Wednesday, December 8, 2010

I'll sleep when I'm dead...


I was walking down the street,

I saw a pretty little thing approaching me.

She said "I've never seen a man

Who looks so all alone,

Could you use a little company?




Your evening will be nice,

And you can go and send me on my way."

I said "You're such a sweet young thing

Why you do this to yourself?"

She looked at me and this is what she said:



"Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked,

Money don't grow on trees.

I got bills to pay,

I got mouths to feed,

There ain't nothing in this world for free.

I know I can't slow down,

I can't hold back,

Though you know, I wish I could.

No there ain't no rest for the wicked,

Until we close our eyes for good".



Not even fifteen minutes later

I'm still walking down the street,

When I saw a shadow of a man creep out of sight.

And then he sweeps up from behind

And puts a gun up to my head,

He made it clear he wasn't looking for a fight.



He said "Give me all you've got

I want your money not your life,

But if you try to make a move I won't think twice."

I go like "You can have my cash

But first you know I got to ask

What made you want to live this kind of life?"



He said "There ain't no rest for the wicked,

Money don't grow on trees.

I got bills to pay,

I got mouths to feed,

There ain't nothing in this world for free.

I know I can't slow down,

I can't hold back,

Though you know, I wish I could.

No there ain't no rest for the wicked,

Until we close our eyes for good".



Now a couple hours have passed

And I was sitting at my house,

The day was winding down and coming to an end.

So I turned on the TV

And flipped it over to the news,

And what I saw I almost couldn't comprehend.



I saw a preacher man in cuffs he'd taken money from the church,

He stuffed his bank account with righteous dollar bills.

But even still I can't say much

Because I know we're all the same,

oh yes we all seek out to satisfy those thrills



"Oh, there ain't no rest for the wicked,

Money don't grow on trees.

We got bills to pay,

We got mouths to feed,

There ain't nothing in this world for free.

I know we can't slow down,

We can't hold back,

Though you know, we wish we could.

No there ain't no rest for the wicked,

Until we close our eyes for good"

