People have been blaming their problems on others for centuries. It seems to be the common thing to do. For the past ten years or so, it has been fast food's turn. People have been hitting the fast food industry with a barrage of accusations such as "I didn't know it would make me fat!" or "You're not supposed to eat this for every meal?"
I agree with the bill passed over the last few years that requires the fast food industry to show their nutrition facts. The FDA requires all other food products to do so, why not fast food? It's good for people to know what is in their food. Also, the elimination of trans-fats for healthier food in general is a good step in the right direction.
Portion control, however, is going a bit far. Why doesn't anyone tell the vehicle companies that their trucks are too big and eat too much gas? The fast food industry is also a corporation and should get the same courtesy. Leave it up to the American public to decide how much they want to eat.
Also, people need to get smarter about these obesity law suits. Did you really not realize your fried burger coated in thousand island dressing and fried potatoes wouldn't make you fat? While the 540 calories in a Big Mac is a little high, people really should know better.
The government is passing laws on the fast food industry because the consumers are getting stupid. Maybe if people exercised a little more nutritional savvy practices - or just exercised more in general - , there wouldn't be this problem. Instead, laws are having to be passed just to protect the fast food industry from its stupid consumers. Some of these bills have been a step in the right direction, but it's getting out of hand. Following the same FDA practice and showing nutrition is good. Reducing harmful ingredients is also good. But making sure people eat the right amount is a bit much. If ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of your nutrition should be the same.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Risky Business
Obesity is a problem that has been around for quite some time and is still on the rise reaching 60% of the American population.
Most of the blame has been put on the fast-food industry. Since the fast food industry’s creation, Americans, and recently the rest of the world, has clung to the fast food notion. It fits the American lifestyle perfectly. The idea that people are busy and rarely have precious time to go out and eat food of good quality, has fueled the fast food revolution.
However, despite the fast food industry’s risky lure, the health effects are known by all who eat it. According to National Public Radio (NPR) fast food outlets already provide information about calories, fat and other nutritional values. The risks have been determined and people have chosen to eat fast food anyway.
So should Congress legislate the fast food industry with regard to portion sizes, fat content and other nutritional considerations? I do not think that this is necessary. The possible health threats from eating fast foods have been established and made known to the public. Yet people still form lines to get their hands on greasy hamburgers and salt infested fries.
Attempts have been made to provide customers with healthier options. And this is a noble step towards a healthier fast food industry. But it is clear that people do not care whether they are eating healthy food or not. People do not go to eateries like McDonald’s to get something healthy. They know what the options are and deliberately chose the Big Macs over salads.
So if Congress did pass legislation that controlled what and how the fast food industry distributed its food, they would clearly have the consumers best interest in mind, but what would it change?
Most of the blame has been put on the fast-food industry. Since the fast food industry’s creation, Americans, and recently the rest of the world, has clung to the fast food notion. It fits the American lifestyle perfectly. The idea that people are busy and rarely have precious time to go out and eat food of good quality, has fueled the fast food revolution.
However, despite the fast food industry’s risky lure, the health effects are known by all who eat it. According to National Public Radio (NPR) fast food outlets already provide information about calories, fat and other nutritional values. The risks have been determined and people have chosen to eat fast food anyway.
So should Congress legislate the fast food industry with regard to portion sizes, fat content and other nutritional considerations? I do not think that this is necessary. The possible health threats from eating fast foods have been established and made known to the public. Yet people still form lines to get their hands on greasy hamburgers and salt infested fries.
Attempts have been made to provide customers with healthier options. And this is a noble step towards a healthier fast food industry. But it is clear that people do not care whether they are eating healthy food or not. People do not go to eateries like McDonald’s to get something healthy. They know what the options are and deliberately chose the Big Macs over salads.
So if Congress did pass legislation that controlled what and how the fast food industry distributed its food, they would clearly have the consumers best interest in mind, but what would it change?
One Chubby Country
From Big Macs to Baconators to Bean Burritos, millions of Americans continue to pull around to the second window each year. According to CBSNEWS.COM, nearly 15 percent of children in the United States are obese, with nearly one-third of the adult population also being overweight.
The obesity levels in America have continued to grow at a rapid rate since the early 1980s, and much of this is a direct result of the fast food industry. The government already requires fast food chains to reveal the nutritional content of their food, but this has clearly not reduced our country’s fetish for flab. Obesity leads to heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, causing 2.6 million deaths worldwide each year; therefore, why shouldn’t the United States government pass legislation on fast food chains to protect its people?
I believe that we as individuals are capable of making our own decisions, but I also feel that the government could provide some assistance to help us make these decisions. The lifestyles within our country are changing, forcing us to often grab meals on the go, but why can’t we restrict the fat and calorie content within these meals to make them more hale and hearty? "Fast food emphasizes [elemental] preferences for salt and fat, which may promote overeating," said obesity researcher Mark Pereira. “To combat a high calorie intake along with overeating, the government should pass legislation to limit portion sizes and promote healthier eating habits. Smaller portion sizes would directly result in smaller calorie consumption. One could argue that even if the government were to reduce portion sizes, people would simply just order more food; however, the more food they buy, the more money they spend, thus fast food would no longer be a cheap alternative. Very few things influence our lives the way money does, which is why I believe fast-food related obesity would certainly decrease if people were forced to spend more money at the drive-thru.
Governmental regulations on fast food may anger many famished Americans at first, but the restrictions will only benefit them in the long run. CNN.COM revealed that fast food adds 6 pounds to the average American each year. With numerous ways to reduce the fat content in food, let’s take our chubby county and put forth the effort to make it a healthy one.
The obesity levels in America have continued to grow at a rapid rate since the early 1980s, and much of this is a direct result of the fast food industry. The government already requires fast food chains to reveal the nutritional content of their food, but this has clearly not reduced our country’s fetish for flab. Obesity leads to heart disease, high blood pressure and diabetes, causing 2.6 million deaths worldwide each year; therefore, why shouldn’t the United States government pass legislation on fast food chains to protect its people?
I believe that we as individuals are capable of making our own decisions, but I also feel that the government could provide some assistance to help us make these decisions. The lifestyles within our country are changing, forcing us to often grab meals on the go, but why can’t we restrict the fat and calorie content within these meals to make them more hale and hearty? "Fast food emphasizes [elemental] preferences for salt and fat, which may promote overeating," said obesity researcher Mark Pereira. “To combat a high calorie intake along with overeating, the government should pass legislation to limit portion sizes and promote healthier eating habits. Smaller portion sizes would directly result in smaller calorie consumption. One could argue that even if the government were to reduce portion sizes, people would simply just order more food; however, the more food they buy, the more money they spend, thus fast food would no longer be a cheap alternative. Very few things influence our lives the way money does, which is why I believe fast-food related obesity would certainly decrease if people were forced to spend more money at the drive-thru.
Governmental regulations on fast food may anger many famished Americans at first, but the restrictions will only benefit them in the long run. CNN.COM revealed that fast food adds 6 pounds to the average American each year. With numerous ways to reduce the fat content in food, let’s take our chubby county and put forth the effort to make it a healthy one.
Education is the problem, not the food
| “Society fails to educate themselves about the long term damage that can be obtained by eating bad foods” says People’s Media Company. The problem of wanting to eat fast food is becoming more prevalent in the United States. Are there any educational programs to show the effects of eating too much fast food? Some companies like People’s Media say no. There is no reason for Congress to step in and regulate portions and sizes at fast food restaurants. All that does is reduce what is served in one serving, but it doesn’t prevent how much anyone could buy at a given time. Reducing the portion sizes of fast foods will not solve the over consumption of fast food problems, because it will only lead to people buying more. For example, if I went to Burger King and there was no longer a King size fry available, I would just order more fries until I was satisfied. Essentially, I still get about the same amount that I originally would get with a King size. While obesity is a major problem in the United States, things are already being done to fix the problem. In 2003, the Ban Trans fats campaign sued Kraft to eliminate trans fats in Oreos. After this suit, government officials decided that trans fats were a major contribution to obesity and they can lead to heart disease. As of now, fast food restaurants are being told to get rid of their trans fats because of its risk. The public is starting to get word of the whole trans fat problem, but it’s not as prevalently known as we think. If we are going to tackle obesity and cut the rate of obesity in America down, we Americans need to educate ourselves on issues such as trans fats. Obviously fast food restaurants are the first target because they supply people with foods that are not as healthy as we’d like them to be, but let’s be fair and notice that fast food restaurants are much healthier than they were ten years ago. |
Being Able to Know What You Eat
Obesity is a major issue in the United States today. According to www.obesityhelp.com, a quarter of the population in the U.S. is obese. The rate of obesity has climbed 60% in the last decade and continues to rise. Obesity is responsible for 300,000 deaths each year and is a major risk factor for type 2 diabetes, heart disease, stroke, sleep apnea, and many others serious medical diseases.
While obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death after smoking, it is questionable whether the government needs to step in to help. Every individual is responsible for their actions and the government should not be responsible for its peoples’ eating habits. However, there are certain solutions the government can influence and regulations they can make.
The government can play a role with education in its public schools that can help teach children nutrition as well as provide healthy alternatives and ideas in eating. Classes could be offered beginning in elementary school to teach children about nutrition and how what they eat effects their bodies. High schools turning off school soda machines during lunch and providing their students with healthy meals help influence children about how to eat and live healthy.
We see supermarkets that include information about calories, fat and other nutritional values. Why shouldn’t fast-food restaurant chains do the same? In a National Pubic Radio Morning Edition: Nutrition Labels for Fast Foods, fast food chains including McDonald's, Domino's, Burger King, Wendy's, Pizza Hut and Subway are voluntarily provide nutrition information.
If Congress were to pass a bill that would require all fast food restaurants to provide nutritional information on the food they serve. This would enable people who are interested in eating healthily to be able to see and know what they are putting into their bodies.
Informative nutrient considerations would influence people who seek healthy lifestyles and could help decrease the amount of obesity in the United States.
Good Food Served Quickly
Karen Varner, a female of age twenty from Cabot, Arkansas, slowly drives her car up to the intercom system at a local McDonalds’s drive through service.
After ordering a meal, which comes with a double cheeseburger, large fries, and a large milkshake, she completes her transaction with the employee and drives home.
According to Fatcalories.com, a website that lists the nutritional facts of fast food products, Karen has purchased 1340 calories of food, which is more than half of her recommended daily calorie intake.
Millions of Americans eat at fast food restaurants everyday, regardless of the health hazards associated with their products. Throughout the past decade, though, the media has created a growing, public awareness on the fast food industry. Many Americans are concerned to the point where they are pushing for legislation on the fast food industry.
According to Supersize Me, a documentary film that criticizes the McDonalds Corporation, the government forces fast food franchises to reveal the nutritional facts of their food products. The government also inspects restaurants for health hazards, and places their scores on the wall for all to see.
Obesity, a disease associated with being overweight, is becoming more and more common in America. According to Discovery Health, a cable television network, obesity is an epidemic.
“Obesity, to a large extent, is an avoidable condition that leads to a number of avoidable diseases,” says Dr. Moshe Shike, a professor of medicine at Cornell University Medical College.
In March of 2004, Congress passed a bill that banned all lawsuits regarding fast food franchises from obese Americans who claim that fast food caused their obesity.
If I were in the United States Congress, I would have supported this bill, because I agree with Dr. Shike. Obesity is avoidable. Thanks to the media, the public can be aware of the health hazards associated with fast food. These people should take responsibility and blame themselves for eating the food. They know the consequences of fast food consumption, and it was their choice to eat it.
I do not believe that the United States Congress should pass legislation to restrict fast food restaurants from producing their unhealthy food products. As long as the nutritional information is out in the open, American citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions.
“I know it’s unhealthy,” says Varner, “but I know don't gain much from it. And besides, it’s not fast food- it's good food served quickly.”
After ordering a meal, which comes with a double cheeseburger, large fries, and a large milkshake, she completes her transaction with the employee and drives home.
According to Fatcalories.com, a website that lists the nutritional facts of fast food products, Karen has purchased 1340 calories of food, which is more than half of her recommended daily calorie intake.
Millions of Americans eat at fast food restaurants everyday, regardless of the health hazards associated with their products. Throughout the past decade, though, the media has created a growing, public awareness on the fast food industry. Many Americans are concerned to the point where they are pushing for legislation on the fast food industry.
According to Supersize Me, a documentary film that criticizes the McDonalds Corporation, the government forces fast food franchises to reveal the nutritional facts of their food products. The government also inspects restaurants for health hazards, and places their scores on the wall for all to see.
