Engrish!
Here are some papers I did for English. Why am I posting them? I gots nothing else to post. This first paper was a "Proposing a Solution" effort produced by me and Ian Coffie. Ian did the first 500 words (which I heavily edited) and I finished the rest. The other two guys in our four person group were probably too stoned to know we had a project to do.
This country has a big, fat, problem. Did you know that in 2001 statistics proved that eight out of ten adult Americans were overweight? In fact, there are over 58 million overweight - being 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight - adults in the United Sates; not counting the 50 million who are considered “obese” (defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight or the 3 million who are morbidly obese). The problem does not stop there, 25 percent of all white children and 33 percent of African American and Hispanic children living in the United States were deemed overweight in 2001 (Collins). These Statistics are alarming because being overweight, especially being obese, can increase the risks of: premature deaths, type two diabetes, heart disease, cancer (endometrial, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and postmenopausal breast cancer), hypertension, stroke, back and joint pain, osteoarthritis, infertility, gallbladder disease, breathlessness, high blood cholesterol, depression, menstrual irregularities, hirsutism and difficulty sleeping. Being obese or over weight is such a serious matter that experts say can take nine years off your life span (“Aging Well”).
It is not just a problem Americans face; obesity is affecting countries all over the world and is predicted to turn into the world's largest health crisis. Reports suggest that obesity may soon overtake cigarette smoking as a serious health risk. But if we know so much about it why aren’t we doing anything to prevent this from happening? Right now there is estimated that “78 percent of American's do not meet the basic activity level recommendations, 25 percent are completely sedentary” (Collins). This frightening increase in lethargy is attributed by our society’s effort to make everything more effortless.
The internet can do anything nowadays, from paying bills to shopping for clothes or accessories or even managing you bank account. The possibilities are virtually endless. If for some reason you can’t do it online, there’s always a quick way to get what you need: “drive-thru”. There are now drive-thru dry cleaners, churches, funeral homes, convenient stores, and restaurants. As of now, there are over 300,000 fast food restaurants alone in America (Fast Food Facts).
What has our society come to? Convenience has taken the place of exercise and mobility. Grocery stores stock candy, chips, sods, and other high fat, high sugar products by the entrance to entice customers to buy them. Schools today don’t even require students to participate in physical education, allowing them to take a written test instead. There are moving walkways to take the place of walking and escalators to take the place of climbing stairs. Exercise and proper dieting are all a part being healthy. You can’t expect to loose weight by taking advantage of modern conveniences to get daily tasks done. The elevator can replace the stairs, but it won’t give you that same accomplished feeling when you make it to the top. E-mail can replace the hand-written letter, but it doesn’t replace the few steps you need to take outside in the fresh air to retrieve your mail.
At the same time, however, it’s unrealistic to expect society to instantly change. It would be unreasonable to ask fast food chains to shut down or change their menu to better suit the health needs of the American people. The fast food and “junk” food businesses are huge and to stop these corporations dead in their tracks would cost millions of people their jobs.
Though the fast food chains are gargantuan (must like the waistlines of some of their customers), the diet business is huge as well. Ironically, these weight-loss companies thrive on the lazy attitudes that cause obesity to begin with. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has since released several public service announcements warning consumers about weight loss scams which make empty promises such as: “Loose 30 lbs. in 30 days!”, “Eat whatever you want and still loose weight!” and the most unbelievable “Watch the pounds melt away while you sleep!”
Of course, common sense could easily tell you that these so-called “weight loss plans” don’t work. If they really did, it would be national news much like the buzz penicillin received when it first hit the market. Instead, this it the kind of stuff you’ll find in the back of tabloid magazines or on a cardboard sign hanging from a telephone pole.
Most recently, however, this country has found itself back into a diet craze and the results, as well as controversy, have been at record levels. At the height of these new fit-fads is the Atkins diet, which emphasizes on a low-carbohydrate intake. It’s effects have been national news, and the hype surrounding it has led fast food chains like McDonalds to offer “Atkins-Friendly” meal choices in it’s recent “Real-Life Choices” program (Entrepreneur).
Though the popularity of Atkins’ diet has skyrocketed, the backlash has been rather harsh. Since Dr. Atkins’ death in April 2003, caused by a head injury he sustained after falling on an icy sidewalk, the credibility of his diet plan has been questioned. There have been numerous, radical theories suggesting that he wouldn’t have died had he not been on the diet, though these claims seem to have little weight to them. “…The death of Atkins, 72, from injuries in a fall won't pose such issues, says Eric Dezenhall, head of crisis management firm Nichols-Dezenhall. There won't be the same consumer "ridicule," he says, that Post Grape-Nuts Cereals faced in 1975 when pitchman Euell Gibbons, naturalist and health buff, died of a heart attack at age 64,” (McCarthy).