Monday, December 6, 2010

Essay 4: NFL Helmet to Helmet Hits

NFL Helmet to Helmet Hits
            The National Football League, or NFL, has recently been enforcing strict rules regarding helmet to helmet hits; they are now fining and suspending players who commit vicious tackles or helmet to helmet hits (Johnston, Moore, and Thompson).  Although this has been an issue in the past and these rules have been in place for awhile (“Hard Hits in the NFL”), the league has cracked down this season due to three separate players in three different games receiving hard, flagrant blows to the head from opponents on October 17th, during week six of the league’s season (Bell).  Some people and many players are upset about these newly enforced rules and believe that the NFL is trying to take away the toughness and violence necessary for good football.  However, the helmet to helmet rules should be enforced at high levels because of the injury these hits cause, the bad example they set for younger players, and the bad image they give the NFL.
            Helmet to helmet hits are dangerous because of the concussions and sometimes severe head trauma they can cause.  Medical research finds that repeated concussions can cause mild traumatic brain injury which could then have long-term effects (Johnston, Moore, and Thompson).  Although a player can recover from a concussion over time, most players return to the game soon after a hard hit to the head.  Returning to play too quickly is dangerous to the brain, and can cause repeat brain injury and worse symptoms (Johnston, Moore, and Thompson).  Research done on brains of deceased football players by Dr. Ann McKee, an associate professor of neurology and pathology at Boston University, found 13 out of 14 brains to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).  McKee comments, “I can say confidently that this is a distinctive disorder that you don't develop in the general population; in fact, I have never seen this disease in any person who doesn't have the kind of repetitive head trauma that football players would have" (King).  Her research demonstrates the severe effects of head injuries and why it is important to regulate head to head contact in football.  McKee is not the only doctor interested in the helmet to helmet hits; the recent controversy in the NFL was discussed at the brain injury summit held by the Mayo Clinic Sports Medicine Center as well.  Doctors and scientists across the conference approved the league’s enforcement of these rules (Johnston, Moore, and Thompson).  It is true that football is a dangerous game, but it shouldn’t be more dangerous than it has to be; it’s the NFL’s responsibility to do everything in their power to protect their players (Davis).  It is especially important to protect player’s from head trauma, even more so now that more is known about long-term effects. 
Not only doctors and scientists are in agreement with the new rule changes; many NFL personnel, coaches, former players, and football experts are on board as well.  NFL football operations executive Ray Anderson commented on the sports radio show “Mike and Mike in the Morning” that the league is trying to protect everybody in defenseless positions from head and neck injuries (Mortensen).  The league is not trying to take away big hits completely, but instead are focusing on clarifying which big hits are legal and which are not.  Andy Reid, head coach of the Philadelphia Eagles, in response to the new enforcement said, “I completely understand and I'm behind what the league's trying to do. I think for the players' sake down the road, we're kind of in a new territory here, and we're learning as we go with concussions and what happens when these guys are done playing football. You want to make sure that you do look at that. And some things will have to change" (Bell).  As Reid says, it is important to watch out for the players’ safety and be aware of how hits and injuries will affect their future.  On the radio show “On Point with Tom Ashbrook,” host Tom Ashbrook and guests, including many former players, analysts for ESPN, and Dr. Anne McKee, discussed the current controversy.  These guests brought to light multiple important points.  Players today are bigger, stronger, and faster than in the past; linebackers used to be 250 pounds, but today quarterbacks are around that weight and linebackers need to be at least 300 pounds.  With this size player rule changes are needed to keep the game safe.  The guests also agreed that there isn’t much the league can do to prevent hard hits, but it is important for the NFL to control the head to head hits because that’s what causes concussions.  The players are not trying to tackle anymore, but are trying to hit each other in the head, and egregious head shots need to be eliminated from the game.  It was also agreed that the NFL needs to do whatever it can to keep the game and players as safe as they can (“Hard Hits and the NFL”).  It is important to protect the players from the dangers of concussions and head injuries, and the enforcement of the rules regarding helmet to helmet hits is a good step towards safer play.
Another reason this new enforcement is positive is the influence the NFL has on younger players.  The NFL affects all levels of play—from peewee football all the way through college.  Ray Anderson, NFL football operations executive, said that the league is looking to set an example for lower levels by emphasizing safer play because they are the standard-bearer and are committed to safety at the highest level (Mortensen).  A coach at the youth level, Brad Wright, agrees, “the NFL understands that they must set the example for the rest of the football universe in making major decisions which impact the safety of players of all ages” (Sitler).  Guests on “On Point with Tom Ashbrook” agreed that the NFL sets the tone for the rest of football, making it more important to get rid of egregious head shots.  Kids see big hits being glorified on television and want to do the same thing, instead of wrapping up the player to tackle them and learning the fundamentals.  (“Hard Hits and the NFL”).  Youth coach Jim Penley says, “the problem I see is that lots of kids want those ESPN hits, and put themselves in a lot of trouble when their form is incorrect” (Sitler).  The most recent and prime example of the effect on younger players happened October 17th when Rutgers’s defensive tackle Eric LeGrand suffered a severe spinal-cord injury while making a tackle, and is now paralyzed from the neck down (King; Mayo).  This incident also spurred the NFL to take more action against helmet to helmet hits in order to make the game safer for younger players and leagues.
The National Football League should regulate violent helmet to helmet hits because not only do they make football less safe, but they also give the NFL and the game a bad image.  Prior to this season, defensive players deemed as “headhunters” were praised for their viciousness, and it was seen as “macho” to reenter a game after a head injury, despite what had been discovered about head trauma; even though the league was more aware of the dangers, the culture of the NFL hadn’t changed at all (Westmoreland).  This attitude within the league gave the NFL a bad reputation of not doing what they could to protect the players.  With the media culture in the U.S., the majority of football fans and others saw the replays of the three devastating hits from week six, and this brought a lot of negative attention to the NFL (“Hard Hits and the NFL”).  Even people like Mike Pereira, NFL’s Vice President of Officiating from 2004-2009 and also the league’s Director of Officiating five year prior, were upset by the numerous helmet to helmet hits in week six; Pereira writes, “I am really bothered by the number of helmet-to-helmet hits we saw in Week 6 and the subsequent concussions that were caused as a result of those hits. Some of them were legal, and some were unavoidable. But, plain and simple, they are cheap shots, and the league needs to deal with this immediately” (Pereira).  Parents who watch these vicious helmet to helmet tackles might not allow their children to play tackle football, and if this were to happen football would eventually shutdown (“Hard Hits and the NFL”).  Sports writer for “Behind the Grid” Glenn Davis agrees that now that the NFL is getting serious about the dangers of concussions, it’s extremely important for them to be strict and enforce rules on the issue.  Davis writes, “The league has an image to uphold as well.  They’re running the most popular sport in America, and if they’re perceived as not doing all they can to protect those who make them so popular, it’s (understandably) bad PR” (Davis).  The NFL is taking a stand to protect their players, and as Ray Anderson puts it, “these devastating hits and head shots will be met with a very necessary higher standard of accountability” (Mortensen).  Not holding these players accountable has long given the league a bad image, but with the strict enforcement of the rules regarding helmet to helmet hits, this has been changing for the better.
Although the actions of the NFL are positively regarded by many, not all players and fans are in favor.  Those against this movement by the NFL argued that these rules might force defenders to aim lower when tackling, and could cause more knee injuries and career-ending injuries, and making the game even more dangerous.  In response to this, Ray Anderson stated, “the league does want to avoid unintended consequences, but must weigh a player's career against the long-term health effects of concussions” (Mortensen).  While it is true that many other sports are just as dangerous, or even more dangerous, than football, that does not take away the responsibility of the league to protect its players.  The league is not changing rules or trying to change the game; NFL spokesman Greg Aiello clarifies, “The rules already account for devastating hits.  What we’re focused on is stricter enforcement of the existing rules and elevated levels of discipline” (Mortensen).  The league is concerned with their players and officiating in a way that will protect them.
In response to the belief that stricter enforcement at the national level will help protect younger players, those against argued that coaches should be teaching proper technique at all levels, and that will bring the rate of concussions way down (Westmoreland).  People believe that the responsibility lies with the coaches.  Although this may be true, it does not mean the NFL should not enforce rules and penalize players who tackle helmet to helmet.  Coaches do need to teach correct form, but no matter what the NFL still affects all levels of play.  Youth players see these hits praised on stations like ESPN, and in turn want to play that way.  The league is taking the right steps in showing younger players that this is not how the game should be played.  The culture and fans teach kids to hit this way, so it was necessary for the league to send a clear message—through fines and suspensions—in order to change the culture of football (“Hard Hits and the NFL”).  Ray Anderson says, “We will take all the criticism and all the backlash.  We are going to protect our players and hopefully players at the lower levels as well by example” (Mortensen).  While it is true that all levels of football need to be taught fundamentals of how to tackle, it is still important for the NFL to set the standard and stand up against helmet to helmet hits in order to protect all players at all ages. 
Players and fans against this stricter enforcement also argue that the new discipline gives the league a weaker image, which is worse in their opinion.  Most players argue that it’s football, it’s a dangerous sport; veteran linebacker Keith Brooking says, “It’s what makes the game so popular.  People love the battle!  People love the violence!” (King).  Steelers’ safety Ryan Clark agrees, stating, “It’s a sad day for the sport.  The league has made James Harrison a villain for playing exactly the way he played to earn the Defensive Player of the Year award [in 2008]. I think what we're seeing is a knee-jerk reaction to the result of the hits, not a thoughtful reaction to the reality of the hits" (King).  Even the entire Players’ Association was upset about this attempt to make the game safer, and union president Kevin Mawae commented that “the skirts need to be taken off in the NFL offices” (King).  Not only are players in disagreement, but many fans are bothered by this new enforcement.  Many feel that this is weakening a sport that has glorified big hits, and that it takes away from the toughness of the players (Westmoreland).  Guests on “On Point with Tom Ashbrook” took all of this into consideration, but pointed out that fans have a “blood-lust” and it is possible to make the game safer and still have big hits.  It was put very well by one guest that “you can have the boom, just not above the shoulders” (“Hard Hits and the NFL”).  Youth coach and former player Jim Penley believes, “Yeah, it is football, it’s a physical game,” but he also states, “You have to make sure you balance the integrity of the game, while ensuring that people remain safe…those flagrant hits where someone obviously is taking a cheap shot…should be regulated” (Sitler).  It is true that football is a very physical game, but players and fans need to realize that it is possible to have hard hits while protecting the players from head trauma resulting from helmet to helmet hits.  Regarding the criticism coming from the league’s actions, Anderson says, “So be it.  We’ve got to protect our players from themselves, and we’re going to move aggressively to do so” (King).  What it truly comes down to is there are players who believe you cannot officiate violence out of football, and there are NFL executives who believe they have to try (King).  The strict enforcement of the helmet to helmet rules is a good initial step to better protecting the players.
Since week six in the NFL, helmet to helmet hits have raised much controversy.  Although some players and fans see the enforcement and strict discipline on these hits as weak and ill thought out, it is a much needed and important step in the right direction.  The NFL has the responsibility to protect its players, to set an example for younger players, and to maintain a good reputation.  With the current research regarding head injuries and concussions, and the change in the athleticism in players, it is especially more important to regulate play and enforce rules that are in the best interest of the player.  The league is taking a strong stand, as Anderson says, “We’re not going to be apologetic, we’re not going to be defensive about it” (Mortensen).  The strong stand of new enforcement of rules considering helmet to helmet hits is a positive initial step to preventing concussions and head trauma; with this step the NFL is taking responsibility for the safety of all football players and doing what it can to keep the game safe.





















