Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Environmental Impacts of meal
My meal that I consumed was bought at Noodles and Company. I had purchased a small portion of buttered noodles with seasoning, some garlic bread and a small diet soda. I had purchased the meal by walking into the restaurant and purchasing the food the go. We are asked what environmental impacts were associated with the production of the meal. I'm honestly not sure what environmental impacts were associated with the production of this meal, I kind of think that the environment didn't impact at all, but the economy did by gaining more money. The three ingredients I'm choosing to describe in detail are flour, grain and basil. We all now that grain is found mainly on farmland but what about flour and basil? Well I see many articles are saying that flour is grown the same way wheat is, on farmlands. Finally, basil is found in Central Africa and Southeast Asia as a spice that they use. Next we are asked how our product affected resources like water, soil and ecosystems? For the ingredients I described before, I don't believe that they had a negative effect on biodiversity, because most of the ingredients were grown in farmlands. Chemicals or fossil fuels were used if you consider grease a chemical and the heat from the oven and pots used. Other than that I cannot think of any other chemicals or fossil fuels used. Earlier I stated that I walked in there to order my food to go, but I did get there by driving my car. The ingredient that came the farthest to get to Wisconsin would be the basil, since it came from Central Africa or Southeast Asia. I'm not sure what kind of waste my meal produced, I didn't waste any part of it.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Wisconsin's Alcohol Laws: An Invite for More Underage Drinking or a Change in the State's Drinking Culture?
Underage drinking is a widespread problem in Wisconsin. According to the Center for
Disease Control, 49% of underage drinkers in Wisconsin had at least one drink of alcohol on one or more occasion in the past 30 days. According to The Associated Press, The Wisconsin Assembly recently passed a law that minors cannot drink at bars with parental consent. Before this, anyone under twenty one could drink at a bar with their legal guardian. Bartenders could even decide whether to serve them or not. I have many friends who have parents who purchased them alcohol since they were fifteen. They are alive and healthy today, and are smart drinkers.
This law changed under the bill passed by Assembly on a bipartisan 56-41 vote. The Wisconsin Medical Society and the Tavern League of Wisconsin support the new law, and a national youth rights group opposes it. They believe it is a family matter. I personally feel that the government has made a mistake because this new law will not solve the drinking problem in Wisconsin.
Dr. Mike Miller specializes in substance abuse, and he thinks that this law will address binge drinking in the state, because statistics show that young drinkers are more likely to develop addictions. Police are also in favor because they think parents should not be given discretion anymore. However, vice president of Wollersheim Winery in Prairie du Sac, Julie Coquard spoke against the proposal at the hearing. “Education should be the key, not prohibition,” she explained. I agree with the youth rights group which claims that underage drinking is a family issue. Parents are responsible for their children as long as they are minors. If anything happens to their children, parents accept the punishment. That is why it was legal for only the guardians to purchase alcohol. If a child dies or gets sick from it, the parents are in trouble with the law. If legal guardians are responsible for every dangerous situation their child puts themselves in, why
can’t they buy them alcohol? They will hopefully be able to keep their child from over drinking, because they bear the burden of responsibility.
Furthermore, not only underage drinkers drink heavily. According to the national Beer Institute, Wisconsin ranked sixth in beer
consumption in 2006, with an average of 38.2 gallons consumed for every person 21 and older. Teenagers have a natural tendency to rebel, and that is why binge drinking is a problem in America . If alcohol was not forbidden to them, maybe binge drinking rates would decline.
Underage drinkers already use fake ID’s ; I don’t know how many and I think that this law will increase the number of minors who will. If people’s parents are not willing to buy them alcohol, they can use a fake ID and buy it themselves. I wonder what will happen to minors I knew whose parents bought them alcohol’ – notice the reduction of words. The only other way to get it is to get a fake ID. According to
Wisconsin state statute, the penalty for possessing false identification for persons 17 to 20 years old is $491.They will not be breaking the law if their guardian’s could legally buy it. I think parents who purchase their children alcohol may even encourage them to buy a fake ID, after hearing this law .
In conclusion, I don’t believe this law is not solving the problem of Wisconsin’s drinking culture, nor is stopping underage and binge drinking . Prevention through education is the key to change this state’s drinking habits, because you cannot fully stop everyone . Young people are going to drink.