The Atkins diet has also be subject to frivolous slander. Just recently, a former general manager for the New York Mets blamed racial comments he had made on the diet, citing that “the low carb diet, mixed with alcohol caused a chemical imbalance” to say what he did (Beggy & Shanahan). Valid argument or not, this type of backlash towards diets is nothing new. People are likely to say, “diets don’t work” because it is very likely that they don’t. At least these “miracle” diets don’t anyway.
What does work is moderation and exercise. Most of the real secrets of dieting aren’t found in expensive pill bottles or diet instruction manuals, but elementary anatomy books. It should be common knowledge that metabolism adjusts to how much you are eating and that a consistently healthy weight can only be achieved by burning more calories in a day than your intake. It might be a simple solution to weight loss, but how simple is it to get this message to the public?
Is anyone’s business what people do to their bodies anyway? It seems like it. Organizations like “Truth” and others have created huge advertising campaigns creating awareness for the hazards of smoking. How do they get such funding, though? The tobacco companies are legally responsible to fund organizations warning teenagers about the dangers of their product. With all of the food companies that produce unhealthy products, it may be possible for a similar law to be passed which would force companies like McDonalds to sponsor ad campaigns that promote healthy lifestyles and warn American citizens about the dangers of excessive eating.
People still smoke, and it’s likely that people will still go to McDonalds and buy Snickers Bars on the way out of the grocery store, but the only real way to change people is to educate them, and television, radio and print ads seem to be the way. That seems to be where people are getting the information that it’s possible to “sleep of the pounds” thanks to a magical pill, right? If enough people take this problem seriously, it could happen, even if such a law being passed might only have a thin chance.
This was my "Taking a Stand" paper, which everybody in the class but me did horribly at. This one is about how the MPAA doesn't rate films fairly.
When I was a child, I didn’t read too many books, nor did I watch too many films. I didn’t enjoy reading because most of the books that the kids my age were reading were too flat for me; they lacked character, wit and realism. The kind of movies I was designated to watch were all lovely and innocent, though at times I felt that they contrasted far too much with the world I saw past the screen. When I was eleven I read my first banned book and I watched my first R-rated film: The Catcher in the Rye and Jerry Maguire.
Originally, I wasn’t allowed to watch any R-rated movies until I was thirteen, though I acted and felt mature enough, so I got permission. Throughout the two hours and ten minutes of the film, I awaited the stuff that my eyes were supposedly too young to see. There was some sex, though I could hardly see the participants’ bodies, and there was some foul language, though it was nowhere near as bad as the things I’d hear on the bus rides to and from school. I felt the same way when I read Salinger’s novel, though I was not as disappointed since books don’t carry an ominous “rating”.
The Motion Picture Association of America, commonly known as the MPAA determines these voluntary ratings. According to their official website (www.mpaa.org), the ratings system is intended “for parents and no one else”. The purpose, of course, to direct them into choosing what films are good and wholesome for their children, and which are not. On the surface it seems like a non-issue, though it’s slightly more complicated than that.
As mentioned, the ratings are essentially voluntary. A movie studio could create a film and market it without a rating, legally. The only catch is that most movie theaters closely follow the rating system, and are unlikely to release a film without one. What’s compromised here is creative freedom in exchange for ticket sales. While a filmmaker may want no restraints as an artist, he may need just that in order to earn a decent paycheck.
It is the goal of the moviemakers to avoid one thing: The NC-17 rating. This rating prevents anyone under the age of seventeen to see a film in the theater, regardless of their parents’ accompaniment. Though it allows for a film to portray whatever it may, carrying the NC-17 stamp is a burden too thick for most movie studios and theaters, because those films don’t often bring in much money. Until this year’s The Dreamers, the last commercially released film in the united states to hold this rating was Showgirls, which only made $20,302,961, less than half of its forty-five Million dollar budget, according to www.imdb.com.
R-rated films don’t fare too much better. According to USA Today, of the top twenty highest grossing films released in 2002, not a single one was rated R. The article states that the core movie-going audience is from “ages 12-29”; these youngsters are responsible for half of all movie ticket sales. This rating system must be extra careful in its decisions as to what young person can and cannot see, right?