Works Cited
Bell, Jarrett. "NFL Replay: Thin line between tough football and player safety." USA Today. USA Today, 09 Nov 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2010-11-09-nfl-replay_N.htm>.
Davis, Glenn. "NFL Now Issuing Suspensions For All Dirty Tacklers." Behind the Grid. Sports Grid, 19 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.sportsgrid.com/nfl/nfl-helmet-to-helmet-suspensions/>.
"Hard Hits and the NFL." On Point with Tom Ashbrook. WBUR: Boston, 25 Oct 2010. Radio. 29 Nov 2010. <http://www.onpointradio.org/2010/10/hard-hits-and-the-nfl>.
Johnston, Moore, and Thompson, Huntsville Personal Injury Lawyers. "Doctors at Brain Injury Summit Applaud NFL Helmet-to-Helmet Rule." JD Spura. JD Spura, 29 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=7a2a60fc-2002-45da-b278-5bf5b9e875e2>.
King, Peter. "Concussions: the Hits that are Changing Football." Sports Illustrated 01 Nov 2010. Web. 10 Nov 2010. <http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1176374/1/index.htm>.
Mayo, David. "Can't keep helmet-to-helmet hits out of football, but teams can put safety first." Mlive.com Sports. Michigan Live, 21 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.mlive.com/sports/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/10/cant_keep_helmet-to-helmet_out.html>.
Mortensen, Chris. "Official: Players to be held responsible." ESPN NFL. ESPN.com, 19 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=5702673>.
Pereira, Mike. "Helmet-to-helmet hits mar Week 6." Fox Sports. MSN, 24 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Helmet-to-helmet-DeSean-Jackson-Zack-Follett-Josh-Cribbs-101710>.
Sitler, John. "Local football coaches tackling helmet-to-helmet hits, head injuries." Local Sports. The Times Observer, Warren, PA, 29 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://www.timesobserver.com/page/content.detail/id/541872/Local-football-coaches-tackling-helmet-to-helmet-hits--head-injuries.html?nav=5010>.
Westmoreland, Sam. "NFL Injuries: Get Rid of Headhunters, You Fix the Game." Bleacher Report. Bleacher Report, 19 Oct 2010. Web. 15 Nov 2010. <http://bleacherreport.com/articles/495719-nfl-helmet-to-helmet-violence-get-rid-of-headhunters-you-fix-the-game>.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Essay 4: Persuasive