Sometimes you need to experience to learn, and this law is prohibiting drinking fully. Being a good drinker means knowing your limit, and that is what the issue is in Wisconsin. This is why the law that only eighteen to twenty year olds can drink alcohol with parental consent at a bar should not be enforced.
Disease Control, 49% of underage drinkers in Wisconsin had at least one drink of alcohol on one or more occasion in the past 30 days. According to The Associated Press, The Wisconsin Assembly recently passed a law that minors cannot drink at bars with parental consent. Before this, anyone under twenty one could drink at a bar with their legal guardian. Bartenders could even decide whether to serve them or not. I have many friends who have parents who purchased them alcohol since they were fifteen. They are alive and healthy today, and are smart drinkers.
This law changed under the bill passed by Assembly on a bipartisan 56-41 vote. The Wisconsin Medical Society and the Tavern League of Wisconsin support the new law, and a national youth rights group opposes it. They believe it is a family matter. I personally feel that the government has made a mistake because this new law will not solve the drinking problem in Wisconsin.
Dr. Mike Miller specializes in substance abuse, and he thinks that this law will address binge drinking in the state, because statistics show that young drinkers are more likely to develop addictions. Police are also in favor because they think parents should not be given discretion anymore. However, vice president of Wollersheim Winery in Prairie du Sac, Julie Coquard spoke against the proposal at the hearing. “Education should be the key, not prohibition,” she explained. I agree with the youth rights group which claims that underage drinking is a family issue. Parents are responsible for their children as long as they are minors. If anything happens to their children, parents accept the punishment. That is why it was legal for only the guardians to purchase alcohol. If a child dies or gets sick from it, the parents are in trouble with the law. If legal guardians are responsible for every dangerous situation their child puts themselves in, why
can’t they buy them alcohol? They will hopefully be able to keep their child from over drinking, because they bear the burden of responsibility.
Furthermore, not only underage drinkers drink heavily. According to the national Beer Institute, Wisconsin ranked sixth in beer
consumption in 2006, with an average of 38.2 gallons consumed for every person 21 and older. Teenagers have a natural tendency to rebel, and that is why binge drinking is a problem in America . If alcohol was not forbidden to them, maybe binge drinking rates would decline.
Underage drinkers already use fake ID’s ; I don’t know how many and I think that this law will increase the number of minors who will. If people’s parents are not willing to buy them alcohol, they can use a fake ID and buy it themselves. I wonder what will happen to minors I knew whose parents bought them alcohol’ – notice the reduction of words. The only other way to get it is to get a fake ID. According to
Wisconsin state statute, the penalty for possessing false identification for persons 17 to 20 years old is $491.They will not be breaking the law if their guardian’s could legally buy it. I think parents who purchase their children alcohol may even encourage them to buy a fake ID, after hearing this law .
In conclusion, I don’t believe this law is not solving the problem of Wisconsin’s drinking culture, nor is stopping underage and binge drinking . Prevention through education is the key to change this state’s drinking habits, because you cannot fully stop everyone . Young people are going to drink.
Sometimes you need to experience to learn, and this law is prohibiting drinking fully. Being a good drinker means knowing your limit, and that is what the issue is in Wisconsin. This is why the law that only eighteen to twenty year olds can drink alcohol with parental consent at a bar should not be enforced.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Media Monopolies
Media monopolies are definitely not jumping out at me. However, I did retrieve an article from "Asnycow Radio" explaining why media monopolies are not the best option. A federal court has at least temporarily lifted government rules that blocked media companies from owning a newspaper and a broadcast TV station in the same market.
The decision Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit lifts the Federal Communications Commission’s “cross-ownership” ban. To me, the most important part of this article is when they comment that a TV station can not be in the same market as a newspaper. Why is that? Also, when will we find out for sure if the removal of the media monopolies are permanent? For more information on this article you can check out http://asnycnowradio.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/court-lifts-ban-on-media-ownership-restrictions/
http://www.observatoriofucatel.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/
To me this image speaks media monopoly, because it is showing us how the "Big dog" is taking over the "Little dog" and so on. Enjoy!