It would seem so, though I am constantly troubled by certain rulings. Consider 2003’s muscle-headed XXX, which was rated PG-13 for “violence, non-stop action sequences, sensuality, drug content and language”, which grossed over 140 million dollars at the box office. Compare that to 2001’s animated, philosophical, feature Waking Life, rated R for “language and some violent images”, which only grossed less than two million dollars. While the former film had explosions, killings, sex and virtually no educational value, it lacked the double-use of the dreadful “F” word, avoiding the R-rating. The “violent images” in Waking Life were minimal (a cartoon man sets himself on fire - nothing worse than what could be seen on any Looney Tunes show), and most of the foul language was contained in a single monologue. It seems as if the ratings are determined by a set of numbers and figures rather than content and intention.
The MPAA begs to differ. They claim to watch each film in its entirety, noting that a rating must be determined on a film’s whole, not the sum of its parts. Certainly, then, the MPAA should have qualitative judgement as to what the youth of the country should see or not. If that’s so, then why did they slap an R-rating on Michael Moore’s important documentary feature Bowling for Columbine? Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert supports this argument: “The movie is rated R, so that the Columbine killers would have been protected from the "violent images," mostly of themselves. The MPAA continues its policy of banning teenagers from those films they most need to see. What utopian world do the flywheels of the ratings board think they are protecting?”
Language appears to be the greatest obstacle in the way of filmmakers avoiding a harsh rating as well as making a picture that’s realistic with the way people talk. Both 1994’s Clerks and 1998’s Your Friends and Neighbors were originally given NC-17 ratings based on dialogue alone. Although the ratings were appealed and both films were eventually given an ‘R’, what does this say about the hundreds of violent films released each year that are given R or even PG-13 ratings (especially if they aren’t as heavy on the foul language)? Is this to say that we’d rather our kids (who, it seems to me, already curse) to be cold-blooded killers than swearing sailors? Something isn’t right about that.
I agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to sexual dialogue or raunchy language and that perhaps restricting them from seeing films with excessively bad language is justifiable, though I feel that the MPAA should have even more strict policies with violence. Teenagers are allowed to see James Bond kill people and have affairs with random women, but are restricted in seeing people of their own kind, in the movies, talk about those things. Perhaps in order to change things, they should just stay home, I know I will.
In conclusion? College is easy. Unless it's Issues in Public Health and Circus, but that's only because they aren't fair and it's my job to "rise above" like all of them non-whites do.
Alex
This country has a big, fat, problem. Did you know that in 2001 statistics proved that eight out of ten adult Americans were overweight? In fact, there are over 58 million overweight - being 10 to 30 pounds over a healthy weight - adults in the United Sates; not counting the 50 million who are considered “obese” (defined as roughly 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight or the 3 million who are morbidly obese). The problem does not stop there, 25 percent of all white children and 33 percent of African American and Hispanic children living in the United States were deemed overweight in 2001 (Collins). These Statistics are alarming because being overweight, especially being obese, can increase the risks of: premature deaths, type two diabetes, heart disease, cancer (endometrial, colon, kidney, gallbladder, and postmenopausal breast cancer), hypertension, stroke, back and joint pain, osteoarthritis, infertility, gallbladder disease, breathlessness, high blood cholesterol, depression, menstrual irregularities, hirsutism and difficulty sleeping. Being obese or over weight is such a serious matter that experts say can take nine years off your life span (“Aging Well”).
It is not just a problem Americans face; obesity is affecting countries all over the world and is predicted to turn into the world's largest health crisis. Reports suggest that obesity may soon overtake cigarette smoking as a serious health risk. But if we know so much about it why aren’t we doing anything to prevent this from happening? Right now there is estimated that “78 percent of American's do not meet the basic activity level recommendations, 25 percent are completely sedentary” (Collins). This frightening increase in lethargy is attributed by our society’s effort to make everything more effortless.
The internet can do anything nowadays, from paying bills to shopping for clothes or accessories or even managing you bank account. The possibilities are virtually endless. If for some reason you can’t do it online, there’s always a quick way to get what you need: “drive-thru”. There are now drive-thru dry cleaners, churches, funeral homes, convenient stores, and restaurants. As of now, there are over 300,000 fast food restaurants alone in America (Fast Food Facts).
What has our society come to? Convenience has taken the place of exercise and mobility. Grocery stores stock candy, chips, sods, and other high fat, high sugar products by the entrance to entice customers to buy them. Schools today don’t even require students to participate in physical education, allowing them to take a written test instead. There are moving walkways to take the place of walking and escalators to take the place of climbing stairs. Exercise and proper dieting are all a part being healthy. You can’t expect to loose weight by taking advantage of modern conveniences to get daily tasks done. The elevator can replace the stairs, but it won’t give you that same accomplished feeling when you make it to the top. E-mail can replace the hand-written letter, but it doesn’t replace the few steps you need to take outside in the fresh air to retrieve your mail.
