"Peer Response"

In reading Kat Saltarelli's blog post on two opposing articles, I found it very interesting how she used Mifflin block party to catch the audiences attention. She talks about how she attended Mifflin block party and that when she was there she didn't see anyone who didn't have a drink in their hands. Kat then goes into summarizing the two articles. One article is pro keeping the drinking age at 21 and one is not. In the article about keeping the drinking age at 21 the author argues that the drinking age should stay at 21 because the drinking related deaths while driving a motor vehicle have decreased in the age category of 16-20 since raising the drinking age to 21. The other article argues that the drinking age should be lowered because kids don't learn how to drink responsibility at a young enough age. It also says that it leads to binge drinking which is very dangerous. The article also talks about how having the drinking age at 21 gives a "forbidden fruit" effect amongst kids. The article says that when it is illegal for kids to drink they often times do so because it is illegal and they want to rebel. Kat talks about how many college students were underage at Mifflin and that having alcohol be illegal is not going to stop kids from drinking. Kat agrees with lowering the drinking age and mentions in her blog post that she wishes that the article arguing to lower the drinking age would have made some other arguments as well. These are that if you can die for your country then you should be able to drink. Also, that when you are 18 you are legal to do anything except for drink and that that isn't fair. I agree with Kat that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 or 19 years old. In this article about why the drinking age should be lowered a professor at the University of Indiana makes some good points about why the drinking age should be lowered.

"Peer Response"

In one of Matt Thurber's blog posts he discusses how his mom used to bake cakes and have them around his house to eat as he pleased. He talks about how he likes home-made cakes, made from scratch, much better than he does cakes made from pre-made batter. He says that it seems like a delicacy for him to now eat a cake made from scratch. He also talks about how cakes can be made in all shapes and sizes depending on the pan that they are baked in. He mentions that layer cakes are a fancier type of cake often times made and eaten on special occasions. He says that his favorite cake is carrot cake and goes into detail explaining how his mom makes it. Matt has two internet links in this blog he wrote as well. The first link is a link on how to make carrot cake. In this link it tells you the ingredients you need to bake the cake as well as the steps to make the cake. Some of these steps include: preheating the oven to 350 degrees F, blending the ingredients, and beating the ingredients until they are slightly thickened. After completing all the steps you poor the batter into a pan and bake the cake for 35 to 40 minutes. His second link is about different types of pans you can bake cakes in. It talks about the advantages and disadvantages of different pans. Some of these advantages are the shape of the cake and the time it take to bake the cake. I agree with Matt that carrot cake is good however, I prefer angel food cake.

"Real" food vs. "Fake" food

I have always been a big fan of eating peaches. As a kid my mom would cut up a real peach and give it to me as a snack. A real peach has a similar shape to an apple. The only difference is that it has a tanish-redish color peel and that the peel is fuzzy. (obviously the inside is much different as well) All throughout high school my mom would buy peaches and leave them out on the counter for me to take and eat as I please. However, when i got to college I started to eat canned peaches as an alternative. This is because of the convenience factor. Canned peaches were also cheaper. Real peaches taste much better and they are also much healthier for you. I never would have thought that the health affects would be different from canned to real peaches until I read Michael Pollans book: IN DEFENSE OF FOODS. Canned peaches are not in their natural form. They not only don't taste as good but they are also processed. Manufactures add sugar to the peaches to try to make them taste better. This sugar changes the characteristics of the peaches and makes them much more unhealthy for you than they are in their real form. I am going to return to eating peaches in their natural form. Not only do they taste better, but they are also healthier for you. In this edition of The Douglas Report it talks about how certain fruits are healthy for you in their natural form, but are unhealthy in processed forms or in juices. It is important for people to be informed about this so they can make healthy choices for themselves.

Prepare a Meal

Saturday night I informed teammates of mine that I was going to prepare a meal for them. I told them i was going to go to the store and buy pizza ingredients, prepare a pizza, and cook it for them in my pizza oven in my dorm room. I told them that I would serve it to them around seven-thirty. At about five-thirty I walked over to Lucky, where I park my car, and drove it to Coops. Coops is a grocery store about seven minutes away from campus. When I got to Coops I found pizza crust, pizza sauce, shredded cheese, and sliced pepperoni. After gathering the ingredients I went to the front of the store and purchased them. I then proceed to drive back to campus, park my car, and then walk up to my dorm room. When I got back to my dorm room I started to prepare the pizza. I took the crust out of the wrapper and spread and adequate amount of sauce on it. After doing this I sprinkled a layer of shredded cheese on the pizza. When I was finished making the pizza I put the pizza in my pizza oven and cooked the pizza for 15 minutes at 425 degrees. When the pizza was done I called the three members of my team who live in Cellery and told them to come up to my room and eat. The pizza tasted great. It felt more rewarding eating it because I had to go through some hassle to prepare it. The overall experience felt more rewarding than if I had just ordered a pizza. I agree with Michael Pollan in the fact that American's don't enjoy eating as much as they should. Also, that they eat fast food and don't cook for themselves. I found preparing a meal and sharing it with friends to be a much more enjoyable eating experience. The article attached to this article talks about how many Americans don't know how to cook and that it is an important skill. I agree with this.

