Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Introduction to Democrats VS Republicans
My first major writing assignment was a compare and contrast titled "Democrats VS Republicans". When I submitted it as a final draft during our second week of class it didn't meet the requirements for an effective piece of writing. Since then I've had several opportunities to revise it and now it's a worthy representation of an effective piece. This paper gives the reader another perspective of politics in America.
Introduction to Seminar 1 Three Cups of Tea
I chose this as the best representation of analytical writing. The task was to take several important quotes from the book "Three Cups of Tea" and write about their importance in understanding the story. By underlining these quotes and coming back to them it allowed me to take some time to brainstorm and really get a better understanding of their message. The following was an excerpt from this assignment, "by describing the lack of oxygen at those elevations it helps the reader understand another element that many people aren’t familiar with" (Keller 1). By picking the text apart the reader gets a much better understanding of the story, this is something we worked on as a class. This has made a huge difference in the way I approach a book, I've been able to get a much better understanding of things that I read.
Seminar 1 Three Cups of Tea
“His images startle, but Rowell always felt they failed compared to the experience of simply standing there, dwarfed by the spectacle of what he considered the most beautiful place on earth, a place he dubbed the throne room of the mountain gods”(Mortenson 18). In this passage Rowell was referring to the images he had taken of Baltoro. This statement gives the reader a very strong sense of how awesome the scenery was and how nothing, not even his glamorous pictures, could compare to actually witnessing it first hand. It makes you want to travel to Pakistan and see it for yourself.
“Mouzafer was a Balti, the mountain people who populated the least hospitable high-altitude valleys in northern Pakistan”. “With their diminutive size, toughness, and supreme ability to thrive at altitudes where few humans choose even to visit, they have physically reminded many mountaineers climbing in Baltistan of their distant cousins to the east, the Sherpa of Nepal”(Mortenson 21). These statements were very important in describing the Balti people. They were small but strong and well adapted to this harsh environment. I believe it gives the reader an added sense of respect for these people and seemed to be a source of pride for the Balti.
“Fosco Maraini, a member of the 1958 Italian expedition that managed the first ascent of Gasherbrum IV, a rugged neighbor of K2, was so appalled and fascinated by the Balti, that his erudite book about the expedition, Karakoram: The Ascent of Gasherbrum IV, reads more like a scholarly treatise on the Balti way of life than a memoir of mountaineering triumph”(Mortenson 21). This show’s how meeting the people of Balti was such an important part of his adventure. Maraini seemed to be so amazed with them that he lost cite of the importance of their triumph over the Gasherbrum, a mountain that had never been climbed before.
“The autumn air down at eleven thousand feet had a weight and luxury he’d forgotten” (Mortenson 23). I chose this sentence because I thought it helped describe the harsh circumstances that Mortenson faced while he was at a higher elevation. It made me think about the difficulties of just breathing at such altitudes and how much of a relief it was to descend to a friendlier climate. Just the lack of sleep and food alone would make things hard, after traveling across such a rugged landscape, but by describing the lack of oxygen at those elevations it helps the reader understand another element that many people aren’t familiar with.
“Mouzafer was a Balti, the mountain people who populated the least hospitable high-altitude valleys in northern Pakistan”. “With their diminutive size, toughness, and supreme ability to thrive at altitudes where few humans choose even to visit, they have physically reminded many mountaineers climbing in Baltistan of their distant cousins to the east, the Sherpa of Nepal”(Mortenson 21). These statements were very important in describing the Balti people. They were small but strong and well adapted to this harsh environment. I believe it gives the reader an added sense of respect for these people and seemed to be a source of pride for the Balti.
“Fosco Maraini, a member of the 1958 Italian expedition that managed the first ascent of Gasherbrum IV, a rugged neighbor of K2, was so appalled and fascinated by the Balti, that his erudite book about the expedition, Karakoram: The Ascent of Gasherbrum IV, reads more like a scholarly treatise on the Balti way of life than a memoir of mountaineering triumph”(Mortenson 21). This show’s how meeting the people of Balti was such an important part of his adventure. Maraini seemed to be so amazed with them that he lost cite of the importance of their triumph over the Gasherbrum, a mountain that had never been climbed before.
“The autumn air down at eleven thousand feet had a weight and luxury he’d forgotten” (Mortenson 23). I chose this sentence because I thought it helped describe the harsh circumstances that Mortenson faced while he was at a higher elevation. It made me think about the difficulties of just breathing at such altitudes and how much of a relief it was to descend to a friendlier climate. Just the lack of sleep and food alone would make things hard, after traveling across such a rugged landscape, but by describing the lack of oxygen at those elevations it helps the reader understand another element that many people aren’t familiar with.
