Peer response to Brennas blog

In Brenna's blog, she compared two articles she found online regarding drilling for oil under water.
She presented two articles from very valid sources and explained her opinion of both the articles.
I thought her blog was interesting and very convincing. She explained how one article just talked about profits, while the other article laid out the facts and true harms of underwater drilling.

In the beginning of her blog, Brenna mentions the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Measures being taken to address the spill are in an article I found on MSNBC. It looks like barely anything is being done to address such a catastrophe. I think what shocks me most though is that within the next two years they are leasing a new oil drilling sight off the coast of Virginia. It worries me that something like the oil spill in New Mexico could happen so close to home in the near future. Brenna was right in saying that drilling for oil offshore is not safe and not worth the damages it causes to the environment.

Comparison of two online articles: Legalization of Marijuana?

Legalization of marijuana is a hot topic in the United States today. After listening to Emily's speech about why marijuana should be legalized, I decided to look at a few articles about it.
I found an article on Rueters reasoning why California should legalize marijuana. The article interviews several individuals and explains why they believe it should be legalized. The article points out the drug criminalizes mostly "law-abiding" citizens and wastes precious police forces on trying to control a substance that is not that harmful. The article also argues that the sale and distribution of the crop would help pull the state of California out of the economic slump.

I found another article, in opposition of legalization, in The Muhlenberg Weekly. This article claims that since it is illegal now, those who use it are in fact criminals and not average citizens. It also points out health risks, such as short term memory loss. The article then jumps into a few generalizations and ideas not based in fact.

The first article supporting the legalization of marijuana is by far more convincing. The article uses facts and reasoning to support its views. Also, the first article addressed issues presented by the other point of view. The second article did not do this. The article did address the views of the opposition, but did not refute anything with facts. I find that the first article is way more convincing and alot less biased.
These articles haven't changed my opinion on legalization but simply reaffirmed it. It is pretty obvious to me that there are no real reasons why marijuana should be illegal other than opinions of individuals. Marijuana does present some health risks, but it has never killed anyone and is less harmful than excessive alcohol use. I think marijuana should be legalized and controlled because it really could be a great cash crop that boosts our economy.

Response to Anna's meal blog

Anna's meal looked delicious! Anna made Chicken Eggplant stir-fry with rice for her family. Her meal seemed very healthy and used lots of yummy sounding ingredients. I also thought she did a really great job describing the process of how to prepare and clean up after her meal.
I also agree with Anna's view on Pollan's book, pages 54-55. I believe Americans do enjoy eating, that's why we do it so much. I feel like he exaggerates the lengths American's go to to avoid products that aren't good for them. In her blog post, it appears Anna had plenty of time to sit down and eat with her family. I envy her awesome meal at home and also support her opinion on Pollan's book.

The article Home Cooked Meals are Becoming a Thing of the Past in the USA by Lance Gay discusses the decline of family meals prepared at home in the United States. It goes against what Anna's blog said as well as a few of the other blogs I have read from our class where people eat with their families. I eat with my family every night when I'm at home and my mom prepares a home cooked meal every night. I believe that not everyones eating habits or meal consumption can be lumped into one generalization.

Making a meal

I found this assignment rather simple because I make my own dinner every night. Every Sunday, my room mate Ellie and I go to the grocery store and pick-up food for the whole week. Although we generally do not make anything exciting, Tuesday night we made some particularly good pasta. On Sunday while at the grocery store we picked up some asparagus, linguini noodles, chicken breasts, and tomato-basil pasta sauce- all products were organic.
On Tuesday night, responding to the pangs of hunger we felt from a long day of class, we went upstairs to the kitchen in our building which is luckily always open. We started to boil water then proceeded to thaw and cut out chicken. Next, we cooked the asparagus in a pan until it was tender. Then we cooked our cut up chicken in some oil. We added the asparagus and chicken to our sauce. When the noodles were done we mixed the them into the sauce also. We rather greedily ate all of most of our food and put the rest in a Tupperware container (they were eaten the next day).
Preparing my own meal was not really that big of a difference to me. As one of four kids with a single parent, I learned early on how to prepare my own food. I am also a little paranoid about food bought at restaurants or dining halls, so I avoid eating in them as much as possible. In comparison my meal was probably alot more healthy and filling than a meal out (not to mention cheaper).

In Pollan's book on pages 54-55, he claims people do not enjoy their food anymore and just eat for nutrients. He also states people do not take the time to enjoy their food. He, in my opinion at least, is completely wrong. I enjoy every meal I eat and I only eat what I enjoy. I take time to prepare nutritious meals, but nutrition does not completely dictate the edibility of my food. In my opinion, he contradicts himself throughout the book. He complains about people eating too much earlier on in the book, and now he is complaining about people not eating what they want. I really don't understand his book or the point he is trying to get across accept that he hates when people eat for nutrients.

Celebrity Endorsement: 50 Cent and Vitamin Water

Vitamin Water is quickly becoming a household name. Each flavor of the delicious beverage is enhanced with a wide array of vitamins. Each bottle also has a quirky, creative blurb on the label that is usually very sarcastic and entertaining. The entire Vitamin Water name, due to its' creative labels, has a very laid back and comedical reputation.
In 2007, the rapper 50 Cent struck a million dollar deal with Vitamin Water. Not only was he enlisted to endorse the product, he even got his own flavor. Although 50 Cent is not the typical type of celebrity to endorse a product, he is perfect for Vitamin Water. 50 Cent has a tough, athletic reputation. He is in very good shape and that lifestyle plays very well into the Vitamin Water brand.
50 Cent's endorsement really helps the brand sell their product. His endorsement attracts athletic people to the product as well as fans of his music. I think without his endorsement and without a flavor named after him Vitamin Water would not have as great of a reputation as they have now.

