causes and Consequences." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 27 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.

Fulkerson, Lee, dir. Forks Over Knives. Monica Beach Media, 2011. DVD. 21 Jun 2013.

Gore, Dr. Hetal B."Healthy Living Thru Plant Based Diet." Interview by Dr. Hetal B. Gore, M.D. YouTube.   
               N.p. 24 Apr. 2013. Web 19 June 2013. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBquiUyL9Ks>

Kuczynski-Brown, Alex. "Physical Education Programs In School Not Enough To Combat Obesity In Most States: Study." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09 July 2012. Web. 5 Dec. 2013.

Stanford. "How to Prevent Obesity." - Stanford Hospital & Clinics. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Dec. 2013. 

Assignment 17- sepehr piltan

nimals like us have needs, like having a warm place to sleep and food to eat. So why should they be denied these basic needs? And just like us they have feelings, they can feel pain, sorrow, and even joy too, so why can’t they be happy like us? Just imagine if you were a poor little animal having medicine and makeup products tested on you, every day to the point that you can barely move. Imagine you're the one thrown in a cage and only given enough food to survive for the day. You wouldn’t like that, would you? Well that’s what it’s like for an animal in product-testing facility. It’s not fair for them because they have no power, no freedom, and they can’t speak up for themselves because they can’t speak our language. Animals should have rights too, just like people do. I'm sure some of you of pets, like cats and dogs, and I know for a fact that you wouldn’t want your pets to feel pain or sorrow, you want them to be happy. But there are people out there who think it’s okay to beat and starve their pets. According to the humane society over 1900 cases of animal cruelty are reported each year. And these are just the ones that have been reported, there are hundreds and probably thousands of unreported cases. Over 70 percent of these cases involve cats and dogs. And these people who abuse animals get very little to no jail time for the terrible things they do to these innocent animals. If animals had rights and the punishment for the crimes were greater, maybe that would eliminate some of the cruelty out there. People aren’t the only ones abusing and killing animals. Animal services euthanize animals every day, circuses put elephants and monkeys through terrible conditions, and there are even underground dog fights. These people don’t care about how the animals feel, they only care about the money they get from the animals suffering. And some people don’t even do it for the money, people hunt animals just for the fun of it. The only animals that you’re not allowed to hunt are the ones on the endangered species list, what do you think got them there in the first place? My favorite animal, the tiger is almost extinct because of habitat destruction and hunting. Their used to be more than nine subspecies of tigers that numbered over 100,000 tigers before the twentieth century, now there are only about 3,200 tigers left in the wild. Do you realize how crazy that is? In less than about 100 years, the population of the tiger has dropped by 95 percent all because of humans hunting and destroying animal habitats. What if people abuse and kill animals like the dog to the point that they become extinct? Can you even imagine that? Animals can’t tell us how they feel because they can’t speak our language, but they do feel. Just because they can’t talk and defend themselves doesn’t mean that we get to deny them their freedom and basic needs. It is morally wrong. I’m not trying to persuade you to become a full on vegan or even to donate all your money to the humane society. I’m just trying to show you the reality of what’s happening to these poor animals and persuade you that this is a major problem. You guys are probably thinking, “What could I possibly do to help?” and you don’t have to do much. You can do small stuff like meatless Mondays, where you don’t eat any animal product on Mondays, or you could volunteer at places like the wolf run. The people there will appreciate your help and so will the animals even if they can’t tell you. In conclusion, I feel that animals should have rights and not be treated any differently than humans are. But in the end it’s not my decision, it’s yours. I can’t force you to buy certain foods or clothes, it’s all up to you.

Julian Perry 17

Persuasive Speech

Hello, my name is Julian Perry, and I'm an alcoholic. In all honesty, I've never had a drop and don't necessarily have a desire to, and yet I naturally say that phrase with such a tone of guilt that it gets one thinking; what creates this feeling of embarrassment associated with drinking? There must be something wrong with it, right? Well, yes. Compare it to a drug such as marijuana, illegal, and you can see that quite easily. A drug that's banned in most states can't have more benefits than a drug that is legal. It can't be less harmful, right? Well, that's the problem. Using the standards for drug use that we use today, marijuana should be legalized, at least for medical purposes.

