BCS System vs. College Football Playoff

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.

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.

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.

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.

The "Green Box"

In American society today, tremendous pressure is being put on industry to increase the nation's sustainability. These changes range from the auto-industry, to the energy-industry, to even the pizza industry. Wait, the pizza industry? Yes, the Environmentally Conscious Organization Inc. is announcing the "Green Box" to revolutionize the traditional cardboard pizza box. The company claims to provide a more environmentally sound product that introduces superior functionality and convenience.

The "Green Box" is a pizza box that breaks down into serving plates and a more functional storage container. The top of the box contains perforations to be divided into four serving plates. The remainder of the box folds easily into a more compact storage container, compared to using the entire box. This new pizza box can be produced for consumer use at no additional cost, and can be made out of one hundred percent recycled material, where as a traditional box would be about sixty percent recycled material. This product seems very convenient, but has been questioned as an eco-friendly alternative.

Most pizza boxes can't be recycled because of the grease stains caused by the pizza. According to Lori Brown, "food is one of the worst contaminants in the paper recycling process." During the recycling of paper products, the paper and cardboard is combined and mixed with water. Since oil and water do not mix, the paper fibers can't be separated during the pulping process to create recycled materials. Consequently, only the tops of pizza boxes can generally be recycled. The "Green Box," which seeks to utilize the entire box through serving plates loses all possibility of being recycled, because the top can no longer be recycled.

While the "Green Box" may not be the most "Green" solution in terms of recycling, this product is a functional and convenient option. The box is a very innovative concept that seems both handy and practical for parties and informal occasions. The box is made out of one hundred percent recycled material, and renders the need of paper plates to be non-existent. The sheer idea seems novel enough to be considered a beneficial alternative.

Vitaminwater®

Vitaminwater is a line of sports drink owned by Coca Cola Co. It was released as an alternative to water similar to the products like Gatorade and Powerade. Vitaminwater comes in a range of fifteen different flavors: defense, endurance, energy, focus, among others. Each is associated with a different health claim: to boost the immune system, build endurance and energy, to provide concentration, etc. On first thought, water seems to lose its appeal and Vitaminwater seems to be the cure-all. But, how accurate are these health claims? Is Vitaminwater a healthy alternative to water and source of vitamins?

I am going to assess the validity of the "Defense" of Vitaminwater. "Defense," according to a bottle of Vitaminwater, "is specially formulated with nutrients required for optimal functioning of the immune system and the generation and utilization of energy from food." Defense contains high amounts of vitamins B and C, and also zinc. Each of these vitamins and minerals are important in the production of cells that are involved in the immune system. This vitamin information is all provided clearly on the bottle, attracting the "health-oriented" consumers. What most consumers don't read is the fine print.

While Vitaminwater is rich in vitamins and antioxidants, it is also high in calories and sugar. A twenty-ounce drink contains nearly the same amounts as a twelve-ounce can of soda, in the respective areas. Further, stated synonymously with Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food, while diets rich in antioxidants are associated with lower rates of chronic disease, no conclusive scientific data show that antioxidants in supplemental form share the same success. This point is reiterated by the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI). Basically, this means that Vitaminwater is basing their claim, that the vitamins and antioxidants in their product strengthen immunity, on scientific hypotheses, not fact.

How does this affect you? According to Katherine Zeratsky of Mayo Clinic, vitamin-based waters contain sweeteners that add unneeded sugar and calories to the drink. Consequently, water and whole fruits and vegetables are the more optimal solution. If you already take a daily multi-vitamin, the vitamin drink will provide no real additional benefit. For now, stick to water, fruits, and vegetable; currently, these are the best sources of hydration, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants.

How to Tie a Necktie

On October 21st, I gave a demonstration speech to my Life Sciences Communication 100 class. The speech demonstrated how to tie a necktie. In particular, the speech was focused on how to tie the Windsor necktie knot.

The demonstration speech holistically went well. The introduction provided background information including why the subject matter was important. The speech's spark was decent, but didn't receive much reaction from the audience. The speech was organized well into logical steps. The rhyme for the steps made the process easier to remember, but may have been more easily remembered with fewer steps or an acronym. The conclusion was effective in that it repeated the steps and again reinforced the relevance of the topic.

Several visual aids were also incorporated into the speech. The visual aids were appropriate and essential: necktie, collared shirt, and mirror. The speech would not have been effective without the visual aids that were integrated.

The actual presentation performance also went well. I showed interest in the subject, which made the speech more effective. The volume and tone of my voice was appropriate and easy to understand on the video. There was adequate eye contact while occupied performing the task. The pace was generally okay, but in some places the pace seemed rushed.

