Research Paper Final Draft: Bottled Water
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so did you bring water from the tap or did you purchase bottled water? Regardless of the source the actual water quality is probably the same. Although bottled water is convenient and marketed as being healthier, the disposable plastic bottles are having a negative effect on the environment, as they harm ecosystems, clog landfills, and consume hydrocarbons in the manufacturing process.
Fifty years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the effort of filling a glass or bottle from the tap. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay a utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. According to the American Beverage Association (2007), by the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of 500,000 bottles a year. Today companies are producing upwards of a billion bottles a year. This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health craze of the 1990s when people were encouraged to understand the effects of the foods they were ingesting. Health conscious consumers saw water as a healthy substitute to soft drinks and alcohol. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
According to a survey by the World Wildlife Fund, a conservation watchdog group (1999), commissioned researchers to look at the bottled water craze, and they showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was increasing seven percent each year(p.4). This number has surely risen since 1999, as the bottled water market has increased tremendously in the last 8 years, and the trend is projected to continue. With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. The money to be made was too good to pass up, so drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. These two super giants are currently battling it out in India. Charles Fishman, a writer for Fast Company Magazine (2007) pointed out that last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets( p. 117). The money to be made in this new industry is in the billions, and many large corporations are looking into getting into the industry because of the high profit margins. Even in places like Quebec, Canada, where quality water is not a factor, it is becoming a large issue. Delia Montero (2004) documented in the journal of international Canadian studies that even when the government of Quebec decided not to privatize water-related activities, private companies decided to compete and became deeply involved in infrastructure, treatment, and bottled water activities (p. 93-115). Society has accepted paying more for a bottle of water then are for gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
The bottled water phenomenon is spreading across the globe. According to an article by Alys Edwards from the Swansea Institute of Higher Education (2007) “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand increases as projected.
The United Nations has come out in full force to state that the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people. Otherwise, water could become the new oil; where countries potentially go to extreme measures (war), to protect their resources.
Although water is healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, the process of making bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment to suffer. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies drawing down on previously undeveloped aquifers. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. The process to produce the plastic for the bottles takes twice the amount of water than the water in the bottle. For instance, it takes 3 gallons of water to create a one liter bottle. Plastic is produced from hydro carbons and an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water according to National Geographic (2007). Also factored is the significant amount of fossil fuels consumed and carbon dioxide generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transported on to retail outlets. At the end of the consumption cycle the empty bottle usually ends up in the landfills. Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI (2007) stated, “90 percent of bottles water is not recycled.” This is the reason plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that they are significant contributor. The United States along with the world do not have enough recycling plants to handle the volume of bottles being discarded and plastic is not biodegradable.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe, or once believed that it’s water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council (2006) found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.” The NRDC also found that bottled water plants were not tested as much as municipal water plants, and that the FDA can only regulate bottled water when it crosses state lines.
Information on the negative impact of bottled water is available but the public needs to understand, accept, and be willing to make changes if we are to reverse this dangerous consumer trend. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000 per year. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States. This move by the mayor is an effective first step toward reversing the trend on a local level.
On the east coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing environmental problem associated with bottled water. First reported by Carol Fuller (2007), students enrolled on campus the fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. An article by Martin Mittelstaedt (2007) provides an extremely different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks the bottled water process and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”. So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions. This is another way that society is moving in the right direction; although in this case not for environmental reasons, but spiritual and religious reasons.
The International Bottled Water Association takes the other side of the argument. It is an association that represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this vital liquid, needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there is no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting dangerously large amounts of groundwater. They point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more resources from the earth therefore they are not as guilty of exploitation.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. Society loves the convenience and health aspects of the water. What most people don’t want to acknowledge is the harmful environmental affects associated with bottled water. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of their consumer choices the trend will continue. Commercial advertisers have done a great job selling their product; and it will probably take public service announcements over many years to change consumer spending. Someone, probably governments and environmental protection groups, will have to be spend enormous amounts of money to counter the bottled water industry’s advertising efforts. This trend needs to be dealt with immediately; everyday more bottles are being produced with continuing damage to aquifers, air quality, and filling landfills around the world. This anti-bottled water movement should not be driven by just the United States. A global effort needs to be made in order for there to be a significant difference. European support is especially critical as they lead the world in bottled water consumption. Until there is a united effort in significantly reducing the amount of bottled water produced, the world will continue to suffer. Water is a necessary ingredient to life, but the consumption of bottle water is harmful to the environment and a selfish indulgent. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, take a little extra time and fill up your reusable water bottle with tap water because it is the right thing to do.