Alcohol is accepted in a variety of situations. It's not uncommon to see people sipping on wine at a wedding, taking a shot of tequila among friends at a party, and even using vodka to sterilize your crazy Uncle Bill's wounds after he thought it a good idea to show you that bears just want love too. Alcohol has its uses in medicine, but so does marijuana. Arthritis, glaucoma, shingles, cancer, and even seizures can be treated with marijuana. Little things too, like motion sickness and asthma, are subdued. CNN recently did a report on one particular family's experience with the drug in medical reference. Matt and Paige Figi were building a family together, but one day their three-month-old daughter Charlotte had a seizure. A little while later, she had another. Five years later, Charlotte was up to 300 seizures, averaging half an hour each, every week of her life. This disabled her ability to grow and learn as any healthy child naturally would. No medicine was helping. No one can ever feel the pain that her parents sat through for five years, knowing that their little one could be only moments away from the seizure that ends her life. There hadn't been much research involving marijuana's effect on children, but the one doctor who would actually prescribe medicinal marijuana to a five-year-old girl ended up being right, and this family can now see their daughter's personality for the first time ever. Three seizures a month, now. Better yet, the chemical in marijuana that relieves seizure victims of their epilepsy is CBD, not the chemical THC which causes the psychoactive associated with smoking marijuana. Using a strain low in THC, they were able to completely disable the intoxication and save Charlotte's life.

Many mental disorders, including aspergers and autism, are also on the list. The Autism Support Network and the Huffington Post have written about this, both reporting that autism becomes much less prominent in patients using medical marijuana, and when you view the list of side effects surrounding pharmaceutical treatments, it's easy to see why a parent might be OK with a less conventional method. Loss of appetite, twitches, many unpleasant things. I should know. My brother was diagnosed autistic fairly early on, but I never noticed. He was always a little bit weird, thankfully having only a minor form, but that was just him. I love that older brother more than anything else in the world, and he really changed when we started trying to treat him. It was always something different, with every drug we picked. Something was always off about him, and it was a very hard time for us. He was just never my brother. Close, but never quite enough. In the end, we decided to just stop trying, and it always made me wonder; what if we lived in California? Most of my family is from there, so it's kind of ironic that we would be the ones out east.

There are reasons, of course, to not legalize marijuana. It is a drug, like any, and all drugs are bad in one way or another. My question to you all is this; why is it any different than a drug you would buy for a cough, or a bad headache? Why is it any different than all the concoctions of alcohol we as Americans consume every day? Every drug is a win-lose deal. You take some, you give some. The only real difference is that this drug comes from the earth. It's organic, just like the produce you pay two extra bucks for at Kroger. Just like these parents thought: If it can help, why can't we just try?

Assignment 17- Andy

“Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything.” Plato was one of the first to express what many have come to understand about music. Time and time again it has been called “the universal language” for its ability to connect diverse people as an accessible art form. Studies have shown that playing an instrument at a young age assists development and provides various advantages later in life. But despite the numerous benefits of music in our lives, in many places young people are not encouraged to play, enjoy, and appreciate music. In the U.S, music programs of many schools have diminished or even been eliminated due to economic conditions. We, as a country, are fortunate to have widespread public support of music education, but even that is sometimes in jeopardy.

“Music Changes Lives” by Mind the Gap Studios is a documentary that follows the music programs of two elementary schools in low income areas of Dublin, Ireland. These programs are based on El Sistema, a free orchestra for young people in Venezuela.  El Sistema was started by José Antonio Abreu in 1975 and after two years was completely funded by the Venezuelan Government. It has been extremely successful and has inspired many similar programs around the world. The programs of the Dublin elementary schools were just as successful. Every student in the schools received a free music lesson once a week and those who were interested joined the orchestra. The documentary demonstrates the social aspect of learning to play an instrument.  Musical training teaches values and skills that then remain with children for their entire lives.  They learn patience, confidence, and improve their social skills. They also have the skill with the instrument itself as a hobby or even a career to pursue in the future. The most important thing a child can gain from learning an instrument is the sense of belonging that comes from collaborating with other young people. As the children in “Music Changes Lives” work and create music with their peers they form a community that all have a part in. For children, having a group that they belong to and feel safe in will be very important as they grow up. A group formed by a shared interest in music is something that they will remember forever.

