30. April 2010 by student.

Are the toys in a ‘kids meal” related to the obesity in children? Many people believe so. Santa Clara County in California is banning all McDonalds “Happy Meals” and any other foods that include a toy or prize. Santa Clara County has a population of 1.7 million people and a quarter of the children living there are overweight. Officials say they are dealing with an “obesity epidemic.” The toys are being used to attract kids to eat unhealthy, and when eating these unhealthy meals they are rewarded with a prize. Kids don’t understand the unhealthy consequences of fast food, they often desire this food because of the free toy inside. Harlan Levy of McDonald’s argues; “It substitutes the county’s judgement for the judgement of parents.”

I never thought I would stick up for fast food, but Harlan Levy is absolutely precise. Parents are to blame for their children’s eating habits and unhealthy life style. All I see today are kids sitting inside, playing video games, watching television or sitting in front of a computer. How do you suppose these kids buy food? Some parents pull through the drive-thru and grab a quick and cheap meal. If the toy is banned from a “kids meal,” they’ll most likely pick something else. If children are given TV dinners, fast food and soda constantly, there’s a good chance they’re going to be overweight.

Obesity was hardly a problem before processed food. Now a great deal of food is frozen, canned and loaded with preservatives. Fast food has hardly any nutrition, it increases belly fat and can clogs arteries. With an hour of our day, healthy lunches can be made and nutritious dinners can be prepared. However, with our busy lifestyle and poor economy, it is very convenient and affordable to eat at McDonalds or Taco Bell. So is it the toys that cause obesity in American children, the parents or both?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7647021/McDonalds-Happy-Meals-with-toys-banned-to-fight-childhood-obesity.html

Posted in Social Problems | 2 Comments »

30. April 2010 by student.

Are the toys in a ‘kids meal” related to the obesity in children? Many people believe so. Santa Clara County in California is banning all McDonalds “Happy Meals” and any other foods that include a toy or prize. Santa Clara County has a population of 1.7 million people and a quarter of the children living there are overweight. Officials say they are dealing with an “obesity epidemic.” The toys are being used to attract kids to eat unhealthy, and when eating these unhealthy meals they are rewarded with a prize. Kids don’t understand the unhealthy consequences of fast food, they often desire this food because of the free toy inside. Harlan Levy of McDonald’s argues; “It substitutes the county’s judgement for the judgement of parents.”

I never thought I would stick up for fast food, but Harlan Levy is absolutely precise. Parents are to blame for their children’s eating habits and unhealthy life style. All I see today are kids sitting inside, playing video games, watching television or sitting in front of a computer. How do you suppose these kids buy food? Some parents pull through the drive-thru and grab a quick and cheap meal. If the toy is banned from a “kids meal,” they’ll most likely pick something else. If children are given TV dinners, fast food and soda constantly, there’s a good chance they’re going to be overweight.

Obesity was hardly a problem before processed food. Now a great deal of food is frozen, canned and loaded with preservatives. Fast food has hardly any nutrition, it increases belly fat and can clogs arteries. With an hour of our day, healthy lunches can be made and nutritious dinners can be prepared. However, with our busy lifestyle and poor economy, it is very convenient and affordable to eat at McDonalds or Taco Bell. So is it the toys that cause obesity in American children, the parents or both?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/7647021/McDonalds-Happy-Meals-with-toys-banned-to-fight-childhood-obesity.html

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

30. April 2010 by student.

The following is a moral discussion of Immanuel Kant’s theory of Retributivism as well as a Utilitarian perspective on the merits of incarceration and capital punishment:

I.  We must all act such that we would advocate our actions as universal laws.

II.  Rational beings choose how they act, and are consequently held responsible for his/her actions.

III.  When a rational being chooses to treat people in a certain way, he/she (based on Kantian theory of universal laws) is essentially saying, “This is how people are to be treated.”

IV.  Thus, if we treat him/her in the same way, we are merely him/her as he/she decided people are to be treated.

V.  Therefore, when we punish a rational being for a misdeed, we are justified since we are only following the maxim which the wrongdoer has set.

Above is a reflection of Kant’s views on punishment.  From a Kantian perspective, this argument is both sound and valid.  “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” embodies the principles of Retributivism.  When we punish someone, it is not an arbitrary act of vindication.  Instead, we are simply treating the wrongdoer how he or she has decided people are to be treated.  This seems to allude to the golden rule of “treat others how you wish to be treated,” or in its original form, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  Therefore, if you kill someone, you’ve decided that is your moral maxim–we’ll kill you back.

The biggest argument against Retributivism would be presented by a Utilitarian, who would always argue to increase happiness and minimize unhappiness.  The Utilitarian’s rationale may follow: by punishing people for their misdeeds, we are creating unhappiness for the wrongdoer, without any increase in happiness.  Although this may  apply to trivial things such as a child’s spankings–or less trivial, but still relatively trivial, marijuana related incarcerations–it cannot defend against the rest of incarcerations or executions. 

After all, if  a murderer is executed, or a child molester incarcerated, the happiness of the victim’s families and prevention of unhappiness from future victims and families will surely outweigh the unhappiness of the offender and his/her friends/family.  It seems the Utilitarian must advocate, in theory, capital punishment and incarceration.  I only say in theory because, realistically, innocent are sometimes wrongly convicted.  One could argue the weight this anomaly has on the decision of capital punishment/incarceration.