References:
American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
Chura, Hilary. (2003). Pricing Getting Slippery. Advertising Age, 74 (25), 20-20.
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Macarthur, Kate. (2005). Drink your fruits, veggies:Water’s the new fitness fad. Advertising Age, 76 (1) 4-24.
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Montero, Delia. (2004). Water in Quebec: A transnational business. International Journal of Canadian Studies, (29), 93-115.
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Pande, Bhanu. (2003).Pepsi Throws new challenge at Coke in India water fight. Media Asia, 5-5.
Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
Welland, Diane. (2007). Tapping the truth about bottled water versus what flows from the faucet. Environmental Nutrition, 30 (1), 1-6.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Extra Credit
Extra Credit: Into the Wild Documentary
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Fairbanks premiere of a documentary about the life of Chris McCandless; the young man made famous after being written about by John Kraukauer in his book Into the Wild. The documentary was entitled, “Call of the Wild: A documentary about the life and death of Chris McCandless.” This documentary was made by Ron Lamothe, a filmmaker and graduate student from Massachusetts.
The film is about Lamothe, retracing Chris McCandless’s travels, from after he graduated from Emory University, to his death in the wilderness of interior Alaska. Lamothe said in the film that he had always wanted to make this trip and film it, but things kept getting in the way (school, wife, and children). But his obsession would not stop until after he completed this film.
In order to understand this film, one had to be somewhat familiar with McCandless’s story. He was a kid from a wealthy and normal family. He was somewhat socially inept, but was very bright. McCandless was very interested in philosophy; and the writings of Thoreau. So after graduation, he gives away his money to charity, loads up his essential possessions, and heads across the country seeking something, we will never know. He eventually ditches his car in California, and begins hitchhiking his way to Alaska. The last time anyone saw him alive was outside of Healy, Alaska. When he ventured into the wilderness of Alaska, all he had with him was a backpack, a camera and a rifle. We know that he made his base camp, in an old abandoned bus. That was where he was found dead, frail and alone. McCandless seemed to be obsessed with nature and finding the meaning in life, as Thoreau wrote. Some people say that McCandless was dumb and over his head; not truly knowing what he was getting into. However when watching this film, I was struck by the boldness and adventuresome spirit of this young kid. It made me question weather or not I would embark on such a trail, and the answer is no. It did sound fun though, a very spiritual experience. The debate that arises from this story is how he died. In the famous bestseller by John Kraukauer, he states that it was the poisonous Eskimo potato seeds that killed McCandless. However in this documentary, the filmmaker talks with the head of the Bio-Chemistry department here at UAF. He ran tests and discovered that it was not the seeds that killed him, that it had to be something else; presumably starvation.
I left the documentary feeling somewhat sad for this young kid. He probably had some idea what he was getting into, but I don’t think he walked into the wilderness thinking he was never going to come out. However I hope he found whatever he was looking for, and was at peace with it when he died.
I recently had the pleasure of attending the Fairbanks premiere of a documentary about the life of Chris McCandless; the young man made famous after being written about by John Kraukauer in his book Into the Wild. The documentary was entitled, “Call of the Wild: A documentary about the life and death of Chris McCandless.” This documentary was made by Ron Lamothe, a filmmaker and graduate student from Massachusetts.
The film is about Lamothe, retracing Chris McCandless’s travels, from after he graduated from Emory University, to his death in the wilderness of interior Alaska. Lamothe said in the film that he had always wanted to make this trip and film it, but things kept getting in the way (school, wife, and children). But his obsession would not stop until after he completed this film.