Speech self-evaluation

I have quite rationally titled my demonstration speech "How to Get a Phone Number." In my speech I broke down the nerve wrecking process of asking for someones number into several easy to follow steps.
While viewing the recording of my speech, I came across a few things that I could have improved on. First off I look incredibly nervous. I was moving my hands a ton and speaking too quickly. The way I was standing was really awkward. Also, I believe I should have used a better visual aid. My speech was kind of "out there" so a good visual aid was hard to think up. Had I thought of it at the time, I would have used the beginning of this video as a visual aid as how to not ask for a number.
Overall I thought my speech went pretty well. I believe the content was really good and covered the topic entirely. I was comfortable with my subject matter and knew it well. I feel like I divided the process into easily understandable steps that were not too complicated. I think that I got the point across and entertained the class at the same time.
Other than the few minor presenting errors, I thought the content and overall presentation went well.

Response to Ashley's post Regarding low-fat diets

Ashley made a post criticizing Pollan's view on "low-fat" diets. Pollan disapproves of using altered, low-fat products instead of just using natural products even if they do have a higher fat content. After making her own meal using a low-fat product, Ashley did not share the same views as Pollan regarding food catered to America's low-fat obsession. She claimed the low-fat product she used was delicious and low-fat diets in general are healthy.
Although I do not agree with Pollan on many things, I do have to disagree with Ashley and take Pollan's side regarding diet foods. Diet foods are in no way equivalent to normal products. Many low-fat, low-calorie, or low-sugar foods I have had taste in no way like regular food. Not only do they taste bad, usually the nutritional value is inferior to the natural food. The altered products also usually have a suspiciously long list of ingredients that I cannot pronounce and that look nothing like names of actual foods. Ashley did bring to view a study showing a low-fat diet reduced cholesterol in a test group though she failed to mention if they were eating natural low-fat foods or altered low-fat foods.
I do believe that the country has an obsession with the words "low-fat" on labels. Low-fat, according to the FDA, just means a large quantity of the food can be eaten in a day without exceeding the daily recommended serving. I personally do not believe that the taste and possibly poor nutritional value of a product are worth risking just for the label "low-fat" on a product.

"Real" food Vs. "Fake" food

Michael Pollan distinguishes between "Real" and "Fake" foods in his book In Defense of Food. Pollan classifies "real" foods as unmodified, basic foods like vegtables and "fake" foods as processsed products with additives and unnatural ingredients.
While thinking about what I have eaten in the past and what I eat now, I realized that chicken noodle soup is a major product that I have switched from "real" to "fake." When I was younger, I can destinctly recall my mother making me her delicious chicken noodle soup everytime I was sick. The soup took hours of preparation to chop the vegtables, cook the chicken, and let the broth set. Recently, I have unfortunately turned to the convenience of canned soup. The soup is cheap and takes only a few minutes to heat up, perfect for a college student.
The canned soup does share several qualities with my mothers soup. The canned soup has a delicious broth as well as some small pieces of chicken. In the can of soup there is a significant amount of protein as well as a few vitamins from the vegtables. Another thing the soup has, unlike my moms soup, is the additive monosodium glutamate, or MSG. MSG is used to enhance the taste in many foods. The additive can reduce the amount of sodium in a product, but otherwise is nutritionally empty. Nicholas Bakalar suggests MSG is may cause obesity in his article Nutrition: MSG Use Is Linked to Obesity. Knowing what I know now, the "fake" canned soup product in no way is a substitute for my mothers delicious "real" home-made soup.

About In Defense of Food by Michael Pollan

Michael Pollans' book In Defense of Food is a detailed criticism of what Mr. Pollan believes to be the average American diet. Although written in a rather cocky tone, In Defense of Food makes several good points about modern food consumption and production. The book takes a look at many aspects of food production and food intake. Within the first few chapters, Michael Pollan concentrates primarily on the recent emphasis of nutrients in food products. The book In Defense of Food contains several agreeable points, although some thoughts are disputable. In the book, Mr. Pollan discusses the increase in additives in food in order to make processed items more "nutritious". He talks about how products that once had only a few ingredients before the nutritional revolution now have long lists of additives and imitation items on their labels. The article 12 Food Additives to Avoid by Jean Weiss lists additives that have actually been shown to be harmful as opposed to helpful. Michael Pollan also makes a good point to criticize government regulation on food, or rather the lack of regulation. The FDA as well as Congress, Pollan explains, have done very little in the past twenty years to set rules for the labeling of processed and imitation products. For a number of years, many imitation and fake products could be put on a shelf and pass as regular, unaltered foods. Although I agree with Pollan in regards to altered and unnatural food, I thought he did not give enough credit to modern nutrition. Aspects of modern nutrition such as daily intake, the necessity of some nutrients, and the attribution certain nutrients have to personal health are all important in my eyes. He also seemed cynical that some products, such as chocolate, contain some nutritious element. Pollan appears to be convinced only products in the raw can be truly healthy. Michael Pollan makes several good observations about altered foods, but seemingly undermines modern nutritional understandings.

Successes and Opportunities for Population-Based Prevention and Control: At A Glance 2009

Center of Disease Control on Diabetes