So for our purpose, Retributivism will be argued in theory.  The imprisonment of criminals results in a feeling of security and, essentially, increased happiness from the feeling of being safe.  The thought of punishment may also prevent many would-be criminals from offending, in turn, preventing unhappiness.  While Kant may argue this would be using the offender as a means to society’s end, Kantian theory would still advocate the same end as the Utilitarian, just for different means.  Therefore, Retributivism and Utilitarianism both actively and proactively promotes happiness ans prevents unhappiness.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 4 Comments »

30. April 2010 by student.

Love and Marriage

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

30. April 2010 by student.

Love and Marriage

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

30. April 2010 by student.

Woman in America, especially young teenagers are infatuated with what they see on television and magazines. Girls dressing with almost no clothes, having babies at a really young age, going to parties, and having slim bodies. But what is the reality of what we see on these television shows and magazine covers? The reality is that most teenagers can’t tell apart the difference between a fantasy and the reality. It is funny and creepy to see that when a “celebrity “ is walking in the street and some fan screams, and starts asking for an autograph, but instead of calling him/her by his/ her by their real name the fan call the celebrity by the character name.  As a college student I know like is not always parties, and I must admit, I am a fan of Gossip Girl. But in this television show, where almost all characters are college students, it is all about parties.  I am not a mother, but I can imagine how hard it is to get pregnant at a very young age, and having to give away your child, but in the television hit 90210 it was easy enough to move on for one of the characters. In fact the vast majority of the teenagers and woman are not size 2 and 4, as they portrait in magazines and television shows. This T.V. stars look so perfect on screen, but once they are off it, you can see they are human beings too, with all the normal flaws a person has. So why do we insist in putting them in a pedestal? Is it because we need someone to look up to? Are those the role models we should be looking up to?

The sick obsession people have for celebrities and trying to copy them in every way they can is out of hand. I think that we should try to be ourselves and not a distorted clone copy of a false image.

Posted in Introduction to Sociology | 1 Comment »

30. April 2010 by Mr. Andoscia.

All blogs and comments up to this point have been graded.

Posted in Mr. Andoscia | No Comments »

30. April 2010 by student.

Myspace is out of control! And I think it mostly harms our young children that get involved in it. So what if myspace has “guidelines” and requirements of age and for picture uploads? If it were true that they would  punish violators for posting nude or offensive photos than, why do people still run into them? It’s a corrupt system and I would like to see it gone! People can use other means for socializing; like email and IM, it’s more private. It is also the ideal website to create drama in between young kids. Many middle and high schools kids are bullying and threatening each other through this social network and sometimes it can get very serious. Another issue invovling our young children are the sexual predators that take advantage of the website. Don’t tell parents that they need to control their kids because the community should also help to protect them. How big of an issue does Myspace need to get before it is banned??? Unfortunately we live in a society that sometimes waits until something gets very bad and ugly before they decide, “Hey I think we really need to do something”. Right now there is not much being done to myspace or the problem but people that have used it a harmful way and are caught are being punished.

Posted in Social Problems | 4 Comments »

30. April 2010 by student.

I’m sure you’ve heard it before: Our generation has the highest STD rate right now, blah blah blah.

Yeah, it’s old news. But it is still as true today as it was when you first heard about it. In fact,  STD rates are on the rise. According to the enters for Disease Control and Prevention, the amount of girls aged 15-19 who had chlamydia almost DOUBLED from 1996 to 2008.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases are a huge problem in our society, especially because almost all of us have sex. Our generation LOVES sex, and why not? Sex is everywhere. But, if you want to continue with your sexual lifestyle, there are some things you should take into account.

Get tested!! At least once a year!! Planned Parenthood has free STD testing days, mark your calendar.

Wear protection. (Birth control is NOT protection from STD’s, its protection from BABIES.)

Keep track of who you “hook up with”. If you do get an STD, you should probably know who you got it from so you can a.) tell them to stop infecting other people and b.) scream at them.

PROTECT YOUR PRIVATES!!!! You’re stuck with them forever.

Posted in Social Problems | 3 Comments »

30. April 2010 by student.

I work at a vet clinic and I amazed at how many animals I see brought in or I hear about that had intentionally been abandoned! Our nation already has an overabundance of stray animals like cats and dogs, and an overabundance of animals up for adoption in pounds and in county facilities like animal control. There are situations that force a pet owner to abandon their animals such as economic trouble or foreclosure, but pet owners sometimes abandon their animals just because the pet is misbehaving (like eating shoes or tearing up the furniture), and these actions are unacceptable! As an animal lover, I can’t comprehend how someone could just send their pet out and not let them come home and not care whether or not they end up dead in a ditch, hit by a car. I am very distraught when I see another stray come in, who just happens to have belonged to someone which is evident from the microchip embedded under the animal’s skin.

If you cannot take care of your animals any longer, due to financial or behavioral issues,  please please please, give them to someone who can take care of that animal and give him or her a home, or take the pet to a NO KILL shelter, where your pet has a chance to find a new loving home.

Remember, your animals are living, breathing, loving creatures…there is no need to just let them go to fight for their life.

Animals want love, just like humans do so don’t abandon them and send them out to their death just cause you don’t care enough to get your ass up and take them somewhere they will be taken care of and loved.

Posted in Mr. Andoscia | 1 Comment »