The Family

The thesis of the paper is that Family Guy television show has actual reasoning behind their jokes and skits even if it isn’t the first thing the view sees.

1.There are parodies and jokes about real life issues and shows the creators stance on these issues.

2. It usual isn’t racists or sexiest thats just how the show fits it into the show.

The characters are not role models anyone would want to take after and the sho makes this very evident.

I think Peacocke would agree with Johnson and Rushkoff. They both see the good in television and don’t just see the surface of it. The think and look deep into what the creators are trying to express and make statements on. I think Peacocke would completely agree with them and could find some more reasons the Simpsons are great and why television could make you smarter. I think she would be impresses on the in-depth analysis of old and new television shows are better and how much more complex they have become.

Works Cited:

Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 257-69. Print.

Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Johnson, Steven. “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”. New York Magazine (2005). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

George F. Wills

The thesis of George F. Wills’s article is that society is “becoming increasingly desensitized.”( TSIS 295) Will makes the argument that technology has allowed “more sophisticated delivery of stupidity.”( TSIS 294) He infers that with more access to violence society is becoming more desensitized. H e makes a second “argument that the existence of people willing to watch these programs and participate in them doesn’t mean that it’s ok. Wills compares the networks that air these shows like Fear Factor to heroin pushers.
In the story “What’s the matter with kids today” the author Amy Goldwasser says, “kids today don’t read, don’t write, don’t care about anything farther in front of them than their iPods (TSIS 237). George F. Will would agree with this Will thinks that television can be an addiction he compare is to heroin.
In the story “Watching TV makes you smarter” the author Steven Johnson argues that some shows make you think more than others, Johnson goes as far as comparing past shows with modern day shows with a system he calls the sleeper curve (217). Goerge F. Will would not agree with this in “Reality Telivision: Oxymoron” George Will forms a list of different technological devices and says, “This is progress: more sophisticated delivery of stupidity.” (TSIS 294).
Works cited
Goldwasser, Amy. "What's the Matter with Kids Today?" Salon. 2008. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 236-240. Print.
Johnson, Steven. “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”. New York Magazine (2005). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.
By Eric and Michael

Goldwasser

Technology has created a new way that teens and young peolpe in this generation go about communicating and where they get their information for the most part. Goldwasser's thesis, "Teenagers today read and write for fun; it;s a part of their social lives. WE need to start celebrating this unprecidented surge, incorporating it as an educational tool instead of meeting it with punishing pop quizzes and supspicion (239)." This shows that Goldswasser beleives that this new generation of multi-media expressionists have created their own type of motive for reading and writing on they own. Goldwasser goes on to say that the older generation is scared to associate these new mediums as valid because they are not fluent in these social stratuses(238) .
In Johnson's writing I think he comes across as saying the television shows that are on today are very complex in the way they're formatted. Goldwasser would most likely agree with Johnson in that this new generation has created an outlet to express creativity by using the medium of television. In Johnson's writing I think he comes across as saying the television shows that are on today are very complex in the way they're formatted and that these types of shows improve cognition of it's viewers (Johnson 216).

On the other hand Dana Stevens would most likely disagree with these two. She outright says Johnson is crazy for asserting that television makes one smarter(233) . She takes the stance that TV is really neutral when it comes to brain stimulation and goes on to assert TV creates a feild day for adverstising to children. She challenges anyone to not watch TV for one day to see if they get any dumber(Stevens) .






works cited


Goldwasser, Amy. "What's the Matter with Kids Today?" Salon. 2008. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 236-240. Print.

Johnson, Steven. “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”. New York Magazine (2005). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box”. Slate (2005). Web. They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

The Simpsons

Amber G. and Jared H.

By pretending to be a kids cartoon, the Emmy winning television show The Simpsons, gets away with murder. Using its young Harvard educated staff; the writers have found an arsenal of ways to sneak pop culture into their weekly shows without the audience being aware. The Simpsons mocks other programs that are on TV or have been on TV in the past and also exhibits characters that we can all relate to. There is at least one reenactment per weekly show, primarily from Hitchcock films or big time companies like Budweiser. By mocking them they are almost promoting those companies. The use of the characters is also very important. The writers give each character a specific characteristic that we can all relate to. By doing this they are able to invite us in, as viewers we then are able to compare our own reality to the program. This technique keeps us coming back for more. Although The Simpsons creators claim to have no hidden agenda, the creator in an interview does say something otherwise. “The Simpsons creator, comic strip artist, Matt Groeing, has long understood how to mask his countercultural agenda: I find that you can get away with all sorts of unusual ideas if you present them with a smile on your face (Rushkoff).”
While we try to compare Rushkoff to other authors of the sections we do think that the Rushkoff would agree with the techniques and styles used. Although Family Guy focus’ more on race, sexism and political views; while The Simpsons focus’ more on the “generation gap,” we think that the author would agree that they do carry a similar satire. Rushkoff’s argument about The Simpsons actually applies to Family Guy as well, except in one dimension: Rushkoff writes that The Simpsons’ creators do “not comment on social issues as much as they do on media imagery around a particular social issue. MacFarlane and company seem to do the reverse. Trusting in their viewers’ ability to analyze what they are watching, the creators of Family Guy point out the weaknesses and defects of the U.S. society in a mocking an sometimes intolerant way (Peacocke, 263) In the article Reality Television: Oxymoron, the author does state that “America determined to amuse itself into inanition, is becoming increasingly desensitized. So entertainment seeking a mass audience is ratcheting up the violence, sexuality, and degradation, becoming increasingly coarse and trying to be-its largest challenge-shocking in an unshockable society (Will, 295).” This statement we believe that Rushkoff would also agree with. In a sense she may be from that “baby boomer” generation and also caught in the generation gap.

Works Cited:
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 257-69. Print.

Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Group 6 - Turkle

Kayleigh Johnson
Jeff Mattfield
Kara Phillips

A vague sense of Turkle's thesis is captured in the subtitle of the reading: “Thanks to technology, people have never been more connected—or more alienated” (Graff, Birkenstein, and Durst 270). As Turkle goes on to explain, what she means by this is that people are so connected through technology that they are extremely disconnected when they are in personal settings. People are always on their cell phones, laptops, etc., so even when they are in a meeting, in a class, or hanging out with friends, they are not entirely “there.” People often text, update their Facebook statuses, etc., even when they are with other people. Turkle says that because of technology, people are becoming less personal and more distanced from everyone around them.

