PA10 – Steven Miller & Talia Lerol

Sherry Turkle, Can You Hear Me Now?

While Sherry Turkle makes many points in her Forbes article, her main thesis is that technology, specifically mobile communications technology, has denatured humanity. She posits that with our fast paced world of mobile communications technology we are neither truly ever alone nor truly with other people. We are losing ourselves and our sense of what is real. Turkle makes several lines of attack in this argument.

Firstly, Turkle points out that many people rely on technology to help manage their complex lives. The irony of this is that by increasing the efficiency by which we deal with our communications, we are capable of dealing with more, ultimately making our lives more complex, not less. In a world before smart phones and laptop computers, a person was unreachable outside of the office. Now we are always reachable, and expected to be so. This is destroying time for a person to focus, uninterrupted.

Next, Turkle turns to the development of the adolescent self, and the idea of being on your own. She points out that nearly all children nowadays have mobile phones, and are a call away from either their parents or a friend. While many parents see this as a feature, not a bug, Turkle wonders what is to come of a whole generation who has never been completely on their own. How independent can they be if they always have a fall back option?

Finally, Turkle argues that we are losing perspective on what is real, what is here and now. She recalls a student who felt like they were being “put on pause” by their friend when they took a phone call while the two walked down the street, talking. Why does the phone call take priority over the immediate and real-time conversation? Would you interrupt a phone call to start talking with a friend standing near by? No, but we do the reverse frequently.

Roz Chast’s New Yorker cartoon, immediately following Turkle in They Say, I Say reframes Romeo and Juliet as a series of instant messages. Chast seems to be making the point that, although stripped of the Shakespearean language, teenage relationships are eternal and will mold to new communication forms. To this, I believe, Turkle would argue that much is lost in an electronic courtship. Relieved of secrecy and intimacy, is Romeo and Juliet still a compelling tale?

We may be more connected than ever before, but are often more removed from other people’s humanity than ever before.

Dana Stevens "Thinking Outside the Idiot Box" is a direct response to Steven Johnson's essay " Watching TV makes you Smarter". Stevens said that she did not understand what his article was about. She did not really agree with anything besides that watching tv is okay-- you should'nt watch a lot of it but you should watch a decent amount of it.
Some things that Stevens seemed to talk a lot about was that Johnson metioned something the show 24 saying that it is "nutritional" but fails to mention that there was controversy over plot lines that had to do with torture and representation of Muslim terrorists in the show. But she does mention that the show did somehow get social issues into the show which can open viewers eyes about what is going on in the world. Another thing that Stevens mentioned was the TV-B-Gone, which is a remote that you can turn off TVs from 20-50 feet away, Stevens seems to think that this remote is a " fuction as a tool of social control". I thought that waws pretty interesting.
I think that Stevens would respond to obviously Johnsons (because her whole article was pretty much about not understanding his article) and Peacocke's article about Family Guy and Freud. I believe that she would agree with what Peacocke had to say because she said that Family Guy is somewhat interesting to a point that deals with social topics and issues that are currently happening which Stevens liked when it came to the show 24.

Paula Nechodom "Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious"

Thesis: "Before I was such a devotee, however, I was adamantly opposed to the program for its particular brand of humor. It will come to no surprise that I was not alone in this view; many still denounce Family Guy as bigoted and crude."

Page 259: “In 2007, comedian Carol Burnett sued Fox for 6 million dollars, claiming that the show’s parody of the Charwomen, a character that she created for The Carol Burnett Show, not only violated copyright but also besmirched the character’s name in revenge for Burnett’s refusal to grant permission to use her theme song.” This quote proves that there are many people out there who think that Family Guy is a bad show.

Page 261: “Those who don’t often watch the program (Family Guy) could easily come to think that the cartoon takes pleasure in controversial humor just for its own sake. But those who pay more attention and think about the creator’s intensions can see that Family Guy intelligently satirizes some aspects of American culture.” I think that this is an important part of Peacocke’s writing; she feels that it is a common misconception that the creator’s of Family Guy are making all these jokes for their own humor. The show should be taken a little less seriously about the content of the show and people should dissect the content of the show to figure out the deeper meaning.

Page 262: “The more off-color jokes, though, those that give Family Guy a bad name, attract a different kind of viewer.” These are the viewer who are able to look deeper into what the creator’s are actually trying to point out, not to just poke jokes at different cultures or whoever is being targeted in the particular episode.

