Peer Response

I currently read Mari's blog on two opposing articles about second hand smoke and its relationship to cardiovascular disease. The first article explained how there is really not enough toxins in second hand smoke to cause cardiovascular disease. On the contrary, the second article states how even though second hand smoke is not the worst, it does have bad toxins that can cause diseases such as cardiovascular disease.
I think the articles she found were very interesting. I completely agree with her opinion that the second article was more convincing. Even though there is just a little amount of toxins they can still do damage to the human body. Also I feel that the second article had more research to back up its claim that second hand smoke can affect the human body. I feel that she could have added a little more information from the articles to her argument. More facts and research info could have helped. But altogether both articles focused on a serious issue that should be addressed and I support her claim.

Blog Post: Comparing 2 online articles

I found two articles on the controversial topic on whether the drinking age should be lowered to 18. One article said the drinking age should not be lowered and the other said it should be lowered. The first article totally supported the drinking age being 21. It summarized how making the drinking age be 21 has lowered the alcohol consumption by teens. It also said that the age restrictions being put on alcohol have decreased the number of drunk driving accidents and deaths which are a major issue in the United States. It explains how if the government did lower the drinking age younger kids would be able to get their hands on alcohol at a earlier age compared to being 21. Altogether the drinking age should be kept at 21 to reduce harm to society. In contrast, the second article stated that the drinking age should be lowered. It stated how more teens already drink and it's a social norm. If the drinking age was lowered less kids would rebel and more would follow the law. Because research states when a kid is told he/she cannot do something they usually do it anyways. If kids are allowed to drink at 18, they may not want to drink all the time because they can whenever they would like, thus decreasing the number of drunk-driving deaths/accidents. The article says how more drunk driving accidents are occurring so change needs to take place and the answer should be changing the drinking age to 18.
I think the second article is more convincing. I am a kid and relate to it more. Drinking is a social norm in college and most kids do drink. I know when my parents told me I couldn't drink I always did, so by lowering the age to 18 kids may not rebel as much. The second article also has more interesting facts that make it convincing.
My opinion hasn't changed after reading the two articles. I believe the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I believe that if at 18 you are considered an adult, you should be able to drink. At 18 I can buy cigarettes, join the army, yet I can't drink? ... That doesn't make sense. The drinking age should be lowered!

Peer Response 3

I recently read Jake's blog on Tigerade. He explained in his blog how Tiger Woods use to endorse for Gatorade. He agreed that Tiger was a good endorsement for the product. Tiger Woods has proven to be a dominant athlete at golf. Everybody knows of Tiger Woods and his greatness at golf. He is a great athlete who will represent Gatorade well. He also explains how Gatorade cancelled their endorsement with Tiger and goes on to explain how it was a wrong move. Gatorade/Pepsi should have waited until the Masters to see if Tiger Woods will be back to himself again. I agree completely with Jake on all his points. First, I agree that Tiger is a dominant, successful player that deserves to be an endorser for Gatorade. Secondly, I agree that even though Tiger has gotten into some trouble lately, it shouldn't change the fact that he is a great golfer. I believe that Gatorade should not have cut the deal with Tiger. Everybody makes mistakes, and just because Tiger is a successful man, all his problems are on the news, which is wrong and unfair. There are many great people out their in the world that are not famous, but make stupid mistakes, but do you see their stories publicized?? I believe with Jake that Gatorade should have kept the deal because Tiger is the right man for the job. Also Tiger had a great fourth place finish at the Open, proving to people that he is going to make a great come back. Lastly, Jake makes a link to an article that explains Gatorade dropping their deal with Tiger. The article explains that after Tiger's Masters appearance, they might go back with Tiger. Altogether Tiger is a great athlete and if Gatorade doesn't want him then they are just STUPID!!

Prepare a Meal (blog 4)

Just this week my friend Mike and I prepared dinner for the two of us. There were many stages that went into making this the best cooked meal ever! First we planned what we wanted to eat. We determined what we wanted to eat based on how long the food would take to cook and the price of the food. We both decided on cooking chicken breast with seasoning, tortellini and a salad. After we decided, we walked over to the Fresh Market. We bought a package of chicken breast from the meat department and frozen tortellini. We also bough pre-made salad, because it would have taken too much time to cut up vegetables. Once we got back to the dorms, we went to the front desk to reserve the kitchen and check out cooking supplies. Mike was in charge of boiling the water and cooking the frozen tortellini. I was in charge of seasoning the chicken and cooking it. The process of making everything took about 25 minutes. While we waited for the chicken to get done, we prepared the table and cleaned up our mess. As we were eating, we were both so happy because it was the best food we had eaten in a while. We felt very proud and accomplished of ourselves for taking the time to cook a delicious, healthy meal. Each step helped make the overall experience better!
After reading IN Defense of Food, I agree with the claims Pollan made. I agree that Americans have accepted "a flood of damaging innovation..such as low fat processed food." We look too hard at labels and the nutrients. We eat processed foods because they claim to be healthy for consumers. Americans base what they eat on nutrients, which consumers cannot even taste in the food. Americans need to eat what they enjoy and stop concerning over what nutrients foods contain. The meal that I created did not affect my opinion. I chose it because it was cheap and easy to cook. I found a news article on the New York Times website that supports Pollan's ideas. This article relates greatly because it talks about how often we eat processed foods because they claim to have many nutrients that are good for the human body. It also goes on to state that humans need to stop looking at the labels and start eating fresh whole foods. I completely agree with Pollan and the article!