Response to: To Smoke, Or Not to Smoke?

In Jenny's blog, she discusses the controversy surrounding smoking in public places. She cites two articles presenting either a side for or against banning smoking in public spaces.

I think she's correct in saying that the article that supports a ban on smoking in public spaces is the more convincing one. It presents the reader with many facts about the health risks of second-hand smoke, while the article against the smoking ban lists several reasons that don't even necessarily affect anyone but the writer. One reason he lists that smoking should not be banned in public areas is because "when people have to go outside of a bar to smoke, that means they're not listening to me play." He goes on to say that this is evidence that bars will lose revenue. Weird, loose conclusion to jump to...

On a more personal note, I've worked in a lot of bars and restaurants in my lifetime, and I must admit that I was VERY grateful when the smoking bans first started taking effect. I rely on my voice as a part of my income (theatre) and working in a smoke-filled bar was just terrible on my voice. I suppose that the argument could be made that I could have found another job, but ask any struggling actor what kinds of jobs allow them to work around their theatre schedule. There aren't many... It's silly to me that as a result of having a particular type of low-paying job I should have to subject myself to adverse health risks. I just want to deliver your drinks. I don't want to expose myself to an increased potential for cancer in the process. My family history is bad enough, thank you. This problem doesn't stop at bars and restaurants, though (which, thank God have started smoking bans in most states). I'm also subjected to some dude's smoke each morning at the bus stop. I inhale smoke between classes when I'm stuck behind a smoker on the crowded side walk. I get a whiff as I walk to my car after a show and pass by the huddled masses of smokers who stand in the entry ways of the eleventy billion bars downtown.

I don't choose to smoke, and it's not anyone's right to subject me to breath air that's tainted with their poor health choices.

Blog #5 : Arizona SB 1070 Law

The new SB 1070 law, recently signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, is a hot topic. Kris Kobach wrote in an Op-Ed piece for the NY Times, that the vehement arguments against the bill are based off of a misunderstanding of what the bill actually contains. Kobash uses the article to debunk major criticisms of the bill bit by bit and most of his arguments state that Arizona is simply seeking to, as a state, enforce laws that already exist at the federal level. One example he uses is that it is already a federal offense for aliens to not keep their registration documents with them. He also cites that "reasonable suspicion" is not a new term. Law enforcement has used "reasonable suspicion" for over 40 years to determine whether or not to pursue a certain case. He also points out that the cries of racial profiling are hard to consider since section 2 of the bill expressly prohibits such conduct. Finally, he says, while it is true that immigration is primarily a federal matter, "the Supreme Court since 1976 has recognized that states may enact laws to discourage illegal immigration without being pre-empted by federal law."

On the other side of the argument, another editorial in the NY times by an unnamed author says that the bill will "lead to more racial profiling, hobble local law enforcement, and open government agencies to frivolous, politically driven lawsuits." The author also says that this creates a terrible relationship between immigrants and police officers. Immigrants "fear and shun the police," creating a public safety issue since they will be less likely to report crime to which they might be witness or victims.

After reading these articles, I have to say that I have crossed over from thinking this was a terrible, unfair bill, to thinking that maybe I have to rethink my position a little. It seems like Kobach pretty much addressed every issue that I've heard thrown about in the news, and it doesn't seem like such an abomination anymore. The article also seems more reliable since the author is listed, and he's a fairly well-known professor. I still don't think that I agree with it 100%, though. Although the bill itself demands that racial profiling is unacceptable, I'm not sure that there's any way of getting around it. Does anyone really think that white people, of any nationality are going to be targeted by this law?

Can Walmart Survive a Gender-Discrimination Suit?

Can Walmart Survive a Gender-Discrimination Suit?

Recent article in Time about Wal-Mart's Gender Discrimination

Response to: "Making a Cake"

In Matt Thurber's blog on making cake from scratch, he tells readers that it's really not much harder than making the boxed version of cake. While I'm glad that someone out there is encouraging folks to try their hand at making less-processed foods, a part of me wanted to shout "NO! Don't tell my secret!"

Here's the deal: When there's a gathering of people, and everyone is supposed to bring food to share, I always offer to make a dessert. When I arrive with my tasty made-from-scratch cakes and pies, everyone assumes that I'm some sort of throwback to the Golden Era's domestic goddess. Nothing could be further from the truth. The image of perfectly coiffed women cooking in pumps and pearls, quite frankly, makes me nauseous. No one knows how easy these recipes are (especially my carrot cake!), mostly because no one has ever thought to try to make them on their own.

"Carrot cake from scratch!" the guests exclaim, "You must have been baking all day!"

I typically reply with feigned modestly while reveling in my success "Oh, really... it's nothing."