People these days are more concerned with their personal networks and electronics then having a face-to-face conversation or meeting. Sherry Turkle brought up that people feel they are “being put on pause” when having a conversation, it’s hard to communicate with others when someone is text messaging, checking their e-mail, or updating their status. She brings up that we are no longer needed in person for a physical conversation, that the preference is leading to complete virtual communication. Overall, Turkle is concerned with the type people we are becoming since we are so obsessed with our machines and technology.

Turkle would agree with what Chast is trying to portray in his cartoon. Chast is showing that we once paid so much attention to language and spoke very elegantly, but now everyone uses “text lingo” instead because of technology. Turkle thinks that people are extremely disconnected in person because of technology, so she would probably agree with Chast's point. Turkle would probably go on to say that even lovers are disconnected and don't take the time to make their communication elegant or well-thought-out because of technology.

With Amy Goldwasser's essay on page 236, however, Turkle would find fault. Goldwasser believes that there is nothing wrong with the younger generation embracing technology. She argues that recent studies, which suggest that teenagers are less literate than earlier generations, have ignored that teens read and write on the Internet rather than on paper and are learning no less than their parents did with it. Turkle would disagree that the Internet is a good thing, though. Sure, teenagers may read and write, but the harm is that they lose out on emotional growth. She argues that a culture of cell phones has communication, for sure, but not self-reflection, claiming that it's healthier to have an emotion and to share it than to desire an emotion and to solicit it (276).

Works Cited

Chast, Roz. "The I.M.'s of Romeo and Juliet." Cartoon. New Yorker Feb 4, 2002. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 282. Print.

Goldwasser, Amy. "What's the Matter with Kids Today?" Salon. 2008. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 236-240. Print.

Turkle, Sherry. "Can You Hear Me Now?" Forbes. 2007. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 270-280. Print.

Group 2 - Dana Stevens (Kelly, Andrea and Jessica)

Dana Stevens author of “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box,” believes that television should be watched for enjoyment, as it offers no mental enhancement. Some have claimed the popular show 24 as being mentally “nutritional,” due to its complicated and twisted plot lines and many characters. Each character provides the show with their own individual story and many of their stories intersect at times. Some believe that this formal structure within an episode actually helps to strengthen our capacity to mentally retain and follow information. Stevens affirms that it instead leaves us only wanting more T.V. and silently compromising our ethics through the depiction of the shows social relationships. Furthermore, an hour long program is filled with 16 minutes of commercial time; in all likelihood that 16 minutes isn’t fostering cognition. Stevens uses the show 24 and the controversies surrounding its portrayal of Muslim terrorists and its unspoken endorsement of torture as fitting examples supporting her claim (Stevens 232). Moreover, Stevens believes that as adults we should be trusted to manage our viewing choices. She further questions shouldn’t we be watching shows because we enjoy them, not forcing our brain to manage and retain complex story lines and recognize long-term patterns? Stevens simply challenges anyone to turn it off, just turn the T.V. off for one week, and at the end of the week see if you have in fact gotten any dumber (Stevens 234).

Dana Stevens and Sherry Turkle, author of Can You Hear Me Now, are of the same mind that the ever-increasing world of technology is detrimental to society. Advancements in technology, including that of television programming and on-line networks, are not making society more intelligent; rather creating narcissism and introversion. People are escaping reality and fundamental personal relationships by submerging themselves into the depths of technological snares. There is no rest for the tethered soul that finds it impossible to step away from the technological devices and advancements that have seized societal relations. It is disheartening that many, perhaps unintentionally, have directed their attention to these gadgets and enthralling television shows rather then those we dine with for example. Stevens and Turkle share the perspective that technology is not doing society any favors, these devices and such pose as distractions and lead us to expend our thoughts on fiction rather than that of meaningful reality.

We believe that Dana Stevens would agree with one illusive point of Antonia Peacocke’s essay, “Family Guy and Freud,” watching TV leads you to watch more TV. Peacocke openly admits that she continues to watch Family Guy and can in fact “perform one-woman versions of several episodes” (Peacocke 258). Stevens would contend that “grown men and women be trusted to judge their own dosages,” in reference to television shows (Peacocke 234). However, we don’t believe that Stevens would equate Peacocke’s ability to mimic with intelligence, or for that matter ever give thought to comparing Family Guy to Freud. Although, we do believe that Peacocke considers one to be on a different plane of thought when watching television as her reference to Sigmund Freud implies. Peacocke states that we should be able to tell the difference between what is real and what is not (Peacocke 266). We do however believe that Stevens would, without a doubt, condemn Peacocke’s attitude; that exposing prejudiced attitudes as comedy is an acceptable way to make light of it and show its outrageousness.


Works Cited
Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 257-69. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box”. Slate. 25 March 2005. Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 231-35. Print.

Turkle, Sherry. “Can You Hear Me Now?” Forbes. 2007. Rpt. in "They Say/I Say with Readings". Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 270-81. Print.

Joan Thrift-Walton
Andrew Wohlfeil
English 1022:54
Roz Chast

Thesis statement:
Thanks to modern technology, young people don't have the ability to communicate effectively.

Supporting statement 1: line 6 of the text Romeo states “What a jerk I usedd purpl ink on the sci test. He g5ot pissed he lookjs like jiminy cricket” This is an example of the horrible grammar skills young people have developed.
Supporting statement 2: line11 states “cardoza called home, sez im failig spanish btw both my rents hate u” we can see here there are no clear transitions in the conversation when Juliet switch subjects.
Statement 3: In the article both Romeo, and Juliet made comments about their parents hating each other. They were comfortable sharing this because there were no emotional ties to this conversation, being it was in a virtual world. We also notice how quickly they discontinued their chat when Juliet mentioned her father was coming.
Author response 1: Chast would support Graff's argument due to line 11 where Juliet inform Romeo she is failing Spanish, and the statement contains several grammar errors.
Author Response 2: Chast would agree with Goldwasser based on the survey she conducted that found most kids are ignorant to history and literature, because they have been concentrating there effort in becoming fluent in texting blogging and facebook.

Authors Response 3: Chast would support the argument that with technology allows the illusion of companionship with out the demands of long term intimate friendship. This is true for Romeo and Juliet who fear intimacy, because there parents hate each other.

Group 5 - Amanda

Anyone who has ever seen an episode of Family Guy can easily admit how offensive and peculiar the show is. However, those that are offended by the show usually do not see how it draws on real life situations faced by everyday Americans to provide its humor. Antonia Peacocke was one such viewer. She was offended by Family Guy when she first saw it that she was adamantly opposed to the program (258). However, once she gave it a chance, she began to see that Family Guy’s purpose was not to insult viewer, but to educate them about the social structure of the country we live in. Peacocke uses her piece to show specific examples of how Family Guy intelligently satirizes modern American society.