Obesity, a disease associated with being overweight, is becoming more and more common in America. According to Discovery Health, a cable television network, obesity is an epidemic.
“Obesity, to a large extent, is an avoidable condition that leads to a number of avoidable diseases,” says Dr. Moshe Shike, a professor of medicine at Cornell University Medical College.
In March of 2004, Congress passed a bill that banned all lawsuits regarding fast food franchises from obese Americans who claim that fast food caused their obesity.
If I were in the United States Congress, I would have supported this bill, because I agree with Dr. Shike. Obesity is avoidable. Thanks to the media, the public can be aware of the health hazards associated with fast food. These people should take responsibility and blame themselves for eating the food. They know the consequences of fast food consumption, and it was their choice to eat it.
I do not believe that the United States Congress should pass legislation to restrict fast food restaurants from producing their unhealthy food products. As long as the nutritional information is out in the open, American citizens should be allowed to make their own decisions.
“I know it’s unhealthy,” says Varner, “but I know don't gain much from it. And besides, it’s not fast food- it's good food served quickly.”
Obesity and Fast Food
According to Weight-control Information Network, almost one-third of adults in the United States are obese, which is approximately 63.6 million. Why are millions of adults so overweight? The average American should eat a specific number of a calories a day that corresponds to their height, current weight, age, and how much exercise performed in a day. However, it is hard to calculate how many calories are in each snack or meal that you are consuming. The only experience that I know of with someone strictly counting every calorie would be those individuals who are on a diet and individuals who have eating disorders, such as anorexia.
Since Americans work about twenty-five hours a week, according to Forbes magazine, many grab a “quick bite” to eat. I know I have used that terminology more than once over the summer. When I worked at a local movie theater, I had twenty minutes to eat my dinner. And of course, I went to Wendy’s. My favorite meal at Wendy’s was a homestyle chicken fillet, which is around 430 calories. When adding a large fry, the calories increase by 540. Now, let’s add a large drink… what about coca-cola? That is another 270 calories. The grand total of my meal is 1240 calories. Many college students eat fast food often, when, for example, either restaurants or the cafeteria has closed. Klint Davis eats McDonalds about five to six times a week and his meal of choice is two double cheese-burgers, a McChicken, a medium fry, and a large coca-cola. Klint’s total calories from his McDonalds meal is 1930 calories.
Should Congress have more control over portion sizes or fat content at fast food restaurants? I personally do not think so. Even if the government were to interfere with the fast food restaurants, it would not prevent Americans from gaining weight and eating unhealthily. If the portion size were to decrease, Americans would just order more things, like Klint.
Since Americans work about twenty-five hours a week, according to Forbes magazine, many grab a “quick bite” to eat. I know I have used that terminology more than once over the summer. When I worked at a local movie theater, I had twenty minutes to eat my dinner. And of course, I went to Wendy’s. My favorite meal at Wendy’s was a homestyle chicken fillet, which is around 430 calories. When adding a large fry, the calories increase by 540. Now, let’s add a large drink… what about coca-cola? That is another 270 calories. The grand total of my meal is 1240 calories. Many college students eat fast food often, when, for example, either restaurants or the cafeteria has closed. Klint Davis eats McDonalds about five to six times a week and his meal of choice is two double cheese-burgers, a McChicken, a medium fry, and a large coca-cola. Klint’s total calories from his McDonalds meal is 1930 calories.
Should Congress have more control over portion sizes or fat content at fast food restaurants? I personally do not think so. Even if the government were to interfere with the fast food restaurants, it would not prevent Americans from gaining weight and eating unhealthily. If the portion size were to decrease, Americans would just order more things, like Klint.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Assignment Due Monday, November 19
Should Congress legislate the fast food industry with regard to portion sizes, fat content and other nutritional considerations?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Baseball
While I do not enjoy too many sports, one I can get into is baseball.
Baseball evolved from old British folk games. The earliest known account is in the early 1800's, but it can be traced back even further to a game called "stoolball."
Many of the earlier games were similar to each other, but there certainly were local, regional and national variations, both in how they were played and what they were called: names included "stoolball", "poison ball", and "goal ball". Few details of how the modern games developed from earlier folk games are known. Some think that various folk games resulted in a game called town ball, from which baseball was eventually born. Others believe that town ball was independent from baseball. Other games, such as cricket, evolved from the same series of games.
A number of early folk games in the British Isles had characteristics that can be seen in modern baseball (as well as in cricket and rounders). Many of these early games involved a ball that was thrown at a target while an opposing player defended the target by attempting to hit the ball away. If the batter successfully hit the ball, he could attempt to score points by running between bases while fielders would attempt to catch or retrieve the ball and put the runner out in some way.
Since they were folk games, the early games had no 'official' rules, and they tended to change over time. To the extent that there were rules, they were generally simple and were not written down. There were many local variations, and varied names.
Many of the early games were not well documented, first, because they were generally peasant games (and perhaps children's games, as well); and second, because they were often discouraged, and sometimes even prohibited, either by the church or by the state, or both.
Baseball, while considered and American tradition, is not isolated to our nation. Japan too has a very high baseball fan populace. Europeans have their own leagues as well. It's practically world-wide.
The thing I like most about baseball is that I, with my limited sports knowledge can still sit down and watch it. I don't have to necessarily understand fully what is going on. I can just enjoy it.
I wasn't really into the sport when all the accusations of steroids began and it's not a major issue at the moment. However, i feel that it does not present itself as sportsmanlike conduct. Athletes should be on their own abilities, not some from a bottle. While not everyone will be on an equal playing field, merits alone should be what counts. Training and practicing and getting better is what it's about.
Baseball evolved from old British folk games. The earliest known account is in the early 1800's, but it can be traced back even further to a game called "stoolball."
Many of the earlier games were similar to each other, but there certainly were local, regional and national variations, both in how they were played and what they were called: names included "stoolball", "poison ball", and "goal ball". Few details of how the modern games developed from earlier folk games are known. Some think that various folk games resulted in a game called town ball, from which baseball was eventually born. Others believe that town ball was independent from baseball. Other games, such as cricket, evolved from the same series of games.
A number of early folk games in the British Isles had characteristics that can be seen in modern baseball (as well as in cricket and rounders). Many of these early games involved a ball that was thrown at a target while an opposing player defended the target by attempting to hit the ball away. If the batter successfully hit the ball, he could attempt to score points by running between bases while fielders would attempt to catch or retrieve the ball and put the runner out in some way.
Since they were folk games, the early games had no 'official' rules, and they tended to change over time. To the extent that there were rules, they were generally simple and were not written down. There were many local variations, and varied names.
Many of the early games were not well documented, first, because they were generally peasant games (and perhaps children's games, as well); and second, because they were often discouraged, and sometimes even prohibited, either by the church or by the state, or both.
Baseball, while considered and American tradition, is not isolated to our nation. Japan too has a very high baseball fan populace. Europeans have their own leagues as well. It's practically world-wide.
The thing I like most about baseball is that I, with my limited sports knowledge can still sit down and watch it. I don't have to necessarily understand fully what is going on. I can just enjoy it.
I wasn't really into the sport when all the accusations of steroids began and it's not a major issue at the moment. However, i feel that it does not present itself as sportsmanlike conduct. Athletes should be on their own abilities, not some from a bottle. While not everyone will be on an equal playing field, merits alone should be what counts. Training and practicing and getting better is what it's about.
Tennis
The popular sport of tennis, originally called “La Soule,” can be traced back to 1500BC, shown in carvings from the Egyptian temples. Tennis was first played as a part of religious ceremonies and in the 8th century, Tennis had reached the Moor Empire, in which was incidentally spread into Europe. Christian monks, curious about the Moor Empire, were introduced to the game so much that the Christian church wanted to ban the game because it was so popular among the monasteries. The game was soon adopted by French royalty and spread to the English royalty. Around 1875, the All England Croquet Club tried to attract more members by adding “Lawn Tennis” to their activities. It was so successful that in 1877, the All England Croquet Club became known as the All England Croquet and Lawn Tennis Club. A tournament was later established, known as the Wimbledon Championship. Originally, there were twenty-two players and around 200 spectators. The Wimbledon Championship is still valid today, and over 6,000 spectators attend the tournament, which is held annually between late June and the beginning of July.
Sometimes known as “lawn tennis,” tennis is a very popular sport and can be played by either two or four people. The court is separated by a net, which divides the player(s) equally. The first person to begin the game is known as a server, who has two tries to hit a ball with a racket, sending the ball across the net onto the opponent’s side of the court, who is also known as the receiver. Play continues between the two players by hitting the ball to the opponent’s court, and if a player fails to hit the ball across the net, the opponent scores a point. To win a game, a player must score four points, and to win a set, players must play six games. If players are competing against each other to win a match, they must play two or three sets. The beginning score of 0-0 is known as “love.” The first two points in a game are counted by fifteens. Thus, the first point is fifteen; second is thirty; and not following the previous rule is the third point, which is forty. The winning point of the game occurs when the score returns to love. If the score is tied, it is known as deuce, in which case one player must win by two points. If the server wins the next point and thus, ends the game, it is called an advantage-in. If the situation is reversed with the receiver winning the game, it is called an advantage-out.
Although I am not a big fan of sports, I have played tennis and I enjoyed it. However, there is a big difference between playing it yourself and watching it. I try to watch tennis, since I do not play anymore, but I do not enjoy it. I cannot sit still long enough to pay attention to a ball being passed between the two courts; it is a little tedious.
Sometimes known as “lawn tennis,” tennis is a very popular sport and can be played by either two or four people. The court is separated by a net, which divides the player(s) equally. The first person to begin the game is known as a server, who has two tries to hit a ball with a racket, sending the ball across the net onto the opponent’s side of the court, who is also known as the receiver. Play continues between the two players by hitting the ball to the opponent’s court, and if a player fails to hit the ball across the net, the opponent scores a point. To win a game, a player must score four points, and to win a set, players must play six games. If players are competing against each other to win a match, they must play two or three sets. The beginning score of 0-0 is known as “love.” The first two points in a game are counted by fifteens. Thus, the first point is fifteen; second is thirty; and not following the previous rule is the third point, which is forty. The winning point of the game occurs when the score returns to love. If the score is tied, it is known as deuce, in which case one player must win by two points. If the server wins the next point and thus, ends the game, it is called an advantage-in. If the situation is reversed with the receiver winning the game, it is called an advantage-out.
Although I am not a big fan of sports, I have played tennis and I enjoyed it. However, there is a big difference between playing it yourself and watching it. I try to watch tennis, since I do not play anymore, but I do not enjoy it. I cannot sit still long enough to pay attention to a ball being passed between the two courts; it is a little tedious.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
America's Game
My entire life I have been passionate about sports. This passion runs wild, pumping through my veins to the point where athletic competition becomes an extreme obsession. I long for Sundays in the fall when the gladiators of our generation take to the gridiron. I crave the sound of skates scraping on that sparkling icy surface every winter, but more than anything, I love the game of baseball. Ty Cobb once said, “Baseball is a red-blooded sport for red-blooded men. It’s no pink tea, and mollycoddles had better stay out. It’s a struggle for supremacy, a survival of the fittest.”Baseball is America’s game, it is our pastime, and our most treasured outdoor activity.
The history and tradition associated with baseball dates back before the Civil War and arrived from alterations in Cricket and Stick-ball. Since the 1800s, little revisions to the rules have been made, creating “nostalgia among the American people, more so than any other sport… Baseball is also a very democratic game. Unlike football and basketball, baseball can be played well by people of average height and weight.” Players barely hovering above 5 feet, such as current Los Angeles Dodger Rafael Furcal have had outstanding careers in professional baseball.
According to baseball-almanac, the first professional baseball game was played in 1871, many years before the professional organizations of other major sports. Several years later in 1876, the first National League teams took the field. Since then, players from 50 different countries have played in the Major Leagues, making the game more diverse than most may think. Even in the poverty stricken countries of Latin America, baseball is played with sticks as bats and a can as a ball. Baseball academies sponsored by numerous professional teams allow these young men to showcase their skills and someday become professionals. The game’s popularity did not really come of age until the glory days of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. It was these men who helped to make the game, and it was Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa who helped to save the game. Baseball was struggling for survival in the early 90’s, but the homerun race in 1998 increased attendance in Major League parks. Since 1998, attendance has dropped below 70 million fans only twice, and this past season over 79 million fans trudged through the turnstiles, reports MLB.com. Baseball is again gaining popularity among the youth, as 2.7 million boys and girls headed to the sandlots as part of Little League Baseball in the 2006 season.
Hopefully, this popularity will not decline with players like Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco destroying decades of baseball history, and just maybe, the game will again be played the way it was meant to be played, “ninety percent mental, with the other half physical.”