My topic will be whether or not the new crack down in the NFL for helmet to helmet hits is beneficial.  I will probably take the side that it is beneficial, but I'll decide after I have all my information and sources together.  My main points could be how it helps (or doesn't help) the players, how it trickles down to college/highschool/younger players, and lastly how it benefits the NFL, or maybe the viewers.  Any thoughts?
Change..
three points...
1. injury--it's already a violent sport
2. bad example for younger players--you can jsut change rules for younger players
3. bad hits give NFL a bad image--what about other sports? i.e. boxing, hockey, etc

NFL Rule Changes: Helmet-To-Helmet Hits Will Lead To Suspensions

Suspensions for NFL players who commit helmet-to-helmet hits on "defenseless" players are coming, beginning this Sunday, like it or not.
NFL football operations executive Ray Anderson told ESPN Radio's "Mike and Mike in the Morning" earlier today that following a weekend of vicious hits to the head the league is going to act.
"We are committed to safety at the highest level," he said. "We're not going to be apologetic, we're not going to be defensive about it."
The league suffered a rash of helmet-to-helmet hits over the weekend. Brandon Meriweather of New England on Todd Heap of Baltimore, Dunta Robinson of Atlanta on DeSean Jackson of Philadelphia and James Harrison of Pittsburgh twice on Cleveland Browns players.
Here is the Meriweather hit.

The league is concerned not only about the hits, but about the attitude of defensive players who are cavalierly shrugging off fines. Former player Rodney Harrison, fined more than $200,000 in his career for excessive hits, exemplified that attitude. He got suspended once for a helmet-to-helmet hit in 2002.
"You didn’t get my attention when you fined me 5 grand, 10 grand, 15 grand," he said during the pregame broadcast for "Sunday Night Football." "You got my attention when I got suspended and I had to get away from my teammates and I disappointed my teammates from not being there. But you have to suspend these guys. These guys are making millions of dollars."
Anderson told "Mike & Mike" that the league feels it must go further to get players to live within the rules.
"We've got to get the message to players that these devastating hits and head shots will be met with a very necessary higher standard of accountability," Anderson said. "We have to dispel the notion that you get one free pass in these egregious or flagrant shots."
That likely won't sit well with all defensive players. That feeling has already been expressed by James Harrison, who defended his hits against the Browns.
"If I get fined for that, it’s going to be a travesty," Harrison said. "They didn’t call (a penalty) on that. There’s no way I could be fined for that. It was a good, clean, legit hit. … I didn’t hit that hard, to be honest with you. When you get a guy on the ground, it’s a perfect tackle."
I would expect that games around the NFL this Sunday will be flag-fests. Anything that even looks like a hit to the head is going to draw a penalty. Like it or not.

Monday, November 1, 2010

Essay Three Sources

"Causes." Obesity. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 09 Oct 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes.
Updated July 8, 2010.  Written by Mayo Clinic Staff.  I would use this source again.

"Causes and Consequences." Overweight and Obesity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 07 Dec 2009. Web. 12 Oct 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/index.html.
Updated December 7, 2009.  Lists Sources: Content source: Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and is a reliable website; I would use this source again.

"Defining Overweight and Obesity." Overweight and Obesity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Jun 2010. Web. 12 Oct 2010. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html.
  • Page last updated: October 8, 2010

  • Content source: Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion

  • this is a reliable website; I would use this source again.


  • Flegal, Katherine, Margaret Carroll, Cynthia Ogden, and Lester Curtin. "Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008." The Journal of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association, 13 Jan 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/303/3/235?ijkey=ijKHq6YbJn3Oo&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls.
    published january 13, 2010 and lists authors and the sources they used for their research; not biased.  I would use this again.

    "General Causes of Modern Obesity." Causes of Obesity. Anne Collins, 2007. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/causes-of-obesity.htm.
    This website does not list authors and was published in 2007.  I might not use this again because I am unsure if it is biased or unbiased.

    Keeler, Sharon. "Teen obesity and family environment." Medical News Today. MediLexicon International Ltd, 15 Aug 2005. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29129.php.
    The article date is August 15, 2005 and the author is listed, including her contact information.  It is not a biased article, but a little out of date so I might reconsider using it again.