Democrats VS Republicans
The United States was a country built on the idea of Democracy a system of government that recognizes “equality and freedom” for all. The two political parties that stemmed from these beliefs are the Democratic and Republican. They’re both a product of democracy, in which all men are created equal. These political parties share the same goal to decide who gets what, when and how. They both govern the United States in terms of welfare, national defense, taxation, and legislation. They both are forms of governing by the “people or by elected representatives of the people” (Allen 123). However the Democratic Party does a better job of representing the majority in terms of taxation and social issues and the Republican Parties strong stance on national defense have kept Americans safe.
Historically the Democratic Party has leaned in favor of taxation and many people are opposed to that, but without it the wealthy minority would take an even larger percentage of this nation’s income. Taxation, bureaucracy and large government don’t sound so good but the idea behind them is to create jobs and provide for a more even distribution of wealth. Taxes fund schools, support welfare programs, help to build roads, and public facilities. Many of the people that are opposed to taxes benefit the most from them.
Republican Tax cuts only benefit the wealthy minority by minimizing surtaxes on incomes that are far above average. These wealthy minorities earn their money off the backs of working class Americans. Republicans believe that fewer taxes are better to stimulate economic growth, but the only growth we see is the growing pockets of the wealthy few and the growing gap between working class incomes and corporate dictators.
On the other hand putting too much faith in diplomatic approaches to resolve conflict, the Democrats have failed their country in terms of national defense. Diplomacy has its advantages, but we all know actions speak louder than words. President Woodrow Wilson’s failure to act during the early stages of World War I resulted in the deaths of almost 1,200 innocent civilians, when the German U-boat U-20 attacked the British passenger vessel Lusitania.
However the Democratic Party is more liberal in its views of social restrictions and favor control over enterprise, commerce, and taxation. Democrats are pro choice in terms of abortion, and lean towards equal rights. The Republican Party believes in little government control, lower taxes to stimulate economic activity, and less control over commerce with more over social issues. They generally represent religious groups, are pro-life, and recognize the unity of marriage in a traditional fashion and are opposed to same sex marriage. Although both the Democratic and Republican parties stand for valuable ideas the Democratic Party better represents the majority.
Social freedoms are important to Democrats. Typically they are pro choice with regards to abortion. They believe in separation of church and state and equal rights for homosexuals. Homosexuality is genetic with one abnormal chromosome. Why is it ok for us to discriminate against sexual orientation? Why do Republicans insist that marriage is a union between men and women?
Both political parties have their faults and make mistakes, but the Democratic Party does a better job of rewarding hard work creating jobs and sharing the success of this nation. By cutting taxes for the wealthy and restricting social freedoms the Republican Party has been unfair to blue collar Americans that represent the majority. The party has failed to recognize social freedoms and equality.
Historically the Democratic Party has leaned in favor of taxation and many people are opposed to that, but without it the wealthy minority would take an even larger percentage of this nation’s income. Taxation, bureaucracy and large government don’t sound so good but the idea behind them is to create jobs and provide for a more even distribution of wealth. Taxes fund schools, support welfare programs, help to build roads, and public facilities. Many of the people that are opposed to taxes benefit the most from them.
Republican Tax cuts only benefit the wealthy minority by minimizing surtaxes on incomes that are far above average. These wealthy minorities earn their money off the backs of working class Americans. Republicans believe that fewer taxes are better to stimulate economic growth, but the only growth we see is the growing pockets of the wealthy few and the growing gap between working class incomes and corporate dictators.
On the other hand putting too much faith in diplomatic approaches to resolve conflict, the Democrats have failed their country in terms of national defense. Diplomacy has its advantages, but we all know actions speak louder than words. President Woodrow Wilson’s failure to act during the early stages of World War I resulted in the deaths of almost 1,200 innocent civilians, when the German U-boat U-20 attacked the British passenger vessel Lusitania.
However the Democratic Party is more liberal in its views of social restrictions and favor control over enterprise, commerce, and taxation. Democrats are pro choice in terms of abortion, and lean towards equal rights. The Republican Party believes in little government control, lower taxes to stimulate economic activity, and less control over commerce with more over social issues. They generally represent religious groups, are pro-life, and recognize the unity of marriage in a traditional fashion and are opposed to same sex marriage. Although both the Democratic and Republican parties stand for valuable ideas the Democratic Party better represents the majority.
Social freedoms are important to Democrats. Typically they are pro choice with regards to abortion. They believe in separation of church and state and equal rights for homosexuals. Homosexuality is genetic with one abnormal chromosome. Why is it ok for us to discriminate against sexual orientation? Why do Republicans insist that marriage is a union between men and women?