Baseball is played in the greatest seasons of the year, under beautiful blue skies and fireworks on the fourth. The crack of the bat and pop in the glove are common sounds to ears of all ages; they are common to each and every American. The USA Today ranked hitting a baseball the hardest thing to do in all sports. But Tom Hanks said it best in A League of Their Own when he said, “It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!” This hard keeps me coming back day after day and year after year. 162 games are played every year by every Major League team, and I can honestly say that I enjoy every single one of them.
The history and tradition associated with baseball dates back before the Civil War and arrived from alterations in Cricket and Stick-ball. Since the 1800s, little revisions to the rules have been made, creating “nostalgia among the American people, more so than any other sport… Baseball is also a very democratic game. Unlike football and basketball, baseball can be played well by people of average height and weight.” Players barely hovering above 5 feet, such as current Los Angeles Dodger Rafael Furcal have had outstanding careers in professional baseball.
According to baseball-almanac, the first professional baseball game was played in 1871, many years before the professional organizations of other major sports. Several years later in 1876, the first National League teams took the field. Since then, players from 50 different countries have played in the Major Leagues, making the game more diverse than most may think. Even in the poverty stricken countries of Latin America, baseball is played with sticks as bats and a can as a ball. Baseball academies sponsored by numerous professional teams allow these young men to showcase their skills and someday become professionals. The game’s popularity did not really come of age until the glory days of Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig. It was these men who helped to make the game, and it was Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa who helped to save the game. Baseball was struggling for survival in the early 90’s, but the homerun race in 1998 increased attendance in Major League parks. Since 1998, attendance has dropped below 70 million fans only twice, and this past season over 79 million fans trudged through the turnstiles, reports MLB.com. Baseball is again gaining popularity among the youth, as 2.7 million boys and girls headed to the sandlots as part of Little League Baseball in the 2006 season.
Hopefully, this popularity will not decline with players like Barry Bonds and Jose Canseco destroying decades of baseball history, and just maybe, the game will again be played the way it was meant to be played, “ninety percent mental, with the other half physical.”
Baseball is played in the greatest seasons of the year, under beautiful blue skies and fireworks on the fourth. The crack of the bat and pop in the glove are common sounds to ears of all ages; they are common to each and every American. The USA Today ranked hitting a baseball the hardest thing to do in all sports. But Tom Hanks said it best in A League of Their Own when he said, “It's supposed to be hard! If it wasn't hard, everyone would do it. The hard... is what makes it great!” This hard keeps me coming back day after day and year after year. 162 games are played every year by every Major League team, and I can honestly say that I enjoy every single one of them.
Going global with basketball!
Basketball is considered by most to be a sport. However, in my family basketball is almost a religion. It was not simply passed down through generations as a favorite pastime, it’s in my genes.
Basketball, which was invented in 1891 by Dr. James Naismith, is the third most popular sport in the United States behind baseball and football.
In the United States, baseball is considered the national pastime, yet basketball is making a run for top billing. However, basketball is taking a different route that baseball.
In the past few years the NBA has gone global. This has caused the fan base of basketball to rise at a considerably fast pace. Not only are other countries tuning in to watch Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, but they are now watching players who are representing their country.
According to NBA.com, in the 2007 playoffs there were 60 International players representing 28 different countries and territories. This diversity has extremely helped the overall popularity of basketball.
Although most people seem to think that basketball, especially the NBA, is down in popularity, it isn’t. According to ESPN.com, the NBA broke its attendance record for the third straight year, drawing more than 21.8 million fans and averaging 17,757 fans during the 2006-07 season.
Who can forget the magic of college basketballs March Madness, the single elimination tournament for the best 65 teams in the country? This is arguably one of the most exciting championship tournaments in all of sports. It provides action, energy, enthusiasm, skill, upsets, glory, and heartache.
Basketball has come a long way since its creation in 1891. It has since become an international language that communicates through competition. Since basketballs globalization it is clear to see that we not only have to practice to keep up with the best players in the United States, but to keep up with the best players in the world.
Basketball, which was invented in 1891 by Dr. James Naismith, is the third most popular sport in the United States behind baseball and football.
In the United States, baseball is considered the national pastime, yet basketball is making a run for top billing. However, basketball is taking a different route that baseball.
In the past few years the NBA has gone global. This has caused the fan base of basketball to rise at a considerably fast pace. Not only are other countries tuning in to watch Kobe Bryant and LeBron James, but they are now watching players who are representing their country.
According to NBA.com, in the 2007 playoffs there were 60 International players representing 28 different countries and territories. This diversity has extremely helped the overall popularity of basketball.
Although most people seem to think that basketball, especially the NBA, is down in popularity, it isn’t. According to ESPN.com, the NBA broke its attendance record for the third straight year, drawing more than 21.8 million fans and averaging 17,757 fans during the 2006-07 season.
Who can forget the magic of college basketballs March Madness, the single elimination tournament for the best 65 teams in the country? This is arguably one of the most exciting championship tournaments in all of sports. It provides action, energy, enthusiasm, skill, upsets, glory, and heartache.
Basketball has come a long way since its creation in 1891. It has since become an international language that communicates through competition. Since basketballs globalization it is clear to see that we not only have to practice to keep up with the best players in the United States, but to keep up with the best players in the world.
Boxing Deserves Popularity
Nearly four decades ago, boxers such as Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier attracted thousands of fans worldwide. "Anyone could have told you who the heavyweight champion was back in the day, but nowadays I can't even name three boxers," says Tommy Floyd, a male from Griffin, Georgia.
"Everyone knows who Ali is," says Sandra Campus, a female from Winder, Georgia.
Many years ago, boxing aired on CBS, NBC, and ABC, which were the three major network stations at that time. Now, though, boxing is barely even mentioned on these stations. The reason for this is because of the Nielson Ratings. According to the Nielson Ratings, Americans do not watch boxing as much as they use to.
According to posters on Yahoo! Answers, a public message board, there are several reasons for this. A few reasons why people are not attracted to boxing include the brain damage that boxing can create, the lack of sportsmanship in the past two decades, and even the fact that now there are several different divisions, each of which claims to have the champion.
I believe that boxing is still a sport worth viewing, and it has potential to gain back a lot of the popularity it has lost.
Boxing is an easy sport to follow and keep up with. The rules are extremely straight-forward, and this could make the sport more fun to watch. Also, the sport is very fast-paced. There are up to fifteen three minute rounds, and the fighters have to stay on their guard at all times. Boxers are some of the most physically fit athletes in the world, and it can be stunning to watch their techniques. Lastly, there are new programs that twist boxing into reality television shows.
The Contender, which airs on ESPN, is a reality television show in which several people compete in a tournament to decide which person is the best boxer. Reality shows like have been popular throughout the past decade, and I believe many people would enjoy The Contender if they tuned in on ESPN.
According to Yahoo! Answers, boxing can once again reign as a popular sport among Americans. One poster on the website says, "Get rid of the notion that boxing is fueled by the heavyweight division." There are talented athletes who would be fun to watch, but the higher-ups in the boxing world place heavy-weights in the spotlight.
Also, one obvious way to regain popularity would be to receive attention on national television again. If boxing events were shown on CBS, NBC, and ABC, more people would watch, because these stations are cheaper to watch than ESPN and HBO.
Although boxing has lost its popularity over the years, it is still an exciting sport and may hopefully regain its fame in the future.
"Everyone knows who Ali is," says Sandra Campus, a female from Winder, Georgia.
Many years ago, boxing aired on CBS, NBC, and ABC, which were the three major network stations at that time. Now, though, boxing is barely even mentioned on these stations. The reason for this is because of the Nielson Ratings. According to the Nielson Ratings, Americans do not watch boxing as much as they use to.
According to posters on Yahoo! Answers, a public message board, there are several reasons for this. A few reasons why people are not attracted to boxing include the brain damage that boxing can create, the lack of sportsmanship in the past two decades, and even the fact that now there are several different divisions, each of which claims to have the champion.
I believe that boxing is still a sport worth viewing, and it has potential to gain back a lot of the popularity it has lost.
Boxing is an easy sport to follow and keep up with. The rules are extremely straight-forward, and this could make the sport more fun to watch. Also, the sport is very fast-paced. There are up to fifteen three minute rounds, and the fighters have to stay on their guard at all times. Boxers are some of the most physically fit athletes in the world, and it can be stunning to watch their techniques. Lastly, there are new programs that twist boxing into reality television shows.
The Contender, which airs on ESPN, is a reality television show in which several people compete in a tournament to decide which person is the best boxer. Reality shows like have been popular throughout the past decade, and I believe many people would enjoy The Contender if they tuned in on ESPN.
According to Yahoo! Answers, boxing can once again reign as a popular sport among Americans. One poster on the website says, "Get rid of the notion that boxing is fueled by the heavyweight division." There are talented athletes who would be fun to watch, but the higher-ups in the boxing world place heavy-weights in the spotlight.
Also, one obvious way to regain popularity would be to receive attention on national television again. If boxing events were shown on CBS, NBC, and ABC, more people would watch, because these stations are cheaper to watch than ESPN and HBO.
Although boxing has lost its popularity over the years, it is still an exciting sport and may hopefully regain its fame in the future.
Football is my religion
| The National Football League is the best thing that ever happened to the United States. Since I was born, I was raised in a family of football maniacs. Monday Night Football is more like a sacred day in my household. The Philadelphia Eagles have been more of a religion to me. My family and I breathe and speak about the Eagles. No matter who plays, we stand by the TV and cheer on any team that looks hungry for a win. According to many sports fanatics in America, the NFL is the largest and most prestigious professional sport. Football is a sport that involves many large and fast men that play vigorously through four quarters. Each quarter is 15 minutes in length and every minute of it is intense. The United States is not the only country that enjoys this prestigious sport. Canada and Australia collectively have their own football leagues that derive from the same structure of American Football. Football is a great sport to cheer on because of the high intensity that is involved. Football is a sport that is played through out most schools in the United States and on many different levels. Professional football is not classified alone in the spectrum of football. College football has grown to be an addictive sport that brings forth many rivalries. Television has a great deal to do with the popularity of football. Monday Night Football, originally airing in 1970 has been more of a tradition for football fans every season. Hall of Famer John Madden is one of football’s popularly known names. He was the famous personality on Monday Night football. The NFL celebrates “Turkey Day” with two of the same teams playing every year. It is tradition for the Dallas Cowboys and the Detroit Lions to have games on Thanksgiving. Football attracts people of all ages around the world. For children, it is not enough to go to a ball game, or watch it on TV; they must somehow be in the game. Electronic Arts, an American developer and publisher of video games, publishes a football game every year intended for the younger generations. John Madden has a contract with Electronic Arts and “Madden NFL” is published to many video game platforms. Football is a fun sport to play on video games when football season is over. I have played every Madden NFL game since 1999, and every year it gets better with new ways to view the game. There is no argument that Football is one of America’s greatest pastimes and will continue to always be my favorite sport and can considerably be my religion. This sport will continue to flourish and fanatics will continue to support their teams. The NFL alone draws over 67,000 spectators per game and it continues to rise as team and talent get better. |
The Greatest Sport Ever Played
The sport of baseball is a passion shared among many Americans today. It is a recreational activity that involves skill, decision making and teamwork that make it an admirable sport. It has been watched and played for generations and continues to thrive as a popular sport.
Baseball has expanded internationally since it was first formed in New York in the late 1830’s. According to the International Baseball Federation, baseball is a global sport and is played by millions of children and adults in 100 different countries and has been played at the Olympics since 1904.
With baseball being created in the United States, it would evolve and change with its country.
Mark Twain would write that, "Baseball, is the very symbol, the outward and visible expression of the drive and push and rush and struggle of the raging, tearing, booming nineteenth century.”
The sport of baseball has evolved overtime, but its history is not forgotten in the faces of its heroes such as Babe Ruth, CY Young and Jackie Robinson who influenced the sport and were shinning examples of how it was meant to be played.
Baseball shows teamwork, as all players rely on each other when fielding so they each will succeed in their position when defending
Baseball is a mental and physical game. It is fast passed and requires concentration to be a successful player. One must possess hand-eye coordination, precise timing, and accuracy in hitting as well in fielding.
As a player as well as fan, baseball is a very emotional game. There is emotion in the hopes and dream that their team will make it to and win the World Series championship. That the glories and celebration of winning will be theirs and that their team is the greatest in the land.
This is why I feel baseball is one of America’s greatest pastimes and sports.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Assignment Due Wednesday, November 7
What is your favorite sport (or sports) and why? (Or, if you don't like any sport, explain why.)