    Lopez, Russell, and Patricia Hynes. "Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs." Environmental Health. BioMed Central Ltd, 18 Sep 2006. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/5/1/25.
    Published September 18, 2006.  Authors and sources for research are listed.  Not biased.  I would use this source again.

    McManamy, John. "Diet and Obesity." McMan's Depression and Bipolar Web. John McManamy, 2010. Web. 22 Oct 2010. http://www.mcmanweb.com/diet_obesity.html.
    Author is listed and the article was reviewed in 2008.  There could be bias because the author is speaking from experience, but he uses facts.  I think this is a credible souce that could be used again.

    "Obesity Causes." emedicine health. WebMD, 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://www.emedicinehealth.com/obesity/page2_em.htm.
    Copyright 2010, but the article has no date or author listed.  This is a reliable website without bias.  I think this source could be used again.

    Wieder, Robert. "Fatness and Friendship, Part I: Why do They Often Go Hand in Hand?." Obesity Causes. CalorieLab, 26 Aug 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. http://calorielab.com/news/categories/obesity-causes/.
    August 26, 2010.  By Robert S. Wieder for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News.  I would use this source again.



    Tuesday, October 26, 2010

    Essay 3...Environmental Causes of Obesity

    Kimberly Hutchison
    Dr. Kerr
    EN101H-1
    20 Oct 2010
    Environmental Causes of Obesity
                In America, the prevalence of obesity has been increasing since the 1970s (Flegal, Carroll, Ogden, and Curtin).  Obesity is a label for a range of weight that is considered unhealthy for a certain height, and is determined using the “Body Mass Index,” or BMI; a BMI of 30 or higher is considered to be obese (“Defining overweight and obesity”).  Since 1980, the number of Americans diagnosed as obese has doubled, making it six million Americans now considered morbidly obese (“General Causes of Modern Obesity”).  To understand this rise, it is important to look at the different causes of obesity.  Environmental causes play a key role in the increasing number of obese Americans, including a person’s society, diet, and family and friends.
                Society and where people live is a very big contributory cause of obesity in America.  Many adults and children today spend a lot of time sitting, whether at work, home, or school  (“Causes”).  A sedentary lifestyle plays a large part in the rise of obesity.  Workplaces, communities and homes all influence health decisions, especially when it comes to physical activity (“Causes and consequences”).  Surveys suggest that only 20 percent of adults in America exercise regularly, and only 1 in 5 kids participate in after-school activities; since 1990, the percentage of adults who exercise frequently has declined by 15 percent, and in teenagers and youth the decline is 41 percent (“General Causes of Modern Obesity”).  A large reason for this decline and for the increase in obesity across the country is the built environment; things like parks, sidewalks, and streetlights encourage physical activity, whereas a lack of side walks and high speed traffic discourages exercise in the community (Lopez and Hynes).  Other aspects of society, such as land use for factories and crime rates, discourage physical activity outside of the house (Lopez and Hynes).  Russell Lopez and Patricia Hynes from the Department of Environmental Health at the Boston University of Public Health report that “evidence is mounting that the design and form of many, if not most, U.S. suburbs contribute to the growing prevalence of obesity and overweight among children and adults” (Lopez and Hynes).   Societal pressures also have an impact on the rise in obesity—some people overeat due to depression, anger, or boredom caused by society (“Obesity Causes”).  Society has played a large part in the rise of obesity in America.
                Another contributory cause to the increase of obesity is diet.  Weight management is largely due to balancing the number of calories consumed and burned off (“Causes and consequences”).  A diet high in calories, eating fast foods, eating oversized portions, skipping breakfast, and eating a lot of calories late at night all contribute greatly to weight gain (“Causes”).  Americans have increased calorie intake in the past 30 years, evident in the growth of fast food chains, soft drink consumption, and the increase in calories of food per day for every American produced by the US agribusiness (“General Causes of Modern Obesity”).  The documentary Supersize Me showed America just how dangerous fast foods can be, and the effect they have on weight and health.  By the end of his experiment, Morgan Spurlock had gained 25 pounds, not to mention other health issues he suffered (McManamy).  In order to gain a pound of fat in one day, someone would need to consume 3,500 calories; however, eating the wrong food can result in quicker weight increase (McManamy).  Americans’ diets have impacted the rise in obesity across the country.
                Friends and family life are a large cause in the presence of obesity in the United States.  Robert S. Wieder, a reporter for CalorieLab Calorie Counter News, poses the question “are we fat because of our friends, or friends because of our fat?” (Wieder).  Either way, our friends influence the way we act, including our eating habits.  Not only friends, but parents play a large role in the rise of obesity.  Their behaviors and choices in respect to shopping, cooking, eating, and exercise affect their children (“General Causes of Modern Obesity”).  After conducting research, Sharon Keeler from Arizona State University states, “most significantly, when children grow up in families with bad eating habits and sedentary lifestyles…they are 33.3 percent more likely to become overweight or obese as young adults” (Keeler).  Bad eating habits start at young ages, demonstrated when parents do not control children’s diets, and allow them to do things like skip breakfast (Keeler).  Also, if the parents are obese, the child’s risk of obesity doubles (Crothels, Krehle, Bray, and Theodore), but the risk decreases if the parents’ level of education is higher (medical news today).  Parents also control their kids’ bedtimes; getting less than seven hours of sleep a night can alter hormones that increase appetite and also cause cravings for foods higher in calories (“Causes”).  A group of four students who studied the causes of obesity report, “sleep, which has been found to be necessary for children’s healthy social and cognitive functioning, also appears to be related to children’s weight” (Crothels, Krehle, Bray, and Theodore).  The influence of friends and family contributes to the rise in obesity in America.
                Society, diet, and friends and family all contribute to the environmental causes of obesity in America.  It is important to be aware of these causes because obesity is a risk factor for many chronic conditions, like diabetes, hypertension, and certain cancers, and it is also associated with earlier death (Flegal, Carroll, Ogden and Curtin).  Dr. Katherine Flegal and coworkers, after much research on the topic, concluded, “enhanced efforts to provide environmental interventions may lead to improved health and to future decreases in the prevalence of obesity” (Flegal, Carroll, Ogden, and Curtin).  It is important to be aware of the causes of this dangerous condition, especially environmental causes that can be fixed, such as the layout of communities, diet, and the influence of friends and family.