Respond to Douglas Ruskoff Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence

I believe that Peacocke would think that Ruskoff’s argument about The Simpsons applies to Family Guy as well. She would believe that there are many similarities between the two shows, but differ in a sense of how explicit the creator’s are about the point they are making. Family Guy relies on their viewers to analyze what they are watching, whereas The Simpsons simply point out the “media imagery around a particular social issue.”

Respond to Dana Stevens Thinking Outside the Idiot Box

I think that Peacocke would agree with Stevens in the fact that adult men and women should be able to decide on what and how much TV they should be allowed to watch. The fact the TV shows like Family Guy and The Simpsons are not made for child viewers, they are made for adult viewers and they should be able to make their own choices on what to watch.

Rushkoff - Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence

Question #1

Rushkoff does not explicitly state his thesis in the reading Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence, but my interpretation is:

The Simpsons have long given us laughs and comical satires, but more than important they have given us insight into our own lived by portraying today’s family’s media connection by “deconstructing and reframing the images in our media to allow us to see them more objectively, or at least with more ironic distance” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 254).

Question #2

In the reading Rushkoff supports this thesis in several ways.

He begins with America’s encounters with television media claiming that “the television became America’s unquestioned window to the world: (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 242). This generation of media was much more captivating to viewers mostly due to the strategies used by television programmers to program the viewers, not the television. As technology advanced, the new generations of television viewers were able to program the television to their liking with the use of a remote (known as screenagers) rather than the previous generation. It became more difficult for television to target their viewers.

The newer generation of viewers would prove as a challenge for television media and the only way they can relate to screenagers was to create a narrative that resembled the modern day family. Thus, the comical satire The Simpsons was formed with each family member representing a different part of the media audience. Bart, the most mischievous, represented the new wave of television audience, which was hard to please and not easily attracted by media influence. Homer represented the vulnerable audience of the earlier generations believing everything the media presents. Lisa represents the intellectual audience, “but feels completely alienated by the media around her” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 249).

With multiple different views compiled into one television family, The Simpsons go on to recreate the media we see in an amusing way to objectify our life events (global, local, media, personal).

Question 3

Rushkoff would respond to Goldwasser’s What’s the Matter with Kids Today in agreeing with her standpoint. Both of these writers seem to have the similar views on today’s society and its media influence. Rushkoff views television media as enticing, but his review of The Simpsons does not condemn media hypocrisy, but accepts and receives it as today’s advancing families and their increasing awareness in utilizing different resources to find validity in media messages. Similarly, Goldwasser defends the use of media, specifically internet, among the youth as an acceptable form of voluntary reading. Today’s society is based so much on technology and electronic devices that banning this from learning has become inefficient.

Rushkoff would partially agree with anything that Steven stated in Thinking Outside the Idiot Box. Steven claims that “the medium [television] seems neither like a brain-liquefying poison nor a salutary tonic” (Birkenstein, Durst, Graff 234). Rushkoff, would argue that media does contain evidence of knowledgeable literature in the most unexpected scenarios. For example, The Simpsons often reenact real-life events, processes, such as political, and courthouse processes. Today’s media has increasingly become more active in involving classical literature and relevant facts in their programming and not every channel contains fictional reality-based recreations. There are also informational and learning channels such as the History and Discover channels.

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say, I Say: With Readings. New York W.W.W. Norton & Company,, 2009. Print.

Jordan Hoffman's Thinking Outside the Idiot Box

The thesis of Dana Steven's Thinking Outside the Idiot Box is that you should not watch a lot of television but you also should watch television. One point that Dana brings up is the part about the TV-B-Gone remote, a remote that can turn a television off from 20-50 feet away. There is a part where it is mentioned that if a person has this tool, he or she should turn every television off that they see. However, one person is quoted in saying that they would not turn the television off in an airport showing a nature show, even though they would shut any television off in a bar showing a football game. Near the end of the story, Dana also mentions that grown men and women should be able to decide their own "dosages" of television.

Also during Dana's story, she mentions Steven Johnson's story about how watching television makes you smarter. She explains that no matter how many times she read the article, she could not understand how watching so much television could actually make you smarter.