In order to understand this film, one had to be somewhat familiar with McCandless’s story. He was a kid from a wealthy and normal family. He was somewhat socially inept, but was very bright. McCandless was very interested in philosophy; and the writings of Thoreau. So after graduation, he gives away his money to charity, loads up his essential possessions, and heads across the country seeking something, we will never know. He eventually ditches his car in California, and begins hitchhiking his way to Alaska. The last time anyone saw him alive was outside of Healy, Alaska. When he ventured into the wilderness of Alaska, all he had with him was a backpack, a camera and a rifle. We know that he made his base camp, in an old abandoned bus. That was where he was found dead, frail and alone. McCandless seemed to be obsessed with nature and finding the meaning in life, as Thoreau wrote. Some people say that McCandless was dumb and over his head; not truly knowing what he was getting into. However when watching this film, I was struck by the boldness and adventuresome spirit of this young kid. It made me question weather or not I would embark on such a trail, and the answer is no. It did sound fun though, a very spiritual experience. The debate that arises from this story is how he died. In the famous bestseller by John Kraukauer, he states that it was the poisonous Eskimo potato seeds that killed McCandless. However in this documentary, the filmmaker talks with the head of the Bio-Chemistry department here at UAF. He ran tests and discovered that it was not the seeds that killed him, that it had to be something else; presumably starvation.
I left the documentary feeling somewhat sad for this young kid. He probably had some idea what he was getting into, but I don’t think he walked into the wilderness thinking he was never going to come out. However I hope he found whatever he was looking for, and was at peace with it when he died.
Solution Essay: Final Draft
Solution Essay
Although I understand that UAF athletic department is losing money and therefore next year cutting team funding and reducing the number of scholarships available next year to get back on budget, they should seek additional funding to keep from down sizing because teams need to bring in new recruits to be successful, continue a winning tradition, and show the students at the university that they care about their athletics.
Recently, UAF athletes were informed that due to financial reasons, every sport at the University of Alaska Fairbanks will be loosing two athletic scholarships this up coming year, and also will not be paying for summer school housing and classes. This is a huge deal for athletes. Unfortunately, even after corporate sponsorships, alumni donations, money allotted by the state for athletics, that athletic department at UAF is still loosing considerable amount of money. The best guess as to why the school is loosing money is because of all the travel costs. Most teams go on at least 4 road trips a season. If a team has 10 players and two coaches times 4 trips minimum, that can add up in a hurry. Another factor for loosing money is that we don’t have football at this school. Schools with football do a lot better financially because ticket revenue alone from games is enough to cover most athletic departments. Since UAF is without a football team, it puts a strain on the athletic department.
Loosing two scholarships and no summer school is vital to the success of a sports team at UAF. Most of the athletes at this school come from states besides Alaska. It is hard to convince a young adult to venture far north, to the ends of the earth to go to school. Offering them a full scholarship is a great bargaining tool. Summer school paid for is another great tool. Most athletes take a smaller course load in order to balance both school and sports, and therefore sometimes need more than four years to graduate. Offering to pay for summer school and somewhere to stay enables the athlete to stay for the summer and catch up on classes so that they will be able to graduate in the standard four years.
Scholarships are essential for bringing in new recruits from year to year. Athletes graduate or leave due to various reasons, and are replaced the following year. These athletes are replaced with new ones. These new athletes are given the old players scholarship. However if two scholarships are taken away, and you have two people graduate, a coach would not be able to recruit anyone the following year. This would mean that the team would not be able to reload and upgrade, instead would have to stick with what they had the previous year. This does not allow a team to improve and get better, and could factor into less wins the next season. If someone were to ask a college coach what one of the keys was to having a successful team, recruiting would be in the top three.
All schools at all levels want their students to get the best grades as possible first and foremost. They also however want their athletic teams to do well, meaning win. If schools didn’t care about being successful, there would never be any coaches getting fired. This is not the case I am afraid. Schools have an athletic tradition, and like to see it carried on from year to year. By taking away scholarships, it could potentially put a hamper on this tradition of excellence. UAF has always had a high standard of academic and athletic excellence, and would not like to see it regress. This could happen with the reduction of scholarships.
