If you are a fan of college football, then you have probably expressed some concern over the current BCS System for college football bowl games. The other day I read the article of a classmate, Sam Edmiston, regarding this issue from the stance of a college football player. His opinion sides with the current BCS system; however, I think a better argument exists for the college football playoff system to determine a national champion.
The BCS system ranks the top college football teams based on several important statistics representative of a good team. Based on these rankings, the matchups are decided for the major BCS bowl games. This system seems logical; however, in recent years has revealed several flaws. Several years ago, based on the matchups, two teams had to split the national championship. This could be alleviated if a college football playoff system were in place.
The BCS system also makes it very difficult for teams of mid-major conferences to compete in the national championship game. For example, this year, Texas Christian University and Boise State University, two undefeated teams, will not be able to play for the national championship, yet Alabama and Texas, both undefeated, will be able to. This isn’t fair that these schools, with equal records, don’t get the opportunity to achieve the same goal.
According to ESPN analyst Pat Forde, these problems could be alleviated with an eight-team playoff system, which could begin in mid December, along with the other traditional bowl games. The sponsors who lost bowl games because of the bowl system could each host one of these bowl games to make up for lost revenue. The championship game would then be played the same night that it is now played under the current system. If only one game was removed from the regular season, the national champions would only be required to play one extra game, which wouldn’t place too much of an excessive strain on the players.
I understand the concern made by Sam Edmiston in his article; however, I think the benefits of a college football playoff would outweigh its disadvantages. Additionally, college football fans would receive the thing that matters most, more college football.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Living Vegan: The Optimal Solution?
Vegan lifestyles call to remove all animal-based products from the diet and life. In the past these lifestyles have not been widely considered, but are seemingly beginning to be more advantageous. With respect to animal rights, economical concerns, and nutritional health, a vegan diet is more advantageous than the traditional omnivorous diet.
Animal rights are obviously a popular reason for people to convert to veganism, with organizations like PETA calling for the proper treatment of animals. These animal cruelty issues can be argued in either direction, based largely on social beliefs. In order to bypass moral arguments I will acknowledge that these arguments exist, but analyze more in-depth environmental and nutritional concerns.
Economically, veganism is more advantageous as nearly 800 million Americans could be fed if all the grain in the livestock sector were instead fed directly to the people, according to David Pimentel of Cornell University. Eliminating the livestock sector has the potential to begin alleviating the world’s hunger and energy problems.
Nutritionally, vegans have been shown to have lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol levels, according to a study in the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition. These are two primary risk factors of heart disease, which takes the life of over 250,000 Americans yearly, according to the American College of Cardiology. With statistics like this, any means possible need to be considered to curb these risks.
There are economical and nutritional concerns for removing the livestock industry. A country can’t remove an entire industry without experiencing economic fallout. Additionally, maintaining a nutritionally balanced vegan diet is time consuming and expensive. But removing this industry isn’t the point of becoming vegan.
Everyone becoming vegan is an extreme solution, and is probably not the answer to the nations problems. What should be more widely considered throughout America is eliminating some animal-based products from the diet and lifestyle. This is a much more attainable goal, that can and should be pursued.
For more information on becoming vegan visit Vegan Action’s website or to end animal cruelty visit PETA’s website. Before drastically altering your diet I also recommend consulting your physician.
Animal rights are obviously a popular reason for people to convert to veganism, with organizations like PETA calling for the proper treatment of animals. These animal cruelty issues can be argued in either direction, based largely on social beliefs. In order to bypass moral arguments I will acknowledge that these arguments exist, but analyze more in-depth environmental and nutritional concerns.
Economically, veganism is more advantageous as nearly 800 million Americans could be fed if all the grain in the livestock sector were instead fed directly to the people, according to David Pimentel of Cornell University. Eliminating the livestock sector has the potential to begin alleviating the world’s hunger and energy problems.
Nutritionally, vegans have been shown to have lower blood pressure and LDL cholesterol levels, according to a study in the American Journal for Clinical Nutrition. These are two primary risk factors of heart disease, which takes the life of over 250,000 Americans yearly, according to the American College of Cardiology. With statistics like this, any means possible need to be considered to curb these risks.
There are economical and nutritional concerns for removing the livestock industry. A country can’t remove an entire industry without experiencing economic fallout. Additionally, maintaining a nutritionally balanced vegan diet is time consuming and expensive. But removing this industry isn’t the point of becoming vegan.
Everyone becoming vegan is an extreme solution, and is probably not the answer to the nations problems. What should be more widely considered throughout America is eliminating some animal-based products from the diet and lifestyle. This is a much more attainable goal, that can and should be pursued.
For more information on becoming vegan visit Vegan Action’s website or to end animal cruelty visit PETA’s website. Before drastically altering your diet I also recommend consulting your physician.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Joe Namath for Beautymist Pantyhose
In 1974, Joe Namath aired on a commercial to endorse Beautymist Pantyhose. Joe Namath is a hall of fame NFL quarterback that played for the New York Jets. Joe Namath was a quarterback that craved the attention of the New York spotlight airing on television in numerous occasions, earning himself the nickname "Broadway Joe." His endorsement of Beautymist Pantyhose, however, is probably his most controversial, but memorable appearance.