                The many benefits of learning a musical instrument are often much more difficult to perceive than values and skills. Studies have shown that children can develop physiological advantages from musical training at an early age.  In a 2012 study published in the journal Brain and Language, Dr. Dana L. Straight and her associates study and explain some of these benefits. In this study, the cognitive and neural responses of children who are musicians were compared to responses of those who are not.  It was found that the musically trained children had faster neural responses to sound cues, a greater ability to pick out speech in noisy environments, and an improved working memory. The study also proposes that musical training may be a way to remedy early development speech deficits. These benefits are not theoretical, nor are they intangible values. They are statistical results that show children who learn to play an instrument actually perform better than those who do not, in a number of very applicable ways.  The effects seen in this study are still relevant throughout these a child’s adult life. Students at Northwestern University School of Communication, in their study “Neural Responses to Complex Sounds” had very similar findings, but in college students. Those students who had studied music as children responded neurologically to audio cues much more quickly than those who had no musical training.

                Some benefits that come from playing an instrument are much harder to express empirically. Playing instruments serves as a mechanism of stress relief and gives children a hobby, giving them something safe and productive to do. I have been a musician, in one way or another, for many years. In stressful and difficult times I find that music is the best relief for me. No matter what happens in my life, I can always turn back to music, whether it’s playing my guitar or putting in headphones for a while.  Everyone deserves the chance to experience music like I, and many of us, have.

                The most obvious way to improve music education in the U.S. and other countries is through increased public funding. Unfortunately, in the U.S. education spending cuts often start with the arts and music programs, and in other countries the funding does not exist in the first place. The money from public support could be used to establish music programs for schools without them and improve already existing ones. Many children’s families cannot afford instruments or lessons, and these funds could make these more accessible. There are also many community organizations that support youth involvement in the arts. If we support these institutions and policies that support music education and encourage young people to try playing an instrument, we, as individuals, can make a difference.

                Many critics of education spending claim that our money is better spent elsewhere, even within education.  These people underestimate the overwhelming positive effect music has on our nation and others’ youths. If we provide the opportunity to learn a musical instrument to every child in the U.S. it will influence their lives much more than any class they could take. It will teach them skills that they will always possess, it will empower them to be good students and even better citizens, and most importantly, it inspire in them a sense of belonging and community they would otherwise miss.  Jimmy Hendrix once said” Music doesn't lie. If there is something to be changed in this world, then it can only happen through music.” The values that we pass on to the generations to come will influence the adults they become, and ultimately, their marks on the world. Only through music can we build a productive, global community and ensure a bright future for all mankind.

Bibliography

Music Changes Lives. Dir. Mike Casey. Mind the Gap Films, 2010. 

           

"Neural Response to Complex Speech Sounds." Northwestern University School of Communications. Northwestern University, n.d. Web. 28 June 2013.  http://www.soc.northwestern.edu/brainvolts/demonstration.php>.

Strait, Dana L., Alexandra Parbery-Clark, Emily Hittner, and Nina Kraus. "Musical Training during Early Childhood Enhances the Neural Encoding of Speech in Noise." Brain and Language 123.3 (2012): 191-201. Print.

"National Alliance of El Sistema Inspired Programs." National Alliance of El Sistema Inspired Programs. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. <http://elsistemausa.org/>.

            “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second amendment is one of issues that has caused the most debate in American politics. Starting with Rachel Maddow on the far left and all the way to Bill O’ Reily on the far right, everyone seems to have their own opinion on what regulations and restrictions should be placed on the purchase and possession of guns. Increased gun control will increase safety and security for American citizens.

            The current legislation on the purchase of guns states that all licensed gun dealers have to run background checks on all people who buy guns, at first look this law seems sufficient to keep people who shouldn’t have access to guns from acquiring them, however this system is deeply flawed and not properlely enforced. According to the Obama administration, 40% of all guns are purchased without a background check. This means that felons and people with dangerous mental illnesses can easily access a guns.  In order help reduce this problem, a universal background check needs to be implemented. Such a background check would help to ensure that more than 60% of gun owners have to go through a background check when purchasing guns. Such a universal background check would also ensure that all background checks performed meet a certain standard so that felons and other people unsuited to have guns are prevented from having them.

            Anyone who knows me knows that Ronald Reagan and I don’t share similar views, especially on the issue of gun control because historically Ronald Reagan had some of the most conservative views about gun control. However, even Ronald Reagan, along with 70% of NRA members, and 90 % of the American public agrees that military level weapons and high capacity magazines shouldn’t be legal. Weapons like these have the sole purpose of firing lethal shots and rapid succession and the sole purpose of this is to kill and harm as many people as possible. The right to own such a killing machine shouldn’t be put above the threat that these weapons pose to people, like the 26 people killed in the Sandy Hooke Massacre.