College sports are a form of entertainment for students. Universities take pride in their athletic teams, should do whatever it takes to put the best product on the playing field, without sacrificing anything academic. Obviously the athletic department has exhausted all of their resources and have been forced to make budget cuts. It is not the future or potential athlete that is affected by this reduction, it is the current athlete brought in before the cuts that are. All of these statements above are reasons why scholarships should not be cut. The community needs to rally around the UAF and come up with a viable option to stop the budget cuts. Weather it is paying more for tickets, charging every student at the university X amount of dollars to help support the athletic department.
College athletics is a vital part of the Fairbanks community. In this small town, most college events are the biggest thing in town. We do not have a pro sports team, so college is the highest level to watch. Good sports teams have been synonymous with Fairbanks for quite some time, and I would hate to see that falter due to the reduction of scholarships by the athletic department. Next time there is a college sport going on around Fairbanks, come out and show and voice your support, because these athletes truly need it in more ways then one.
Although I understand that UAF athletic department is losing money and therefore next year cutting team funding and reducing the number of scholarships available next year to get back on budget, they should seek additional funding to keep from down sizing because teams need to bring in new recruits to be successful, continue a winning tradition, and show the students at the university that they care about their athletics.
Recently, UAF athletes were informed that due to financial reasons, every sport at the University of Alaska Fairbanks will be loosing two athletic scholarships this up coming year, and also will not be paying for summer school housing and classes. This is a huge deal for athletes. Unfortunately, even after corporate sponsorships, alumni donations, money allotted by the state for athletics, that athletic department at UAF is still loosing considerable amount of money. The best guess as to why the school is loosing money is because of all the travel costs. Most teams go on at least 4 road trips a season. If a team has 10 players and two coaches times 4 trips minimum, that can add up in a hurry. Another factor for loosing money is that we don’t have football at this school. Schools with football do a lot better financially because ticket revenue alone from games is enough to cover most athletic departments. Since UAF is without a football team, it puts a strain on the athletic department.
Loosing two scholarships and no summer school is vital to the success of a sports team at UAF. Most of the athletes at this school come from states besides Alaska. It is hard to convince a young adult to venture far north, to the ends of the earth to go to school. Offering them a full scholarship is a great bargaining tool. Summer school paid for is another great tool. Most athletes take a smaller course load in order to balance both school and sports, and therefore sometimes need more than four years to graduate. Offering to pay for summer school and somewhere to stay enables the athlete to stay for the summer and catch up on classes so that they will be able to graduate in the standard four years.
Scholarships are essential for bringing in new recruits from year to year. Athletes graduate or leave due to various reasons, and are replaced the following year. These athletes are replaced with new ones. These new athletes are given the old players scholarship. However if two scholarships are taken away, and you have two people graduate, a coach would not be able to recruit anyone the following year. This would mean that the team would not be able to reload and upgrade, instead would have to stick with what they had the previous year. This does not allow a team to improve and get better, and could factor into less wins the next season. If someone were to ask a college coach what one of the keys was to having a successful team, recruiting would be in the top three.
All schools at all levels want their students to get the best grades as possible first and foremost. They also however want their athletic teams to do well, meaning win. If schools didn’t care about being successful, there would never be any coaches getting fired. This is not the case I am afraid. Schools have an athletic tradition, and like to see it carried on from year to year. By taking away scholarships, it could potentially put a hamper on this tradition of excellence. UAF has always had a high standard of academic and athletic excellence, and would not like to see it regress. This could happen with the reduction of scholarships.
College sports are a form of entertainment for students. Universities take pride in their athletic teams, should do whatever it takes to put the best product on the playing field, without sacrificing anything academic. Obviously the athletic department has exhausted all of their resources and have been forced to make budget cuts. It is not the future or potential athlete that is affected by this reduction, it is the current athlete brought in before the cuts that are. All of these statements above are reasons why scholarships should not be cut. The community needs to rally around the UAF and come up with a viable option to stop the budget cuts. Weather it is paying more for tickets, charging every student at the university X amount of dollars to help support the athletic department.