Peacocke explains her standpoint with many different examples, one of her first coming from an episode in which a mock fifties instructional video is used to show the sexism that was once prevalent in these types of videos. The example given features the voice of a narrator instructing viewers of the video to frequently tell insecure women how great they look every day, and that nothing says “Good Job!” like a firm slap to the behind (260). To people watching a show with no background knowledge of sexist 1950’s videos, this would not seem humorous. However, after finding an ancient video from the 1950’s about how a happy marriage should run, I can see the humor in MacFarlane’s satire.



The second example Peacocke uses is a bit more obvious. For this example, she cites an episode in which the dog, Brian, and the baby, Stewie, are talking about books and reading. Brian tricks Stewie into explaining that heonly reads books that are on Oprah’s book list (262). This episode provides a comment on America’s obsession with celebrities. This is seen anywhere – if a celebrity has an object, suddenly it’s popular for everyone else to have it. And if the celebrity is Oprah, then no more explanation is needed. Oprah rules as the Queen of American talk shows. Once she tells her royal subjects about something that she finds to be good, they have to have it.

Family Guy also uses satire to take jabs at the Federal Communications Commission, which censors shows that are seen on the air. In one particular episode the main character, Peter, sets up his own television show from home. The FCC steps in and begins to not only censor the program, but soon they begin to censor the neighborhood in which Peter lives. Soon, black boxes are places in front of characters when they are seen in “crude” positions, and the FCC blows foghorns whenever they curse. Macfarlane puts his explicit argument into the mouths of his characters, having Brian explain that there are plenty of things that are worse than television for children (264). When you think about it, it’s completely true. I’m not saying that children should go watch the goriest show they can find and that all will end well. But a gory, hypothetical show compared to an actual violent event? I’ll take television, please.

Peacocke also takes the time to in her piece to respond to one other author in TSIS.. She speaks of the similarity of her piece compared to a work written by Douglas Rushkoff about The Simpsons. She thinks that her and Rushkoff’s pieces are similar because they both comment on the aspect of humor of their respective television programs. She says the one main difference between hers and his piece, however, is one distinct line where Rushkoff says that The Simpsons creators do “not comment on social issues as much as they [do on] the media imagery around a particular social issue” (296). Peacocke thinks that Family Guy does just the opposite; the creator of Family Guy relies on his viewer’s ability to analyze what they are watching and to understand the shows pokes at the defects of the modern American society (263).

I think that Peacocke would really enjoy Fred Allen’s “Reality Television: Oxymoron.” The piece, like Family Guy, makes social commentary on America’s culture. However, it reviews relity television instead, explaining that Americans have become targets of “shock culture.” We are constantly waiting to be shocked by what we view, but we are desensitized to sex, violence, and degradation that nothing effects us anymore (Will 295). I’m sure that Macfarlane has targeted this in some episode of Family Guy before. However, Family Guy is one of those shows that Allen is talking about. It relies on shock value to satire society.

WORKS CITED

Peacocke, Antonia. “Family Guy and Freud: Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious.” Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Group 1: Amy, Jamie, Samantha - Johnson

The thesis behind Steven Johnson’s article, “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”, tells us that the widely held belief that watching television is just mindless entertainment, is in fact wrong, because with the complicated and dynamically interwoven storylines dominating today’s programs, watching television actually requires more cognitive skills than ever before.


One of the points Johnson uses to support his thesis is, “The Case for Confusion” (pg.220). In television shows and movies made in decades past, not much was left to the viewer’s imagination, or personal discovery. When key plot points were being filmed in early programming, the producers would point out the things they assumed the public was not smart enough to figure out on their own. When acting out scenes that require technical jargon, actors would follow up with layman speech, so the audience could figure it out. “They reduce the amount of analytic work you need to do to make sense of a story. All you have to do is follow the arrows” (pg.221). In contrast, today’s shows require you to make sense of the story yourself, sometimes weaving in things that can only be explained or understood if you had watched an episode that had previously aired. You, the viewer, have to “integrate far more information than you would have a few decades ago watching a comparable show” (pg.214).


Another point Johnson expresses are the feelings of a viewer when watching television programs that are older. The consensus is that the modern viewer is bored by the content. Johnson says the reason for this is, “because the show contains far less information in each scene” (pg.227). The little information results in little thinking. Whereas when you watch a program thick with layers, “you have to focus to follow the plot…you’re exercising the parts of your brain that map social networks, fill in missing information, that connect multiple threads” (pg.228).

George F. Will makes several points about how the entertainment industry is fighting to keep viewers entertained by offering perversity programming, because they are becoming increasingly desensitized and because an intellectual show will not keep them interested (pg.294) Johnson would counter this argument pointing to the fact that some of the shows that Will mentions have been cancelled, while the intellectual programs have thrived.

Dana Stevens writes this article in response to Johnson’s article. She states that Johnson’s claim for television as a tool for brain enhancement seems deeply, hilariously bogus. Johnson would respond back to Stevens by restating his point but adding more statistical evidence to back him up.

WORKS CITED

Johnson, Steven. “Watching T.V. Makes You Smarter”. New York Magazine (2005). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Stevens, Dana. “Thinking Outside the Idiot Box”. Slate (2005). Web. They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Will, George F.”Reality Television:Oxymoron”. Washington Post (2001). They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Group 8--Christy, Cam, Rhonda--Rocker-Gladen

This is an article of Naomi Rockler-Gladen tittled " Me Against the Media: From the Trenches of a Media Lit Class." In this article, Rockler-Gladen's thesis statement is that I try to make my students more aware of how the media naturalize consumerism through advertisements, product placement, and especially through advertiser-friendly programming.

There are four things that the author uses to back up her thesis. They are following:

1) The dreams, the memories, the rites of passage of Generation Y- all of these are intricately intertwined with consumerism. The author shows the movie Father of the Bride to her class to show an example of how consumerism-fuels expectations. "Dad learns his lesson: consumerism-fueled expectations may be outrageous, but they are necessary, and failure to adhere to these expectations is silly, miserly, and downright unloving." pg 286.