To get a good grade on this assignment, you must reference lots of research about the topic, for example, what sports are popular in the United States and other countries, what is appealing about them and how have these findings changed over time.
To get a good grade on this assignment, you must reference lots of research about the topic, for example, what sports are popular in the United States and other countries, what is appealing about them and how have these findings changed over time.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Deja Vu
It seems as though everytime I read the news, another war is just around the corner. However, with Iran refusing to put a hault on their nuclear program, the threat is very real. If Iran doesn't halt production then President Bush said the U.S. will attack. The U.S. believes that because they are working on a nuclear program that terrorist acts must be in the works. According to Iranian Interior Minister Mostafa Pour-Mohammadi, "any country or power which invades Iran will face a crushing response. We will defend our security and our country in the strongest way."
Although the U.S. may be the world powerhouse, other countries are not afraid to fight. We have found this to be true in both Afghanistan and Iraq. After thinking it through, Pour-Mohammadi's quote frightens me a bit. It's almost as if he is implying that the use of nuclear weapons is a definate possibility. He said they will defend their country in the strongest way. So who is to say that if their backs are against the wall in a war they wouldn't use nuclear weapons?
I hope that war isn't in our near future, but because the U.S. believes it must police the world war will always be an option. This war, unlike Iraq, could prove to be more devastating because it could affect the homefront. According to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "if Iran's rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime." It sounds as though both countries will continue doing what they've been doing. However, this will lead to some kind of conflict, I just hope it can be resolved by words rather war.
Although the U.S. may be the world powerhouse, other countries are not afraid to fight. We have found this to be true in both Afghanistan and Iraq. After thinking it through, Pour-Mohammadi's quote frightens me a bit. It's almost as if he is implying that the use of nuclear weapons is a definate possibility. He said they will defend their country in the strongest way. So who is to say that if their backs are against the wall in a war they wouldn't use nuclear weapons?
I hope that war isn't in our near future, but because the U.S. believes it must police the world war will always be an option. This war, unlike Iraq, could prove to be more devastating because it could affect the homefront. According to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, "if Iran's rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime." It sounds as though both countries will continue doing what they've been doing. However, this will lead to some kind of conflict, I just hope it can be resolved by words rather war.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
A New Issue, A New Outlook, A New War?
With the Bush Administration nearing its end, presidential nominees Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama have developed plans for a staged withdrawal of troops from the Middle East. However, with Iran’s recent nuclear threats, it poses the question, “Is America now nearing a war with Iran.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently accused Iran of "pursuing nuclear technologies that can lead to a nuclear weapon.” Iran claims their developments are for peace-keeping reasons alone; however, nuclear weapons pose a threat to all mankind and the issue should not be taken lightly. By proliferating nuclear weapons, Iran would be violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by a total of 187 parties to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. As a world power, America must take a stand on the issue, but they should take all necessary measures to avoid war.
According to CNN, Iran’s current exploration with uranium deposits has forced the United States government to impose stiff sanctions, targeting two Iranian military groups and a number of Iranian banks. An Iranian agency known as the Quds Force has been suspected of having direct ties to the training and arming of Shiite militias in Iraq, proof of Iran’s backing of terrorism. United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also revealed that "Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists.” To combat the issue, the United States has called on numerous Iranian banks to end business relations with government officials. America is currently fighting the “War on Terror”, which is exactly why we should continue to place even harsher sanctions on not only Iran, but also on other nations supporting terrorism. Sanctions do not directly result in bloodshed; therefore, America should continue this process until war is absolutely necessary.
As of now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is not taking America’s sanctions seriously; however, I believe threats from America and other allies would force the Iranian government to step down, just as Iran’s nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani did this past Saturday. His resignation could possibly make talks that much more difficult due to his moderate views, but it could also mark the first step in Iran’s disengagement of nuclear activity.
I feel that at this point in time the United States government has taken the essential steps to end Iran’s nuclear developments. Backing by the United Nations Security Council and the European Union will play a major role in bringing the uranium enrichment program to a halt. Rice later stated that “if Iran’s rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime.” There is no evidence that the Iranian government has nuclear weapons at this time, and Vice President Dick Cheney assured Americans that the United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. What would be the point of attacking a nation on the premise of nuclear war if they do not possess nuclear weapons? For this reason, America should continue to take a diplomatic approach to the situation.
According to CNN, Iran’s current exploration with uranium deposits has forced the United States government to impose stiff sanctions, targeting two Iranian military groups and a number of Iranian banks. An Iranian agency known as the Quds Force has been suspected of having direct ties to the training and arming of Shiite militias in Iraq, proof of Iran’s backing of terrorism. United States Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has also revealed that "Iran funnels hundreds of millions of dollars each year through the international financial system to terrorists.” To combat the issue, the United States has called on numerous Iranian banks to end business relations with government officials. America is currently fighting the “War on Terror”, which is exactly why we should continue to place even harsher sanctions on not only Iran, but also on other nations supporting terrorism. Sanctions do not directly result in bloodshed; therefore, America should continue this process until war is absolutely necessary.
As of now, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is not taking America’s sanctions seriously; however, I believe threats from America and other allies would force the Iranian government to step down, just as Iran’s nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani did this past Saturday. His resignation could possibly make talks that much more difficult due to his moderate views, but it could also mark the first step in Iran’s disengagement of nuclear activity.
I feel that at this point in time the United States government has taken the essential steps to end Iran’s nuclear developments. Backing by the United Nations Security Council and the European Union will play a major role in bringing the uranium enrichment program to a halt. Rice later stated that “if Iran’s rulers choose to continue down a path of confrontation, the United States will act with the international community to resist these threats of the Iranian regime.” There is no evidence that the Iranian government has nuclear weapons at this time, and Vice President Dick Cheney assured Americans that the United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. What would be the point of attacking a nation on the premise of nuclear war if they do not possess nuclear weapons? For this reason, America should continue to take a diplomatic approach to the situation.
Enemies - Who will it be next?
"Paranoia is the delusion that your enemies are organized."
- Arthur D. Hlavaty
“We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
- President George W. Bush
The current President of the United States is on a literal warpath. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. All for the reason of taking out some supposed “Axis of Evil.”
The reason for Afghanistan was 9/11. This war started by counterattacking an enemy faction. It had a purpose, if not a somewhat contradictory one. “You attack us, we fight back” –the typical war.
Next came Iraq. We were in the area; why not flush out the enemy of our president’s father? In order to justify the occupation of this country, we deemed a section of the world the “Axis of Evil.” If we don’t agree with you, you’re our enemy and must be flushed out. The enemies are everywhere in the Middle East, according to Bush. They’re in Afghanistan, no wait! They’re in Iraq! Oh, now they’re in Iran! National Security, sniffing out the enemy, striking first – aren’t these all ways of saying paranoia? Where are the enemies besides everywhere?
Now Iran. We think you may be supplying our enemies with forces and weapons, says our government. According to an article by the New York Times, “‘They're training to kill coalition forces,’ said one senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘Their comments about wanting to see a stable Iraq are belied by this type of activity.’” Another senior administration official referred the arrest of five Iranians in Iraq whom the Americans accused of running guns and planning sectarian attacks. All of these attributions are by anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are often not credible – if real at all.
America is attacking countries that have an agenda, according to our government. Don’t we, in fact, have an agenda against these countries?
Attacking Iran is as reasonless as attacking Iraq. The president’s reasoning is atomic weapons. Is he afraid they will be irresponsible with weapons? Did America not accidentally ship six nuclear weapons in September to the wrong military base and not even notice for six hours? Why are America’s allies, such as Israel – also a middle-eastern country – allowed to have nuclear weapons?
- Arthur D. Hlavaty
“We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.”
- President George W. Bush
The current President of the United States is on a literal warpath. First Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. All for the reason of taking out some supposed “Axis of Evil.”
The reason for Afghanistan was 9/11. This war started by counterattacking an enemy faction. It had a purpose, if not a somewhat contradictory one. “You attack us, we fight back” –the typical war.
Next came Iraq. We were in the area; why not flush out the enemy of our president’s father? In order to justify the occupation of this country, we deemed a section of the world the “Axis of Evil.” If we don’t agree with you, you’re our enemy and must be flushed out. The enemies are everywhere in the Middle East, according to Bush. They’re in Afghanistan, no wait! They’re in Iraq! Oh, now they’re in Iran! National Security, sniffing out the enemy, striking first – aren’t these all ways of saying paranoia? Where are the enemies besides everywhere?
Now Iran. We think you may be supplying our enemies with forces and weapons, says our government. According to an article by the New York Times, “‘They're training to kill coalition forces,’ said one senior American counterterrorism official, speaking on condition of anonymity. ‘Their comments about wanting to see a stable Iraq are belied by this type of activity.’” Another senior administration official referred the arrest of five Iranians in Iraq whom the Americans accused of running guns and planning sectarian attacks. All of these attributions are by anonymous sources. Anonymous sources are often not credible – if real at all.
America is attacking countries that have an agenda, according to our government. Don’t we, in fact, have an agenda against these countries?
Attacking Iran is as reasonless as attacking Iraq. The president’s reasoning is atomic weapons. Is he afraid they will be irresponsible with weapons? Did America not accidentally ship six nuclear weapons in September to the wrong military base and not even notice for six hours? Why are America’s allies, such as Israel – also a middle-eastern country – allowed to have nuclear weapons?
Patience For Iran
As the pressure between Iran and the United States increases, the question many Americans will ask is should we attack now?
According to the Council of Foreign Relations, the U.S. State Department has claimed that Iran is the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” The Council further states that Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The tensions between Iran and the United States has increased as Iran’s nuclear program has progressed in constructing a power plant, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. However, the United States believes Iran’s power plant will go for the production of nuclear weapons and has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly.
Iran is a threat to the United States and the evidence of that threat is real. However, at this point in time, now is not the time to act.
Although Iran is making nuclear progression, it is slow. According to the Washington Post, although they threaten to wipe Israel off the map, U.S. intelligence estimates that an Iranian bomb would take ten years to construct. The U.S. military is already focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and this will give it time to take care of its priorities in those countries.
This will also give the military time to recover from the 3,831 U.S troop casualties. According to CNN reporters, the Iraq war what?has dropped from 72 percent to 32 percent for this reason and for failed attempt to find any weapons of mass destruction.
The United States continues to drag on in Iraq as it pays $12 billion monthly in 2007 and $200 million daily. This as well as the operation in Afghanistan accumulates to $800 billion dollar in war spending. These facts come from Deborah White of Iraq War results and statistics as of October 17, 2007.
Because of the above points, I believe that we should wait to attack Iran.
According to the Council of Foreign Relations, the U.S. State Department has claimed that Iran is the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” The Council further states that Iran continues to provide funding, weapons, training, and sanctuary to numerous terrorist groups based in the Middle East and elsewhere.
The tensions between Iran and the United States has increased as Iran’s nuclear program has progressed in constructing a power plant, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. However, the United States believes Iran’s power plant will go for the production of nuclear weapons and has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons secretly.
Iran is a threat to the United States and the evidence of that threat is real. However, at this point in time, now is not the time to act.
Although Iran is making nuclear progression, it is slow. According to the Washington Post, although they threaten to wipe Israel off the map, U.S. intelligence estimates that an Iranian bomb would take ten years to construct. The U.S. military is already focused on Iraq and Afghanistan, and this will give it time to take care of its priorities in those countries.
This will also give the military time to recover from the 3,831 U.S troop casualties. According to CNN reporters, the Iraq war what?has dropped from 72 percent to 32 percent for this reason and for failed attempt to find any weapons of mass destruction.
The United States continues to drag on in Iraq as it pays $12 billion monthly in 2007 and $200 million daily. This as well as the operation in Afghanistan accumulates to $800 billion dollar in war spending. These facts come from Deborah White of Iraq War results and statistics as of October 17, 2007.
Because of the above points, I believe that we should wait to attack Iran.
Security Guarantees Will Work
Iran, a nation located in the Middle East that is developing its nuclear technology, should be offered a security guarantee from the United States.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims this technology is entirely peaceful. "We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity," he said.
Many are suspicious of Iran's nuclear development, due to its support of terrorism and its threat to wipe the nation of Israel off of the map. "Capability equals threat," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman. "Iran's president has lied before, and I don't think he can be trusted."
According to research done by Andrew Kent, an associate professor of law, the Bush Administration is seriously contemplating attacking Iran if they do not stop proliferating.
An attack against Iran would not be entirely successful. According to Michel Chossudovsky, the Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, if attacked, Iran would retaliate. "Iran has a broad arsenal of weapons," said Chossudovsky. He also believes that attacking Iran could harm United States progress in Iraq.
