SWA #16

Works Cited

Macedo, Diane. "Judges Ruling Sparks National Debate Over Cheerleading: Sport or No Sport?" Fox News. FOX News Network, 22 July 2010. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/22/judges-ruling-sparks-national-debate-chearleading-sport-sport/>.

The article first outlines the court decision by Stefan Underhill that cheerleading is "not a sport." Calling it too undeveloped. Summarizes title IX. Gives the opinions of cheerleading advocates. Ultimately comes to the conclusion that cheerleaders are going to keep cheering anyway, and schools will just miss out in their successes. Colleges will still push for cheerleading to be a sport.

Ninemire, Valerie. "Is Cheerleading Really A Sport?" About.com. About.com. Web. 29 Feb. 2012. <http://cheerleading.about.com/od/skillsandabilities/a/031002a.htm>.

This article addresses both the definition of a sport from a dictionary, and from the women's sports foundation's views. The article then defines cheerleading. And then states that until cheerleading is changed fundamentally it will continue to not be a sport in the future.

SWA #15

The three issues I chose to research were Cheerleading as a Sport, Bad food tax, and factory farming. I was able to find a lot of sources on factory farming because it's such a big issue, and I was able to find some information on the bad food tax, but it was very hard to find great articles about the cheerleading as a sport controversy, I found more interest pieces then anything peer reviewed and professional. I'm still leaning towards cheerleading as a sport but if I don't start finding more concrete sources I may have to change.

SWA #13

1. Cheerleading as a sport
  a. Whether or not it should be considered a sport.
  b. Whether or not the activities performed by cheerleaders is enough to be classified as a sport.
  c. I think cheerleading should be considered a sport.
  d. I would like to learn more about title IX.

2. Factory Farming
  a. Is factory farming bad.
  b. Whether or not the ends justify the means.
  c. I think the ends do in fact justify the means, however a little more humanity could be used.
  d. I would like to learn more about the support for factory farming.

3. "Bad Food" taxation
  a. Should bad food be taxed
  b. Whether or not it is constitutional to tax bad food.
  c. It should not be taxed
  d. I'd like to look into what the constitution says about these types of matters

SWA #12

In the first paragraph the author relates a story that most people know about in order to make herself more relatable. Then she compliments the efforts of one school in providing healthy food to it's children and the positive effects created, further boosting her credibility. Then she addresses the problem that children are still rather ignorant about what they're eating. Then she addresses her plan to bring food education into schools, outline the benefits. She then gives personal student testimonies that further her cause. Then ends with a quote from Thomas Jefferson.

1. By becoming cultivators of the earth the children are learning one with the country, and intertwined with it's liberties and principles.

2. Waters really just gives examples of her personal experience to relate good food with better school performance. While a little bit more of factual evidence would maybe help a little I think she does well not to bog down her essay with statistics.

3.
http://www2.scnow.com/news/grand-strand/2012/jan/26/parents-look-forward-school-lunch-changes-ar-3123691/

SWA #11

Point C: Human Nature

1. Higher pricing will force the choice (even more so) between healthy and junk foods.

2. Natural Selection

3. People can’t change what they don’t understand. Educate them.

The fact is that if you tax junk food people probably won’t stop buying it. You know what they will do? They’ll make sacrifices so that they can still afford it. Have you ever heard of somebody addicted to drugs stop using drugs because of the price? No, they make sacrifices in other aspects of their lives in order to facilitate their bad habits. I’ll give you a personal example, on my meal plan I’m able to get a sandwich, fruit, and a soft drink. Now I’ll tell you right now if the price on that soft drink went up and I had to choose between the fruit and the soft drink I’d like to say that I’d sacrifice the soft drink and drink water. But unfortunately I wouldn’t, and neither would America, if you make junk food more expensive Americans will just have less money, human nature won’t change, if we want something we will buy it no matter the cost.

            Now I don’t know if you agree with the idea of natural selection, but bear with me for a moment. A smart healthy person will most likely choose to eat healthy, live long and prosper in life. However, an inferior person will probably continue to eat poorly, get fat, and die. Who are we to stop this natural process, the smart survive, the dumb die. Depending on the type of person you are, you may see this as a bit heartless. I agree it’s not the most compassionate approach, but the fact remains it’s true.

            Now you’ll probably now be bringing up the same old argument, “They don’t know any better.” Which I find it hard to believe that anyone (other than perhaps a small child) couldn’t figure out that when they eat Twinkies and pizza for every meal of the day they get fatter then when they eat a chicken Caesar salad. But regardless I’ll bear with you. I agree that it is a necessity for people to know the facts about what they are eating, so if you’re the compassionate type and you want people to be healthy. You teach them. 

SWA #10

I chose to analyzing and respond to Mark Bittman's "Bad Food? Tax It" because the entire time I was thinking about how he was going about the situation all wrong.

We Can Die if We Want Too: Why Taxation Isn’t the Answer.

Thesis: While it is widely agreed that hyper-proccessed and high sugar foods are an unnecessary health risk, it is an infringement on our constitutional rights to tax them.

 Point A: The Health Risks

            1. Obeisity

            2. Diabetes

            3. Heart Disease

Point B: Our Rights

            1. Constitutional Rights

            2. Prohibition

            3. Marijuana

Point C: Human Nature

1. Higher pricing will force the choice (even more so) between healthy and junk foods.

2. Natural Selection

3. People can’t change what they don’t understand. Educate them.

Point D: Change

            1. Programs to educate about healthy alternatives

2. Providing healthier alternative choices to school children, and making a food health class mandatory.

Conclusion:

            You can give a man a vegetable and he’ll eat it for a day, but if you teach him how to grow them he’ll eat them for a lifetime.

            

SWA #9

The Central Claim of the Natural News article is that factory farming is bad. But the methods used to "prove" their point are very childish and stereotypical. The article used scare tactics to say that factory farming causes diseases, and obesity, while not addressing any of the reasons why factory farming is used, or even the benefits of factory farming. Not a very well balanced article.

SWA #8

#1. Scully attempts to show that cruelty to animals is not a political matter at all, but a moral issue.

#3 As opposed to PETA who seem to believe it's the right of animals to be treated well, he believes it's a moral obligation of farmers to treat them with respect.

My new, new ads

SWA #6

           Chevrolet was one of the pioneers in automotive technology beginning with their first main stream model the "Little 'Six'." But Chevy has long surpassed it's days of being a car competing with a horse drawn carriage. Today the Chevy Camaro is an icon in the car world. It's known for it's style, comfort, design, and most importantly its speed. It represents good old american muscle. But the biggest thing the Camaro has going for it is sex appeal.

SWA #5

One of my ads is a poster from 1913, and the other is a very general purpose ad that has been published in many publications and websites.

The reason I chose these ads is because they both represent not the values of the source in which they were printed, but the values of the time period they were released.

Back in 1913 a car was more or less strictly for travel, and you either had to ride in a car or a horse drawn carriage. 

But now a days cars are for more than just transportation they're for style, they're for class, and most importantly they're for sex appeal.

My New Ads