You walk into your living room and find that, in the place that your TV once was, there is now a treadmill. You walk into your kitchen and find a schedule showing how much physical activity you have to do each day. Then, you open your refrigerator, you’re starting to get a little concerned now, and the only things in there are the “all natural” variations of everything; there is not a trace of junk food to be seen! Your parents try to convince you that a healthier lifestyle will be good for your little sister and we should all help her out in losing weight.(pause) This is just one example of the change that should be happening in households with obese children. This is an example of a change that rarely happens.
In an age where we can get food from a drive thru in less than five minutes, childhood obesity is up to fifteen percent. Childhood obesity is a growing problem. One of the more common, and definitely most popular, reasons for childhood obesity is food. With all of the food dyes and high fructose corn syrup in everything you pick up off the shelf, it is no wonder that childhood obesity has skyrocketed! A study made said that “...one-third of all American children, both boys and girls in the age group of 4-14 eat fast food on a regular basis.” On a regular basis, kids are chowing down on sugar, salts, fats and all those unmentionables in a single serving. More studies conducted on boys and girls showed that, just in the mid-nineties, that they “... consumed 12-30% of the recommended intakes of dairy on a daily basis, and only 14-18% of the recommended intake for fruit.” Eating fruits and vegetables can actually prevent weight gain but since children are not getting the recommended amount, it follows that weight gain has increased in children and teens. It is not just fast food that is the problem. Snack foods are also a major contributor to obesity in children. In 2002 a study was made saying that “Today’s children eat as much as triple the amount of snack food their counterparts were consuming 20 year ago.” Another contributor to this epidemic is soft drinks. You can drink one can and before you know it you have finished that can and moved onto another. It’s addicting and it says ‘diet‘, so it must be okay... right? Wrong. Those addicting cans of bubbly water are actually addicting cans of sugar and high fructose corn syrup. From just 20 years ago, the soft drink intake has doubled. Double the sugar, double the high fructose corn syrup and food dyes and double the obesity. I know what you’re thinking ;”Why don’t we just work it all off?” Well, as it turns out, children don’t really want to do that either. I mean, please! Who would want to go outside when they can stay inside and play a video game, watch a movie or talk to friends. We have created so many things that can entertain us inside such that we don’t want to or see the point of going outside. Playgrounds have become non existent things of the past. In some schools “... physical activity classes have been partially or completely cut to save money and to satisfy federal wishes to focus on mathematics and English literacy.” This has gotten so bad that not only are kids not offered an option of a physical education class but “... less than 40% of children participate in any type of organized activity session outside of school hours...” Inactivity may be a result of obesity but it is not an excuse for obesity. Inactivity is also strongly supported by today’s technology centered lifestyle.
Technology today is hands down the center of many lifestyles and can be safely declared addictive. In almost any living room you walk into today, you are guaranteed to find a TV and some sort of gaming system, like the Wii or Xbox, and they are not just a “fun little coffee table.” A study said that “70 percent of preschool aged children exceeded the recommendations by the American Academy of Pediatrics...” which is one or two hours. This has gotten so out of hand that a study was conducted and it came out with surprising results. They said that kids were becoming more comfortable with their parents iPhones than their parent! At first it may have been a helpful tool to distract your kids but it will quickly turn into an addiction that will promote this sedentary behavior. This kind of behavior might result in, or even replace, time spent in sports or other physical activities “...contribute to increased calorie consumption through excessive snacking and eating meals in front of the television ...” All of those things added together will result in obesity. Another test done on high school aged students said that “One-quarter of all high school students watch four or more hours of television a day ...” It has become the norm to watch at least 21 hours of television a week. That and all of the video games adds up to an unbelievable amount of “screen time.” It is no coincidence that America is one of the nations leading the way in technology and also one of the countries with the highest rate of obesity in children.
Obese children have a risk of several diseases including high cholesterol, high blood pressure, early heart disease, diabetes, bone problems and skin conditions like fungal infections, heat rash and even acne.
There are many things we can do to help obese children lose weight. You can only let them watch Tv or play a game for an hour. Turn off the TV during dinner time. When the weather is nice, go out for a bike ride or a jog around the neighborhood. You could get a membership to the local gym or go swim a few laps in the pool. Sign them up for a team sport. You can limit their calorie intake, take a look at the ingredients, if it has high fructose corn syrup or artificial coloring and flavoring, put it down and opt for the more natural snacks. Fruit and vegetable can taste good and are also cheaper than most artificial flavored fruit chews. You could even start a garden in your backyard! Not only will it grow healthy, great tasting food, it will also grow change.