If Dana were to react to Antonia Peacocke's Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, she would say that Family Guy is a good stimulant. Dana says that you should not live your life around television but that you should watch some television. Family Guy uses jokes and anecdotes that might only appear in the news. If a person did not watch the news, they would not know the joke being told.

THE SIMPSOMS

In the writing Bart Simpson's : Prince of Irreverence by Douglas Rushkoff. Rushkoff makes a proposition or thesis statement about the Simpson's saying that " What began as entertaining interstitial material for an alternative network variety show has revealed itself, in the twenty-first century , as nothing short of a media revolution.
Rushkoff makes various points of views. One is that when he says the Simpson's take place in a small town name after the fictional location of an earlier television show " Father knows best". Just as in the earlier show the Simpson's is a family that has a open mind about each others lifestyles , and even after conflict the family always come together at the end.
He describes Bart as being ironic just paragraphs earlier, before he goes into an episode where Bart plays a prank on the media. Although the story has some truth to it , the writer voices his self-conscious comments on the media. Sort of like destructing history for the entertainment of his audience.
Rushkoff might respond defensively to the writing by George F. Will , Reality Television : oxymoron. the show is not made with fictional characters for one and that audience that it draws in usually participated or have tried things they see on reality television before. will uses the words of Fred Allen saying "Imitation is the sincerest form of television" . The blame should not fall on the show because the opening credits , says clearly that the stunts being performed are done by professionals so do not try this at home.
Rushkoff might agree with Goldwasser adding that the older generation has not yet stop watching the older forms of media which seems to be more informed than ever before. CNN is one of the most watched stations and with the younger generation on their Ipods , and computers that the older generation is the majority of the viewers.

Shane and Chad

Thesis – While teens are spending much less time in hard copy, literary works, they are spending a great deal of time reading and writing online.

Supporting Ideas –

1. (page 238) “it’s just a medium.” Many older people don’t see the Internet as a valid medium for studying history or writing.

2. (page 238) “…this is also why it’s dangerous…We’re afraid.” People that haven’t learned to be computer literate are intimidated by their children knowing about something as powerful as the Internet, when the parents know little about it.

3. (page 239) “…16.7 hrs a week reading and writing online. Yet the NEA does not count this as voluntary reading.” Kids today are reading and writing online just for fun, they just aren’t doing it in the book and paper formats.

Counterpoint –

1. In response to Rushkoff, I believe that Goldwasser would say that Facebook is much closer to being a literacy program than the Simpsons. With many literate quotes and constant peer reviews, Facebook teaches a great deal of literate skills. (i.e. clever and humorous statuses and posts.)

2. In response to Johnson, it seems likely that Golwasser would agree with his claim that TV can prove a beneficial engagement, because TV programs are developing to stimulate the minds of its audience. People are now required to makes sense of multiple plot developments and recall issues from shows as far back as a series’ beginning.

Marco Palacios

There is not a surprise that for quite some time now the problem of obesity is affecting th US population. Who is to blame?. One really has to take a look in to the heart of the problem. Obesity is not really cost by the food industry but by us and the choices we make. Balko argues that the Goverment sholuld step aside and He is right. The choice its ours to make . Companies like McDonalds , Safeways or Krogers are not responsible for the bad habits of the customers(Balko p.159). Since politicians took a hard look in to the problem of obesity, money has been spend on legislation ( Balkop p.159). I really believe that is not the right way to do it. The only way for this situation to change is perhaps when the subject gets remove from the public eye (Balko159). Each one of us make a decision every single day, and is up to each individual to make the right choice not for the goverment to decide.

Radley Balko

Kyle Tregilgas

Composition 1022-14

Brian Lewis

I strongly agree with with Mr. Balko's opinion that what you eat and the choices you make regarding your health are yours to make. Mr Balko also makes it very clear that with the freedom of these choices comes personal responsibility. If you choose to make unhealthy choices you alone should pay the consequences. Everyone else is not responsible for your choices and should not pay for your choices. The best point Balko makes is that instead of trying to tell us what we should eat the government should be fostering a sense of responsibility for our own health. He argues that this in the long run will provide better results and will keep health care costs down. This can be done by allowing insurance companies to penalize people who make unhealthy choices by charging them more (since they cost more) and charging people who make healthy choices less (they cost less). This attitude is very different than that of Zinczenko who appears to believe the food companies are basically getting people hooked as kids and give us basically no alternative to a fast food lifestyle.
Engler also tries, but fails, to place the blame on food companies and not peoples bad choices. Engler seems to think were are brainwashed by advertising and are not even consider our choices. Not true. Some just make bad choices and should learn a lesson by paying the consequences.