At the same time, however, it’s unrealistic to expect society to instantly change. It would be unreasonable to ask fast food chains to shut down or change their menu to better suit the health needs of the American people. The fast food and “junk” food businesses are huge and to stop these corporations dead in their tracks would cost millions of people their jobs.
Though the fast food chains are gargantuan (must like the waistlines of some of their customers), the diet business is huge as well. Ironically, these weight-loss companies thrive on the lazy attitudes that cause obesity to begin with. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has since released several public service announcements warning consumers about weight loss scams which make empty promises such as: “Loose 30 lbs. in 30 days!”, “Eat whatever you want and still loose weight!” and the most unbelievable “Watch the pounds melt away while you sleep!”
Of course, common sense could easily tell you that these so-called “weight loss plans” don’t work. If they really did, it would be national news much like the buzz penicillin received when it first hit the market. Instead, this it the kind of stuff you’ll find in the back of tabloid magazines or on a cardboard sign hanging from a telephone pole.
Most recently, however, this country has found itself back into a diet craze and the results, as well as controversy, have been at record levels. At the height of these new fit-fads is the Atkins diet, which emphasizes on a low-carbohydrate intake. It’s effects have been national news, and the hype surrounding it has led fast food chains like McDonalds to offer “Atkins-Friendly” meal choices in it’s recent “Real-Life Choices” program (Entrepreneur).
Though the popularity of Atkins’ diet has skyrocketed, the backlash has been rather harsh. Since Dr. Atkins’ death in April 2003, caused by a head injury he sustained after falling on an icy sidewalk, the credibility of his diet plan has been questioned. There have been numerous, radical theories suggesting that he wouldn’t have died had he not been on the diet, though these claims seem to have little weight to them. “…The death of Atkins, 72, from injuries in a fall won't pose such issues, says Eric Dezenhall, head of crisis management firm Nichols-Dezenhall. There won't be the same consumer "ridicule," he says, that Post Grape-Nuts Cereals faced in 1975 when pitchman Euell Gibbons, naturalist and health buff, died of a heart attack at age 64,” (McCarthy).
The Atkins diet has also be subject to frivolous slander. Just recently, a former general manager for the New York Mets blamed racial comments he had made on the diet, citing that “the low carb diet, mixed with alcohol caused a chemical imbalance” to say what he did (Beggy & Shanahan). Valid argument or not, this type of backlash towards diets is nothing new. People are likely to say, “diets don’t work” because it is very likely that they don’t. At least these “miracle” diets don’t anyway.
What does work is moderation and exercise. Most of the real secrets of dieting aren’t found in expensive pill bottles or diet instruction manuals, but elementary anatomy books. It should be common knowledge that metabolism adjusts to how much you are eating and that a consistently healthy weight can only be achieved by burning more calories in a day than your intake. It might be a simple solution to weight loss, but how simple is it to get this message to the public?
Is anyone’s business what people do to their bodies anyway? It seems like it. Organizations like “Truth” and others have created huge advertising campaigns creating awareness for the hazards of smoking. How do they get such funding, though? The tobacco companies are legally responsible to fund organizations warning teenagers about the dangers of their product. With all of the food companies that produce unhealthy products, it may be possible for a similar law to be passed which would force companies like McDonalds to sponsor ad campaigns that promote healthy lifestyles and warn American citizens about the dangers of excessive eating.
People still smoke, and it’s likely that people will still go to McDonalds and buy Snickers Bars on the way out of the grocery store, but the only real way to change people is to educate them, and television, radio and print ads seem to be the way. That seems to be where people are getting the information that it’s possible to “sleep of the pounds” thanks to a magical pill, right? If enough people take this problem seriously, it could happen, even if such a law being passed might only have a thin chance.
This was my "Taking a Stand" paper, which everybody in the class but me did horribly at. This one is about how the MPAA doesn't rate films fairly.
When I was a child, I didn’t read too many books, nor did I watch too many films. I didn’t enjoy reading because most of the books that the kids my age were reading were too flat for me; they lacked character, wit and realism. The kind of movies I was designated to watch were all lovely and innocent, though at times I felt that they contrasted far too much with the world I saw past the screen. When I was eleven I read my first banned book and I watched my first R-rated film: The Catcher in the Rye and Jerry Maguire.