2) Advertisement even reaches out through educational programming and television shows for children after Reagan let advertisers advertise to children in the 1980's. "This helped bring forth a new marketing tactic- which Tom Engelhardt has called the "Shortcake Strategy"- in which children's TV shows were created for the exclusive purpose of marketing large collections of children's toys." pg 287

3) Advertisers even have gotten into the schools. "This is the first generation that came of age in the era of rampant advertising in the schools, as well as Channel One, the news program piped into schools complete with advertisements." pg 287

4) What can media activists do? "Advertisers and media producers consciously create media content that "trains" young people to be consumers", and she said "The trick is to find popular culture texts they relate to that have strong pro-consumerism bent ". She uses the examples of the Friends episode and reality television. pgs 290-291

In the issue of media and young adults, there are other articles such as Amy Goldwasser's “What's the Matter with Kids Today?” or Douglas Rushkoff's “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.” Our group believes that while Rockler-Gladen would mostly agree with Goldwasser's viewpoints, she would disagree with Rushkoff's opinion. First of all, Rockler-Gladen would agree with Goldwasser's claim that children are separate entities from their parents when talking about media, as general, and internet, specifically. For example, according to Goldwasser, the internet “has turned teenagers into honest documentarians of their own lives,” but it scares parents because “our kids know things we [the parents] don't” (238). As a result, Rockler-Gladen suggests that media activists should find ways to appeal to members of the young generation on the level of the individual (290). Secondly, Rockler-Gladen would definitely agree with Goldwasser about the power of young adult in consumerism. For example, Goldwasser said, “[the kids] are texting at the dinner table and responsible for pretty much every enduring consumer cultural phenomenon,” (238) and Rockler-Gladen said, “Run the term 'Generation Y' through a search engine, and you'll find dozens of sites with information about how companies can take advantage of this marketing gold mine” (285). However, this is the point where the agreement between those authors is ended: Rockler-Gladen would disagree with Goldwasser because she would believe that Goldwasser has overlooked an important point to Rockler-Gladen which is that children are seen as targeted consumers. For example, from her experience, Rockler-Gladen has found that her students are amenable to discussions about how advertisers and media producers consciously create media content that “trains” young people to be consumers (290).

Although Rockler-Gladen has mostly agreed with Goldwasser's point of view, she would disagree with Rushkoff because he said, “[Teenagers] never forget for a moment that they are watching media and they resent those who try to draw them in and sell them something. They will not be part of a “target market,” at least not without a fight” (245). Rockler-Gladen would think Rushkoff is mistaken because his opinion rests upon the questionable assumption that people, especially teenagers, have been released from media “programming” (243). However, in fact, Rockler-Gladen has proven how media content itself naturalize consumerism such as in the movie “Father of the Bride”: consumerism-fuel expectations may be outrageous, but failure to adhere to these expectations is silly, miserly, and downright unloving (287). In another example, Rockler-Gladen argues that consumerism target teenagers in all fronts: stadiums, lunchrooms, a back-to-school party, so on.

Work Cited

Rockler-Gladen, Naomi. “Me Against the Media.”*Adbusters magazine *(2007). Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Goldwasser, Amy. “What's the Matter with Kids Today?” *Salon*(2008). Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Rushkoff, Douglas. “Bart Simpson: Prince of Irreverence.”*Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture* (2004). Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Assignment 5.1, Group 10/Nicole and Scott

QUESTION 1:
The thesis of our reading is, “we associate the educated life, the life of the mind, too narrowly and exclusively with subjects and texts that we consider inherently weighty and academic.”

QUESTION 2:
A. On page 298, Graff makes the point that we can encourage kids to grow intellectually by introducing topics into school work that hold their interest rather than what we think they should be studying. He believes that if schools would incorporate some popular teen topics, it would create more enthusiasm and a deeper thought process.
B. On page 301, Graff points out the similarity between the world outside of school (what he calls the real intellectual world) and debates about sports. The comparison of intellectualism and team sports both having rival theories, interpretations, and evaluations mirror each other. He brings up an excellent point here; we really do learn our conversation and debate skills by talking things out amongst friends. Kids use their critical thinking all the time while they are socializing with friends, but focusing that type of thinking on school work is difficult to achieve.
C. On page 303, Graff makes the point that if you allow students to write about what they are interested in, it does not have to be a cop-out as long as students are required to see these interests through academic eyes and think about them in a reflective/analytical way.
D. Also on page 303, Graff makes the point that if a student is not interested in Mill's On Liberty but will read Sports Illustrated or Vogue or the hip-hop magazine Source with absorption it will promote intellectual growth. When students get hooked on reading and writing by doing term papers on Source, they will eventually get to On Liberty. If they still don't, then they will at least become more literate and reflective than if they did not read interesting magazines in the first place.

QUESTION 3:
A. How Graff would respond to the reading “Can You Hear Me Now.” –
I think that Graff would probably say that the technology was brought more people together because there is now more ways in which people are able to connect with each other. Having more connections will allow them to talk to the instructor about the paper they may be about online instead of talking in person. This allows students to open up more with their writing abilities and their potential problems and correct them. This writing online will help them become better writers instead of having to talk in person in which they may otherwise feel uncomfortable doing.
B. How Graff would respond to the reading “What’s the Matter with Kids Today?” –
Graff would support this author’s position in regard to alternative means of intellectualism being highly beneficial. Both of their writings explain that children are voluntarily spending endless hours reading, writing, analyzing facts and debating on subjects they are interested in. The classical education we are accustomed to is simply changing with the times. Graff would completely support this article’s point of encouraging children to do any type of reading and writing and to stop discounting its relevance in intellectual growth. Both of these authors are far more interested in children expanding their minds by exploring subjects they are interested in than the alternative of pushing classic literature on kids who begrudgingly do the assignments without gaining the intended knowledge.

Group Five-Your Twisted Friends

In this piece the author Eric Schlosser discusses how marketing aimed at children has reached an all- time high. Companies like McDonald's and Walt Disney have created grand marketing schemes targeting young children. These companies have long known that associating their products with childrens themes they can effectively control how their products are consumed by chidren. "Hoping that nostalgic childhood memories will lead to a lifetime of purchases..”(Schlosser 190) . There are whole marketing organizations are dedicated to selling to children using highly market research and studies that analyze and predict exactly what children want and how to seel it to them (Schlosser 190).
In David Zinczecko's, " Don't Blame The Eater", he explains how much fast food Americans eat, yet he dosen't go into depth about why we eat so much fast food. On the other hand Schlosser's peice give great detail on how companies like McDonalds get into peoples head and ultimately control their decision making.
Another peice by Radley Balko, "What You Eat Is Your Business", explains how the food choices Americans make is simply their own choice. He talks about health care should charge more money for overweight and obese clients (Balko 158). He goes on to explain how obesity shouldn't be a public concern and shouldn't be included in public discussions about reform. This article fails to grasp what Scholser was getting at, that corporations are controlling the minds of children who turn into aldults that keep these companies running strong.

