For the past week I have been pretty set on my "why" question that guides my junior theme being "why do Americans eat so much fast food even though they know the health risks associated with fast food?" I did and still feel that the question is very broad and has a lot of possible areas for me to look into with my research.
Yesterday, while reading The Omnivore's Dilemma, the issue of how cheap the fast food is struck me as another possible topic. Why is fast food as cheap as it is? The book brought up some very interesting issues including government subsidized corn, which is very prevalent in fast food and just about everything these days, and how the cheap corn is good for the consumer but bad for the corn farmers.
The book also explored how even the cows are being raised much faster then ever before. Rich Blair says: "In my grandfathers time, cows were four or five years old at slaughter... Now we get there at fourteen to sixteen months" (52). This remarkable speed can be attributed to the diet of corn, tallow, food supplements, and lots of drugs.
These advancements do have a nasty side. Cows were never meant to eat corn meaning that they are always sick. "Cattle rarely live on feedlot diets for more than 150 days" (59). This is because the cows system couldn't handle eating corn for any longer. The other part of feedlots that disturb me is that the cows have the ground up remains of other cows mixed into their food. This could lead to several diseases in the meat that we eat.
This is what led me to wonder why we as Americans turn a blind eye to some of the darker things happening in feedlots so we can get our food at a cheaper price?
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Why Americans Eat Fast Food
My first thought as to why Americans eat so much fast food is the simple fact that it is cheap, it tastes good, and it is available. According to this website, there are 14,000 McDonalds in the U.S. That comes out to 280 per state! Now I know that there are obviously more McDonalds in some states then others but it still is amazing how much a part of the fabric of our country McDonalds has become.
The second thought is that fast food is addicting. This WebMD page confirms this. Neal Barnard writes that "cheese, meat, chocolate, and sugar are addictive foods in the diets of millions of Americans." This could be one of the major reasons I give in my actual junior theme paper. Just like how Americans drink so much coffee because of the caffeine, Americans eat so much fast food because of the addictive qualities that are largely unknown by the general public.
The final reason that I have come up with as to why Americans eat so much fast food before I start my research is because of the fact that it is "fast." This is a little harder to quantify but my thinking is that there are more people working downtown then ever. Also a lot of those people get paid by the amount of work they get done, the amount they sell, etc. So it would behoove those workers to take shorter lunches. And this is where fast food restaurants come in. Workers can get a fast lunch and go back to business but the problem is then those workers get into a routine of eating fast food and that is the grounds for all the nasty health problems you hear about.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Daylight Savings
Waking up this morning was especially painful since I got one less hour of sleep then I usually get. This of course is due to daylight savings and that made me think why do we have daylight savings?
In doing a little research on the subject I came across this website that says Daylight Savings was an idea that Benjamin Franklin first came up with in 1784 to save money because oil lamps didn't have to be burned for as long a time.
In America we continue the tradition of daylight savings for similar economic reasons. And what surprised me the most was that the majority of Americans liked daylight savings even though they had to wake up an hour earlier then they would otherwise. The reason for this is that with daylight saving Americans are able to do more in the evenings. So I guess daylight savings not only helps save us a little energy but it also keeps us more active.
In America we continue the tradition of daylight savings for similar economic reasons. And what surprised me the most was that the majority of Americans liked daylight savings even though they had to wake up an hour earlier then they would otherwise. The reason for this is that with daylight saving Americans are able to do more in the evenings. So I guess daylight savings not only helps save us a little energy but it also keeps us more active.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Embryonic Stem Cells
I have been talking recently in my biology class about the morality of embryonic stem cell research. This has really opened my eyes to both sides of the argument.
A big anti-embryonic stem cell argument is that stem cells should be thought of in the same way as regular people and that no on has any right to destroy them. This 60 Minutes segments highlights this argument from 4:08 until the end of the video.
In my opinion, the biggest fault in the interviewees argument, the interviewee is a bioethicist named Robert George, is that there are already embryos that are destroyed everyday in fertility clinics. Why then does Robert George have a problem with embryonic stem cell research but not the fact that the embryos are being tossed in the trash?
This is a spring board for the most convincing pro embryonic stem cell research argument that I have heard. The same 60 Minutes segment from 2:15-3:04 highlights Art Caplan who is another bioethicist who is pro embryonic stem cell research. Art Caplan also brings up the fact that on top of embryos being destroyed on a regular basis at fertility clinics, there are people in wheelchairs, people trying to cure cancer, and people trying to understand genetic diseases. These factors coupled with the fact that there are thousands of embryos that will never be used for anything can only point to research.
After hearing these two arguments I have to conclude that the anti-stem cell research argument is hypocritical. I really do not see how an argument against embryonic stem cell research can be made. But this is obviously a very complicated issue that has many factors that I haven't taken into account. Are there any other anti-embryonic stem cell research arguments that can counter the fact that embryos are going to be thrown out anyway?
A big anti-embryonic stem cell argument is that stem cells should be thought of in the same way as regular people and that no on has any right to destroy them. This 60 Minutes segments highlights this argument from 4:08 until the end of the video.
In my opinion, the biggest fault in the interviewees argument, the interviewee is a bioethicist named Robert George, is that there are already embryos that are destroyed everyday in fertility clinics. Why then does Robert George have a problem with embryonic stem cell research but not the fact that the embryos are being tossed in the trash?
This is a spring board for the most convincing pro embryonic stem cell research argument that I have heard. The same 60 Minutes segment from 2:15-3:04 highlights Art Caplan who is another bioethicist who is pro embryonic stem cell research. Art Caplan also brings up the fact that on top of embryos being destroyed on a regular basis at fertility clinics, there are people in wheelchairs, people trying to cure cancer, and people trying to understand genetic diseases. These factors coupled with the fact that there are thousands of embryos that will never be used for anything can only point to research.
After hearing these two arguments I have to conclude that the anti-stem cell research argument is hypocritical. I really do not see how an argument against embryonic stem cell research can be made. But this is obviously a very complicated issue that has many factors that I haven't taken into account. Are there any other anti-embryonic stem cell research arguments that can counter the fact that embryos are going to be thrown out anyway?
Friday, March 2, 2012
TV Tokenism
Burn Notice
I agree with the thesis. The main character Michael is a white male who receives the majority of the screen time. Vaughn appeared first in season 4 and receives very little screen time. He dressed very nicely and is in a position of power over Michael. Vaughn is not very complex and doesn't have a back story like the other characters. Also Vaughn is usually the one standing in Michael's way making Michael's life more complicated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)