References:
http://www.femail.com.au/physical_activity_childhood_obesity.htm
http://www.dinnerplanner.com/weight_problems.htm
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/fast-food-and-child-obesity.htmlhttp://children.webmd.com/obesity-childrenhttp://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09317.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?Childhood-Obesity-Statistics---3-Shocking-Facts-You-Cant-Afford-to-Miss!&id=2874568
http://ezinearticles.com/?Fast-Foods-Increasing-Child-Obesity&id=459411
http://www.parentdish.com/2010/11/08/are-your-children-obsessed-with-technology/
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/10/28/kids-watching-tv/
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
FIRST THEME! Rough Draft
Shannon Smith 11-8-10
RSA SR9 Literature
Mythological Love vs. Biblical Love
The love that is portrayed in the Greek and Roman myths consist of someone getting hit by Cupid or Venus, they chase each other, may or may not fall in love and the grand finally is that one or more of them turn into a tree or, occasionally, a cow. It is sad that the only concrete part of the story is the part of someone turning into something unnatural. The “falling in love” part is sketchy and more than often it is just a fleeting affair. Making it even more depressing, this love is rarely from the heart. It is either created from an arrow shot by a naked baby from a pink bow or this “love” is from Venus, the goddess of love and sexuality, who can’t even remain loyal to her own husband. Love in the Greek and Roman myths does not match up to true love that is portrayed in the Bible.
Mythological love is often portrayed in stories, or myths, often involving Venus and her loyal sidekick son, Cupid. The terrible twosome reek havoc in the heart of a god or goddess and an innocent bystander. An example of this sham, mythological love is the story of Apollo and Daphne. In the story, Apollo is chasing after Daphne and not once did the story say anything but that Apollo wanted her for her looks. Never once did it mention him loving her for her character. Wanting someone like that is not love, that is lust. The dictionary definition of “love” is “to hold dear; cherish,” while the dictionary definition of “lust” is “To have a sexual urge.” The “love” that is shown in Apollo and Daphne does not match up to the dictionary definition, much less Biblical love.
In the Bible, there are many examples of what true love should look like. The most common Bible verse used to portray love is 1 Corinthians 13, more commonly known as the “Love Chapter”. The “Love Chapter” says; “Love is Patient. Love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs...” The love portrayed in the Bible demands all of you and it is never easy. That is how it is true love. If someone is willing to give all of that for one person, they must think that person is worth all the trouble. True love is loving someone as you would want to be loved; treating someone as you would like to be treated; putting someone before you and their concerns.True love is all about self-sacrifice. Also, the Biblical definition of love is similar to the dictionary definition. In both of them you must cherish the person you love and put their needs first. Biblical love is never easy but it is true love.
RSA SR9 Literature
Mythological Love vs. Biblical Love
The love that is portrayed in the Greek and Roman myths consist of someone getting hit by Cupid or Venus, they chase each other, may or may not fall in love and the grand finally is that one or more of them turn into a tree or, occasionally, a cow. It is sad that the only concrete part of the story is the part of someone turning into something unnatural. The “falling in love” part is sketchy and more than often it is just a fleeting affair. Making it even more depressing, this love is rarely from the heart. It is either created from an arrow shot by a naked baby from a pink bow or this “love” is from Venus, the goddess of love and sexuality, who can’t even remain loyal to her own husband. Love in the Greek and Roman myths does not match up to true love that is portrayed in the Bible.
Mythological love is often portrayed in stories, or myths, often involving Venus and her loyal sidekick son, Cupid. The terrible twosome reek havoc in the heart of a god or goddess and an innocent bystander. An example of this sham, mythological love is the story of Apollo and Daphne. In the story, Apollo is chasing after Daphne and not once did the story say anything but that Apollo wanted her for her looks. Never once did it mention him loving her for her character. Wanting someone like that is not love, that is lust. The dictionary definition of “love” is “to hold dear; cherish,” while the dictionary definition of “lust” is “To have a sexual urge.” The “love” that is shown in Apollo and Daphne does not match up to the dictionary definition, much less Biblical love.