            I’m writing this speech on the Nation Bill of Rights day, which is fitting because the main argument made against increasing gun control is that it violates the second amendment. However, all rights all rights in the Bill of Rights are not absolute. Individual rights are found in the Bill of Rights, but individual rights end where other people’s rights start. For example, the first amendment guarantees the freedom of speech, however this right is not absolute, and the freedom of speech is restricted through things like when the Supreme Court ruled in the case Chaplinsky vs. Virginia that the freedom of speech doesn’t cover words used to instigate a fight. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to “fighting words” because it infringes on other peoples right to safety. This shows how limits are successfully placed on individual rights just like more limits needs to be placed on the purchase of guns. A higher priority absolutely cannot be placed on the right to own guns than is placed on the value of the countless lives that gun violence effects.

"American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

"United States Free Speech Exceptions." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 15 Dec. 2013.

Assignment 17 - Jacquelyn Engel

Today, our world is consumed by technology. In just a decade, we have greatly advanced it to make our lives easier and more efficient, and more products and innovations are constantly being created to enhance our lives even further. Technology has been very beneficial to us, but there have been arguments as to how it has harmed us. Recently there has been major controversy about using iPads in the classrooms. Apple aims to revolutionize education for students by using this portable, handy, electronic device. The concept sounds like a great idea, but if the cons are really considered, you can see multiple issues that arise with it. The top concern for implementing this idea is that it will be a distraction. It’s pretty clear that the iPad is primarily used for entertainment so allowing this in the classroom would only interfere with their studies. Students already use their phones during class to check their social media or play games. If an iPad were allowed, it would only facilitate the student’s motives to get on these sites. Instead of serving as a learning device like it should be, it is a distraction. A simple security system would be the easiest solution, but students can hack into it. In California, they distributed iPads to a few schools. In an article by Businessweek, they stated that “it only took a few days for students at Westchester High School in southwestern Los Angeles to bypass the filtering software”. If students breached into the security system the first time, they will likely do it again, and they could spread information on how to hack into it which would allow more students to use the iPad as a distraction. Another concern deals with finances specifically for public schools. At first, it seems logical to buy iPads because the ratio of iPads to books would be lower. You could have seven books on an iPad for one student versus seven books per student; therefore, the expense would be less. That’s not the case because in addition to buying an iPad for every student, every e-textbook, every learning app, and any software needed would have to be bought as well. This is no different than having textbooks for each student. The only difference is that the government will be spending 500 more dollars on each student, and according to a CNN video about iPads in schools, “school budgets are very tight right now”. Not only would this be an unwise choice, but it is also unnecessary. We already have the learning material that we need. An iPad would just be a cool, new device so spending money on 2000 iPads would be pointless. There can be a lot of technical issues that come with an iPad. The whole system can easily get messed up that could delay teaching or lose all files. Unlike a textbook, an iPad requires electricity. There could be constant charging throughout the day that hinders on the students learning. Wifi is important to use with an iPad and with 2,000 plus people using one server, it could slow everything down. Also not all students are able to connect to wifi if they take the iPad home with them. According to a news report by NPR one student “used the iPad at school to help coordinate a recycling project but at home he had no internet connection”. An iPad is, indeed, very convenient and portable. Everything you need is right there. There is no more carrying textbooks and any other heavy material which can be a pain. But, that’s about it. Reading a textbook in paper form versus on an iPad is virtually the same. You’re learning the exact same material, and to be honest, most students don’t even read what they’re assigned to in their text books. So, it’s actually pointless. Why should money be spent on iPads if students aren’t even doing their assignments? iPads are fun to use, but in conjunction with education, there is a lot of uncertainty. Too many obstacles get in the way, and it defeated the whole purpose of the iPad which was to be a unique learning device. It has also made things more complicated than it should be with the conflict of security, the financial aspect, and the connectivity to wifi out of school. We’re better off just sticking with textbooks because the simpler the better. Works Cited "Apple Wants Schools to Center on IPad." CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2013. Leonard, Devin. "The IPad Goes to School." Businessweek. N.p., 24 Oct. 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2013. Westervelt, Eric. "A School's IPad Initiative Brings Optimism And Skepticism." NPR. NPR, 13 Dec. 2013. Web. 13 Dec. 2013.

week 17: Hannah Pulley

Le temps est un grand maître, dit-on, le malheur est qu'il tue ses élèves. 