One of the only ways to solve the current situation in Iran is to offer them a security guarantee.
"The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat, but we won't offer them a security guarantee; a perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat," said Professor Sagan of Stanford University.
Offering Iran a security guarantee would mean protecting them from enemy strikes. If they are in fact creating an arsenal of nuclear weapons, they would be doing so for their own security purposes. According to Sagan, Iran sees the United States as a threat. Removing this threat would leave them with no reason to continue their proliferation.
Also, the United States is the world's superpower. The United States is the best choice for security, and according to Jahangir Amuzegar, an economic ambassador to Iran's pre-1979 government, Iran wants a security guarantee. "Doesn't matter who gives them the deal. Iran just wants a deal," said Amuzegar.
If we offer Iran, a country with capability to produce nuclear weapons, this security guarantee, it would remove the United States and its allies as a threat. If Iran takes the offer, they may stop their proliferation.
Diplomatic engagement can truly effect the progress of peace.
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, claims this technology is entirely peaceful. "We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period. It goes against the whole grain of humanity," he said.
Many are suspicious of Iran's nuclear development, due to its support of terrorism and its threat to wipe the nation of Israel off of the map. "Capability equals threat," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman. "Iran's president has lied before, and I don't think he can be trusted."
According to research done by Andrew Kent, an associate professor of law, the Bush Administration is seriously contemplating attacking Iran if they do not stop proliferating.
An attack against Iran would not be entirely successful. According to Michel Chossudovsky, the Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, if attacked, Iran would retaliate. "Iran has a broad arsenal of weapons," said Chossudovsky. He also believes that attacking Iran could harm United States progress in Iraq.
One of the only ways to solve the current situation in Iran is to offer them a security guarantee.
"The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat, but we won't offer them a security guarantee; a perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat," said Professor Sagan of Stanford University.
Offering Iran a security guarantee would mean protecting them from enemy strikes. If they are in fact creating an arsenal of nuclear weapons, they would be doing so for their own security purposes. According to Sagan, Iran sees the United States as a threat. Removing this threat would leave them with no reason to continue their proliferation.
Also, the United States is the world's superpower. The United States is the best choice for security, and according to Jahangir Amuzegar, an economic ambassador to Iran's pre-1979 government, Iran wants a security guarantee. "Doesn't matter who gives them the deal. Iran just wants a deal," said Amuzegar.
If we offer Iran, a country with capability to produce nuclear weapons, this security guarantee, it would remove the United States and its allies as a threat. If Iran takes the offer, they may stop their proliferation.
Diplomatic engagement can truly effect the progress of peace.
Iran is not dangerous yet
“If the U.S. invades Iran, Iran will see that they have no chance of winning and will use nuclear weapons,” says David Ochmanek, Director of Project AIR FORCE Strategy and Doctrine Program. Attacking Iran will lead to another war, and possibly the extinction of human life in several parts of the world. Iran is seen as a threat because they are exploring the development of Uranium deposits that can eventually produce nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the act of going into a country forcefully and finding nuclear weapons has been a failure for the United States. Need I remind you of the Iraqi War? The United States went into Iraq to take out nuclear weapons which didn’t even exist. Ever since then, the U.S. has been under stiff scrutiny and in which people see the United States war in Iraq as a failure. The problem with the United States going into Iran and attacking them is the U.S. knows Iran doesn’t have nukes yet. Attacking a country to prevent them from proliferation (make and selling of nuclear weapons) is not acceptable. Vice President Dick Chaney says, “The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.” I agree that Iran should not be allowed to proliferate because it would be a violation of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty); however, the United States has mistakenly failed in another country in the Middle-East and doing so again will ruin the reputation and superiority of the United States.
“The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat. A perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat,” says Scott Sagan, Professor of political science and director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. By simply telling Iran we will not strike them and will defend against any other country that might attack them is a sure way to make Iran know there is no need for them to proliferate. However, it does not help that the United States is sending a message to Iran that the U.S. and other countries will attack if they continue the route to proliferation. Vice President Cheney says, “If Iran continues on its current course, the U.S. and other nations are ‘prepared to impose serious consequences.’”
I propose that the United States guarantee the safety of Iran and their people by offering a security guarantee. The guarantee will provide Iran with the knowledge that they will no longer need to feel threatened by the United States and therefore will not need to proliferate. The biggest concern should be trying to avoid another costly and deadly war. Is attacking Iran going to be worth it?
Unfortunately, the act of going into a country forcefully and finding nuclear weapons has been a failure for the United States. Need I remind you of the Iraqi War? The United States went into Iraq to take out nuclear weapons which didn’t even exist. Ever since then, the U.S. has been under stiff scrutiny and in which people see the United States war in Iraq as a failure. The problem with the United States going into Iran and attacking them is the U.S. knows Iran doesn’t have nukes yet. Attacking a country to prevent them from proliferation (make and selling of nuclear weapons) is not acceptable. Vice President Dick Chaney says, “The United States and other nations will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.” I agree that Iran should not be allowed to proliferate because it would be a violation of the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty); however, the United States has mistakenly failed in another country in the Middle-East and doing so again will ruin the reputation and superiority of the United States.
“The only reason Iran is arming itself is out of a security threat. A perception that America is no longer a security risk would remove the nuclear threat,” says Scott Sagan, Professor of political science and director of the Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford University. By simply telling Iran we will not strike them and will defend against any other country that might attack them is a sure way to make Iran know there is no need for them to proliferate. However, it does not help that the United States is sending a message to Iran that the U.S. and other countries will attack if they continue the route to proliferation. Vice President Cheney says, “If Iran continues on its current course, the U.S. and other nations are ‘prepared to impose serious consequences.’”
I propose that the United States guarantee the safety of Iran and their people by offering a security guarantee. The guarantee will provide Iran with the knowledge that they will no longer need to feel threatened by the United States and therefore will not need to proliferate. The biggest concern should be trying to avoid another costly and deadly war. Is attacking Iran going to be worth it?
Iran and World War III
"Our country, and the entire international community, cannot stand by as a terror-supporting state fulfills its grandest ambitions," Dick Cheney said in reference to the current nuclear technology in Iran. In response to the United States’ accusations of secretly developing nuclear weapons, Iran says that its development of such technology is for peaceful purposes, as well as generating electricity. However, it is believed that Iran is doubling its efforts to produce nuclear weapons and has become more radical under the leadership of the president of the country – Mr. Ahmadinejad. Under his leadership, Iran has rebelled twice against the United Nations Security Council and has quickened its progress of developing uranium.
In reaction to the Iranian threat, President Bush warns Iran that their development of nuclear weapons could lead to World War III. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have openly said that Iran having nuclear weapons is “not acceptable,” and have changed their opinions demanding Iran to destroy their weapons, saying that the United States will not “allow” Iran to possess them. President Bush has been trying to coerce other world powers to help stop Iran’s progression of developing nuclear weapons. Military action has been threatened, but public officials insist upon negotiating and imposing economic sanctions on Iran before they deploy troops to Iran. These economic sanctions mean that “no U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
President Bush hopes that the sanctions placed on Iran and the burden of isolation will deter Iran from its continued progress in developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Iran does not realize the magnitude of its isolation, and Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, scorned the sanction imposed by the United Nations Security Council, calling the sanctions “worthless papers.” He furthers his argument by saying that the sanction has “no value,” will hold “no effect on the will of the Iranian nation,” and says that Iran will become more self-reliant because of the sanction placed upon the country.
If these economic sanctions do not deter Iran from further progress on the completion of nuclear weapons, the United States has threatened to deploy troops to Iraq. However, I wonder how many troops are left in the United States to be deployed. If the military is needed in Iran, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, says that there is “more than enough reserve to respond.” At the beginning of the war with Iraq, there were about 130,000 soldiers and marines. At the end of 2003, the number of soldiers lessened to approximately 50,000. However, by March 1, 2006, the number increased to 133,000. Currently in Iraq, there are about 168,000 soldiers. Do we really need to deploy any more soldiers? I honestly don’t think America can handle another war. There are many American protestors against the current war and fighting two wars at once does not seem plausible at the current time.
In reaction to the Iranian threat, President Bush warns Iran that their development of nuclear weapons could lead to World War III. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have openly said that Iran having nuclear weapons is “not acceptable,” and have changed their opinions demanding Iran to destroy their weapons, saying that the United States will not “allow” Iran to possess them. President Bush has been trying to coerce other world powers to help stop Iran’s progression of developing nuclear weapons. Military action has been threatened, but public officials insist upon negotiating and imposing economic sanctions on Iran before they deploy troops to Iran. These economic sanctions mean that “no U.S. citizen or private organization will be allowed to engage in financial transactions with these persons and entities," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
President Bush hopes that the sanctions placed on Iran and the burden of isolation will deter Iran from its continued progress in developing nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, Iran does not realize the magnitude of its isolation, and Iran’s president, Ahmadinejad, scorned the sanction imposed by the United Nations Security Council, calling the sanctions “worthless papers.” He furthers his argument by saying that the sanction has “no value,” will hold “no effect on the will of the Iranian nation,” and says that Iran will become more self-reliant because of the sanction placed upon the country.
If these economic sanctions do not deter Iran from further progress on the completion of nuclear weapons, the United States has threatened to deploy troops to Iraq. However, I wonder how many troops are left in the United States to be deployed. If the military is needed in Iran, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, says that there is “more than enough reserve to respond.” At the beginning of the war with Iraq, there were about 130,000 soldiers and marines. At the end of 2003, the number of soldiers lessened to approximately 50,000. However, by March 1, 2006, the number increased to 133,000. Currently in Iraq, there are about 168,000 soldiers. Do we really need to deploy any more soldiers? I honestly don’t think America can handle another war. There are many American protestors against the current war and fighting two wars at once does not seem plausible at the current time.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Assignment Due Friday, October 26
Should the United States attack Iran? Research the topic, state your opinion clearly, and justify your answer. Remember to write a compelling lead and end strong. Use transition techniques to make your middle move. Attribute where appropriate.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Halloween and Satanism
After researching the origin of Halloween and its connection to Christianity, I was surprised to find that some Christians, even a Bishop, believe that Halloween is related to Satanism. Dating back to the first century, Halloween was originally named “Samhain” and celebrated by Celts. On October 31, the Celts believed that spirits could cross the boundary from the world of the dead to the living. The Celtic priests, also known as Druids, erected sacred bonfires to burn crops and make animal sacrifices to the Celtic deities. During this celebration, the Celts wore costumes, usually consisting of animal skins and heads. Around A.D. 43, when the Romans conquered Celtic territory, two Roman celebrations were combined with Samhain. The two celebrations included Feralia, which honored the dead, and the second honoring the Roman goddess of fruit and trees, Pomona. In the seventh century, the Celtic lands were influenced by the beliefs of Christianity. All-hallows Eve was the new name given to October 31st, introduced by Pope Boniface IV. He also named November 1st as All Saint’s Day, which honored saints and martyrs. Later, the church designated November 2nd as “All Souls Day,” which honored the dead. All-hallows Eve was celebrated very much like Samhain, with bonfires and costumes. The celebrations combined were later known as Hallowmas.
As mentioned earlier, since the origin of Halloween involves Christian celebrations, why do some Christians believe that Halloween is considered Satanic? For example, Bishop Kyrill claims that any participation by members of the Orthodox Church in Halloween is a “genuine betrayal of our God and our holy Faith.” Why? Apparently, because those who acknowledge Halloween are spiritually indifferent, which are the “spiritual roots of atheism and the turning away from God.” He continues, saying that since atheists do not believe in God, they see Halloween as being harmless, ignoring its “obvious pagan and idolatrous origin…and demonic practices.” As an atheist, I personally do not understand why Kyrill is comparing atheists with Satanism and “demonic practices.”
Another group that considers Halloween to be Satanic includes that of the Bible Baptist Church. One member wrote an article for a pamphlet that the church prints, entitled “Should Christians Observe Halloween?” After reading his article, I concluded that the answer to the title would be a definite ‘no.’ This pamphlet, written by James Melton, asks questions to get his point across and backs up these questions with random verses from the Bible. For example, one point that is apparent throughout the pamphlet includes his incredulousness about why a “God-fearing Christian” would want to “dress-up their child like something that God hates… like an evil spirit?” He also says that while many think that Halloween is about having fun, in reality “it represents paganism, Satanism, human sacrifice, torture, rape, murder, idolatry, witchcraft, and spiritualism!” As an ending, Melton encourages skipping Halloween altogether, if you are a “‘true’ follower of Jesus Christ.”