Really, though... it is nothing. It honestly takes me MAYBE 10-15 minutes longer than if I just dump a box of mix into a bowl, stir it up, and slop it into a cake pan -- that's including time to make cream-cheese frosting, too. Better yet, since I have access to a real kitchen with storage space, in the long-run, the ingredients aren't much more expensive than buying a box of cake mix and frosting in a can every time I want to bake. And, I have to agree with Matt - the tiniest bit of extra time and money is well worth the end result.

Well, Matt, you've outed me. I guess from now on I just have to hope that none of my friends encounter your blog (or mine!), lest they find out that the expressions "It's a piece of cake" or "It's as easy as pie" might have relevant origins...

* image from creativelydifferentblinds.com

Blog #2: Slow Food: a great idea, in theory....

Joe (my partner) had Monday “off” from rehearsal, so we made dinner together – something that rarely happens lately, due to demanding and conflicting schedules. We made a stir-fry with spicy peanut sauce (the original recipe). One of the reasons we like this recipe is that it’s easily modified, so we rarely have to shop specifically for it. Joe and I cooked together, which is always a feat in our small kitchen, but it was nice to catch up with one another. The whole experience was really nice and took about an hour and a half to prepare, eat, and clean up.

While Joe and I try to maintain a certain level of “whole” foods in our home, I can certainly see how living in a society that devalues taking time for food can lead to increased use of processed foods. Over the last couple of months, when my schedule exploded, suddenly frozen pizzas, and granola bars started taking over the freezer and cabinet space in my house. We try to avoid this situation by making lots of whatever we’re cooking so we can have leftovers, but even these sack lunches and dinner are usually eaten on the run between classes and rehearsal breaks.

There has been a recent backlash against this frenzied approach to food. Referring to itself as “Slow Food,” this movement is the antithesis of fast food – from McDonald’s to frozen pizza, and then some. Pollan and the Slow Food movement call on us to be responsible about what we eat, but also to take time to thoroughly enjoy what we eat as well. While I love the idea of taking time for food in theory, I’m not sure how well it would work in practice. Between a full course load, 3 part-time jobs, and a show, right now I’m not sure I have the luxury….

*photo from reporting 1 blog

Post 3: "Real" vs "Fake" Jam

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Response to: "Oatmeal: Then and Now"

In George Petire's blog about oatmeal, he discussed the differences between "real" oatmeal and the new "instant" packs that Quaker Oats now distributes. The original oats version's ingredients list is short: "100% NATURAL WHOLE GRAIN QUAKER QUALITY ROLLED OATS." The new instant packets, Petrie says, have a list that is much longer, touting almost twenty ingredients. While the instant version does have "a significant amount of essential vitamins and minerals," Petrie says, these vitamins and minerals are not naturally found in the food itself, but is sprayed on to the food. Most of these vitamins and minerals evaporate with the water when they are cooked, however, which means the cooked version of instant oatmeal actually contains less than half the nutritional value that's claimed on the nutritional facts.

While it seems that it's obvious to Petrie that the original rolled oats are much better than the new "instant" version (both in taste and nutrition content), he claims that he'll probably bite the bullet and keep on eating the instant version due to a lack of resources in the college dorms for cooking the original oats.

While I understand the problems often arise with trying to eat healthily while living in the dorms, I think I'd like to challenge him, on his statement that he can't cook the rolled oats in the in his dorms. I don't currently own a microwave (that's a story for another post), I have cooked old-fashioned oats in a microwave in the past. Although it takes a little longer, "Old Fashioned" oats can be cooked in the microwave, cooking the oats with milk, adding a few chopped nuts and dried fruit to the cooked product would "up" the nutritional value of the old-fashioned oats even more over the instant variety. Although it's sometimes more challenging to eat well in the dorms, it's not as impossible as it might seem.

*Photo taken from iowaavenue.ning.com

Demo Speech Self-Eval

For my demonstration, I decided to teach the class how to properly sew on a button. This topic is relevant to college students on a tight budget who might not be able to replace an item of clothing simply because a button has fallen off. Also, it's important to know how to sew a button on properly so that it stays on, and one doesn't have to keep replacing the same button.

The demonstration included sewing materials for each class member, and my speech included 5 steps: set, sew, swirl, stop and snip. As I talked through these steps, I used a large, make-shift button, needle, thread and fabric that were made out of (in order): the top of a coffee can, a crochet needle, yarn and a piece of cardboard. They seemed to work pretty well, but I wish that I'd been able to figure out another option because they were a little but cumbersome for me to work with, and I had to skip ahead a little (not sewing each side of the button on more than once) because I couldn't work quickly with the materials I had.

Although this topic isn't super thrilling, I felt that I delivered it with a fair amount of enthusiasm. I spoke in a loud and clear voice and I tried to use a lot of different level to keep things interesting rather than speaking in monotone. I had good eye contact with my peers, but as I mentioned before, the cumbersomeness of my visual aid made my body language a little awkward at times.

The main problem that I saw with my speech is that I didn't repeat the 5 steps again at the end of my speech. I think that had I remembered to have this in my conclusion, it would have helped those watching to remember them in the future.