Originally, I wasn’t allowed to watch any R-rated movies until I was thirteen, though I acted and felt mature enough, so I got permission. Throughout the two hours and ten minutes of the film, I awaited the stuff that my eyes were supposedly too young to see. There was some sex, though I could hardly see the participants’ bodies, and there was some foul language, though it was nowhere near as bad as the things I’d hear on the bus rides to and from school. I felt the same way when I read Salinger’s novel, though I was not as disappointed since books don’t carry an ominous “rating”.
The Motion Picture Association of America, commonly known as the MPAA determines these voluntary ratings. According to their official website (www.mpaa.org), the ratings system is intended “for parents and no one else”. The purpose, of course, to direct them into choosing what films are good and wholesome for their children, and which are not. On the surface it seems like a non-issue, though it’s slightly more complicated than that.
As mentioned, the ratings are essentially voluntary. A movie studio could create a film and market it without a rating, legally. The only catch is that most movie theaters closely follow the rating system, and are unlikely to release a film without one. What’s compromised here is creative freedom in exchange for ticket sales. While a filmmaker may want no restraints as an artist, he may need just that in order to earn a decent paycheck.
It is the goal of the moviemakers to avoid one thing: The NC-17 rating. This rating prevents anyone under the age of seventeen to see a film in the theater, regardless of their parents’ accompaniment. Though it allows for a film to portray whatever it may, carrying the NC-17 stamp is a burden too thick for most movie studios and theaters, because those films don’t often bring in much money. Until this year’s The Dreamers, the last commercially released film in the united states to hold this rating was Showgirls, which only made $20,302,961, less than half of its forty-five Million dollar budget, according to www.imdb.com.
R-rated films don’t fare too much better. According to USA Today, of the top twenty highest grossing films released in 2002, not a single one was rated R. The article states that the core movie-going audience is from “ages 12-29”; these youngsters are responsible for half of all movie ticket sales. This rating system must be extra careful in its decisions as to what young person can and cannot see, right?
It would seem so, though I am constantly troubled by certain rulings. Consider 2003’s muscle-headed XXX, which was rated PG-13 for “violence, non-stop action sequences, sensuality, drug content and language”, which grossed over 140 million dollars at the box office. Compare that to 2001’s animated, philosophical, feature Waking Life, rated R for “language and some violent images”, which only grossed less than two million dollars. While the former film had explosions, killings, sex and virtually no educational value, it lacked the double-use of the dreadful “F” word, avoiding the R-rating. The “violent images” in Waking Life were minimal (a cartoon man sets himself on fire - nothing worse than what could be seen on any Looney Tunes show), and most of the foul language was contained in a single monologue. It seems as if the ratings are determined by a set of numbers and figures rather than content and intention.
The MPAA begs to differ. They claim to watch each film in its entirety, noting that a rating must be determined on a film’s whole, not the sum of its parts. Certainly, then, the MPAA should have qualitative judgement as to what the youth of the country should see or not. If that’s so, then why did they slap an R-rating on Michael Moore’s important documentary feature Bowling for Columbine? Chicago Sun-Times film critic Roger Ebert supports this argument: “The movie is rated R, so that the Columbine killers would have been protected from the "violent images," mostly of themselves. The MPAA continues its policy of banning teenagers from those films they most need to see. What utopian world do the flywheels of the ratings board think they are protecting?”
Language appears to be the greatest obstacle in the way of filmmakers avoiding a harsh rating as well as making a picture that’s realistic with the way people talk. Both 1994’s Clerks and 1998’s Your Friends and Neighbors were originally given NC-17 ratings based on dialogue alone. Although the ratings were appealed and both films were eventually given an ‘R’, what does this say about the hundreds of violent films released each year that are given R or even PG-13 ratings (especially if they aren’t as heavy on the foul language)? Is this to say that we’d rather our kids (who, it seems to me, already curse) to be cold-blooded killers than swearing sailors? Something isn’t right about that.
I agree that kids shouldn’t be exposed to sexual dialogue or raunchy language and that perhaps restricting them from seeing films with excessively bad language is justifiable, though I feel that the MPAA should have even more strict policies with violence. Teenagers are allowed to see James Bond kill people and have affairs with random women, but are restricted in seeing people of their own kind, in the movies, talk about those things. Perhaps in order to change things, they should just stay home, I know I will.
In conclusion? College is easy. Unless it's Issues in Public Health and Circus, but that's only because they aren't fair and it's my job to "rise above" like all of them non-whites do.
Alex