If the above religious fanatics hate Halloween so much, then they need to keep their opinions to themselves. Children need to be able to have fun; they should not be concerned about Satanism or that imminent death is upon them because of axe-murderers.
As mentioned earlier, since the origin of Halloween involves Christian celebrations, why do some Christians believe that Halloween is considered Satanic? For example, Bishop Kyrill claims that any participation by members of the Orthodox Church in Halloween is a “genuine betrayal of our God and our holy Faith.” Why? Apparently, because those who acknowledge Halloween are spiritually indifferent, which are the “spiritual roots of atheism and the turning away from God.” He continues, saying that since atheists do not believe in God, they see Halloween as being harmless, ignoring its “obvious pagan and idolatrous origin…and demonic practices.” As an atheist, I personally do not understand why Kyrill is comparing atheists with Satanism and “demonic practices.”
Another group that considers Halloween to be Satanic includes that of the Bible Baptist Church. One member wrote an article for a pamphlet that the church prints, entitled “Should Christians Observe Halloween?” After reading his article, I concluded that the answer to the title would be a definite ‘no.’ This pamphlet, written by James Melton, asks questions to get his point across and backs up these questions with random verses from the Bible. For example, one point that is apparent throughout the pamphlet includes his incredulousness about why a “God-fearing Christian” would want to “dress-up their child like something that God hates… like an evil spirit?” He also says that while many think that Halloween is about having fun, in reality “it represents paganism, Satanism, human sacrifice, torture, rape, murder, idolatry, witchcraft, and spiritualism!” As an ending, Melton encourages skipping Halloween altogether, if you are a “‘true’ follower of Jesus Christ.”
If the above religious fanatics hate Halloween so much, then they need to keep their opinions to themselves. Children need to be able to have fun; they should not be concerned about Satanism or that imminent death is upon them because of axe-murderers.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Dark Forces and Pink Power Rangers
Halloween may have originated from European religious traditions, but to most Americans it is nothing more than an autumn celebration. A late night on the town, full of costumes and candy brings happiness to children and teenagers alike. October 31st is a day set aside each year for trick or treating and apple bobbing, not for Satan and the resurrection of evil spirits.
These evil spirits do not overtake the innocence of young children, even if the day evolved from “All Hallows Eve.” By dressing up in costumes resembling Satan or that of the “dark” side, children have no intentions of being satanic. It is the one day of the year where they can become whatever they wish to become. By dressing as a devil, a vampire, or a ghost, kids only aim to frighten friends and family.
As children grow into their teenage years, they seem to reach the rebellious stage of their life. Their costumes only reflect their raging hormones and emotions. Often times, teenage girls will dress exotic and sexy, but much of this is only done for attention. In my opinion, these costumes are just a way of turning heads, in a room full of teenage boys.
Mark Hoban, a freshman at Piedmont says, “The majority of the people that participate in Halloween are only looking to have a good time. The small percentages of those who don’t feel this way have no bearing on the overall image of the holiday.” Halloween has become more and more commercialized every year, making the holiday what it is today: a harmless night of fun.
Centuries ago, Halloween may have had a malicious and satanic connotation, but over time, it has become just another commercial holiday. For instance, the origins of Christmas came from St. Nicholas’s generosities to those less fortunate families. Today, children look at Christmas as a way of receiving a special toy they have longed for throughout the year. This is primarily due in part to the business world, where every store looks at it as an opportunity to turn a major profit. Easter marked the resurrection of Christ, but due to this commercialization, children believe Easter is about Peter Cottontail and baskets full of candy eggs. Commercialization has transformed the original meaning of Halloween and other holidays, altering the perspectives of society.
Of course there is a small minority of Americans who feel the spirits overtake them on this cool October night; however, when the candy is counted, and the make-up is removed, people return to their ordinary lives. Most of the American culture believes it is just a day of expression, and as a result, very seldom do we see extreme acts of evil, resembling works of the devil.
These evil spirits do not overtake the innocence of young children, even if the day evolved from “All Hallows Eve.” By dressing up in costumes resembling Satan or that of the “dark” side, children have no intentions of being satanic. It is the one day of the year where they can become whatever they wish to become. By dressing as a devil, a vampire, or a ghost, kids only aim to frighten friends and family.
As children grow into their teenage years, they seem to reach the rebellious stage of their life. Their costumes only reflect their raging hormones and emotions. Often times, teenage girls will dress exotic and sexy, but much of this is only done for attention. In my opinion, these costumes are just a way of turning heads, in a room full of teenage boys.
Mark Hoban, a freshman at Piedmont says, “The majority of the people that participate in Halloween are only looking to have a good time. The small percentages of those who don’t feel this way have no bearing on the overall image of the holiday.” Halloween has become more and more commercialized every year, making the holiday what it is today: a harmless night of fun.
Centuries ago, Halloween may have had a malicious and satanic connotation, but over time, it has become just another commercial holiday. For instance, the origins of Christmas came from St. Nicholas’s generosities to those less fortunate families. Today, children look at Christmas as a way of receiving a special toy they have longed for throughout the year. This is primarily due in part to the business world, where every store looks at it as an opportunity to turn a major profit. Easter marked the resurrection of Christ, but due to this commercialization, children believe Easter is about Peter Cottontail and baskets full of candy eggs. Commercialization has transformed the original meaning of Halloween and other holidays, altering the perspectives of society.
Of course there is a small minority of Americans who feel the spirits overtake them on this cool October night; however, when the candy is counted, and the make-up is removed, people return to their ordinary lives. Most of the American culture believes it is just a day of expression, and as a result, very seldom do we see extreme acts of evil, resembling works of the devil.
Halloween, Halloween
Halloween, the holiday that falls on the last day in October, is a day of fun for adults and children alike.
"My family always encouraged trick-or-treating," said Nathan Dean, a freshman at Piedmont College. "Halloween was the only day that we were allowed to get so much candy at one time."
Dean, along with thousands of others throughout the country, dress up in costumes every Halloween and go door to door asking for candy. Also, costume parties, hay rides, and fake haunted houses are created to celebrate the holiday.
"Costumes make up over half of the fun," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman.
There are those who do not celebrate the holiday. According to Kerby Anderson, a founder of a Christian website, Halloween is a holiday that should not be celebrated. He believes that celebrating Halloween glorifies and promotes witchcraft and divination.
April Myers, a mother of two, does not allow her children to celebrate Halloween by trick-or-treating. "It isn't as safe as it use to be," said Myers. "It's never okay to take candy from a stranger."
Halloween originated as a Celtic practice. The Celts believed that on the last day of their year, which would now be the last day in October, ghosts of the dead returned to Earth. They believed the ghosts damaged their crops and caused damage throughout their lands. They also believed that the presence of ghosts helped druids, or Celtic priests, predict the future.
To celebrate, the Celts built bonfires and sacrificed animals. They wore costumes to the celebration, many of which were created from animal bones and skins. The Celts also tried to tell each other's fortunes.
In today's time, Halloween is not about sacrificing animals. This religious practice developed by the Celts is now only a tradition.
I believe it is perfectly fine for anyone to celebrate Halloween. When children dress up like witches, ghouls, and goblins, their intentions are not to praise Satan. They simply want to have innocent fun in a spooky environment.
And as for the candy, if you are worried about your children getting poisoned, then take the time sort through each piece individually to check for anything suspicious.
"My family always encouraged trick-or-treating," said Nathan Dean, a freshman at Piedmont College. "Halloween was the only day that we were allowed to get so much candy at one time."
Dean, along with thousands of others throughout the country, dress up in costumes every Halloween and go door to door asking for candy. Also, costume parties, hay rides, and fake haunted houses are created to celebrate the holiday.
"Costumes make up over half of the fun," said Anthony Saputo, a Piedmont College freshman.
There are those who do not celebrate the holiday. According to Kerby Anderson, a founder of a Christian website, Halloween is a holiday that should not be celebrated. He believes that celebrating Halloween glorifies and promotes witchcraft and divination.
April Myers, a mother of two, does not allow her children to celebrate Halloween by trick-or-treating. "It isn't as safe as it use to be," said Myers. "It's never okay to take candy from a stranger."
Halloween originated as a Celtic practice. The Celts believed that on the last day of their year, which would now be the last day in October, ghosts of the dead returned to Earth. They believed the ghosts damaged their crops and caused damage throughout their lands. They also believed that the presence of ghosts helped druids, or Celtic priests, predict the future.
To celebrate, the Celts built bonfires and sacrificed animals. They wore costumes to the celebration, many of which were created from animal bones and skins. The Celts also tried to tell each other's fortunes.
In today's time, Halloween is not about sacrificing animals. This religious practice developed by the Celts is now only a tradition.
I believe it is perfectly fine for anyone to celebrate Halloween. When children dress up like witches, ghouls, and goblins, their intentions are not to praise Satan. They simply want to have innocent fun in a spooky environment.
And as for the candy, if you are worried about your children getting poisoned, then take the time sort through each piece individually to check for anything suspicious.
Halloween: A day of fun!
Halloween has always been one of my favorite holidays. Not only do I get the chance to dress up in a costume and escape reality for a day, but I get all the free candy I want.
However, there is controversy surrounding this holiday. Those who disagree with Halloween tend to lean towards the notion that celebrating this holiday is satanic. I’m sure most who believe this also think the “Harry Potter” books are demonic.
I truly believe most parents don’t like Halloween, but not because they consider it satanic. They dislike it because their kids return on sugar highs from the candy, which can often last for days on end.
It is noticeable that the costumes have become more sexual than they were ten years ago. But what affect does this have on little children walking door to door. Those who are wearing the scantily clad costumes are more often than not older and at parties. These costumes have taken away from the innocence that Halloween represents.
Halloween is a chance for children to let their imaginations run wild. They can either buy a costume of their favorite superhero, or a ghostly ghoul, or even make their own. This allows kids to express themselves. Kids by nature are innocent. They don’t look at Halloween as a chance to celebrate the devil. They look at it as a day to have fun with friends and get free candy along the way.
Halloween is also known for producing one of the most used rhetorical questions of all time: Trick or Treat? If the question is taken literal then the children would egg and roll houses that didn’t give them candy. Needless to say, it is the innocence that allows the adults giving out candy not to fret if their house is going to get egged.
Although Halloween has seen some changes in the past few years, especially in the clothing department, it is still just a holiday for kids to dress up and have a good time.
However, there is controversy surrounding this holiday. Those who disagree with Halloween tend to lean towards the notion that celebrating this holiday is satanic. I’m sure most who believe this also think the “Harry Potter” books are demonic.
I truly believe most parents don’t like Halloween, but not because they consider it satanic. They dislike it because their kids return on sugar highs from the candy, which can often last for days on end.
It is noticeable that the costumes have become more sexual than they were ten years ago. But what affect does this have on little children walking door to door. Those who are wearing the scantily clad costumes are more often than not older and at parties. These costumes have taken away from the innocence that Halloween represents.
Halloween is a chance for children to let their imaginations run wild. They can either buy a costume of their favorite superhero, or a ghostly ghoul, or even make their own. This allows kids to express themselves. Kids by nature are innocent. They don’t look at Halloween as a chance to celebrate the devil. They look at it as a day to have fun with friends and get free candy along the way.
Halloween is also known for producing one of the most used rhetorical questions of all time: Trick or Treat? If the question is taken literal then the children would egg and roll houses that didn’t give them candy. Needless to say, it is the innocence that allows the adults giving out candy not to fret if their house is going to get egged.
Although Halloween has seen some changes in the past few years, especially in the clothing department, it is still just a holiday for kids to dress up and have a good time.
Innocent fun, not evil
What is all the speculation of Halloween about? Halloween is supposed to be a day children get the opportunity to dress up in fictional characters and indulge themselves in enormous amounts of candy. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, on October 31st, Halloween is celebrated in the United States, Canada, and the British Isles by children going door to door while wearing costumes and begging for treats and playing pranks. I do not understand why issues such as religion have to be connected to this celebration. Children all over the world see this as a fun day where they can get loads of free candy. The children are the future of our world and as long as they see Halloween as something fun and rewarding, then why must we fill their heads with views that it is satanic to celebrate. I grew up loving to celebrate Halloween purely for the enjoyment of taking my sister, who was little at the time, door to door trick-or-treating and watching her little face brighten up with joy as she saw all those suckers and tootsie rolls poured into her little pumpkin. The innocence of this annual celebration is being destroyed as people bring satanic views into something that doesn’t deserve scrutiny. For me, a college student, I have lost the interest of Halloween because of the constant comparison of Satan and Halloween. In the United States Halloween has become the sixth most profitable holiday (after Christmas, Mother's Day, Valentines Day, Easter, and Father's Day). What this tells me is, Halloween is a success day and people enjoy celebrating it every year. So quit making excuses as to why we shouldn’t celebrate it and why it is so dangerous. Over the past decade, I have dressed up as a wizard, ghost, Batman, Freddy Krueger and recently have mocked “V” from the movie, V for Vendetta. Should I consider myself a satanic symbol? No. It is the innocence of the children we are destroying when we use reasons of Religion and Satan to disbar the celebration of Halloween. If a child does not know that Halloween’s origin is known as a night of power, when the veil that separates our world from the Otherworld is at its thinnest, as told by Stephen Wagner of Paranormal Phenomena; then why must we destroy their minds with the nonsense that can do nothing but destroy their innocence? |
Halloween
No trick. No treat. No thanks.