Both political parties have their faults and make mistakes, but the Democratic Party does a better job of rewarding hard work creating jobs and sharing the success of this nation. By cutting taxes for the wealthy and restricting social freedoms the Republican Party has been unfair to blue collar Americans that represent the majority. The party has failed to recognize social freedoms and equality.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Introduction to High Fructose Corn Syrup and Obesity
This research paper, titled "High Fructose Corn Syrup and Obesity" was our last major writing assignment. I chose this for several reasons, first of all I enjoyed the freedom we had in choosing our topic. We also had more time which allowed me to do a fair amount of research and several revisions. There was a lot of good articles that both supported my opinion and provided an opposing view. We are more conscious of our diets today then we have ever been, but we are also exposed to more artificial processed foods than ever. This has had an enormous impact on our health and we're hitting record highs for obesity. The biggest improvement I made was in the research process, I was able to find some good evidence to support my theory. "According to various sources high fructose corn syrup has been used in America since the 1970’s which has a direct correlation with obesity issues in the US" (Keller 2). I've been reading ingredient labels for a long time and high fructose corn syrup is used frequently and this was my motivation for writing this piece.
High Fructose Corn Syrup and Obesity
Soda Kills
It’s a well known fact that obesity is a killer, but what’s the root cause of obesity in America? With all the processed, enriched, and fortified foods we eat today this isn’t an easy question and it may not be one that we’ll soon find an answer for. However, there is a strong correlation between the obesity epidemic in America and the use of High Fructose Corn syrup, which is the key ingredient in Soda pop and many other products. Dr. George A. Bray an obesity researcher and professor of medicine at Louisiana State University, says, “Nothing else in the food supply does this, it’s a very striking relationship”.
What is high fructose corn syrup? High fructose corn syrup or HFCS was designed in a laboratory by scientists and is a chemically altered version of corn syrup that is extracted from any variety of corn. According to an article posted in the Los Angeles Times, HFCS was created by Japanese scientists in the 1960’s. They used enzymes to convert cornstarch into a liquid that was high in fructose, a “sweet sugar found in fruit and honey” (Allen 202). The chemical make-up of HFCS is similar to sucrose, or table sugar, in that it contains nearly the same amount of both fructose and glucose. However sucrose is a more natural product it’s extracted from sugar cane rather than made in a laboratory. Thousands and thousands of products contain HFCS. Many people think of it as a sweetener used in drinks, which is a very common place to find HFCS, but in reality it’s used as a sweetener in most processed foods in America and it’s becoming more common throughout the world. It can be found in condiments, pastries, desserts, and any other processed foods.
There are many Americans that deny the fact that HFCS is having an effect on obesity; many of them employed by the corn industry. A PR Newswire article states, “HFCS account for about one-half of sweetener use in the United States but only eight percent worldwide, yet obesity rates are climbing in countries that use little or no high fructose corn syrup. Sugar remains the predominant global sweetener” (PR Newswire 1). Some say that cane sugar is just as bad for us, which may be true, but the low price tag on HFCS is what’s causing us to over consume. The abundance of subsidized corn that we produce in America allows us to manufacture the syrup at a fraction of what we traditionally paid for cane sugar that was primarily imported from Mexico and South America. These extra calories have a direct impact on our weight. High fructose corn syrup is so inexpensive to produce that we’ve seen an explosion of cheap drinks. Thus fast food chains and bottling companies are able to provide “super sized” drinks at rock bottom prices. The serving sizes exploded from twelve to sixty-four ounces. Grocery stores often sell generic sodas for less than what they sell their bottled water for. The dollar store sells two liter bottles for only ninety-nine cents. None of this was true before the mid 1970’s when HFCS was perfected, creating syrup that was “55 percent fructose and 100 percent as sweet as sugar” (King 1). Traditional sugar was too expensive.
According to various sources HFCS has been used in America since the 1970’s which has a direct correlation with obesity issues in the US. This doesn’t necessarily mean that high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause; there have been many changes to the way our foods are processed. There are hundreds of new additives to foods including dyes like yellow 6 and preservatives like “benzoates (such as sodium benzoate) and nitrites (such as sodium nitrite)” (Brain 1). Not to mention all the oils and different forms of fat that we find in just about everything we eat. But we do consume a lot of this new form of sugar, about “62 pounds per person” annually, yep, we get about “200 calories a day” on average from it (Helm 1). That’s a good reason to point the finger at HFCS.
Some believe that the way HFCS is metabolized makes it contribute to obesity. Its high levels of fructose are harder to digest than other sugars, due to the fact that fructose is primarily “metabolized in the liver” and “the fructose propels the liver into a fat-promoting mode by activating the formation of enzymes that lead to elevated levels of bad cholesterol and triglycerides” (King F1). Our bodies are not used to processing sugar in this form, it’s not natural.
Another factor is the affect fructose has on appetite control. “Eating fructose results not only in lower insulin levels but also lower leptin levels” these hormones are both involved in “appetite control” (King F1). This is another example of how HFCS is causing us to over-consume, were eating this stuff and not getting full. The message to stop eating isn’t being delivered to our brain as efficiently as other natural sugars.