In the Bible, there are many examples of what true love should look like. The most common Bible verse used to portray love is 1 Corinthians 13, more commonly known as the “Love Chapter”. The “Love Chapter” says; “Love is Patient. Love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not self seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs...” The love portrayed in the Bible demands all of you and it is never easy. That is how it is true love. If someone is willing to give all of that for one person, they must think that person is worth all the trouble. True love is loving someone as you would want to be loved; treating someone as you would like to be treated; putting someone before you and their concerns.True love is all about self-sacrifice. Also, the Biblical definition of love is similar to the dictionary definition. In both of them you must cherish the person you love and put their needs first. Biblical love is never easy but it is true love.
Band of Brothers Paper Outline
Band of brothers
What is the book about?
Band of Brothers, written by Stephen E. Ambrose, focuses on the Non-Coms in Easy Company from training to their lives after the war.
Talk about training, their first jump (25), hatred of Capt. Sobel. Story pg. 29
Normandy, “They jumped much too low from planes that were flying much too fast. They were carrying far too much equipment and using an untested technique that turned out to be a major mistake.” (pg. 83)
Holland pg. 158 - 219
Battle of the Bulge (sub topic Foy) pg. 239 - 320(?). Story pg. 241. Medic Appreciation pg. 242. Photographer pg. 286
Quote bottom of 300 top of 301
Looting
40-and-8s pg. 324
“The men liked Britain and English people enormously. They did not like the French, who seemed to them ungrateful, sullen, lazy, and dirty. They had a special relationship with the Belgians because of their intimate association with the civilians of Bastogne, who had done whatever they could to support the Americans.(P) They loved the Dutch. Brave, resourceful, over-whelmingly grateful, the best organized underground in Europe, cellars full of food hidden from the Germans but given to the Americans, clean, hard-working, honest were only some of the compliments the men showered on the Dutch.” pg. 336
Germany pg. 338 - 375 Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest pg. 362 (Best looting) “Easy Company got there first.” pg. 363
Austria pg. 376 - 401 Germans surrendering left and right
Post-war careers Story pg. 422
What were your connections between the text and your prior experience or knowledge?
I knew that when you are in a war together you have to be close, but this book showed me how close they are. They truly are a Band of Brothers.
To which character did you most strongly respond? why?
pg. 412 The little girl
because I helped my uncle become a Christian when I was about 5.
As you read the book, how did it change a view you previously held? describe how it revealed something new to you whether it be about life in general or yourself.
You never know how far you can go, how hard you can work until you push yourself as hard as you can, and then you find out you can go farther.
What is the book about?
Band of Brothers, written by Stephen E. Ambrose, focuses on the Non-Coms in Easy Company from training to their lives after the war.
Talk about training, their first jump (25), hatred of Capt. Sobel. Story pg. 29
Normandy, “They jumped much too low from planes that were flying much too fast. They were carrying far too much equipment and using an untested technique that turned out to be a major mistake.” (pg. 83)
Holland pg. 158 - 219
Battle of the Bulge (sub topic Foy) pg. 239 - 320(?). Story pg. 241. Medic Appreciation pg. 242. Photographer pg. 286
Quote bottom of 300 top of 301
Looting
40-and-8s pg. 324
“The men liked Britain and English people enormously. They did not like the French, who seemed to them ungrateful, sullen, lazy, and dirty. They had a special relationship with the Belgians because of their intimate association with the civilians of Bastogne, who had done whatever they could to support the Americans.(P) They loved the Dutch. Brave, resourceful, over-whelmingly grateful, the best organized underground in Europe, cellars full of food hidden from the Germans but given to the Americans, clean, hard-working, honest were only some of the compliments the men showered on the Dutch.” pg. 336
Germany pg. 338 - 375 Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest pg. 362 (Best looting) “Easy Company got there first.” pg. 363
Austria pg. 376 - 401 Germans surrendering left and right
Post-war careers Story pg. 422
What were your connections between the text and your prior experience or knowledge?
I knew that when you are in a war together you have to be close, but this book showed me how close they are. They truly are a Band of Brothers.
To which character did you most strongly respond? why?
pg. 412 The little girl
because I helped my uncle become a Christian when I was about 5.
As you read the book, how did it change a view you previously held? describe how it revealed something new to you whether it be about life in general or yourself.
You never know how far you can go, how hard you can work until you push yourself as hard as you can, and then you find out you can go farther.