“We just didn’t celebrate Halloween,” says Piedmont sophomore, Becca Scruggs. “My family didn’t agree with the origins of the holiday. They considered it satanic.”
Rev. Ralph Fiorelli, pastor of the Bergenfield Assembly of God Church, is opposed to children trick-or-treating because of safety considerations and because it glorifies Satan.
"It's a day that's set aside for things of darkness...things that are supernatural. In reality, it has nothing to do with God," says Fiorelli.
The idea of Halloween being satanic is not surprising.
The tradition of Halloween dates back to the Irish Celts, who believed the day was when the worlds of the living and the dead became one.
Much has changed since those ancient times. Halloween has become a holiday of trick-or-treating, costume parties, and visits to hayrides and haunted houses.
Pop culture has even turned Halloween into a sexual event as girls’ costumes are becoming less modest and more revealing.
“Halloween is a holiday for college girls to dress promiscuous,” says Adam Perillo, an employee of
Looking back at what Halloween use to mean, I must confess it is different now.
The holiday use to be about who got the best candy and who had the coolest costume. Now it is about how scared or slutty we can make ourselves.
“Halloween is the one night a year when girls can dress like a total slut and no other girls can say anything about it,” says the character Cady in the movie Mean Girls.
When it comes down to it, people have different beliefs and that’s fine. Halloween has unfortunately gone through certain changes, but I still look at it as a time where once a year, a kid can dress up and pretend for a night to be someone ore something else and get free candy. I mean after all, it was always about the candy.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Halloween: Due Wednesday, October 3
How do you feel about Halloween? What changes have you observed over the years in how the holiday is celebrated? How do you feel about those changes? Is Halloween all about children in silly and spooky costumes eating lots of candy, or is there a deeper meaning? Is it all innocent fun or is there a darker side? Remember to justify your opinions with research.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Election '08...right now in '07
If the 2008 presidential election were held today, I would vote for John Edwards. Edwards believes in making what he calls “moral, upstanding decisions.”
However, these morals are not based on a drive to push certain religious views. Whiled Edwards did grow up in a deeply religious home to parents “of the cloth,” he has never once pushed an agenda stating that his personal deity told him to do so (i.e. invade a country). Edwards just does what he believes will protect the rights of everyone and does what is best as a whole.
One of the more important campaign issues for Edwards is his fight for middle class Americans. I come from a middle-class family, so this issues hits home. According to Edwards’ campaign website, “middle class families are struggling. Wages have fallen in recent years even as the economy has grown. At the same time, the costs of necessities like health care, child care, and education have grown. President Bush's tax policies have increased the share of the tax burden borne by middle-class workers. Our economic policies must reward work, help families save for the future, and fight the rising costs of middle-class life.”
Edwards’ plan is for a universal healthcare system. Under this system, everyone is guaranteed some form of medical attention if needed. Families without insurance will get coverage at an affordable price. Families with insurance will pay less and get more security and choices. Businesses and other employers will find it cheaper and easier to insure their workers. After a friend of mine was seriously injured in an accident over the summer, I realized just how important it was for
The final large issue for me that Edwards addresses is
I could have written about “hot button” issues, such as abortion (it is a woman’s choice according to Edwards), gay rights (he supports civil-unions and the right to shared insurance, healthcare, etc), and immigration laws (Edwards is all about equal rights for everyone, but only after work is done to gain citizen status), but I felt those have already been vastly covered in the media and by other people. Don’t get me wrong, these issues are very important (some more than others to me) and they are the core of the decision-making process, but I felt that other issues should be addressed as well – issues that other people may consider insignificant next to “the big three.”
Abortion, Gay Marriage, & War in Iraq
After comparing the positions of all seventeen declared presidential candidates on the issues of abortion, gay marriage, and the current war in Iraq, I will proudly vote for Barack Obama in November of 2008. When comparing the candidates on the issue of abortion, I was shocked and horrified when I learned of the political views of both Chris Dodd and Sam Brownback. Both candidates want to strip women of their choice to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Brownback, a pro-life fanatic, supports the idea that abortion should be illegal even for those women who are rape victims. Dodd, another candidate who also wants to smother the rights of women, takes the position that the courts should make the decision whether or not a woman can get an abortion, solely based on her physical health. I was relieved to discover Barack Obama’s pro-choice view on abortion and the fact that he supports stem-cell research.
The second issue that is important to me when considering a candidate for presidency is gay marriage. I support gay marriage due to the fact that many of my friends are either bisexual or gay. It was no surprise that Brownback stands completely against gay marriage and is in favor of an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Ducan Hunter shares the same view as Brownback. Obama, on the other hand, supports civil unions and does not support the gay marriage ban amendment.
The last concern researched was the current war in Iraq and what the candidates’ views are on our troops returning home. Yet again, Brownback’s ideas conflict with my own. He believes that Iraq will become a terrorist state once more if our troops leave Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, views the war as a careless decision and wants to completely withdraw the troops by March 31, 2008. From all the positions reviewed, Obama is the best choice for the presidential election. However, if Brownback is elected by uninformed voters, I am moving to Canada.
The second issue that is important to me when considering a candidate for presidency is gay marriage. I support gay marriage due to the fact that many of my friends are either bisexual or gay. It was no surprise that Brownback stands completely against gay marriage and is in favor of an amendment banning same-sex marriage. Ducan Hunter shares the same view as Brownback. Obama, on the other hand, supports civil unions and does not support the gay marriage ban amendment.
The last concern researched was the current war in Iraq and what the candidates’ views are on our troops returning home. Yet again, Brownback’s ideas conflict with my own. He believes that Iraq will become a terrorist state once more if our troops leave Iraq. Obama, on the other hand, views the war as a careless decision and wants to completely withdraw the troops by March 31, 2008. From all the positions reviewed, Obama is the best choice for the presidential election. However, if Brownback is elected by uninformed voters, I am moving to Canada.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Breaking Ground with Barack
With the 2008 election approaching and several politicians declaring their bid for the presidency, it is apparent that 2008 is an election year unlike any other. For the first time in our nation’s history, the Democratic Party has a woman and an African American seeking a presidential nomination. Being a Democrat, I support many views of Hilary Clinton. However, when it comes to issues dealing with the environment, healthcare, and the War in Iraq, I feel the political views of Barack Obama will be most beneficial to our nation. If the 2008 presidential election were held tomorrow, I would vote for Democrat Barack Obama.
To Barack Obama, "America the Beautiful" is much more than a song title. Keeping America beautiful will rank extremely high on Obama’s political agenda if he is elected president. According to Obama’s official website, he feels we have an obligation “to leave this earth in a better condition than we found it.” To achieve this goal, Obama plans to implicate new environmental laws and policies that will result in healthier communities and a cleaner environment. In an effort to limit pollution, global warming, and our nation’s craving for oil, Obama seeks to unite automobile manufacturers and politicians from both parties to encourage the use of alternative fuels and hybrid energy powered vehicles.
In addition to preserving the environment, Obama also aims to promote healthcare across the nation. America has the best medical technology in the world, yet millions of Americans do not have the resources to access it. Therefore, Obama has placed great emphasis on making healthcare coverage affordable for all Americans. Barackobama.com states that there are 36.5 million poor Americans, and too many of these poor Americans are single mothers struggling to raise their children. The Obama plan will not only require that all children have healthcare coverage, but it will also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, which will create rules and standards for private insurance companies, ensuring reasonable rates. The plan will also force employers to attribute a portion of pay roll to pay for national healthcare costs, but most importantly, every American will be eligible, and no one will be turned away.
Obama’s ideas will clearly preserve the environment and healthcare, but most importantly his ideas will promote freedom. Above all other items on his agenda, Barack Obama has called to bring home our troops, and end the war in the Middle East. As Illinois State Senator in 2005, Obama called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops, a time frame for a phased withdrawal, and improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq. In 2007, Obama proposed a plan for the removal of all American troops by Mar. 31st, 2008, with the exception of those remaining overseas to serve as “basic force protection.” These troops would counter-terrorism efforts and continue to train Iraqi security forces. Obama expressed his frustration on his website revealing that, “[He is] not opposed to all wars, [he is] opposed to dumb wars….Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Quaeda , through effective coordinated intelligence…”
Overall, Barack Obama’s ideas to promote a healthier American standard of living reflect his Ivy-League education and eight years as Illinois State Senator. He is more than qualified to assume the position as Head of State. If Obama’s policies were to turn into action America would again be beautiful, our nation would again prosper, and his insightful leadership would ensure life, liberty, and justice for years to come. His views of the environment, healthcare, and the War in Iraq will result in my vote come election day.
To Barack Obama, "America the Beautiful" is much more than a song title. Keeping America beautiful will rank extremely high on Obama’s political agenda if he is elected president. According to Obama’s official website, he feels we have an obligation “to leave this earth in a better condition than we found it.” To achieve this goal, Obama plans to implicate new environmental laws and policies that will result in healthier communities and a cleaner environment. In an effort to limit pollution, global warming, and our nation’s craving for oil, Obama seeks to unite automobile manufacturers and politicians from both parties to encourage the use of alternative fuels and hybrid energy powered vehicles.
In addition to preserving the environment, Obama also aims to promote healthcare across the nation. America has the best medical technology in the world, yet millions of Americans do not have the resources to access it. Therefore, Obama has placed great emphasis on making healthcare coverage affordable for all Americans. Barackobama.com states that there are 36.5 million poor Americans, and too many of these poor Americans are single mothers struggling to raise their children. The Obama plan will not only require that all children have healthcare coverage, but it will also create a National Health Insurance Exchange, which will create rules and standards for private insurance companies, ensuring reasonable rates. The plan will also force employers to attribute a portion of pay roll to pay for national healthcare costs, but most importantly, every American will be eligible, and no one will be turned away.
Obama’s ideas will clearly preserve the environment and healthcare, but most importantly his ideas will promote freedom. Above all other items on his agenda, Barack Obama has called to bring home our troops, and end the war in the Middle East. As Illinois State Senator in 2005, Obama called for a reduction in the number of U.S. troops, a time frame for a phased withdrawal, and improved reconstruction efforts to restore basic services in Iraq. In 2007, Obama proposed a plan for the removal of all American troops by Mar. 31st, 2008, with the exception of those remaining overseas to serve as “basic force protection.” These troops would counter-terrorism efforts and continue to train Iraqi security forces. Obama expressed his frustration on his website revealing that, “[He is] not opposed to all wars, [he is] opposed to dumb wars….Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Quaeda , through effective coordinated intelligence…”
Overall, Barack Obama’s ideas to promote a healthier American standard of living reflect his Ivy-League education and eight years as Illinois State Senator. He is more than qualified to assume the position as Head of State. If Obama’s policies were to turn into action America would again be beautiful, our nation would again prosper, and his insightful leadership would ensure life, liberty, and justice for years to come. His views of the environment, healthcare, and the War in Iraq will result in my vote come election day.
The race for '08
As the 2008 Presidential Election continues to inch closer, the one candidate that sticks out as the most capable and sincere to me, is Barack Obama.
Obama, a frontrunner in the Democratic Party, was an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2005. Since 2005 he has been a member of the U.S. Senate representing Illinois. He is just the third African-American to be elected to the U.S. Senate.
If Obama is elected, he will become the first African-American President of the United States. This would make history. This could also help to erase the still invisible lines that cause conflict between some whites and blacks in America. Although Obama is black, he comes from a mixed background. His mother is white and from Kansas and his father is black and from Kenya. “I feel that there is a piece of me in everybody,” Obama said. His varied background is a useful tool on the campaign trail. He appeals to many different people from many different places.
However, his appealing and likeable vibe can also be a problem. “He’s an incredibly magnetic and also photogenic person, and so he lands on the covers of a lot of magazines. And that had its utility at one point, but it can get overdone,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s top strategist. His team fears that he may receive too much publicity and they don’t want him to become overused before the election.