Katrina Fye, Sam Guerin, Kayla Donahue TSIS

John H. Banzhaf

Our group agrees that obesity is a huge issue in the U.S. and there is not much being done about it. John Banzhaf makes a legitimate argument concerning the food that fast-food restaurants are advertizing. We support the points he makes when he suggests several proposals to Congress in order to control this issue. If fast food restaurants start displaying information on the menus about the calories and other facts describing the food that is being served, then people would be more aware of the risks of becoming obese. This way, people would be familiar with the unhealthy factors of what they are ordering. Also, if fast-food restaurants make it clear that there are dangers involved with eating fast-food too often, then the company will be warning people of the risks and should not be held responsible for the choices that costumers make. Lastly, we agree that fast-food restaurants should consider changing a few things when it comes to cooking their food, such as trying new alternative choices for people who do not want to eat the fatty foods. If alternative foods are provided for costumers, this may be a good way to start decreasing the rate of obesity in the U.S.
Blako states that it is not the restaurant’s fault that people are eating their food and getting fat. However, this statement does not measure up to our standpoint because there are things that the restaurants can do to help people prevent themselves from getting fat. On the other hand, Engler brings up the point that restaurants are being blamed for the actions of the corporation, since it was the corporation who made the rules for serving these types of foods and portion sizes. Nevertheless, we believe that there are things that the corporation as a whole can change in order to prevent obesity.

Matt S. PA7 TSIS

Susie Orbach "Fat as a Feminist Issue"

When you first glance a the writing by Susie Orbach “Fat as a Feminist Issue” it might take awhile to figure out what she is really trying to say. But after reading the whole article it’s apparent that she is proving some excellent points that women are being shown as having perfect body figures in magazines and television commercials, to try convince women into thinking they should look like them. Women who try to form their selves into these “molds” are not as satisfied and happy as those who just live like they want to and don’t pay attention to the ads. Women that are over weight from compulsive eating isn’t a problem that they don’t know how to change it’s a fact that they do it on purpose to basically rebel against the multi billion dollar fashion industry that show them as being thin women and also society is taking it as a matter of not being able to control themselves. If you look back to the different time periods when different “fads” have come and when, the women in those eras have changed with them. They have changed because the companies have shown that by changing their bodies and forming into the molds that they will be happier and more successful. However in Eric Schlosser’s article he is stating that the food industry is purposely targeting the children, not anyone else, to try to make them life long customers. But what he isn’t saying is how that the children aren’t being shown in these commercials is little healthy kids out having fun or showing them how successful they can be by buying their product, which in Orbach article she is clearly giving fact’s that the companies try to get women to think there is an image that they have to obtain by instilling images of happy and successful thin women.

PA7 - Group 12, Eric Schlosser, “Your Trusted Friends”.

Kahoua Yang

Barak Zierhut

Maichao Xiong

Richard Ziegler

Eric Schlosser talks about a few types of marketing strategy from Walt Disney and McDonald’s. The first one he mentions is “synergy”. This was one way Walt Disney gained profit, by licensing agreements with his products. He then later went off to television to market to children. After that, they went on to another type of marketing strategy called “cradle-to-grave” hoping that “childhood memories of a brand will lead to a lifetime of purchases.” Mc Donald’s thought of ways to get kids to eat there by collaborating with other companies by selling their toys with happy meals or by making a mascot that would catch a child’s eye. Not just that but they even went on to create “Playlands”. Ronald and Mickey all smiles and having fun may be more appealing to the kids than the food itself at times. Kids are easier to manipulate than adults a lot of the time and don't ask questions when a commercial makes something look really cool. Also the atmosphere of the restaurant (big arches, play places, etc...) Our author clearly states that, advertisements and "fun" mascots, for companies like McDonalds and Disneyland are created to manipulate our children into thinking how fun it is to eat there or be there. Once children sees the excitement on the ads with loveable characters, they are convinced that that is what they want. Our author also mentions that, many working parents who feel guilty about spending very little time with there children are more likely to spend more money on them. This causes a problem for the children, because once they are able to get by their parents they will keep taking the same approach to get what they want. Sometimes this approach can cause children to become picky eaters and fast food will soon be all the eat. Comparing Schlosser and Zinczenko: Zinczenko states that the children should not be blamed for wanting to eat at fast food because they have no alternatives and that most of the time, the children has no idea how much calorie they are taking in. Like Schlosser, Zinczenko blames advertisements, for food doesn't carry warning labels like tobacco does. =Compared to Susie Orbachs "far out" view on feminism and weight, and radleys/johns strong on-sided argument, it seems to be the most level headed (in my opinion). Instead of blaming the corporate machine for making us "fat", or claiming that it’s "our fault" for eating fast food, he focuses on the tight knit marketing strategies Mc Donald’s uses. John H. Banzhaf argues, in his story “Lawsuits against fast-food restaurants” that "legal action could be a powerful weapon against the public health problem of obesity". See, this all comes after the fact. The real issue is that because children are taught to "love, cherish, and seek knowledge" from characters like "Mickey Mouse" and "Ronald McDonald", they develop a quick brand reference to fast food at a very early age.