Group 8 Balko

In “What You Eat Is Your Business”, Radley Balko argues that it is America’s personal responsibility to choose what they put into their mouths. It is not for the government to implement laws that will force people to be healthy. Balko believes that banning junk food from school vending machines and adding “fat taxes” is the wrong way to fight obesity (Balko 158). Instead the insurance companies should be have incentives for healthy behavior and consequences for nutritional behavior that could lead to health problems. I believe this is the best way for the government to take care of obesity as well because then it doesn’t punish the people who are living a healthy lifestyle. We shouldn’t have to pay for other people’s hospital visits. We should worry about our own health bills and that’s it. This is what Balko is trying to get at in his article “What You Eat Is Your Business”.

David Zinczenko argues that we need more alternatives for our youth to eat then fast food. In reality there are all kinds of places that you can find healthy choices. Teens most certainly could eat at home before going out with their friends, they can stop at one of the countless sub restaurants instead of going for that greasy burger, or they could try the grocery store. Zinczenko brings up that fact that there are 13,000 McDonald’s in the US and claims that it’s easier to find them then a grapefruit, to that statement I’d like to mention that according to U.S Department of Labor that in 1994 there were 85,000 grocery stores, that’s six and a half times more place then McDonalds. So I would think it would be easier to find grapefruit. That fact must of slip Mr. Zinczenko mine when he was composing his whole argument, however if we would of considered it then maybe he'd of realized that he didn't really have an argument after all.

John H. Banzhaf lll argues that an effective way of fighting obesity is to place lawsuits against fast food companies. What next are children going to start suing their parents for introducing them to fast food. The people we should be holding accountable is our selves. I think people like Banzhaf are just trying to point the finger at someone else, and others will just follow to earn a quick buck and have an excuse to tell themselves for being obese. It is always easier to blame someone else, just like he did to the cigarette companies, you can make the whole box black and name it death and people will still buy them. People assume labels and warnings will help society be healthier, but the problem is that society is to busy trying to fight high living prices that eating an expensive healthy lunch is the last thing on their mind. Maybe Banzhaf should start suing the government for letting everything go up in price but wages. People are not dumb, cheap food is unhealthy and fast, everyone knows that and a warning in big letters is just another way for food to go up in price. Getting the government involved will just take more tax mone y that people can't afford to give and put towards something we can prevent ourselves This argument does not measure up with what Balko is saying, because Balko believes that it is our duty to know whether or not to eat fast food, and Banzhaf believes that lawsuits will help get fast food restaurant to take that responsibility. Banzhaf thinks by getting others to sue fast food companies people will magical stop eating it because of a warning and or calorie count, but the fact is people don't care.

By Samantha, Rhonda, and Eric

Group 4 Kara and Kelly final-Obesity: Much of the Responsiblity Lies with Corporation

We are of the same mind as Yves Engler's views that corporations across the world aren't helping the obesity rates across the nation, as they are steadily increasing. We chose to focus on children as they are becoming the number one target for the food industry; the main reason that people are consuming more, especially unhealthy products, is the food industry's relentless advertising, especially to children" (Engler 175). A study in the 90's showed that over 93% of children surveyed, from a sample of 10,000 kids spanning three countries recognized and believed Ronald McDonald knew what was best for their health, that is crazy! Children spend an extensive amount of time throughout their lives in school, these schools are littered with vending machines dispensing pop, candy, chips, and an array of poor snack choices. This is very challenging to the parents who try so valiantly to keep their kids from junk food and cultivate a healthy lifestyle for them, only to be undermined when the child goes off to school the next day. In addition, our youth is not getting the proper amount of physical activity as Engler states "Cutbacks to physical education budgets have not helped" (Engler 178), instead only breeding the unhealthy lifestyle. Radley Balko, author of the article "What You Eat Is Your business" states that there is nothing more private and of less public concern that what we chose to put into our bodies (159), we find this hard to accept when 40% of McDonald's advertisement is geared directly at our youth with the promise of toys, toys, and more toys (Engler 175-176). Paul Campos argues that being overweight isn't as bad as many view it to be; and maybe what we need is to just relax (Campos 206-209). Again, we find this to be an unusual view, obesity is associated with more than 30 medical conditions, like diabetes and heart disease, and this issue should not be taken without due consideration; as these conditions don’t discriminate. We believe that the overall solution to this problem requires the reduction and/ or elimination of the intense advertisement directed at our children by the food industry. A menu and snack overhaul in all schools, increasing focus on promoting/offering healthy food choices, the benefits of physical activity and overall health. In addition, parents and families must set positive examples and continue to teach and reinforce at home all aspects of good health and the lifelong rewards.


Works Cited

Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Cato.org. Cato Institute. 23 May 2004. Rpt. in They Say I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 157 – 60. Print.

Campos, Paul. "Being Fat is Okay." Jewish World Review (2001) Rpt. in They Say I Say With Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russell Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. 206 – 09. Print.

Engler, Yves. “Obesity: Much Responsibility Lies With Corporations.” Z Magazine (2003) Rpt. In They say I say With Reading. Geral Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russell Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. 172 – 80. Print.

Women are fat because that is what society tells them.

Fat is a social disease that has resulted in fifty percent of American women being labeled as overweight (Orbach pg.200). The fact that this "disease" targets women is not a matter of biology, but a matter of unacceptable social standards. Women are held to a standard of appearance that men are not. Women are told that their failure to be thin is because they cannot control their own compulsions, leaving them feeling like outcasts by their own design. In the essay,”What You Eat is Your Business”, author Radley Balko just reiterates the idea that individuals are responsible for their own weight problems, and individuals need to take “ownership of their health and well- being” (Balko pg.158). This does not change the fact that women are held to an almost impossible standard that when it is not attained, leads to compulsive overeating, and self-loathing. John Banzhaf III, in his article, favors lawsuits against fast-food companies, but knowing the nutritional content in our food will not lead us to the necessary place of acceptance of our bodies just the way they are. The standard placed on a woman’s body needs to be altered. It is time for women to be happy with what they were given.