Maybe you understood that. Maybe you would have used a translator, either a person or the person who codes the computer which does the translating. It would have been someone skilled in another language, as well as your own. But then again, language is nuanced and complex, heavy with interpretation made by the speaker and listeners, influenced by the viewpoint of the translator. If what you needed was the clearest and most authentic experience, few things surpass the understanding that comes from knowing the language yourself. The benefits that come from knowing a foreign language are enticing, but the current and future need for communication and cultural understanding makes it imperative that we place more emphasis and allow more resources for foreign language instruction in our schools and universities.

One of the most direct benefits of language learning is the cognitive strengthening it provides. in Brian T. Gold’s (et al.) study on the cognitive control of monolingual and bilingual people, it was shown that children brought up speaking two languages and continue to do so on a regular basis are better at multitasking and have a greater capacity for working memory. These improvements would help students in school and in their daily lives. According to Spring Magazine, a foreign language highlights the differences between that and your native language, improving your understanding of structure and grammar. If you consider this fact, it becomes clear why romance languages such as Spanish, French and Italian are relatively easy to acquire once you know one, and also why Frisian and Dutch are considered easy languages for English speakers because of their shared West Germanic roots. By having the opportunity to compare linguistic structures, build vocabulary, and learn to switch between tasks, students in our country would gain greatly from learning and using a foreign language, both in the classroom and in the real world.

Despite the benefits, many myths still persist. Little to no evidence exists that multilingual students have smaller vocabularies or that they are slower to process and respond in conversation. Parents who raise their children speaking two or more languages, or start them in an immersion program at an early age will often be cautioned of the effects on the child's skills in English or another primary language, but research shows more benefit than harm. It is true that the financial costs of such programs are greater than those for subject education in English because of the expense of training teachers and purchasing extra materials. According to a recent NPR report, English teachers in the French speaking country of Monaco undergo some of the most rigorous training in the world, including at least one year of immersion. It should also be noted that Monaco’s foreign language program is one of the most successful in the world. These costs, however, are all necessary when considering the impact that the students of today will have on the future.

…The future, which poses one of the most important questions of all, the question of global relations and interaction. It has long been said that we live in a global society, which is a vast network of connections: the physical, between people; the electronic, between computers; and the social, between cultures, this network which grows and twists every hour of every day. By using the term ‘global society,’ it is implied that the physical barriers of distance between nations has been breached, and what remains is the efforts that we must take to understand each other more fully.  Every country is tasked with educating the thinkers and communicators of the future, yet foreign language skills in America and English speaking countries are among the poorest in the world. According to an article published by the Center for Applied Linguistics, students in many parts of Europe and Asia begin learning their second language by the end of primary school, while American students do not learn another language in school until the average age of fourteen. While the level of concern is still low, news, communication and international relations require greater numbers of people who can speak many languages. Meanwhile, a decreasing emphasis on learning a foreign language to proficiency means less of a demand for professors at universities, and overall, fewer people learning a smaller variety of languages. English’s current dominance over communication and media means that we are still getting by, but where would it leave us if the power balance were to shift, as it already seems to be doing?

As a final example, I leave you with this: the space race sparked after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik I led to an increasing emphasis not only on science but foreign language as well in schools. The realization that science was important led to people across the world having the means to collaborate and discover, making technological leaps that we still benefit from today. In the same way developing a focus on teaching foreign language in schools so people can use it in their lives means that the United States and English speaking world becomes a part of a more connected, understanding, and harmonious planet.

Assignment 17 Schuler Ravencraft

What goes in your lips goes to your hips. Not only your hips but also your brain, liver and heart. All of these are vital to our survival and it is our job to take care of them so they can take care of us for years to come. I have always said that I could live off Chick Fil A and Chipotle for the rest of my life, however it would be a short and unhappy one.