Paula Nechoom

The standard way of thinking about the topic of obesity and fast-food restaurants is that the restaurants should be help responsible for how bad the food is for the body. According to the writing “What Your Eating Is Your Business” by Radley Balko, Balko argues that it is ones’ own responsibility for the weight they may gain as a result of eating out at fast food restaurants on a regular basis. Balko states, “instead of manipulating or intervening in the array of food options available to American consumers, our government ought to be working to foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our health and well-being. But we’re doing just the opposite.” He, as well as myself, believe that it is important to take personal responsibility for what they are putting into their body. There is no one else people can blame for the choices they make in their own life. David Zinczenko makes the argument that it is because of his over-worked mother that he was overweight as a child. “Lunch and dinner, for me, was a daily choice between McDonald’s, Taco Bell, Kentucky Fried Chicken, or Pizza Hut.” (Zinczenko p. 153) When someone is eating out every night for dinner, it should be obvious that they would gain weight from it. Fast-food restaurants do not give properly balanced meals and therefore is not as good as a home-cooked meal would be. Statistically this is shown in numerous ways, “Before 1944 diabetes in children was generally caused by a genetic disorder – only about 5 percent of childhood cases of obesity-related, or Type 2 diabetes. Today, according to the National Institute of Health, Type 2 diabetes accounts for at least 30 percent of all new childhood cases of diabetes in this country.” (Zinszenko p. 154) This shows that something dramatic has changes over that period of time; it is that people are spending more time eating out instead of eating at home now. Time is crunched for many parents and it is just easier to get food on the go. This is notable but it is still the parents’ responsibility for the consequences they face for the choices they make on behalf of their children. Another author makes the point that “9-14 year olds who diet may actually gain weight in the long-run possibly due to metabolic changes, but more likely because they resort to binge eating.’ (Engler p. 174) This is a true statement, although it is not a diet that would necessarily benefit the children, it is eating more in-home meals with their family. It would make more sense for the parents to take responsibility in the first place and make changes before the child is overweight. People need to start taking things upon themselves and stop blaming others for the problems they face.

Jordan Hoffman PA7 TSIS

In "Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations," Engler opens up the story right away by saying that obesity is a problem without actually saying those exact words. "In early October there was a quirky report about U.S. coffin makers increasing the size of their product." What Engler means by this statement is that citizens of the United States are getting bigger and bigger and they need bigger coffins when they die. Engler also goes on to state the health effects that are direct links to obesity, "...more than 30 medical conditions, including heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, cancers, and possibly Alzheimer's." Susie Orbach's "Fat as a Feminist Issue," is a story about obesity in relation to just women. Eventhough she states good arguements and valid points, obesity is not just an issue only related to women. Many men suffer from this health issue as well. As stated in Engler's story, "...the prevalence of obesity more than doubled from 7 percent to 14 percent among women and to 16 percent from 6 percent among men." This statement clearly shows that the happenings of obesity actually happens more in men than women, unlike what Orbach tries to point out. In Zinczenko's "Don't Blame the Eater," he explains that the blame should not be placed on the consumer for eating fast food and not knowing the health concerns of fast food, when in reality, we know the concerns that fast food poses on our lives. Engler's story shows that Americans need to do something about their health and it's relation to fast food. If this does not happen, the coffins will keep getting bigger and bigger.