Works Cited

Orbach, Susie. “Fat as a Feminist Issue.” Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Banzhaf, John H. III. “Lawsuits against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity.” Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Fast Food- The Silent Killer
Group 9- Amber, Andrew and Joan

The number of children in American suffering from chronic medical condition has risen drastically over the last 15 years. This has been linked to the fact advertisers are targeting our children. The industry is not required to disclose nutritional facts, and when they due there difficult for the consumer to understand. There have also been studies that have shown a link between high stress jobs and obesity. “Food with lots of sugar, fat and calories appear literally to calm down the bodies chronic response to stress (Engler, 179). Could this be a leading contributor in obesity? John Banzhaf, a practitioner of public interest law, states obesity kills annually 300,000 Americans at a cost of 100 billion a year (Banzhaf, 162). This is an industry very close to the smoking industry, it just gets less attention. It took lawsuits and legislation to inform the public on the hazards of smoking; it should be the same for the fast food industry. Although people have been dieting since the beginning of time some analysts think that it helps create the problem. “It has been proven over and over again that any statistically significant group of dieters will end up weighing more, on average, than a comparable group that never began dieting (Campos, 208). The American diet industry is an every expanding industry. However some say, “Dieting to avoid getting fat makes as much sense as smoking to get lung cancer (Campos, 209).We have always religiously used the BMI chart to establish ones health in terms of weight. It has been acknowledged by many that the BMI chart doesn’t take into account ones body type and muscle size. Therefore do we really know the number of people who are obese; however we have proven the increase in diabetes and its link to other chronic health conditions?



Works Cited:

Banzhaf, John H. III. “Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity.” Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. *Preceedings of the Congressional subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, June 19, 2003.* Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Engler, Yves. “”Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations.” Z Magazine (2003). .* Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Campos, Paul. "Being Fat is Okay." (Jewish World Review, 2001) Rpt. in They Say I Say With Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russell Durst. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. Print.

Whatever Happened to the Beauty in Being Overweight? (Solo Branch-Off from Group 7)

As my post's title suggests, there was once a day in which large people—women in particular—were beautiful. A look at any Renaissance nude, such as Agnolo Bronzino's An Allegory with Venus and Cupid., and you'll see a little flab and small breasts. However, today's standard seems to be a slim waistline, no cellulite, and an ample bosom.

To address this change in our culture, Paul Campos argues that there's nothing wrong with being fat. He suggests that the diet industry is in bed with the national government, conning Americans into thinking that fat is bad (par. 3). He goes on to report that no scientific evidence exists to support such thinking (par. 4). Citing from the reputable New England Journal of Medicine, Campos demolishes the idea that to be fat is to be unhealthy and to be thin is not (pars. 5,7).

Contrast this with an article from Eric Schlosser and another by Yves Engler, who both ignore even the possibility that extra weight isn't bad at all. In the latter, Engler claims that obesity is a "health crisis" (par. 1) and that, to combat it, "we need a movement that effectively challenges the capitalist entities that push their interests no matter the weight of health effects" (par. 29), putting the blame on junk- and fast-food corporations. Schlosser, also advocating a "crisis," identifies stong similarities between two major corporations—McDonald's and the Walt Disney Company—notably between the two organization's founders, Ray Kroc and Walt Disney, respectively (par. 4), and implies that the relationship has caused the recent rise in obesity in our country. However, their cases fall short because they merely join the mob mentality that has propagated the thinner-is-better mentality.

If you ask me, I'm much inclined to listen to the apparent minority that Campos has joined. The "year 2000 problem" a decade ago didn't scare me ("Year 2000 problem"), nor do current fears about the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012 ("2012 phenomenon"). Hype, in my experience, holds no truth.


Works Cited

"2012 phenomenon." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Sept 12, 2009. Web. Sept 12, 2009.

Bronzino, Agnolo. An Allegory with Venus and Cupid. ca. 1540-50. National Gallery, London. The National Gallery, London. Web. Sept 12, 2009.

Campos, Paul. "Being Fat is OK." Jewish World Review, April 23, 2001. Rpt. in They Say / I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Engler, Yves. "Much of the Responsibility for Obesity Lies with Corporations." Z Magazine, Vol. 16, Dec 2003. Rpt. in They Say / I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Schlosser, Eric. "Your Trusted Friends." Excerpt from Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001. Rpt. in They Say / I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

"Year 2000 problem." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Sept 7, 2009. Web. Sept 12, 2009.

Group 4- Amy, Michael, Amber (Compos)

We favor the views of the article "Being Fat is OK" by author Paul Campos. His main arguement is that it is okay to be overweight because this does not mean you are unhealthy. He quotes the New England Journal of Medecine saying, "the data linking overweight and death are limited, fragmentary, and often ambiguous." (They Say/I Say 208). With no real evidence that losing 20 pounds will make you less at risk for disease, Campos suggests that the thin equals healthy perspective is a great scheme of the $50 billion-a-year diet industry. Between 90-98 percent of diets fail. This means all that extra money and time spent on a dieting products is worthless. In the reading “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations,” the author Yves Engler states, “obesity is one of today’s biggest health crises -1 in 4 of the world’s 4 billion adults are overweight and 300 million are clinically obese” (TheySay/I Say 172). The author in our reading states that the federal government puts guidelines on a person’s weight using a BMI chart which is highly inaccurate. The BMI (Body Mass Index) "theory" says if you're a certain height you should weigh a certain amount to be healthy. What proof is there that anyone falling in the "overweight" rating are less healthy than someone 10 pounds lighter of the same hieght who rates in the "normal" category. If more than 1/4th of adults are overweight or obese, it seems a lot more normal than the BMI chart implies. Most people who have a "problem" with weight have it because their bodies are not programmed to keep that weight off. In the article "What You Eat Is Your Business" author Radley Balko states that the government should be focusing on implimenting a sense of responsibility and ownership of our own health and well-being (They Say/I Say 158). We know that someone who is fat is more likely to be poor in America so it is safe to say that people poor makes you more likely to be fat. It costs more to eat "healthy" so maybe the government should work on making healty food more available to more people.

Works Cited
Campos, Paul. “ Being Fat Is OK.” Jewish World Review (2001). Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Engler, Yves. “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations.” Z Magazine(2003) . Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Cato.org. Cato Institute. 23 May 2004. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Group 3 - Nicole, Jeff, and Scott (Banzhaf)

Fat lawsuits are the most effective weapon in fighting obesity in America. As in tobacco lawsuits that were once considered frivolous, lawsuits force corporations to make changes in their policies that have an adverse effect on consumers. After the flurry of lawsuits against big tobacco, they were forced to print a warning label on tobacco products and produce anti-smoking commercials to reach large audiences. A reduction in tobacco use has been documented in the U.S. since tobacco companies were forced to limit their marketing to youth and there was also increased education implemented regarding the dangers of smoking.