* photo taken from ChrisGlass.com

Response to: "Finally, a positive role model for young women."

I agree that girls need strong role models to look up to, but I’m not completely sold on Serena William’s recent Nike advertisement being a totally positive format. First of all, I find the tagline for the ad to be fairly offensive. The advertisement reads “Are you looking at my titles?” Serena’s title, of course, is worn across her chest. Suddenly, “title” reads more like “titties.” While these ads are supposedly a response to Don Imus' sexits and racist comments toward the Rutger's basketball team, I'm not sure what the message is. Are we fighting fire with fire? The sexualization of William in this ad is frustrating to me. Can we just appreciate Williams for her amazing athletic prowess and leave her breasts out of the equation?

I think that it’s selling women short to say that they are incapable of performing at the same level as men in sport. Keeping on the tennis theme, the famous “Battle of the Sexes” match between tennis player Billie Jean King and Bobbie Riggs comes to mind. A woman also holds the world record for ski jumping, even though women were still not allowed to compete in this event in the 2010 winter Olympics.

While I love to see more athletic bodies embraced by advertising media, and while I prefer the strong, empowered woman to the starved, sulking images so often seen in high-fashion advertisement, I caution that replacing one ideal for another isn’t necessarily a good thing. Women come in all shapes and sizes and we should celebrate any body that is a healthy one. I hope that we can come to a place where we can get away from the sexualization of women in the media and appreciate women of all shapes and sizes just as they are.

**photo from: usa today

Post 4: Eat like an Olympian??

If you watched the 2010 Winter Olympics for more than a couple of minutes over the last couple of weeks, you’d have a hard time missing this McDonald’s commercial advertising their new sweet chili sauce made to use with chicken McNuggets. This sauce, says the commercial is the “very same sauce enjoyed at the Olympic Village.” Now that this product is available, says the commercial, “You don’t have to be an Olympic athlete to eat like one.” Wait. What? Are they really suggesting that these world-class, Olympic athletes chow down on Chicken McNuggets to fuel them during their grueling training and fierce competitions?

McDonald’s needs any kind of hint for a healthy lifestyle to be linked with their company. They try to accomplish this in the above commercial by suggesting that McDonald’s food is something an Olympian eats and also by mentioning that the McNuggets are make with 100% white meat.

NPR blogger Monika Evstatieva finds this commercial to be upsetting as well. She points out that a couple of days before the Olympic games began, contestants from the show “The Biggest Loser” visited the Olympic Training Center in Colorado. Not surprisingly, there was no fast food to be found at the center. Is it hypocritical that McDonald’s should sponsor the Olympics? Maybe.

While I agree with Evstatieva, I understand why athletes may participate in these kinds of misleading commercials. Many athletes, especially ones who participate in lesser-known sports, rely on these kinds of endorsements to bring in money to support their training efforts. I appreciate that they have to make money some how, but I wish they were choosier in the messages they may be spreading – especially to young children. In the words of Evstatieva: of you want to eat like an Olympian, eat like one, train like one, and for heaven’s sake, skip McDonald’s!

** video from youtube.com

In Defense of Food - an attack on Nutritionism

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, the spokeswoman for Healthy Choice frozen dinners, is shown in the above commercial debating over whether to promote the product. Kerry Trueman references this commercial in her article “Nutritionsim: The Numbers Game That Doesn’t Add Up to Good Health” as she echoes the sentiments of Michael Pollan: perhaps we should all take such a weary stance of processed foods.

In his book In Defense of Food, Pollan propigates the age-old tradition of eating food to remain healthy. While this seems like an obvious statement, he argues it is surprisingly difficult for consumers of the “Western diet” to find food on their grocery shelves today. He claims food has been replaced by a process where nutritionism, which reduces foods to their nutrient parts, has been used by the food industry as a justification for touting highly processed foods as better than the whole foods that have kept our species alive for hundreds of thousands of years. Further, argues Pollan, the line between what’s “real” and what’s “processed” in our grocery stores is so ambiguous that most people have no clue what they’re consuming.

While Trueman doesn’t completely discount nutritionists, she suggests that with all the new “food-like substances” out there it’s nearly impossible for nutritionists to keep up. But, she says, it’s important that nutritionists quit obsessing about nutrients and concentrate on whole foods. She references nutritionist Joan Dye Gussow who says it’s silly to focus on one nutrient when there are so many in each food item that it’s nearly impossible to pin a health benefit or risk down just one of them.

In Trueman’s article, Gassow also supports Pollan’s claim that the food industry is at fault. She calls the food industry “our most determined enemies in the attempt to improve diets” because they are more worried about profits than the health of consumers.

The moral? Don’t sweat the nutrients. Eat food – especially fruits and vegetables.

*video taken from youtube.com and listed on the Huffington Post website along with Trueman's atricle, "Nutritionism: The Numbers Game that Doesn't Add Up to Good Health"