PA7 - Steven Miller & Talia Lerol

Paul Campos, Being Fat Is OK

At first glance, it is not obvious that any of the other writers in section thirteen of They Say I Say are arguing with Paul Campos. In the section, various writers argue who is to blame for the supposed obesity epidemic. John Banzhaf, a public interest lawyer, takes Congress to task for shirking their “responsibility to do something meaningful” about what he calls “America’s second most important and expensive preventable health problem.” Susie Orbach, a feminist professor, claims that being fat is a “social disease.” Confusingly, Orbach then wonders why women “respond” to social pressures by “getting fat.”

Campos neither argues that Congress has no responsibility to “do something” about “health problem” that is being fat, nor does he argue that women do not “get” fat because of social pressure. Rather, Campos takes an axe to the foundation of their arguments; the premise that being “overweight” is a problem to be solved.

Pointing to the New England Journal of Medicine, Campos notes that there is no solid data linking being overweight and death, in fact there is even some data “suggesting that weight loss increases mortality.” Hard evidence is required before labeling something a major “health problem” as Banzhaf does. Similarly, Campos points to data that shows, repeatedly, that dieting often leads to weight gain. As Campos says, overweight people can not simply chose to not be fat, and by the same token women do not “respond” to things by “getting fat.” Both Banzhaf and Orbach approach the subject from the vantage that being overweight is a problem to be solved, where as Campos argues that many people are just fat because that is who they are. Unfortunately for Banzhaf and Orbach, that leaves no one for them to blame.

Jessica, Tony & Kevin TSIS PA7

Radley Balko makes some excellent points in his article what you eat is your business. The general idea is that what you eat is your business until other people have to start paying for your choices. When someone’s chooses to eat unhealthy and endanger their health they are more likely to have a condition that their insurance will have to help pay to fix either through hospital visits, medications, or procedures. This causes higher insurance premiums that everyone has to pay. It should not be the responsibility of the public to pay for an individual’s life choices. He also argues that insurance companies should be aloud to charge higher premiums for clients that are obese and live unhealthy lifestyles. This would give a financial incentive for people to start eating right. Instead of suing fast food restaurants for making people fat it would let people know that they personally are responsible for their lifestyles. They also would be rewarded if they made the choices that are healthy for them. We need to put it into the hands of the people and give them a little incentive to move in the right direction, and we know nothing motivates people like money. Peter Jennings from ABC news did a special news report called “How to get fat without really trying.” His intent of this report was to show his viewers to take responsibility for their own condition.

When reading David Zinczenko he makes some points about how people should be blaming the fast food restaurants for making people obese. People have a lack of info about what they are eating, and they don’t have warning labels like tobacco labels do. He makes a good point about how on fast food meals they should say how many calories and what is in the products, but it isn’t the fast food industry for making people obese. All people should know that fast food isn’t very healthy for anyone, and so by watching how many times a week, or day they eat it is up to them. They know eating all the fast food they do that it isn’t going to be good for their health. So why blame the fast food industries?

When reading Eric Schlosser’s “Your Trusted Friends”, he talks about the history of the Disney and McDonald’s franchise. The section of reading also hits on the how companies like McDonalds and Disney targeting market are younger children. I believe this reading has no barrier. It simply talks about, the marketing tools it uses to get children and their families to buy or use their products. Although great information to know how they do this, it does not talk about major issues that can relate in the world today like, health care. I would rather know that, if not controlled by the government, that private health insurer can raise your premiums if you don’t reach their requirements, rather than learning about some fast food restaurant that gives away little toys in their kid’s meals to keep kids coming back.