    Works Cited
    "Causes." Obesity. Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, 09 Oct 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/obesity/DS00314/DSECTION=causes>.
    "Causes and Consequences." Overweight and Obesity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 07 Dec 2009. Web. 12 Oct 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/causes/index.html>.
    Crothers, Laura, Thomas Kehle, Melissa Bray, and Lea Theodore. "CORRELATES AND SUSPECTED CAUSES OF OBESITY IN CHILDREN." EBSCOhost. EBSCO Industries, Inc., 2009. Web. 22 Oct 2010. <http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=7&hid=9&sid=6b0a8c11-372d-44b6-94a2-24ccff1359f5%40sessionmgr4>.
    "Defining Overweight and Obesity." Overweight and Obesity. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 21 Jun 2010. Web. 12 Oct 2010. <http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/index.html>.
    Flegal, Katherine, Margaret Carroll, Cynthia Ogden, and Lester Curtin. "Prevalence and Trends in Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008." The Journal of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association, 13 Jan 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/303/3/235?ijkey=ijKHq6YbJn3Oo&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls>.
    "General Causes of Modern Obesity." Causes of Obesity. Anne Collins, 2007. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://www.annecollins.com/obesity/causes-of-obesity.htm>.
    Keeler, Sharon. "Teen obesity and family environment." Medical News Today. MediLexicon International Ltd, 15 Aug 2005. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/29129.php>.
    Lopez, Russell, and Patricia Hynes. "Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs." Environmental Health. BioMed Central Ltd, 18 Sep 2006. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://www.ehjournal.net/content/5/1/25>.
    McManamy, John. "Diet and Obesity." McMan's Depression and Bipolar Web. John McManamy, 2010. Web. 22 Oct 2010. <http://www.mcmanweb.com/diet_obesity.html>.
    "Obesity Causes." emedicine health. WebMD, 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://www.emedicinehealth.com/obesity/page2_em.htm>.
    Wieder, Robert. "Fatness and Friendship, Part I: Why do They Often Go Hand in Hand?." Obesity Causes. CalorieLab, 26 Aug 2010. Web. 20 Oct 2010. <http://calorielab.com/news/categories/obesity-causes/>.

    Sunday, October 10, 2010

    Essay Number Three

    Alrighty. Number three.  This time I think I'm going to write about the effect of television on growing.  So I could do effects due to violence on television.  Or focus on obesity due to television.  Thoughts?

    Now I'm thinking about doing three causes of obesity in America.
    diet?
    inactivity?
    television?
    culture?
    technology?

    Thanks for all the comments guys!  After researching I think I'm writing on environmental causes of obesity.  my three points will be individual activity/exercise, diet, and family/friends/society.