According to Obama’s website (www.barackobama.com), his main issues are to end the war in Iraq, change the healthcare system, fight poverty, and fight for a cleaner environment.
What made me give him my vote is his priority to not change. “I’m in this to win. I want to win, and I think we will win. But I’m also going to emerge intact. I’m going to be Barack Obama and not some parody,” he said. It is astonishing to hear a politician make it his goal not change or be someone he’s not. I believe he would be a great President and a much needed change for America and Washington. I just hope he doesn’t lack the dirtiness that is sometimes needed to land in the White House.
Obama, a frontrunner in the Democratic Party, was an Illinois State Senator from 1997-2005. Since 2005 he has been a member of the U.S. Senate representing Illinois. He is just the third African-American to be elected to the U.S. Senate.
If Obama is elected, he will become the first African-American President of the United States. This would make history. This could also help to erase the still invisible lines that cause conflict between some whites and blacks in America. Although Obama is black, he comes from a mixed background. His mother is white and from Kansas and his father is black and from Kenya. “I feel that there is a piece of me in everybody,” Obama said. His varied background is a useful tool on the campaign trail. He appeals to many different people from many different places.
However, his appealing and likeable vibe can also be a problem. “He’s an incredibly magnetic and also photogenic person, and so he lands on the covers of a lot of magazines. And that had its utility at one point, but it can get overdone,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s top strategist. His team fears that he may receive too much publicity and they don’t want him to become overused before the election.
According to Obama’s website (www.barackobama.com), his main issues are to end the war in Iraq, change the healthcare system, fight poverty, and fight for a cleaner environment.
What made me give him my vote is his priority to not change. “I’m in this to win. I want to win, and I think we will win. But I’m also going to emerge intact. I’m going to be Barack Obama and not some parody,” he said. It is astonishing to hear a politician make it his goal not change or be someone he’s not. I believe he would be a great President and a much needed change for America and Washington. I just hope he doesn’t lack the dirtiness that is sometimes needed to land in the White House.
The First Man
The 2008 United States Presidential Election is close to a year away and the question arises, who would I vote for if today was voting day? I am a man that loves to be a part of history. In the next 50 years, I want to know that I witnessed history that no one ever thought conceivably possible. Hillary Rodham Clinton would get my vote. When her husband, Bill Clinton, was in the White House as President, I was a huge fan of the family despite the affair allegations. If elected President, Hillary Clinton would be the first female President in the History of the United States. Not to mention, Bill Clinton’s title would be First Man. Yet again, it would be another history in the making. I’m not sure as to the most important political issues, besides the unimpressive war in the Middle East. I know I should be. I’m American and I should care about my future as well as my families but I get so lost and can never keep up with arguments. I’ve had the privilege to see Hillary Clinton in person and see her speak when Bill Clinton was in office. She spoke a lot about health care issues and social security. Providing affordable health care to all Americans is one of Hillary’s goals as President. This is most appealing goal to me because the cost of health care is an issue for some of my family members. It saddens me to see some of my closest friends and family be rejected to certain health care providers because they can’t afford it, or they have too low of an income. Family is the most important thing to me and I believe Hillary firmly cares about Americans and their well-being. Health care can be hard to afford as I have witness. I grew up influenced by my parents and their views on politics. I was raised liking Bill Clinton, but my parents always thought Hillary would have made a better President. Now that she is running, I believe she could have an even shot to win. According to Alex Massie of the London Telegraph, Hillary is at the top of the poles. He says that pole after pole proves that she is already winning. |
Edwards '08
John Edwards, a democratic candidate in the running for Commander in Chief in the 2008 election, is the best choice for president.
Edwards says that poverty, a problem spanning across the globe, is “the great moral issue of our time.” He firmly believes that ending poverty in the United States should be one of America’s top goals, and if people can take responsibility, this goal can be achieved by the year 2036. In order to achieve this goal, Edwards believes that America should enhance their working society. He says that everyone who is able to work should work, and if they do, they will be rewarded. His ideas for rewards include raising minimum wage, creating a million short-term jobs to help those in poverty climb the social ladder, increase workplace safety, and strengthen labor laws.
The issue of illegal immigration is also of high concern to Americans. Edwards says that the activity going on around the Mexican border is unacceptable. He believes that more manpower and technology around the border could crack down on the rate of illegal immigrants who cross over to the United States. Controversially, Edwards says that hardworking illegal immigrants should be allowed to earn their citizenship. However, he believes that they should be required to pay a fine and learn to speak English.
The most pressing issue in the 2008 election is the War in Iraq. Edwards says that there is no possible way that military can control the chaos in Iraq. He believes it is a political issue in which the Iraqi people should take responsibility for their country. He believes that by leaving Iraq, we will force Iraqis and the international community to politically establish a stable government in Iraq. He feels that we need to show Iraq how serious we are about leaving by having an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 – 50,000 American troops. He believes that the government should withdrawal all combat troops within the next year, and that we should train the security forces in Iraq to withhold stability.
Edwards has also developed ideas to improve education, increase health care, reform taxes, and help the genocide situation in Africa. He is clearly an advocate for change, and has taken many steps to prove that these changes could be possible if he were elected to office.
President 2k8
Who will you vote for?
This question is common among Americans as the 2008 United States presidential election is to be taking place in little more than a year. When asked the question myself, I didn’t have much of an answer. It took some research, but I’ve answered the question.
To the United States, the president is the leader. The president is the Head of State, Head of Government, and Commander-In-Chief. He has the power to sign a bill into law or veto bills passed by both houses of Congress. When the country is put into position of conflict the country looks to the president for answers.
Barack Obama is applying for this post.
Barack Obama, 36, is former junior senator of Illinois and is one of the leading Democratic candidates for 2008 presidential elections. He is attracting a lot of attention for his political positions and ideas and to a lot of people seems to be the man who has all the answers.
“I’d vote for Barack Obama to get us out of Iraq and debt,” says Adam Perillo, a student at Piedmont College.
The issues this election are familiar – abortion, gay marriage and global warming. The 2008 election brings new issues for the candidates. From the United States being stuck in the middle of a controversial war with Iraq, to the nation-wide problem with health care, Barrack Obama believes he has the solutions to these problems.
Obama feels abortion should be legal. He also says there is nothing wrong with gay marriage, but feels it should be up to individual states to determine whether it is should be legal.
Obama is for fighting global warming and finding alternative sources of energy. He is also for the use of Nuclear energy. At a hearing statement at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, he stated that the use of nuclear power is reasonable and realistic to have and should remain on the table for consideration.
Obama spoke about his position for universal health care and how he believed that it is wrong to have million of Americans uninsured. Obama thinks it is important to leave the war in Iraq, but also to leave responsibly. He was an opponent of President Bush’s policies of the Iraq war and if elected to presidency, would phase out the deployment of U.S troops from Iraq.
Barack Obama will be running to be the 44th president of United States and if elected, will become the first black U.S president.
I will be voting for Barack Obama in 2008 because I think he can make the necessary changes in America for us to move into the future.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Who Would You Vote For?
Due Wednesday, September 19, 2007
If the 2008 presidential election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for? You can choose from anyone who has officially declared his or her candidacy. You must name one choice and defend it with logical reasoning and factual information.
If the 2008 presidential election were held tomorrow, who would you vote for? You can choose from anyone who has officially declared his or her candidacy. You must name one choice and defend it with logical reasoning and factual information.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Neilsen "Restraunt"
Recently, students have been in an uproar about Chartwells, the new food service to
As for the hours – Chartwells is a business. They are run like one. Aramark should have been run like a business, but it was not. Or rather, it was not run like a legit, functioning business. While the hours are a bit strict and the staff on the dramatic side of “enforcement,” Charwells still is a business and run like one.
They need time to prepare food and keep areas clean. This is understandable. While I do think that three hours to clean and cook is a bit unnecessary when regular restaurants are kept open for hours at a time without closing, regular restaurants have a full rotating staff instead of a small staff Chartwells is forced to hire due to Piedmont’s attempt to turn a profit from something that should not be a business.
Bringing up that subject –
I know that managing a college is a business, – that is a whole different topic of discussion I will not go into as of now – but borderline intentionally making your students miss food opportunities or forcing them to adapt to unreasonable requests is underhanded.
Students should take a step back and realize the precarious predicament that
Piedmont Cafateria: Better Food, Worse Service
Returning Piedmont students’ frustration continues over the college’s new cafeteria service hours. As of fall 2007, Chartwells is Piedmont’s new food service, replacing Aramark. With the new service, comes new complaints. Students find the hours of the cafeteria diminished compared to the previous year and are demanding to know why. Being a student of Piedmont for three years, I have felt the pros and cons of the new cafeteria and am also wondering why things are different.
It’s not only the students who are noticing the change.
“It’s healthier food, worst service,” says Dr. Stephanie Almagno to her English class. Dr. Almagno says she feels that students are going to need to rattle some cages and get parents involved if changes are to occur. “We need to address the problems and tackle them with solutions.”
“Students think the problem is simple,” says senior Jennifer Osborne, “in that Piedmont is trying to fit the role of a university school with having hours and specific times on its cafeteria when students can not eat.”
Many students feel that it is Chartwells is to blame in all the controversy. Raised anger was put towards the cafeteria on August 30 when Jamie Ballew, director of food services at Piedmont, agreed to meet with students. One thing was clear however at the end of the meeting, nothing was going to be changed on the hours of the cafeteria. It’s the administration that makes the rules. Chartwells supplies Washington College, a small liberal arts school in Maryland, and its hours differ from Piedmont’s. It is open 7 a.m. to 8:30 p.m; six days a week.
With all this being said, the only thing to do is to come to some form of solution now. It’s going to be a long year if they wait any longer to solve the problem.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
"Eat, Learn, Live"
Beginning in the fall of 2007, Piedmont College switched food services from Aramark to Chartwells. Chartwells, which follows a creed of “Eat, Learn, Live,” is a division of the Compass Group North American Division. The Compass Group company is based in the UK and has organizations in the United States, Latin America, and Canada. It is a $19.5 billion food service company and in 2006, Fortune magazine named the company as the 12th largest provider in the world.
The motto that Chartwells follows, “Eat, Learn, Live,” focuses on a well-balanced diet that allows students the ability to learn and live a full life. The previous listed creed of “Eat, Learn, Live,” is, according to Chartwells, based on the idea that the “students rule.” Ironically, this creed is not being followed through at Piedmont College. Many students disagree with the operation hours currently being held by the cafeteria and some have even voiced their opinion. However, Chartwells continues to ignore the students’ requests, along with Piedmont College. On Piedmont’s website, there is even a posting saying that the dining hall hours may be “changed as needed to accommodate the needs of the College.”
At Piedmont College, a student ID is required at every meal to gain entrance to the cafeteria. Because of this policy, if any student forgets their ID, then he or she will be denied access. However, the reason for this policy is that if a student forgets their ID and a cafeteria worker signs them in anyway, the computer will not charge the student for the meal.
Compared with other colleges, such as Agnes Scott, the hours that Chartwells keeps is limited. At Agnes Scott, there are approximately 1,000 students and their service provider is “Evans.” Agnes Scott’s cafeteria is open from 7:30 am to Midnight every day. Since college students are very busy running from class to class, it is difficult to catch a few minutes to go to the cafeteria, especially if the cafeteria is closed. The limited hours need to be addressed and improved by Piedmont.
The motto that Chartwells follows, “Eat, Learn, Live,” focuses on a well-balanced diet that allows students the ability to learn and live a full life. The previous listed creed of “Eat, Learn, Live,” is, according to Chartwells, based on the idea that the “students rule.” Ironically, this creed is not being followed through at Piedmont College. Many students disagree with the operation hours currently being held by the cafeteria and some have even voiced their opinion. However, Chartwells continues to ignore the students’ requests, along with Piedmont College. On Piedmont’s website, there is even a posting saying that the dining hall hours may be “changed as needed to accommodate the needs of the College.”
At Piedmont College, a student ID is required at every meal to gain entrance to the cafeteria. Because of this policy, if any student forgets their ID, then he or she will be denied access. However, the reason for this policy is that if a student forgets their ID and a cafeteria worker signs them in anyway, the computer will not charge the student for the meal.
Compared with other colleges, such as Agnes Scott, the hours that Chartwells keeps is limited. At Agnes Scott, there are approximately 1,000 students and their service provider is “Evans.” Agnes Scott’s cafeteria is open from 7:30 am to Midnight every day. Since college students are very busy running from class to class, it is difficult to catch a few minutes to go to the cafeteria, especially if the cafeteria is closed. The limited hours need to be addressed and improved by Piedmont.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)