Overall, the speech was effective. There were several weaknesses, but generally, they were overshadowed by the strengths. One weakness was the repetition of the word "like." These instances reduced the speech's focus and limited the impact factor of the speech. In some cases I made excessive arm and hand motions that also diminished the speech's focus. The speech's strengths were the introduction, conclusion, and organization. These elements provided a solid basis for the rest of the speech to be considered effective.

In retrospect, the topic seemed to work well for the demonstration speech. Ideally there would have been more of a reaction from the audience, but this was difficult to achieve because there was no room for audience involvement. The audience did react to the conclusion, which hopefully means the speech had the audience's attention enough to teach the audience. Overall, the speech should be considered a success.

A Convient Meal Isn't Always a Healthy Meal

When I was posed with the question of what to have for dinner, one busy night, I immediately thought of the most convenient meal I could prepare: A serving of Easy Mac, a can of pineapple, and milk. My primary motives for preparing this meal were the low cost and low hassle associated with this meal. To get the ingredients, I only needed to walk about 5 minutes to Carson’s Carryout, and the meal cost approximately $3.50. The total preparation from this point took about 5 minutes. For the Easy Mac, all I needed to do was add water and microwave for 3 ½ minutes. Then I stirred in the cheese and allowed it to cool for about 1 minute. In the meantime, I opened the can of fruit, and got out a disposable spoon. After eating, I was able to clean up the mess by either throwing away or recycling everything with no additional time needed for dishes.


While I had a very convenient alternative to eating in the regular dining hall, I definitely consumed what Michael Pollan considers to be a “damaging innovation.” In section 7 of his book, In Defense of Food, Michael Pollan discusses what he believes to be another of America’s problematic views of food. This view is that, in the western diet, taste is becoming less important than nutrition. Consequently, this is putting the American diet in the hands of the scientists. These scientists have proceeded to “flood” American cooking with “damaging innovations,” like low-fat processed foods. Nutritionally speaking, low-fat processed foods may have less fat than their whole food counterpart, but these new improvisations haven’t lead to the cure of “western diet” diseases; it has even caused some of these diseases. These processed foods contain more than 3,000 additives and preservatives. Additionally, these chemicals have only recently been introduced to the body, and so far we just haven’t quite adapted to the chemical imbalance.


After reading this section of In Defense of Food, I now feel quite poorly about the choice I made. I made a convenient choice; however, the choice I made ended up being quite harmful to my body. This case is a clear example supporting Michael Pollan’s claims proposed in section 7. After reading, I realize that I probably should have eaten fresh fruit, and a main dish that didn’t consist of so many calories and sodium.

Pineapple: Fresh vs Canned?

I have been eating pineapple since I was very young. It has become one of my favorite fruits. It is a very sweet fruit that I have been enjoying with meals and snacks for quite some time. In years past, I have always enjoyed a fresh pineapple from the grocery store; however, in my more recent college days, I have been resorting to the more convenient canned pineapple. Canned pineapple is a convenient alternative, but is it really an equally nutritious choice?

Fresh pineapple is a delicious fruit that when ripe is deep yellow in color, and has very sweet, sour taste. Its counterpart, canned pineapple, generally tends not to be as pure yellow in color, and also tends to be more liquefied. Additionally, canned pineapple has a much more sugary, sweet taste, and less of a sour taste. This comparison also holds true for smell; canned pineapple generally smells more like the sugary juice it is stored in. Even though the taste isn't there with canned pineapple it is still a nutritious alternative.

Fresh pineapple is one of the more nutritious fruits containing many vitamins and nutrients. Pineapple aso has been found to contain nutrients that act as anti-inflammatory reagents, according to Dr. Andrew Weil. Canned pineapple; however, isn't considered to be quite as nutritious. It still has anti-inflammatory properties, yet it loses major vitamins when it is canned. According to the American Dietetic Association, major vitamins, like vitamin C, are lost due to heating processes when pineapple is canned. Canned pineapple also contains higher levels of sugars, and it contains more calories. Canned pineapple doesn't quite compare with fresh pineapple on a nutritional level, yet convenience has motivated me to switch.

I switched from fresh pineapple to canned pineapple when the convenience began to outweigh the nutritional value. In college, without a vehicle, it is too time consuming to go to a local grocery store to buy fresh fruit. It is much more convenient to buy canned pineapple from the small, nearby campus grocery store: Carson's Carryout. I prefer to eat fresh pineapple based on both taste and nutrition, and I plan to resume eating fresh pineapple in the future. But for now canned pineapple's marginal benefit, convenience, outweighs its marginal cost, lack of nutrition, effecting my switch from consuming more fresh pineapple to more canned pineapple.