There are many factors that play a role in obesity, but there’s no question that the consumption of high fructose corn syrup in America is one of them. HFCS is so common in nearly everything we eat today, from beverages to breakfast cereals it can be found in almost any food product. Cheaper than cane sugars it’s made serving sizes explode and with those larger servings come more calories. We should eat everything in moderation; unfortunately that’s not what’s happening with HFCS and that’s why America is the fattest country in the world.
It’s a well known fact that obesity is a killer, but what’s the root cause of obesity in America? With all the processed, enriched, and fortified foods we eat today this isn’t an easy question and it may not be one that we’ll soon find an answer for. However, there is a strong correlation between the obesity epidemic in America and the use of High Fructose Corn syrup, which is the key ingredient in Soda pop and many other products. Dr. George A. Bray an obesity researcher and professor of medicine at Louisiana State University, says, “Nothing else in the food supply does this, it’s a very striking relationship”.
What is high fructose corn syrup? High fructose corn syrup or HFCS was designed in a laboratory by scientists and is a chemically altered version of corn syrup that is extracted from any variety of corn. According to an article posted in the Los Angeles Times, HFCS was created by Japanese scientists in the 1960’s. They used enzymes to convert cornstarch into a liquid that was high in fructose, a “sweet sugar found in fruit and honey” (Allen 202). The chemical make-up of HFCS is similar to sucrose, or table sugar, in that it contains nearly the same amount of both fructose and glucose. However sucrose is a more natural product it’s extracted from sugar cane rather than made in a laboratory. Thousands and thousands of products contain HFCS. Many people think of it as a sweetener used in drinks, which is a very common place to find HFCS, but in reality it’s used as a sweetener in most processed foods in America and it’s becoming more common throughout the world. It can be found in condiments, pastries, desserts, and any other processed foods.
There are many Americans that deny the fact that HFCS is having an effect on obesity; many of them employed by the corn industry. A PR Newswire article states, “HFCS account for about one-half of sweetener use in the United States but only eight percent worldwide, yet obesity rates are climbing in countries that use little or no high fructose corn syrup. Sugar remains the predominant global sweetener” (PR Newswire 1). Some say that cane sugar is just as bad for us, which may be true, but the low price tag on HFCS is what’s causing us to over consume. The abundance of subsidized corn that we produce in America allows us to manufacture the syrup at a fraction of what we traditionally paid for cane sugar that was primarily imported from Mexico and South America. These extra calories have a direct impact on our weight. High fructose corn syrup is so inexpensive to produce that we’ve seen an explosion of cheap drinks. Thus fast food chains and bottling companies are able to provide “super sized” drinks at rock bottom prices. The serving sizes exploded from twelve to sixty-four ounces. Grocery stores often sell generic sodas for less than what they sell their bottled water for. The dollar store sells two liter bottles for only ninety-nine cents. None of this was true before the mid 1970’s when HFCS was perfected, creating syrup that was “55 percent fructose and 100 percent as sweet as sugar” (King 1). Traditional sugar was too expensive.
According to various sources HFCS has been used in America since the 1970’s which has a direct correlation with obesity issues in the US. This doesn’t necessarily mean that high fructose corn syrup is the primary cause; there have been many changes to the way our foods are processed. There are hundreds of new additives to foods including dyes like yellow 6 and preservatives like “benzoates (such as sodium benzoate) and nitrites (such as sodium nitrite)” (Brain 1). Not to mention all the oils and different forms of fat that we find in just about everything we eat. But we do consume a lot of this new form of sugar, about “62 pounds per person” annually, yep, we get about “200 calories a day” on average from it (Helm 1). That’s a good reason to point the finger at HFCS.
Some believe that the way HFCS is metabolized makes it contribute to obesity. Its high levels of fructose are harder to digest than other sugars, due to the fact that fructose is primarily “metabolized in the liver” and “the fructose propels the liver into a fat-promoting mode by activating the formation of enzymes that lead to elevated levels of bad cholesterol and triglycerides” (King F1). Our bodies are not used to processing sugar in this form, it’s not natural.
Another factor is the affect fructose has on appetite control. “Eating fructose results not only in lower insulin levels but also lower leptin levels” these hormones are both involved in “appetite control” (King F1). This is another example of how HFCS is causing us to over-consume, were eating this stuff and not getting full. The message to stop eating isn’t being delivered to our brain as efficiently as other natural sugars.
There are many factors that play a role in obesity, but there’s no question that the consumption of high fructose corn syrup in America is one of them. HFCS is so common in nearly everything we eat today, from beverages to breakfast cereals it can be found in almost any food product. Cheaper than cane sugars it’s made serving sizes explode and with those larger servings come more calories. We should eat everything in moderation; unfortunately that’s not what’s happening with HFCS and that’s why America is the fattest country in the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
