Sunday, April 25, 2010

Peer Response #4

I found Esperanza's post about Sexual Education very interesting. I think this is a very important issue, but don't think it should be an issue. That might sound very naive, but I believe sexual education should be taught in school, no questions asked. Sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy are huge consequences for young people, and I think our schools should give the same informative schooling to everybody ensuring everybody learns it. Esperanza linked to an article that gives both view points. She summed up both views. The column in favor of sexual education discussed the importance to ensure everybody gets taught about the human body, to more of an extent than some parents are capable of. Also, sexual education is important in schools because some kids do not have stable families, or educated parents that will teach them. The column against sex ed in schools states its belief that teaching kids in schools would lead to misinformation and/or a higher risk of sexual activity.
I believe sex ed should be taught in schools, but parents should talk about it also. Parents have different beliefs and values that they want to instill on their children, which is great. The school systems stress the importance of knowledge, prevention, and safety. In the end, if schools teach sex ed, then we are making sure that everybody knows about safe sex. This is the most we can do to try to limit the amount of STDs and teenage pregnancy. I agree with Esperanza and I believe the best thing for our states is to supply sex ed in our schools. Knowledge is power.

Compare Two Articles

My roommate and I had a long discussion a month or so ago about the $810 million federal stimulus money that Wisconsin got to establish a high-speed passenger rail between Milwaukee and Madison. We are both very hesitant about the idea, and think it is not a very good idea. I have found two articles that have different views on this high-speed rial. The first article, Wisconsin to get $810 million for high-speed rail, is from the Wisconsin State Journal. This article supports the funding. Its arguments for the rail include the increase in job creation, the long-term economic growth, and the high-tech collaboration between scientists and investors. It is stated that the rail could take until 2016 to be finished, but $1 is also being used to study the possibility of a high-speed rail between Madison and Minneapolis/St. Paul. Wisco agreed to buy two trains from a Milwaukee-based company called Talgo, which expects to bring in about 80 jobs for the production of the trains. Two more trains could also be bought with the stimulus money.
Another article I found about the high-speed rail is called Rep. Brett Davis: Stopping the Madison-Milwaukee train boondoggle from The Cap Times. This article focuses on the negatives about the high-speed rail. It's arguments against the rail include the high price, the consequential amount of money taxpayers will have to pay, the large cost of riding the rail, and that our state transportation fund cannot handle this price. This article was written by Wisconsin rep Brett Davis, who is a Republican from Oregon.
Out of these two articles, I think the first one seems to have more liable information. The second is written more opinion-based than anything, but my opinion has not changed. I believe this high-speed rail is not a good idea unless we have definite plans to extend this rail to Minneapolis and St. Paul. I believe the cost to ride the rial ($60 roundtrip) is way too expensive, but if we lower the price, we would have to increase the amount our taxpayers pay, which would already be high. I also think the public transportation in Milwaukee is not the greatest and most people would want a car. I think the idea of a high-speed rail (economically speaking) is great, but I think we need to work out more logistics before going at it. I think we need to have a better system that could extend from Minneapolis/St. Paul, through Madison, and to Chicago and then it would be more worth the money.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Peer Response #3

Darius posted a blog, Real vs. Fake Food: Peaches, that talks about his own experience with fake food in the form of peaches. His experience is very similar to the experience I have talked about in my recent blog about pickles. Darius discusses how his mother used to buy him fresh peaches from the market, which are full of nutrients. This is the "real" version of the food. Now, he resorts to eating the canned version of this food, which is the "fake" version. This canned version is sweeter, with less nutrients. He eats this version because it fits easier with his college lifestyle. I can agree, it is harder to have fresh fruit around at college than it was at home. Also, the price is a factor. It is cheaper for canned peaches than real peaches, which makes a difference with the college budget. This version of peaches is a lot sweeter because of the way it is made and the syrup it is kept in. The sweetness can be a plus, especially because real peaches are not always in season. I agree with Darius when he talks about the reasons for why he eats the canned version over the real version. The real, fruit version is obviously better and I would try to eat that healthier version whenever possible. Especially with summer approaching, and the consistent Saturday farmer's market now open, I would take the extra time to go buy some fresh, non-processed fruit to enjoy.

"Real" food vs. "fake" food

Michael Pollan talks about the health benefits of “real” food versus “fake” food. Fake food includes food that is not in its original state, but rather in its processed form. A lot of food that is in our society today is in its processed or “fake” form instead of the natural, real version. An example that I have come across in my past is pickles.

My grandmother makes her own pickles, which I used to eat all the time when I lived at home and more often when I was younger. She used to give us jars that would last all year round and when we would run out, she would give us more. Pickles would be a nice snack or additive to a dinner. Her pickles would taste real, have more texture, and provide other ingredients in the pickle juice that keeps the pickles fresher for a longer time. Now that my grandmother is getting older, she is pickling less cucumbers and thus, as a family, we are receiving less of her canned pickles. Especially now that I do not live at home, I do not eat these delicious pickles. Sometimes I will buy a jar of pickles from the store, but the taste and nutrition is not the same. The “fake” version is made with more unhealthy salt and vinegar, which make the taste slightly different. It is also not as healthy, which is discussed in this article that I found. I would return to the “real” version, or my grandmother’s version, when I have the opportunity. I enjoy the real taste and the actual nutrition I get from these pickles, and would love to be able to make them myself someday.