    Monday, October 4, 2010

    Essay Number Two

    Kimberly Hutchison
    Dr. Kerr
    En 101H-1
    01 Oct 2010
    Televisions Now and Then
                Today, televisions play a large part in American culture and society.  Studies find that 99% of households in the U.S. own at least one TV, and that the average amount of TVs in an average U.S. house is 2.24 (Number of Televisions).   However, it has not always been this way.  In the 1960s, nine out of ten houses owned one TV; about 87% of households owned black and white TV sets (The History and Evolution of Television).  There were about 52 million televisions in America during this time, whereas now there are approximately 285 million in use in households across the country (Number of Televisions).  Many different factors contributed to the changes in television in America.  In order to see how TV changed from the 1960s to today, it is important to compare the different programming, technology, and standards of the different times.
                Television programming has dramatically changed from the 1960s to today.  Today, the average American watches more than four hours of TV everyday (Number of Televisions); people find it important to stay updated on the latest shows.  In the early sixties, people would be embarrassed to admit they spent more than a couple hours in front of the “tube;” this showed a lack of intelligence (Television of the 1960s).  Shows in the sixties were limited to a few categories (Television of the 1960s), but today shows range from all different categories, and people can generally watch whatever they want.  During the 1960s, educational TV and stations like PBS started to emerge (History of Communications; The History and Evolution of Television), and important events in the country also began to be aired on television, including events like debates between presidents, the speech of Martin Luther King, and the shooting of Kennedy (History of Television).  News stations today air the most current news every night, and all types of events going on in the country are watched on TVs daily.  Primetime television has also changed; in the sixties it consisted of three networks, each with a half an hour newscast (United States: Networks), but today there are multiple stations, not just limited to news, that air simultaneously during primetime.  Not only has television programming changed, but its technology has changed as well.
                Television broadcasting technology has drastically changed since the 1960s.  At the start of this decade, color TV had just recently been introduced, and by the middle of the decade the majority of programs were broadcast in color (History of Communications; History of Television).  It is very rare to find black and white TVs nowadays; the majority of televisions are high definition color, some even having 3-D technology.  Many new technologies started being used in the sixties that are very commonplace today.  In 1962, the first transatlantic reception of a television signal occurred with the TELSTAR satellite (History of Communications).  Another aspect of the television that came about in the sixties is instant replay.  Sports today almost rely on this, but it did not become standard technique until 1963 (History of Television).  During this time, cable TV began to emerge, but was present in less than 2% of households (The History and Evolution of Television), whereas today, satellite TV is almost nonexistent and TVs run off of cable, along with “on demand” programs.  What used to be large consoles with small screens has now become large plasma screens.  All of these advances in technology demonstrate the change television has gone through in America; the changing standards also give insight into its transformation.
                Television standards have changed considerably since the sixties.  This decade brought about the first cable regulation and the beginnings of debate over banning cigarette ads (History of Television).  Today violence, sex, and controversial issues are found all over TV; however, in the 1960s, TV shows reflected good, old-fashioned ideas and family values, and were clean, pure, and innocent (Television of the 1960s).  Also during this time the National Association of Broadcasters code put restrictions on non-program material, such as a time limit (Standards and Practices).  During the 1960s, topics along the lines of racism and sexuality were excluded from content; for example, married couples were shown in two twin beds instead of sharing a bed (Censorship).  This is drastically different from television today, where sexuality and political issues are aired on almost every station.  Not only that, but coarse language was also omitted from broadcasting (Censorship), but today bad language is easily found in shows.  The changing standards of television shows demonstrates the change TV has undergone in the past 50 years.
                Television in the 1960s was completely different from TV today.  The changes in programming, technology, and standards demonstrate the advancements television has undergone and the growing impact television has had on society.  What used to be a nice, leisurely activity  has become a large part of society in America, present in the majority of homes across the country.  The most drastic changes in shows, methods of broadcasting, and principles are easily seen, and reveal the growing impact TV has had on society.








    Works Cited
    "Censorship." The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=censorship>.
    "The History and Evolution of Television: The 1960s and 1970s - by Mona Gallagher - Helium." Helium - Where Knowledge Rules. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.helium.com/items/569934-the-history-and-evolution-of-television-the-1960s-and-1970s>.
    "History of Communications - Historical Periods in Television Technology: 1960-1989." Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Home Page. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/tv/1960-1989.html>.
    "History of Television." High-Tech Productions. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.high-techproductions.com/historyoftelevision.htm>.
    "Number of Televisions in the US." Hypertextbook.com. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/TamaraTamazashvili.shtml>.
    "Standards and Practices." The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=standardsand>.
    "Television Of The 1960s - Nostalgic Family Values." AAA Information and Entertainment. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.information-entertainment.com/Television/tv60.html>.
    "United States: Networks." The Museum of Broadcast Communications. Web. 01 Oct. 2010. <http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=unitedstatesn>.

    Wednesday, September 22, 2010

    Tell me Something I don't know. Revision.

    Prostitution in the United States today.

    Who...what kind of people.
    Where...where do they come from? ethnic, social/economic backgrounds.
    When...how long in the career, change in life expectancy.
     

    Friday, September 17, 2010

    Essay number two. Compare/Contrast.

    I was thinking of comparing growth and television.
    thoughts?

    Okay. so. my essay topic will be television in the US.  Now and Then.
    Prewrite...
    What percentage of the population owned televisions around the 1960s? now?
    Who owns televisions?
    who sells televisions?
    cost?
    What types of programs were aired in the 1950/60s? now?
    What were the differences in size, color, picture, etc?

    Controlling Ideas...
    1. Programming; variety, quantity, hours tv is on (now to 1960)
    2. technology; size, color, broadcasting (now to 1960)
    3.sponsers; commercials
    4. standards


    http://www.information-entertainment.com/Television/tv60.html
    http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/tv/1960-1989.html
    http://www.helium.com/items/569934-the-history-and-evolution-of-television-the-1960s-and-1970s
    http://www.high-techproductions.com/historyoftelevision.htm
    http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2007/TamaraTamazashvili.shtml
    http://www.soundvision.com/Info/misc/tvturnoff.asp
    http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=standardsand
    http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=unitedstatesn
    http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=censorship

    Television

    How many people in the United States own a TV? What percentage of the population?

    In the world?

    Does TV affect behavior?

    How much TV does the average person watch?