The decision Tuesday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit lifts the Federal Communications Commission’s “cross-ownership” ban. To me, the most important part of this article is when they comment that a TV station can not be in the same market as a newspaper. Why is that? Also, when will we find out for sure if the removal of the media monopolies are permanent? For more information on this article you can check out http://asnycnowradio.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/court-lifts-ban-on-media-ownership-restrictions/
http://www.observatoriofucatel.cl/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/
To me this image speaks media monopoly, because it is showing us how the "Big dog" is taking over the "Little dog" and so on. Enjoy!
My Big Media Brother
Media ownership has never been terribly important in my life. You know, I have never lost any sleep over it. Shouldn't it be more important for a journalist as an individual to do what they believe in? You know, in a perfect world where everyone fights to find the truth? Ha! After reading through some relatively vague articles on the Court's decision to lift the ban on media ownership, I attempted to speak to others about what they thought about the situation. I soon discovered that no one actually cares other than saying the basic, “Oh well, that would be bad, wouldn’t it?”
I should try to sound more poetic or scholarly on the situation. Media ownership monopolies could be quite un-democratic, sort of a “Big Brother” situation, right? This is just one more step towards our “negative utopia” where people are not informed, but I’m just trying to think realistically. This is a society that does not care. No matter how you write it, a majority of people will never care.
This nifty little graphic shows – in rather elementary form – who owns the majority of the media. According to everyone’s favorite AP article by Joelle Tessler, “…some media companies already own newspapers and television stations in the same market because they were grandfathered in when the rules were first put into place in 1974.” Perhaps neither lifting nor keeping the ban is the answer to the already-dying media. If these companies have owned both television and newspapers for decades, will this ban really make a difference to the kinds of news already being produced? Later in Tessler’s article, she quotes John Sturm, who is the current head of the Newspaper Association of America (yeah, apparently people still read newspapers), saying that he “does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market.” It seems as if though lifting this ban is not even going to make a difference, which brings up an entirely different question: is our media already the monster we fear?
Most people watch the stations and read articles from sources that agree with their pre-existing opinions. If media is going to be affected, this might be a chance to further promote citizen journalism. Honestly, will the lifting of this ban really make a note-able difference to those outside of the journalism world? You tell me. Sound off.
- Krista
PS: For a larger illustration of media ownership, you can find it here. It was found on the Red Statement blog here.
I should try to sound more poetic or scholarly on the situation. Media ownership monopolies could be quite un-democratic, sort of a “Big Brother” situation, right? This is just one more step towards our “negative utopia” where people are not informed, but I’m just trying to think realistically. This is a society that does not care. No matter how you write it, a majority of people will never care.
This nifty little graphic shows – in rather elementary form – who owns the majority of the media. According to everyone’s favorite AP article by Joelle Tessler, “…some media companies already own newspapers and television stations in the same market because they were grandfathered in when the rules were first put into place in 1974.” Perhaps neither lifting nor keeping the ban is the answer to the already-dying media. If these companies have owned both television and newspapers for decades, will this ban really make a difference to the kinds of news already being produced? Later in Tessler’s article, she quotes John Sturm, who is the current head of the Newspaper Association of America (yeah, apparently people still read newspapers), saying that he “does not expect a wave of media companies to start buying up newspapers and TV stations in the same market.” It seems as if though lifting this ban is not even going to make a difference, which brings up an entirely different question: is our media already the monster we fear?
Most people watch the stations and read articles from sources that agree with their pre-existing opinions. If media is going to be affected, this might be a chance to further promote citizen journalism. Honestly, will the lifting of this ban really make a note-able difference to those outside of the journalism world? You tell me. Sound off.
- Krista
PS: For a larger illustration of media ownership, you can find it here. It was found on the Red Statement blog here.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Media Monopolies -- Internet Blogging Assignment
Here's our blog!
Your first post is due Saturday, April 3, 2010 (by midnight).
Your response is due Wednesday, April 7, 2010 (by midnight).
See lecture for assignment criteria.
Best,
dd
Your first post is due Saturday, April 3, 2010 (by midnight).
Your response is due Wednesday, April 7, 2010 (by midnight).
See lecture for assignment criteria.
Best,
dd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)