Comparison of two online articles

I read two opposing online articles on the legalization of Marijuana. The first article that I read supported the fact that Marijuana should become legal. The article argues the fact that the government does not have the right to tell Americans what they can and cannot do. They argue that Marijuana is less dangerous than other legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco and should therefore be legal. The article also argues that the government would have more money to spend on more important issues other than Marijuana by making Marijuana legal. The article also talks about how prohibition doesn't work and might actually make people use Marijuana at higher rates.

The second article supported keeping Marijuana illegal. The article argues that it is a socially addictive drug and has a high potential for abuse. The article also says that marijuana is a gateway drug and should therefore be left illegal. It also argues that smoking marijuana makes you lazy and unproductive. The article also argues that it causes anxiety and that it impairs short term memory, making it hard for users to accomplish simple and complex tasks. It also argues that it should be left illegal because it is associated with cancer.

I believe the second article is more convincing because it has much more legitimate arguments. More harm seems like it would come to people and society by not keeping marijuana illegal. My opinion has not changed by reading these two articles. I have always believed that marijuana should be left illegal. This is because I have seen it first hand destroy peoples lives.

"Peer Response"

Reading Jared's blog post on Michael Pollan's "In Defense of foods" was very interesting. He has taken some very good information away from reading the first few chapters. He gets into summarizing how Pollan thinks that the Western diet is very unhealthy for Americans. He talks about how Americans have gotten away from eating foods that their cultures traditionally ate and into the fact that stores are now stocked with foods with artificial nutrients in them. He talks about how it is much harder for Americans to get access to healthy foods. This is where he gets into talking about white bread vs. wheat bread. He talks about how these foods lead to Americans developing food related illnesses, such as heart disease, on a much more frequent basis that in past generations. This is where he has a link to an article that discusses white vs. wheat bread. In this article it says that if a person were to simply swap white bread for wheat bread it would cut their risk for heart disease by 20%. The article gives good tips on how to cut white bread out of your diet in replace of wheat. One method the article gave of doing this is to use bread that has half wheat and half white bread in it and then eventually switch entirely over to wheat bread once you become more accustomed to the taste. The article also talks about why white bread is unhealthier for you. The reason is that when you process the grain to make the white bread you take out the bran and the germ which contain 80% of fiber, nutrients, and antioxidants. Jared said he agreed with Michael Pollan's opinion on food. I would have to agree with Jared on his view of Michael Pollans opinions on food.

"Analysis of a celebrity endorsement"

Tiger Woods has endorsed Nike golf products since shortly after he turned professional in 1996. He endorses Nike clubs, apparel, balls, and shoes. Tiger Woods is the world's number one ranked golfer and for that he is payed top dollar by Nike. He initially signed a 40 million dollar deal with Nike, which was only the down payment he received. Nike has payed the professional golfer an additional 20 million dollars a year after that since he has been with them. Many people speculate is Tiger Woods worth 20 million dollars a year? The golf Sector of Nike is one of Nikes largest sectors. It is worth 650 million dollars even during the recession America has seen over the last few years. This is because of Tiger Woods. Nike golf would be nothing without Tiger. Other companies have been around much longer than Nike has and many of the world's best professional, college, and amatuer golfers had built trust in other companies before Nike had been introduced. The fact that the world's best golfer had enough trust in Nike golf equipment to play it in competition gave Nike golf a legitimate name. Without Tiger signing with Nike, Nike golf would not be where it is today. Tiger has made golf cool for young kids and when they see him playing with Nike clubs, those are the clubs that they want to play with. Tiger has done some very cool, eye catching commercials with Nike as well. Seeing Tiger in the commercial makes people viewing the commercial think that Nike golf is cool. The endorsement has been successful for both parties. Tiger gets paid a large amount of money and Nike gets the number one golfer to play their equipment. Tiger has just renewed his contract with Nike for 100 million dollars in exchange for five more years with the company. I don't see Nike dropping Tiger anytime soon

In Defense of Food Response

In the book Defense of Foods Michael Pollan has many interesting arguments. He believes that Nutrition experts are not correct. He believes that Nutritionists don't know enough and can't properly tell the American population what is actually healthy. He also argues that processed foods are bad for you. (For example processing wheat and making white bread) He says that people should be more concerned about how much they eat and not with what they eat. Humans used to traditionally eat whatever their culture and ancestors ate. He says in his book that humans used to eat a variety of different diets and thrive on many diets. He says that humans can and used to be able to thrive on basically every diet except the Western diet. He believes that eating for bodily health is a bad idea. He suggests that people should eat for enjoyment and in a social setting. He says "that our nation has an unhealthy obsession with eating healthy."

I agree with Michael Pollans point he makes about how processed foods are bad for you. I don't like the fact that manufacturers take the healthy aspect of foods out of the food to make them taste better. I believe that the government needs to disallow companies to make super unhealthy, unprocessed foods. I also support his claim that nutritionists don't know enough about foods to tell people what they should and should not eat. Science is always evolving and changing and what was once healthy today may not be down the road. Take for example William Prout. He thought he had food completely figured out when he discovered Macronutrients. He didn't. It is simply to hard to know if what Nutritionists are telling you is completely true and accurate. I absolutely agree with the fact that America has a problem with being obsessed with eating healthy as well.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/06/processed-foods-arent-real-food.html