In Joe Namath’s 1974 commercial endorsement of Beautymist pantyhose, the product was being advertised with the slogan, “everything looks better with Beautymist.” Beautymist was selling their line of pantyhose for $1.69 on the commercial that Joe Namath aired in.
Despite any success that this commercial had, it was definitely controversial for the time. While comical, it seemed tasteless of Joe Namath to show himself off in pantyhose for the commercial. This commercial is considered by many viewers to have begun the era of athlete sex symbols in television.
After the public’s reaction to the commercial, Joe Namath probably wasn’t the best candidate to endorse Beautymist pantyhose. In the commercial Namath wore the pantyhose saying, “If Beautymist can make my legs look good, imagine what they’ll do for yours.” Joe Namath is a football player and hopefully doesn’t normally wear pantyhose. So how can he possibly be knowledgeable about the pantyhose to endorse the product?
Realistically, it wasn’t the intention of Beautymist to provide an informative commercial on their product. The commercial was merely a ploy to draw attention to their product. Given this goal, Beautymist definitely did draw attention to their product and can be considered a successful advertising campaign.
In Joe Namath’s 1974 commercial endorsement of Beautymist pantyhose, the product was being advertised with the slogan, “everything looks better with Beautymist.” Beautymist was selling their line of pantyhose for $1.69 on the commercial that Joe Namath aired in.
Despite any success that this commercial had, it was definitely controversial for the time. While comical, it seemed tasteless of Joe Namath to show himself off in pantyhose for the commercial. This commercial is considered by many viewers to have begun the era of athlete sex symbols in television.
After the public’s reaction to the commercial, Joe Namath probably wasn’t the best candidate to endorse Beautymist pantyhose. In the commercial Namath wore the pantyhose saying, “If Beautymist can make my legs look good, imagine what they’ll do for yours.” Joe Namath is a football player and hopefully doesn’t normally wear pantyhose. So how can he possibly be knowledgeable about the pantyhose to endorse the product?
Realistically, it wasn’t the intention of Beautymist to provide an informative commercial on their product. The commercial was merely a ploy to draw attention to their product. Given this goal, Beautymist definitely did draw attention to their product and can be considered a successful advertising campaign.
Stem Cell Research
The debate of stem cell research has been around for years. Generally, this debate is based primarily on morally and ethically charged opinions, creating endless controversy. There are many debates over stem cell research that vary in their approach. Some arguments make a more scientific approach, others a more religious approach. It is important to understand and analyze each argument of stem cell research in order to form a non-biased opinion.
To start there are articles on Associated Content’s website and a genetic engineering website that have opposing views. The argument made by Associated Content is in favor of stem cell research, while the genetic engineering website is in opposition.
The Associated Content website’s primary argument is whether stem cell research would “take life, or give life.” This article argues that using embryonic stem cells technically is “taking life,” but it isn’t really unethical because embryonic stem cells are too far from human characteristics. A second argument proposed is that using embryonic stem cells takes the life of a human embryo to potentially save thousands of people.
The genetic engineering website’s primary argument is that under the viability standard established in Roe v. Wade, embryonic stem cells should be considered viable enough to consider living beings. In this case it is unethical to use embryonic stem cells. The other primary argument is that there has been little embryonic stem cell research success in science compared to the use of adult stem cells. This article proposes the use of adult stem cells as an alternative because it is more practical and doesn’t require the death of a human embryo.
Neither article proposes the best argument for their respective side. The first article seems to be based mainly on opinion and little on fact. The second article uses facts in the court case, and even proposes an alternative solution. The second article seems to be more informative and overall more convincing, but neither is great because each article uses more opinion than fact. Other sources should be consulted to build a sound argument on this topic.
I agree with the use of stem cells in research; however, I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research until more significant gains on this front are made. After reviewing these articles my opinion remains unchanged. Each article has its strengths and weakness, but neither is overall persuasive and informative enough to alter my opinion.
To start there are articles on Associated Content’s website and a genetic engineering website that have opposing views. The argument made by Associated Content is in favor of stem cell research, while the genetic engineering website is in opposition.
The Associated Content website’s primary argument is whether stem cell research would “take life, or give life.” This article argues that using embryonic stem cells technically is “taking life,” but it isn’t really unethical because embryonic stem cells are too far from human characteristics. A second argument proposed is that using embryonic stem cells takes the life of a human embryo to potentially save thousands of people.
The genetic engineering website’s primary argument is that under the viability standard established in Roe v. Wade, embryonic stem cells should be considered viable enough to consider living beings. In this case it is unethical to use embryonic stem cells. The other primary argument is that there has been little embryonic stem cell research success in science compared to the use of adult stem cells. This article proposes the use of adult stem cells as an alternative because it is more practical and doesn’t require the death of a human embryo.
Neither article proposes the best argument for their respective side. The first article seems to be based mainly on opinion and little on fact. The second article uses facts in the court case, and even proposes an alternative solution. The second article seems to be more informative and overall more convincing, but neither is great because each article uses more opinion than fact. Other sources should be consulted to build a sound argument on this topic.
I agree with the use of stem cells in research; however, I am opposed to embryonic stem cell research until more significant gains on this front are made. After reviewing these articles my opinion remains unchanged. Each article has its strengths and weakness, but neither is overall persuasive and informative enough to alter my opinion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