Banzhaf, who is called the Ralph Nader of Junk food, lists several proposals for congress to consider in the fight against fast food induced obesity. He is not simply placing blame on the fast food industry and leaving it at that, he has a laundry list of possible requirements that could be governmentally enforced to protect consumers. These corporations don’t deserve blanket immunity any more than the tobacco companies do; their product is just as harmful to humans as smoking is and requires regulation. A Canadian writer and political activist says: In fact, diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, and many other life threatening diseases are linked to obesity caused by high fat/high calorie fast food (Engler 173).

Another inaccurate view is to place the blame solely on the obese person’s lack of self control. The editor of Men’s Health Magazine asks, “Whatever happened to personal responsibility?” (Zinczenko 153). My question to them is: How can the consumer have personal responsibility in their choices if they aren’t even aware of the calories and fat they are taking in via fast food? Simply providing nutritional information on the menu would help consumers make more knowledgeable and healthier choices. The truth is that fast food consumers are intentionally mislead by grilled rather than fried options and salads that are actually packed with fat and calories. I find it funny that McDonald’s clearly prints the danger of choking on their action figures but fights vehemently against putting a similar warning on their disease causing food (Banzhaf 168). Most people believe details like this are common sense, so what is the harm in putting the warning in ink? It could simply state, “Warning, regular consumption of fast food may cause obesity.” This would be one step for fast food companies to cover their assets, so to speak.

Yet another inferior suggestion from Radley Balko, an investigative journalist for Reason magazine, is that insurance companies be freed to penalize poor lifestyles (Balko 160). This is a completely unfair way to promote a healthy lifestyle and would not be an effective measure. Penalizing people is never the way to initiate good behaviors. Perhaps the nutritional information and more healthy options at fast food restaurants would be a start in the right direction. The fact is, pointing fingers and placing blame isn’t going to solve the problem of obesity in America. The fast food industry needs to be held accountable for their harmful products as the tobacco industry was. If the fast food industry was a willing participant in the fight against obesity then lawsuits would not be necessary to produce change.

Works Cited

Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Cato.org. Cato Institute. 23 May 2004. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 157-161. Print.

Banzhaf, John H. III. “Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity.” Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Preceedings of the Congressional subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, June 19, 2003. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 162-171. Print.

Engler, Yves. “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations.” Z Magazine(2003). Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 172-181. Print.

Zinczenko, David. "Don't Blame the Eater." New York Times. 23 Nov 2002. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Readings. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 153-156. Print.

Group 2 – Balko Favoritism

Finally, a call for America to return to the capitalist policy that we were founded under and to give the power back to the people (Balko 159). Stop making me pay for other people’s unhealthy decisions. I make enough myself without being responsible for yours too.

If I take responsibility for my own health and choose to pay high medical costs resulting from my own ability to control my weight then that is my problem. But I would hope that I would decide there are better things to spend my money on and make the decision to eat healthy; to fatten my wallet and not my waistline.

For America to take a socialistic approach to fighting obesity, as suggested by Mr. Engler, and let the government dictate to us how much exercise we should be getting or pay the price in taxes (180) is ludicrous. I concur, Mr. Engler, that there are many corporations that make a huge profit from the unhealthy (174) but the fact that people spend the money and believe the gimmicks is not the fault of the corporations. As soon as people take control of their weight and health, the profitability that makes these corporations viable will be gone and so will the corporations.

A second inferior proposal to Balko’s, is that presented in John Banzhaf's claim that legislation and legal action against fast-food companies will help reduce obesity (162). His proposal rests upon the questionable assumption that people do not know fast, fattening food can make you fat. By focusing on what fast-food companies need to do to make people aware that food is fattening, he overlooks the deeper problem of sedentary people and health related issues. Banzhaf claims that the food offered by fast-food companies is fattening (165). We don't need him to tell us that. Anyone familiar with any kind of food has long known a salad is much better for us then a hamburger and fries. What people choose to eat is nobody’s business besides their own and holding companies responsible is crazy. This is equivalent to saying it is the fault of the gyms that people are fat because dues are too expensive. Our stand on this issue is that each person needs to take responsibility for their own weight and health.

Works Cited

Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Cato.org. *Cato Institute*. 23 May 2004. Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 157-161. Print.

Banzhaf, John H. III. “Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity.” Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. *Preceedings of the Congressional subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, June 19, 2003.* Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 162-171. Print.

Engler, Yves. “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations.” *Z Magazine*(2003). Rpt. in *They Say/I Say with Readings*. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. 172-181. Print.

Kara and Kelly "Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations"

Our group agrees with Yves Engler that corporations across the world aren't helping the obesity rates across the nation. Our main focus is the children who are being targeted. "The main reason that people are consuming more, especially unhealthy products, is the food industry's relentless advertising, especially to children"(Engler, 175). Kids are at school a big portion of their lives and they are filled with vending machines with pop, candy, and chips. A lot of parents try to avoid exposing their children to junk food. This becomes a problem when they see vending machines placed all over the schools, in addition "Cutbacks to physical education budgets have not helped"(Engler, 178). A study in the 90's showed that over 93% of children surveyed thought that Ronald McDonald knew what was best for their health. Radley Balko, author of the article "What You Eat Is Your business" states that there is nothing more private and of less public concern that what we chose to put into our bodies (159). We find this hard to believe when 40% of McDonald's advertisement is geared at our youth (Engler 175-176). Paul Campos argues that being overweight isn't so bad as many view it to be and maybe what we need is to just relax (Campos 206-209). We find this to be an absurd view as it is not to our benefit to be overweight, obesity is associated with more than 30 medical conditions and should not be taken lightly as these conditions do in fact impact children. We believe that the overall solution to this problem is reducing the intense advertisement towards our children and rather promoting healthy eating and the benefits of physical activity.

Cam & Christy -- Campos's "Being Fat Is OK"

Today, in the midst of different kinds of campaign against obesity and people experience expensive and/or strict dieting programs in order to achieve a desired body image, the article of Paul Campos titled “Being Fat is OK” surely gets the attentions of many. Our group tends to agree with Campos’s argument that people should relax and enjoy life because there is no solid answer for whether being fat causes health problems or whether losing weight is good or bad for you (209). Of course, many will probably disagree with this assertion because there are numerous statistics that telling people about many health issues that will accompany obesity (Yves Engler 173). While it is true that there is a link between obesity and health problems, it does not necessarily follow that obesity causes health problems. The editors of the New England Journal of Medicine has emphasized that the fundamental rule of scientific inquiry is violated again and again when the subject is the supposed health risks of fat: demonstrating a correlation between A and B isn’t the same thing as proving that A causes B, or vice versa (Campos 208). In his article, Radley Balko said that we are responsible for what we choose to put into our bodies and the government should freeing insurance companies to reward healthy lifestyle, and penalize poor one (161). On one hand, our group agrees with Balko that eating habit is a private matter. On the other hand, we still insist that people cannot just choose to be thinner: the failure rate for diets is estimated to be at least 90 percent and any statistically significant group of dieters will end up weighing more, on average, than a comparable group that never began dieting (Campos 208). In conclusion, instead of concentrating on erroneous studies about the supposed health risks of fat and going through misery methods to lose weight for an imaginary disease, we believe that people should enjoy life and be happy and stay healthy no matter what size they are.