            People are constantly preaching to us the importance of eating right and constantly undermining the fast food corporations. We all think “I get it. Fast foods bad blah blah blah I need to eat healthier.” But how many really listen to this subconscious thought. According to Morgan Spurlock’s documentary Super-Size Me one in four American’s visit a fast food restaurant each day. Later in the documentary Spurlock has numerous conversations with nutritionist and the majority state that we should eat fast food little to never. Foods at McDonald’s and other fast food corporations are packed with obscene amounts of salt and sugar. The American Heart Association states that we should aim to eat less than 1,500 mg of sodium a day. Well, say you want to start your day out with a tasty McGriddle, you have already consumed 1,320 mg of sodium, which will suffice for a couple hours or so.  It would be a struggle to eat two other meals and not exceed that 1,500 mg mark. Not only does this little sandwich possess sky high sodium levels but it also contains 15 grams of sugar, 500 calories and 26 grams of fat. For a sandwich as big as a hockey puck that is ridiculous. Poor eating can cause diabetes, hypertension, anemia, heart disease, cancer, liver failure, respiratory problems, gallbladder disease, sleep apnea, increase in risk of having a stroke or heart attack; the list goes on and on.

             If we know it is bad for us why do we continue to go back? Ask a typical college student how many times they eat fast food a week. I would estimate 3 or more times. Why? It’s economical and convenient. If we took a stroll through campus we would find Arby’s, Cane’s, Chipotle, McDonalds, Fazoli’s and a Papa John’s all within a short distance from the classrooms. It is great for a broke college student to get a lot for their buck. Well we have all heard of the dreaded “Freshman 15”. These “cheap and convenient” establishments are great at helping you obtain that true freshman experience. Saving a few bucks and minutes in the long run is not worth risking your health. Fast food has blown up throughout the years and in an interview with Eric Schlosser from Fast Food Nation we have seen a direct correlation between the rise of fast food industries and obesity. This availability of cheap and easy food has an appeal not only among college students but also families. This has led to an increase in the obesity rate amongst children, making them more susceptible to life threatening illnesses early on. In 60’s and 70’s McDonald’s was considered a treat, families sat down and ate home cooked meals, children came home and grabbed an apple for a snack and according to Live Strong, obesity rate was about 9.7 percent. Let’s compare this to now, after school parents swing their children through drive-thrus and can you guess the obesity rate in the 2000’s? It is 33 percent. Let that sink in. In 30-40 years we have jumped 23.3 percent. We must make some changes and one of the best it to cut down our consumption of fast food.

I am not saying to quit eating fast food all together but it is a must for us to monitor our consumption. Everything is ok in moderation, but we as American’s have a problem with this. The more the merrier right?

Assignment 17- Kaylyn Torkelson

Women in the Media

Kaylyn Torkelson

By choosing whose voice is heard and what is important enough to be reported on, today’s media is able to shape the way people think about themselves and others. With such an ever increasing influence, mass media can bring about a lot of change in society. However, media portrayals can also have a disparaging effect on the way people view themselves, as is the case often times with women and young girls. According to the documentary Miss Representation, originally aired on Oprah’s OWN Network in October of 2011, media stereotypes show young girls at an early age that “a woman’s value and power lies in her youth, beauty, and sexuality, not in her capacity as a leader.” Through magazines, newspapers, television, and radio, girls are shown that they have to fit a certain mold to be desirable and worthwhile, leading to a negative effect on both the physical and mental health of those children. Speaking out against stereotypes and providing strong women role models is the only way to curb the effects of a deleterious media and to prevent these issues in future generations of young women.
          In both print advertisements and television today, the majority of women shown possess an “ideal” body type that may be unattainable for many of today’s women and children. The focus on this “ideal” body type leads many young children to believe that if you don’t look like the women on TV, then there’s something wrong with you. The prevalence of this mindset has led many teenagers towards eating disorders and physical harm. A study published by the New York Times in 1999 demonstrated this effect. After the release of television shows with skinny protagonists such as “Melrose Place” and “Beverly Hills 90210” in Fiji, the incidence of bulimia and anorexia rose almost twenty percent among teenage girls, even though eating disorders had been virtually non existent a few years before. The media is affecting the way teenagers view their bodies, while also showing young girls what you must strive towards to be considered attractive. According to Gigi Durham, author of the novel The Lolita Effect: The Media Sexualization of Young Girls and What We Can Do About It, children at an early age are learning that “there’s only one kind of sexy,” which everyone should work towards being, and that “the younger a girl is, the sexier she is.” These statements make up the Lolita Effect, which the media uses to “undermine girls’ self confidence” and “condone female objectification.” This Lolita Effect leads to an over-sexualization of young girls, who are becoming sexually active at younger ages. Inspired by the women whom they see on everywhere, young girls are beginning to dress and act like the actresses and stars they see today.