College athletics is a vital part of the Fairbanks community. In this small town, most college events are the biggest thing in town. We do not have a pro sports team, so college is the highest level to watch. Good sports teams have been synonymous with Fairbanks for quite some time, and I would hate to see that falter due to the reduction of scholarships by the athletic department. Next time there is a college sport going on around Fairbanks, come out and show and voice your support, because these athletes truly need it in more ways then one.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Essay #1 Revision
Professional Sports Contracts:
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment; and get paid quite well for it and receive less criticism than pro athletes. Although many media critics believe that pro athletes are grossly overpaid; they are not justified in their reasoning because of the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage that feel otherwise.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for high paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than it does athletes on team sports. For the individual players, endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example, made $12 million in winnings, and another $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because these athletes don’t know when their next winners check will come; there revenue flow is not as stable as team-sport athletes with guaranteed contracts. If an individual athlete consistently finishes in the lower half of the field in his or her event, they are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars, or what type of clothes any athlete wear can keep them in the game for an extended period of time. These sponsorships and endorsements are not set in stone, and are not life time guaranteed. If the sponsoring company feels the athlete is underperforming, or not representing the company the right way, the company has the authority to pull the athlete from the sponsorship. A prime example recently is Michael Vick, a NFL superstar quarterback who was recently arrested and convicted of running a dog fighting ring. After this horrible news hit the public and his various sponsorships, he lost endorsements with Nike, Rawlings, Sprite, and many others. Vick quickly lost millions of dollars overnight.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN or Entertainment Sports Programming Network started the 24 hour sports boom. ESPN was the first all sports network; and now there are quite a few all sport channels. It covers the widest variety of sports, which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront; such as the poker phenomenon recently. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching an ESPN type channel for as little as 5 minutes.
TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league, using a system called profit sharing. Profit sharing is a common practice in the pro sports world. All the teams in a given league, pool together all the money made on TV contracts, ticket revenue, etc., and then a percentage of that revenue is divided among all the other members of the league. It is a way to keep pro sports competitive, and still allow teams make good money. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money, than if the team was on its own to make money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, there should be no reason to stop it. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens, who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening.
Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon; endorsements and sponsorships, 24 media coverage, and billion dollar TV contracts. There is the old adage, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” This phrase wrings true in the case of pro sports contracts. Despite what critics might say, pro athletes provide a form of entertainment, that millions of people watch, and should therefore be paid accordingly.
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment; and get paid quite well for it and receive less criticism than pro athletes. Although many media critics believe that pro athletes are grossly overpaid; they are not justified in their reasoning because of the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage that feel otherwise.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for high paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than it does athletes on team sports. For the individual players, endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example, made $12 million in winnings, and another $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because these athletes don’t know when their next winners check will come; there revenue flow is not as stable as team-sport athletes with guaranteed contracts. If an individual athlete consistently finishes in the lower half of the field in his or her event, they are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars, or what type of clothes any athlete wear can keep them in the game for an extended period of time. These sponsorships and endorsements are not set in stone, and are not life time guaranteed. If the sponsoring company feels the athlete is underperforming, or not representing the company the right way, the company has the authority to pull the athlete from the sponsorship. A prime example recently is Michael Vick, a NFL superstar quarterback who was recently arrested and convicted of running a dog fighting ring. After this horrible news hit the public and his various sponsorships, he lost endorsements with Nike, Rawlings, Sprite, and many others. Vick quickly lost millions of dollars overnight.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN or Entertainment Sports Programming Network started the 24 hour sports boom. ESPN was the first all sports network; and now there are quite a few all sport channels. It covers the widest variety of sports, which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront; such as the poker phenomenon recently. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching an ESPN type channel for as little as 5 minutes.
TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league, using a system called profit sharing. Profit sharing is a common practice in the pro sports world. All the teams in a given league, pool together all the money made on TV contracts, ticket revenue, etc., and then a percentage of that revenue is divided among all the other members of the league. It is a way to keep pro sports competitive, and still allow teams make good money. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money, than if the team was on its own to make money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, there should be no reason to stop it. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens, who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening.
Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Many factors have contributed to this phenomenon; endorsements and sponsorships, 24 media coverage, and billion dollar TV contracts. There is the old adage, “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.” This phrase wrings true in the case of pro sports contracts. Despite what critics might say, pro athletes provide a form of entertainment, that millions of people watch, and should therefore be paid accordingly.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Research Paper Rough Draft #2
Research Paper Second Draft: Bottled Water
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment because it harms ecosystems, clogs landfills, and burns unnecessary fuel to create the plastic and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. According to the American Beverage Assoication (2007) by the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of “500,000 bottles a year” (p. 1). This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year” said Charles Fishman( p. 1.) According to a survey by the WWF in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was “increasing seven percent each year” (p.4). Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, “it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water” says a report by National Geographic (p. 2). “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, “90 percent of bottled water is not recycled”. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.” The NRDC (2006) also found in their study that “bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines” (p 2).
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups (2007), who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”(p.1). So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. This education will come at a cost however. Money will have to be spent to promote and advertise why this shift in drinking water is necessary, but it will be worth it in the long run. This craze needs to be dealt with immediately; everyday more bottles are being produced, the more harm being produced toward the world. This anti-bottled water movement should not be carried by just the United States. A global effort needs to be made in order for there to be a difference. Europe especially should factor in, since they lead the world in bottled water use. Until there is a united effort in significantly reducing the number of bottled waters produced, the world will continue to suffer. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment because it harms ecosystems, clogs landfills, and burns unnecessary fuel to create the plastic and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. According to the American Beverage Assoication (2007) by the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of “500,000 bottles a year” (p. 1). This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year” said Charles Fishman( p. 1.) According to a survey by the WWF in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was “increasing seven percent each year” (p.4). Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, “it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water” says a report by National Geographic (p. 2). “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, “90 percent of bottled water is not recycled”. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap.” The NRDC (2006) also found in their study that “bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines” (p 2).
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups (2007), who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”(p.1). So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. This education will come at a cost however. Money will have to be spent to promote and advertise why this shift in drinking water is necessary, but it will be worth it in the long run. This craze needs to be dealt with immediately; everyday more bottles are being produced, the more harm being produced toward the world. This anti-bottled water movement should not be carried by just the United States. A global effort needs to be made in order for there to be a difference. Europe especially should factor in, since they lead the world in bottled water use. Until there is a united effort in significantly reducing the number of bottled waters produced, the world will continue to suffer. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Rough Draft #1 Workshop
Rough Draft #1
Workshop Questions
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.
I like the overall topic presented in this research paper. You present some good arguments based on statistical data which is important when dealing with scientific matters because it provides legitimate backing of an argument.
2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.
Thesis3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?
The author does not clearly express his opinion of the topic in the thesis, in accordance with how the thesis statement should be set up for this class. All that is written is “If I could choose anywhere in the world to live, I would not pick a place on the coastline.” You then go on to describe why you wouldn’t want to live on the coast; so the argument makes sense, just need to clear up the wording of the thesis.
4. What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?
Environmentalists would agree with the author, people that agree that global warming is causing sea levels to rise, causing coastal cities to suffer the consequences. People that would disagree with the author would be scientists and others who believe that is warming pattern is cyclical and that according to historical data, although it is warm at the moment, it will begin to decrease again shortly, and has nothing to do with societies influence on global warming.
5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?
The paper does NOT have an argumentative thesis statement using the ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE method.Content6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give this paper a 5. It is an interesting topic, however if the organization and facts were cleaned up a bit, it would be much more interesting.
7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).
The author can more fully develop ideas throughout the paper. Starting with the first paragraph, he jumps right from the “thesis” into his main argument. By his expanding his first paragraph with interesting and intriguing statements, it will entice the reader to keep reading. This paper if full of information and data, so maybe putting in your own opinion in some areas might make the paper a better read, than just a paper full of statistical jargon.