    Television Statistics
    According to the A.C. Nielsen Co., the average American watches more than 4 hours of TV each day (or 28 hours/week, or 2 months of nonstop TV-watching per year). In a 65-year life, that person will have spent 9 years glued to the tube.

     

     

    I. FAMILY LIFE
    Percentage of households that possess at least one television: 99
    Number of TV sets in the average U.S. household: 2.24
    Percentage of U.S. homes with three or more TV sets: 66
    Number of hours per day that TV is on in an average U.S. home: 6 hours, 47 minutes
    Percentage of Americans that regularly watch television while eating dinner: 66
    Number of hours of TV watched annually by Americans: 250 billion
    Value of that time assuming an average wage of S5/hour: S1.25 trillion
    Percentage of Americans who pay for cable TV: 56
    Number of videos rented daily in the U.S.: 6 million
    Number of public library items checked out daily: 3 million
    Percentage of Americans who say they watch too much TV: 49
     

     

    II CHILDREN
    Approximate number of studies examining TV's effects on children: 4,000
    Number of minutes per week that parents spend in meaningful
    conversation with their children: 3.5
    Number of minutes per week that the average child watches television: 1,680
    Percentage of day care centers that use TV during a typical day: 70
    Percentage of parents who would like to limit their children's TV watching: 73
    Percentage of 4-6 year-olds who, when asked to choose between watching TV
    and spending time with their fathers, preferred television: 54
    Hours per year the average American youth spends in school: 900 hours
    Hours per year the average American youth watches television: 1500
     

     

    III VIOLENCE
    Number of murders seen on TV by the time an average child finishes elementary school: 8,000
    Number of violent acts seen on TV by age 18: 200,000
    Percentage of Americans who believe TV violence helps precipitate real life mayhem: 79
     

     

    IV. COMMERCIALISM
    Number of 30-second TV commercials seen in a year by an average child: 20,000
    Number of TV commercials seen by the average person by age 65: 2 million
    Percentage of survey participants (1993) who said that TV commercials
    aimed at children make them too materialistic: 92
    Rank of food products/fast-food restaurants among TV advertisements to kids: 1
    Total spending by 100 leading TV advertisers in 1993: $15 billion
     

     

    V. GENERAL
    Percentage of local TV news broadcast time devoted to advertising: 30
    Percentage devoted to stories about crime, disaster and war: 53.8
    Percentage devoted to public service announcements: 0.7
    Percentage of Americans who can name The Three Stooges: 59
    Percentage who can name at least three justices of the U.S. Supreme Court: 17

     
    Compiled by TV-Free America
    1322 18th Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20036
     
     


    Influence of Television
     
    For decades, research and studies have demonstrated that heavy television-viewing may lead to serious health consequences. Now the American medical community, which has long-voiced its concerns about the nation's epidemic of violence, TV addiction and the passive, sedentary nature of TV-watching, is taking a more activist stance, demonstrated by its endorsement of National TV-Turnoff Week.
     
    The average child will watch 8,000 murders on TV before finishing elementary school. By age eighteen, the average American has seen 200,000 acts of violence on TV, including 40,000 murders. At a meeting in Nashville, TN last July, Dr. John Nelson of the American Medical Association (an endorser of National TV-Turnoff Week) said that if 2,888 out of 3,000 studies show that TV violence is a casual factor in real-life mayhem, "it's a public health problem." The American Psychiatric Association addressed this problem in its endorsement of National TV-Turnoff Week, stating, "We have had a long-standing concern with the impact of television on behavior, especially among children."
     
    Millions of Americans are so hooked on television that they fit the criteria for substance abuse as defined in the official psychiatric manual, according to Rutgers University psychologist and TV-Free America board member Robert Kubey. Heavy TV viewers exhibit five dependency symptoms--two more than necessary to arrive at a clinical diagnosis of substance abuse. These include: 1) using TV as a sedative; 2) indiscriminate viewing; 3) feeling loss of control while viewing; 4) feeling angry with oneself for watching too much; 5) inability to stop watching; and 6) feeling miserable when kept from watching.
     
    Violence and addiction are not the only TV-related health problems. A National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey released in October 1995 found 4.7 million children between the ages of 6-17 (11% of this age group) to be severely overweight, more than twice the rate during the 1960's. The main culprits: inactivity (these same children average more than 22 hours of television-viewing a week) and a high-calorie diet. A 1991 study showed that there were an average of 200 junk food ads in four hours of children's Saturday morning cartoons.
     
    According to William H. Deitz, pediatrician and prominent obesity expert at Tufts University School of Medicine, "The easiest way to reduce inactivity is to turn off the TV set. Almost anything else uses more energy than watching TV."
     
    Children are not the only Americans suffering from weight problems; one-third of American adults are overweight. According to an American Journal of Public Health study, an adult who watches three hours of TV a day is far more likely to be obese than an adult who watches less than one hour.
     
    Sometimes the problem is not too much weight; it's too little. Seventy-five percent of American women believe they are too fat, an image problem that often leads to bulimia or anorexia. Sound strange? Not when one takes into account that female models and actresses are twenty-three percent thinner than the average woman and thinner than ninety-five percent of the female population.
    http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html