Media has yet to change its harmful representation of women because the sole focus of advertisements, newscasts, and print publications is economic in nature. The media is not interested in the physical and mental safety of young children and teenagers; they’re only interested in the safety of their overflowing pocketbooks. We can’t continue to put the fate of the young people of our country into the hands of people who don’t care what they do with it. As consumers of this media bias, it is our job to tell the media that this is not okay. It is our job to improve the situation of women in the media, so children don’t have to experience what we went through as kids. Don’t buy into the stereotypes that the media spits out about women. Don’t support companies that continuously place value in a woman’s appearance over her other abilities. The young girls of today and tomorrow need to learn from strong women role models instead of the over-sexualized, unattainable props that media makes women out to be. Showing young girls that the stereotypes the media presents are wrong and promoting the idea that everyone is beautiful, whether or not they fit those stereotypes. Television, radio, magazines, and newspapers should be utilized for the purpose of making teenagers and young girls more confident in their selves instead of worse.

Assignment 17- Garrett Uebelhor

                    Garrett Uebelhor

Today in America we face a growing problem in our food industry. Every year the food conditions degrade as growers decide to do whatever they can to produce more. Yet some people refuse to admit to the seriousness of the situation, and still adhere to false hopes that the government will make sure whatever they are eating is danger-free.  It has become more important than ever for people to know about their food industry and to realize the great need for change and reform within it. If we, the consumers, do not start demonstrating that we want the change, the change will not happen. 

          Every year over 100,000 people in the US are hospitalized as a result of contaminated food.  Today the FDA, who is supposed to be protecting us from unsafe food, fails to do so a lot of the time.  Why is this? Well in his article in The Huffington Post, FDA Food Inspections Fail to Catch Vast Majority of Pathogens Joe Satran explains that the FDAs inspections are often useless.  He explains in one circumstance “Six audits gave sterling marks to a cantaloupe farm, an egg producer, a peanut processor and a ground-turkey plant -- either before or right after they supplied toxic food.” And it gets even worse. Apparently the FDA on average is only inspecting 2.7% of imported food, which means that 97.3% of the imported food you eat has not been checked for pathogens and other contaminants. Clearly we need to demand higher standards for the FDA. However this is still only a single facet of the problem.

          Another major issue with our food industry is the use of pesticides in agriculture.  The Environmental Protection Agency website in an article Pesticides and Food: Health Problems Pesticides May Pose states “laboratory studies show that pesticides can cause health problems, such as birth defects, nerve damage, cancer, and other effects that might occur over a long period of time.” It is hard to believe, but eating pesticide contaminated food could be just as bad for you in the long run as smoking or other cancer causing activities would be.  The EPA however suggests that the government regulates pesticides and keeps them under the dangerous levels, yet we have seen how ineffective government regulation agencies like the FDA can be.

          The last major problem faced in our agricultural/food system is agricultural and waste runoff from farms and animal farms.  Often times fertilizers will leave nitrates sitting on the top of the soil which when it rains get soaked up by water and emptied into our water aquifers. The same thing occurs with big time animal farms, the feces from the animals is usually left on the ground and contaminates the water table in much the same way the fertilizers do.  Katherine Harmon’s article in Scientific American, Mooo-ve that manure: Agricultural runoff a spreading public health issue illustrates the detrimental effects of nitrates. She says that in agricultural areas” runoff “can be enough to cause persistent health problems, including diarrhea and other infections”. Again this is another case of dangerous conditions caused as a large result of the large food industry farms.

          In conclusion our growing food system is creating an abundance of problems.  If people don’t start demanding agricultural produce to be pathogen and pesticide free, as well as demanding prevention of nitrate runoff these problems will just continue to grow. If we continue to consume these contaminated goods, America every year will just keep suffering from the same type of food borne illnesses. So next time you are eating , think about what that food is really composed of and whether you want to make the choice to add to the severe problems in today’s agricultural and meat industry. 

Assignment 17-Eliot Smith

After reading The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan this summer, I asked a good friend of mine, Alex Reese, what he thought of the book.  “The only thing I learned,” he said, “was that everything is corn.  I am a walking tortilla chip.”

All of you in this room know Alex, and know that his bodily width really is that of a tortilla chip.  And, although we aren't “Alex Reese thin,” none of us in here are constantly struggling with a threatening weight problem.  Therefore, it is easy for us to respond with a hearty chuckle at the claim.  However, Alex’s remark is indicative of a very real, although not immediately recognizable, problem.  