The Four Color Map Theorem Paper
Shannon Smith October 7,2010
RSA SR9 Geometry E block
The Personal Opinion of Shannon Smith on The Four Color Map Theorem
The Four Color Map Theorem has not been proven true either by inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning. Since no other type of proof is acceptable, the Four Color Map Theorem is not acceptably proven.
The definition of inductive reasoning is “ a conjecture based on observed reasoning.” At first, it may seem like the Four Color Map Theorem is proven this way, but it is not. The Four Color Map Theorem says the any map can be colored with a minimum of four colors. The way they “proved” it was by a computer coming up with examples of different maps that “prove” this theorem. They failed to come up with a map that fail to disprove this theory. What inductive reasoning means is someone witness a repeating phenomenon that results in the same reactions or endings every time. After finding every possible way the phenomenon can go, they come to the conclusion that it is true or false. The computer came up with a lot of examples but not all of the possible ones. It is not proved inductively.
Deductive reasoning means that “A logical assertion was reached from known facts.” The Four Color Map Theorem is not even remotely near being proved by deductive reasoning. If you beg to differ, let me ask you; Where are these know facts? What are these know facts? Let me tell you, there are none. These “known facts” are non-existent. There are only examples of how this may be true. You may say there are “facts” but they are merely educated guesses, not a known fact. The dictionary definition of “fact” is “a truth known by actual experience or observation...”. This definition leads us back to inductive reasoning, which I have already proved to not be valid in the argument of the Four Color Map Theorem being a proof. The first part of the definition of fact mentions experience. No one has had a first-hand experience with the Four Color Map Theorem being proved true because the computer has not even come up with all of the possibilities! Therefore, the Four Color Map Theorem is not proved deductively either.
The Four Color Map Theorem is not proved inductively or deductively and this is the only way that anything can be proved correctly. If all of these other theorem have been proved inductively or deductively, then why can this theorem not be proven? it is not proven because it is not able to be proven whether inductively or deductively.
RSA SR9 Geometry E block
The Personal Opinion of Shannon Smith on The Four Color Map Theorem
The Four Color Map Theorem has not been proven true either by inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning. Since no other type of proof is acceptable, the Four Color Map Theorem is not acceptably proven.
The definition of inductive reasoning is “ a conjecture based on observed reasoning.” At first, it may seem like the Four Color Map Theorem is proven this way, but it is not. The Four Color Map Theorem says the any map can be colored with a minimum of four colors. The way they “proved” it was by a computer coming up with examples of different maps that “prove” this theorem. They failed to come up with a map that fail to disprove this theory. What inductive reasoning means is someone witness a repeating phenomenon that results in the same reactions or endings every time. After finding every possible way the phenomenon can go, they come to the conclusion that it is true or false. The computer came up with a lot of examples but not all of the possible ones. It is not proved inductively.
Deductive reasoning means that “A logical assertion was reached from known facts.” The Four Color Map Theorem is not even remotely near being proved by deductive reasoning. If you beg to differ, let me ask you; Where are these know facts? What are these know facts? Let me tell you, there are none. These “known facts” are non-existent. There are only examples of how this may be true. You may say there are “facts” but they are merely educated guesses, not a known fact. The dictionary definition of “fact” is “a truth known by actual experience or observation...”. This definition leads us back to inductive reasoning, which I have already proved to not be valid in the argument of the Four Color Map Theorem being a proof. The first part of the definition of fact mentions experience. No one has had a first-hand experience with the Four Color Map Theorem being proved true because the computer has not even come up with all of the possibilities! Therefore, the Four Color Map Theorem is not proved deductively either.
The Four Color Map Theorem is not proved inductively or deductively and this is the only way that anything can be proved correctly. If all of these other theorem have been proved inductively or deductively, then why can this theorem not be proven? it is not proven because it is not able to be proven whether inductively or deductively.
HELLO!
When I created this blog I was very disappointed to find out that the original title I wanted to call it was FAR too long. I wanted to call it
"The Collection of Random Essays, Themes and other Pointless Paragraphs my Teachers have made Me Write throughout my High School Career"
but apparently that was too long of a title but I was VERY pleased to find out that the URL I wanted was available, plaidskirtsandessays because I go to a private school with uniforms and plaid skirts!
"The Collection of Random Essays, Themes and other Pointless Paragraphs my Teachers have made Me Write throughout my High School Career"
but apparently that was too long of a title but I was VERY pleased to find out that the URL I wanted was available, plaidskirtsandessays because I go to a private school with uniforms and plaid skirts!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)