Michael Pollan Delivers an Excellent Speech

Michael Pollan came to the Kohl Center this past Friday, September 25, to discuss his book, In Defense of Food. He came as a part of the University of Wisconsin – Madison’s “Go Big Read” program. Many people, both in support and in opposition of Michael Pollan, attended the event. The event format was a lecture in which Pollan discussed several of the key aspects of his book.

Overall, Michael Pollan did a great job in conveying his ideas to the public. Pollan knew his audience and appealed directly to everyone in attendance. His speech was even molded as to apply to both those who were familiar with his book and those who weren’t. One of the neat points in Pollan’s speech was how he made it difficult to disagree with him. For example, to start out his speech, he stated that he would gladly wear an “In Defense of Farmers” shirt to silence some of his opposition. Subtle tactics like this made the event even more interesting.

One of the more notable and interesting points in Pollan’s speech was his discussion on healthcare. Michael Pollan makes numerous references, in his book, to the western diet and how seemingly unhealthy it must be. He described the western diet and then went on to describe the diet of the Inuit among other civilizations. Along the way he pointed out how Americans supposedly eat healthier, yet they are the ones suffering from cardiac diseases linked to diet. This says something about the microanalysis of nutrients in the western diet. Pollan also discussed how America spends 2 trillion dollars on healthcare; three quarters of which is spent on preventable chronic diseases, mostly pertaining to diet. This raises a red flag about the western diet. Not only is the western diet ruining the lifestyles of many, it is also affecting our national healthcare system. Maybe it’s time to change our eating habits.

Another interesting point that Pollan brings to the forefront is the hidden motives of nutritionism and advertisement. In this example he creates a parody of the fruit loop. He talks about how scientists can alter the fruit loop to contain any nutrient that will make the product sell better. For example the “smart check” system on these products was created to increase the appeal of their product to make more money. Don’t let the “smart check” system fool you though; fruit loops are still 44% sugar by weight. Then he contrasts a whole food like the avocado to fruit loops. He states that an avocado can’t be altered to contain any ingredient, which allows the consumer to know exactly what they are consuming. Through these examples, Pollan makes a strong case against processed and other manufactured foods, simply because anything can be added to these foods.

Throughout Pollan’s entire speech, he was interesting, comical, and informative. He was able to deliver a persuasive speech that was based not only on opinion, but also on expertise (several references came from Harvard studies). He did a great job promoting the book, while increasing the general public knowledge. The evening can definitely be considered a success for the “Go Big Read” program.

Nutritionism: Beneficial or Detrimental?

Nutritionism, disputed by Michael Pollan, is defined as an ideology that proclaims that the key to understanding food is first understanding the nutrient. In the more current industrial times, this idea of nutritionism has been researched endlessly and has taken a more scientific approach to food. This reasoning makes sense in that if food can be altered to contain the more healthy nutrients, the food will be healthier itself. However, as Michael Pollan discusses in In Defense of Food, this ideology of nutritionism may not be the answer.


In the first section of his book, Pollan summarizes the history of vitamins and nutrients. He also discusses how nutrients became a large part of attempting to solve certain complications of the western diet, like obesity, diabetes, and other cardiovascular diseases. In hindsight, he states that the best way to analyze one's diet may not be to view foods simply as "the sum of their nutrient parts." Nutritionist Joan Dye-Gussow agrees with Pollan in making the argument that if foods are only thought of by the nutrients they contain, then organic whole foods are no healthier than the processed foods that contain the exact same nutrient levels. This is the first paradox introduced in In Defense of Food.



A second argument deals with the French paradox. The paradox is that if the French enjoy food so much and eat food that is considered to be unhealthy, how come they have much lower rates of heart disease than Americans. Part of the problem is considered to be that Americans spend too much time worrying about the food they eat. This is widely becoming considered "Orthorexia," which states there is an inverse relationship between the amount of time spent worrying about food and one's overall health. This idea that Pollan introduced in his book has yet to be proven, but is becoming seemingly more recognizable. Dr. Barbara Berkeley has made agreeing contributions in recognizing "orthorexia" as an eating disorder, in a recent article.



Both of Pollan's arguments in the book are solid points, which are very relevant to the western diet. Already in the book, he has found several problems with the western diet and has already provided several solutions providing the readers with much more to look forward to.