Talycia's TSIS PA7

Overall out of all the readings in TSIS I believe that "What you eat is your business" which is the one I choose, was the best.First I just skimmed through the texts of all the options this one really caught my eye, So I read the full text. First of all not only does it not make sense, for somone to put their physical health on someone else, but its completely juvenile. We have a free will to do or not to do anything and everything. The author Radley Balko goes on to explain to us how people have began to pawn their weight and health off on the public.He explains this through giving us the examples of nationwide public healthcare options where everyones health or lack thereof is connected to everyone else's. One example is people who don't pay taxes and don't have jobs going to emergency rooms and our taxes paying for it. Another is obese people who have public healthcare, if the government is paying for this person's medicines (for all the problems that being overweight bring) that person isn't having to pay for his/her problem which is being overweight. We the taxpayers are paying for it because we fund our government and politicians who are making these decisions to pay for it. This system does not work. Maybe if people had to pay for their own healthcare and prescriptions they would take better care of themselves.In the reading "Don't blame the Eater" the author will try and convince us that its not the eaters fault, looking at the economy and how everything works nowadays this is their( the obese people's) only option everything is unhealthy and the restaurants don't do a good job of giving us healthy options. My response to this is did the owners of these restaurants put the food to your mouth and make you eat it? the answer to that is no so this isn't a valid point to make to fight obesity. Another author of "Lawsuits of Fast- Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity" will say if the restaurants put the nutritional information on the food where it is understandable that people would know what they are eating andtherefore wouldn't eat it and wouldn't get fat. Because of the amounts of lawsuits that the restaurant industry has had this author believes that that will be an incentive for these corporations. My response to this is, there are grocery stores, what happened to packing a lunch made at home?Especially if the obesity thing is an issue for you... Many of the other readings try and make obesity the responsibility of everyone else's except for the individual that's experiencing it, and this is not correct. We have power over what we eat, some of us just need to start using that power and putting down the donuts.

Chad, Shane and Megan's TSIS PA7

Eric Schlosser, Your Trusted Friends:

Although never explicitly stated, Schlosser’s in-depth discussion on the clear exploitation of children in the advertizing industry vividly expresses his stance. While it is truly unnerving that these groups no longer seek to attract adults, it makes perfect sense when looking at the results. “Cradle-to-grave” advertizing appeals to fond childhood memories, hoping to create life-long customers. After all, once a habit has been formed – especially one that frees up large amounts of time in fast-paced American lifestyles – it can prove extremely difficult to eliminate. We sympathize with the idealist view that the government should “foster a sense of responsibility in and ownership of our own health and wellbeing,” as stated by Balko. The reality is that this is an unrealistic goal. Highly trained ad agencies are getting paid exorbitant amounts of money with vast resources available to coax children unwittingly into a lifetime of fast-food addiction. This is a REAL problem that affects many people, not just women, as ridiculously suggested by Orbach while discussing the misconception of “…womens’ failure to control their weight,…” Perhaps a more insulting scheme is the attack on adults via the desires of children. While an elderly couple would be extremely unlikely to make a trip to McDonalds for a couple burgers on their own, Kroc, McDonalds founder, explains, “A child who loves our TV commercials and brings her grandparents to a McDonalds gives us two more customers.” This is an attack on the pride of the American public.

Kiersten and Morgan's TSIS PA7

You, as part of the student body, could all agree that when it comes time for lunch and making a healthy decision you are limited in both time and choices. Sure, you could pay a ridiculous amount for about a serving of iceberg lettuce salad from the school’s cafeteria (which with dressing included still adds up to a high calorie meal) or visit one of the many fast food restaurants within miles of the campus. Zinczenko states this catastrophe perfectly in his essay when he says, “Drive down any thoroughfare in America, and I guarantee you'll see one of our country's more than 13,000 Mcdonalds restaurants. Now, drive back up the block and try to find someplace to buy a grapefruit.” In Radley Balko’s essay “What You Eat Is Your Business” he argues the exact opposite by stressing the importance of personal responsibility when dealing with weight issues. What Balko doesn’t seem to realize is that people with limited funds, time, choices, and transportation have a much more difficult time taking responsibility for their own body and what they should be eating. If Balko’s statement about personal responsibility is what obesity comes down to, John H. Banzhaf argues in his essay called “Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity” that there would then be a huge increase in other extremely risky personal behaviors. When in fact, there is no increase in other risky personal behaviors such as the use of illicit drugs, the failure to use seat belts, boating and rafting accidents, and accidental gunshots to be found. All of these authors agree on the fact that this is a major issue for Americans, but everyone has a different viewpoint on the deeper roots and causes behind it. We among many of the authors agree that the problem doesn’t lie completely in the hands of the individual. Whatever the case, something must happen in the near future to drastically change the path we’re on, or America is looking at a very sad and obese future.

Welcome to the English 1022 class blog!

Welcome to our class blog! Here you will post the results of small group assignments that you work on and comment on the postings of other groups as well. Enjoy!