The food system in our country has been completely revolutionized over the past five or six decades.  The weight distribution in the United States has been completely flipped.  In the 1930’s, the word skinny was associated with poverty, as the lower class struggled to find and consume sufficient calories to maintain body fat, and the rich “fat cats” were, well, fat.  These men had vast amounts of money to spend on course after course of steak and potatoes which inevitably led to their being overweight.

Whereas now, the poverty-stricken are those with excess weight and the wealthy are those with slim physiques.  Thinking about this in a practical manner would yield that this idea is blasphemy; if you don’t have a lot of money, you can’t eat a lot of food, and therefore cannot be obese.

This way of thinking may be logical, but is disproven only by the current transformation of America’s diet brought upon by the corporate monopoly on food production.

In a study published in April of 2011 that attempted to find a concrete reason for this inversion, researchers sent a man to the supermarket with two things: a dollar, and the goal of buying as many calories as possible with said dollar.

According to the study, “What he found is that he could buy well over 1,000 calories of cookies or potato chips.  But his dollar would only buy 250 calories of carrots.  He could buy almost 900 calories of soda...but only 170 calories of orange juice.”

While this idea may sound rather confusing, the explanation behind it is rather simple.  Large food companies have invested extraordinary amounts of money, through lobbying and other efforts, into encouraging the government to keep corn, wheat, and soybean prices low via subsidies.  By doing this, these companies are able to rearrange the components of these very pliable crops, transform them into cheap, unhealthy calories, and sell the end products at a huge profit.

They have sued innocent farmers just because their genetically-modified seeds blew onto their land, leaving the farmers bankrupt and hopeless.

They have invested money into stripping regulations from farms and slaughterhouses.  Livestock now die sick from the cheapest diet possible and depressed from the despicable living conditions, just so the companies will save a few dollars.  In the words of Michael Pollan, “Were the walls of our meat industry to become transparent, literally or even figuratively, we would not long continue to raise, kill, and eat animals the way we do.

Another, rather crude and inhumane, way of looking at this problem is as a capitalistic success.  In all aspects, our current food system is the epitome of an economic victory, as companies put in much less than they get out.

Having said this, I sincerely doubt that there is really an opposition to the necessity of the changing of our country’s food scheme, but rather conflicting views on what we, regular citizens of the United States, can do to alter it.

Many call for the abolition or change of the same economic system that has prospered in our country since the Gilded Age.  Some proponents favor a monetary slap on the wrist for big food companies, others, a doing away with all food subsidies in the United States.

Others propose less radical changes, such as protesting against the excessive breaks that the government has given food companies such as Monsanto and Tyson, or lobbying for tax deductions for local, non-genetically-modified-crop-growing farms.

But every one of these methods has been tried.  Over and over.  We still continue to see the monumental explosion of obesity in America, complemented by the inhumane treatment of livestock.  These complicated methods are not the answer.

Food Inc., a 2008 documentary directed by Robert Kenner, urges its audience to think of each purchase as a vote.  Will you support the massively over-funded bigot, the common corporate food company, or the morally correct, humane candidate, your local farm?  

We must favor the small over the big, the right over the wrong. We must slowly, but noticeably, deprive the corporate businesses of their familiar multi-billion-dollar cash flow by purchasing only produce in season and free-range meat. As The Economics of Obesity proclaims, we must not buy food with ingredients, but rather buy the ingredients themselves.

Slowly but surely, the companies will start to see the changes; our nation will become healthier, and our corporate food businesses less affluent. Our poverty-stricken will slowly be able to afford more organic foods, and will shy away from the chemically flooded Twinkies and Hohos.

The power is in our hands.  We can re-revolutionize our food chain, and bring balance to the American diet.

But most importantly, we all must remember that we can change the world with every bite.

Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Magnolia Pictures, 2008. Film.

“The Economics of Obesity.” Institute for National Healing. N.p. 13 April 2011. Web. 30 June

2013. <http://institutefornaturalhealing.com/2011/04/theeconomicsofobesitywhyarepoorpeoplefat/>

Simon, Bernard. “Monsanto Wins Patent Case On Plant Genes.” New York Times. May 22 2004

Print.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/22/business/monsantowinspatentcaseonplantgenes.html>

Corn Products. 2008. Food Inc. Live Whole Be Free. Web. 12 December 2013. http://livewholebefree.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Corn-Products-1000x500.jpg

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma. New York: Penguin Group, 2006. Print.