Work Cited

Campos, Paul. “ Being Fat Is OK.” Jewish World Review (2001). Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Engler, Yves. “Obesity: Much of the Responsibility Lies with Corporations.” Z Magazine(2003) . Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Balko, Radley. “What You Eat Is Your Business.” Cato.org. Cato Institute. 23 May 2004. Rpt. in They Say/I Say with Reading. Gerald Graff, Cathy Birkenstein and Russel Durst. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2009. Print.

Jared & Amanda & Kayleigh Group 1 Zinczenko

Our group was assigned Don’t Blame the Eater by David Zinczenko. Don’t Blame the Eater is the far more superior article compared to Fat as a Feminist Issue by Susie Orbach, Being Fat Is Ok by Paul Campos and “Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity,” John H. Banzhaf III . In the article Zinczenko makes an excellent point. His parents were split like many parents are. Since his dad was off trying to pursue his own happiness and Zinczenko’s mom was work long hours trying to make ends meet David was forced to find his own lunch and dinner. The only meals he could afford were coming from fast food. Zinczenko says that, “Drive down any street in America, and I guarantee you’ll see one of our country’s more than 13,000 restaurants. Now drive back up the block and try to find some place to buy a grapefruit" (Graff 154). This is a valid point because when somebody drives into Forest Lake what do they see? Taco Bell, McDonalds, KFC, Burger King, Culvers and White Castle. How many fresh fruit stands? ZERO! Alright, so one decides to go to one of those major chains to order a salad, that’s not healthy for you either; take a chicken salad, the chain claims it contains 150 calories, but those who look further see that it contains 1,040 that 150 calories does not include the 190 calorie almond and noodle packet or the 700 calorie dressing (Graff 155). He also points out the difficulty of finding calorie information charts and warning labels on fast-food products, and even when they are found, they are often misleading or inaccurate. David’s points are correct: how can we be expected to eat healthier if we cannot find a damn healthy place to eat? Furthermore, how are people to know the extent to which these foods are bad for us if we cannot easily access the nutritional information, or if, when we do, they do not inform us of exactly how many traditional servings are in one of the fast-food restaurant’s heaping super-sized servings?

Compared to the piece that Zinczenko wrote, other pieces in the book did not stand a chance. Fat as a Feminist Issue is a piece that tackles the gender side of obesity. The issue with this explanation of obesity, however, is that it is completely based off of personal view. While all good writing should include an argument that appeals to a readers emotions, this piece only appeals to the writer’s emotions. Susie Orbach says that, “Feminism argues that being fat represents an attempt to break free of society’s sex stereotypes" (Graff 201). This may be how she feels about being fat, but I’ve never spoken to a woman who has had such an explanation before. Susie takes too much time twisting her opposition’s words, making them sound chauvinistic and like they’re ‘bringing the woman down’ instead of even admitting that it may be outside of a woman’s choice to be overweight. Susie Orbach on the experience of being a woman in today’s society, states that “the relegation of women to the social roles of wife and mother has several significant consequences that contribute to the problem of fat” Though being a wife or a mother can be stressful, these roles cannot be blamed for causing obesity, as obesity is seen in women and men. (Orbach 202). Orbach is simply overcomplicating the issue at hand; the reason is not derived from social issues in our society, as these issues have always been present, though a surplus of fast-food restaurants at our fingertips have not always been present.
Being Fat is OK has taken a similar approach. Paul Campos, the author of the piece, has admitted to being clinically overweight. He believes, however, that being overweight is not that bad. He supports this thesis by explaining that the data that supports a correlation between overweight and early death is limited, fragmentary, and often ambiguous. He also says that fat loss is unhealthy for someone. And lastly, he explains that fat people cannot choose to be thin (Graff 208). However, he only uses one source throughout his paper to support his arguments. It’s becomes very clear to the writer that he is biased towards the idea that fatness is completely out of his grasp. He says this right out when he concludes his paper with, “As things stand, the American diet industry is a $50 billion-a-year scam that provides its customers with totally ineffective cures for an imaginary disease (Graff 209)”. An imaginary disease? Well, Paul, one study found that this ‘imaginary disease’ is a very high risk factor in developing ischemic heart disease (IHD), a disease that causes pain in the chest and sometimes death (Suadicani). Another study found that overweight and obesity kills just about as many men as smoking does (Farham). So Paul, you can go ahead and eat that. In his essay “Lawsuits Against Fast-Food Restaurants Are an Effective Way to Combat Obesity,” John H. Banzhaf III gives a few proposals that Congress might consider to regulate the fast-food industry. One of his suggestions is to “require that all fast-food restaurants provide more nutritious alternative menu choices” (Banzhaf 165). This would not help at all; fast-food is fast-food because it is fast. Healthy food cannot really be prepared in mass quantities in a healthy way; thus, even the healthiest foods we gain a sort of “fast-food” quality, probably in the form of preservatives. The only way to combat obesity is to eliminate some of the obnoxious amounts of fast-food restaurants and provide more nutrition information on the foods sold at fast-food restaurants.

Works Cited:

Farham, Bridget. "Overweight and obesity in late adolescence increase adult mortality.(Abstracts)." CME: Your SA Journal of CPD 27.4 (April 2009): 182(2). Health Reference Center Academic. Gale. Century College Library. 9 Sept. 2009

Graff, Gerald, Cathy Birkenstein, and Russel Durst. They Say, I say. New York; New York 2009. Print.

Suadicani, Poul, Hans Ole Hein, Finn Edler von Eyben, and Finn Gyntelberg. "Metabolic and lifestyle predictors of ischemic heart disease and all-cause mortality among normal weight, overweight, and obese men: a 16-year follow-up in the Copenhagen Male Study.(Report)." Metabolic Syndrome and Related Disorders 7.2 (April 2009): 97(8). Health Reference Center Academic. Gale. Century College Library. 9 Sept. 2009