8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.
Someone that might disagree with the author’s viewpoint might question the accuracy of the data given, and if it isn’t data from a credible source, then paper might be thrown out all together.
9.Has the author dealt with these objections?
The author has not really addressed the other side of the argument. A paper can still have a counter argument, just not argued as much or well. However by bringing to the paper both sides of the topic, you let the reader decide what side they want to take.
10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?
Each paragraph has something to do with sea level rising, however could be polished to improve connection and sharpen the relevancy.
Style11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?
Transitions from one paragraph to the next are somewhat choppy, but that can be expected with a technical subject such as this one. Keeping in mind what you are going to write about in the next paragraph might help with the transitions. In the last sentence of the paragraph, setup the opening of the next paragraph by writing something that pertains to both of them. This is not possible for every transition, but it is an idea.
12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?
The opening of the essay is not very interesting. It is a general and vague statement, and isn’t specific enough. A better one might be, the coastline of the United States and throughout the world are in grave danger. If I were to choose a place to live in the U.S., it wouldn’t be along the coast because of the potential sea level rises today and for years to come. By making it more specific, it draws the reader in, because they might feel personally affected.
13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?
In this draft of the paper, there is no concluding paragraph. The paper ends with another paragraph dealing with salt water levels causing sea level rises.
Research14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited or References (depending if it's MLA or APA); look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)
There are 5 times where he has cited quotes using parenthetical citations. However only once does he give credit to the author using the authors name before the statement.
15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?
I can not tell if he did or did not rely on just 1 or 2 sources because he did not have a work cited page in his paper.
16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?
The author does not really state his own opinion, relies more on statistical data that wasn’t cited or sourced. 17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited or References that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)
N/A due to no work cited.
18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).
N/A due to no work cited.
19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.
Does not comment after quotes.
Workshop Questions
Overall
1. What do you like best about the paper? Be specific.
I like the overall topic presented in this research paper. You present some good arguments based on statistical data which is important when dealing with scientific matters because it provides legitimate backing of an argument.
2. Email the author and ask for one particular concern that s/he had about the draft. Examine that area and see if you can offer the author helpful suggestions.
Thesis3. Does the author clearly express his/her opinion of the topic in the thesis? What argument does the thesis make?
The author does not clearly express his opinion of the topic in the thesis, in accordance with how the thesis statement should be set up for this class. All that is written is “If I could choose anywhere in the world to live, I would not pick a place on the coastline.” You then go on to describe why you wouldn’t want to live on the coast; so the argument makes sense, just need to clear up the wording of the thesis.
4. What group of people agrees with the author? What group disagrees with the author?
Environmentalists would agree with the author, people that agree that global warming is causing sea levels to rise, causing coastal cities to suffer the consequences. People that would disagree with the author would be scientists and others who believe that is warming pattern is cyclical and that according to historical data, although it is warm at the moment, it will begin to decrease again shortly, and has nothing to do with societies influence on global warming.
5. Does the paper have an argumentative thesis statement using ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE?
The paper does NOT have an argumentative thesis statement using the ALTHOUGH and BECAUSE method.Content6. On a scale of 1 to 10, how interesting did you find this paper to read? Be brutally honest! (Friends don’t let friend turn in boring essays!)
On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give this paper a 5. It is an interesting topic, however if the organization and facts were cleaned up a bit, it would be much more interesting.
7.Where can the author more fully develop ideas, either by providing examples or explaining/clarifying concepts for the reader? Be specific (e.g. “the 3rd is dullsville”; “the conclusion is really vague”).
The author can more fully develop ideas throughout the paper. Starting with the first paragraph, he jumps right from the “thesis” into his main argument. By his expanding his first paragraph with interesting and intriguing statements, it will entice the reader to keep reading. This paper if full of information and data, so maybe putting in your own opinion in some areas might make the paper a better read, than just a paper full of statistical jargon.
8.What kinds of objections might someone who disagrees with the author’s point of view raise? If there are none, go back to #3.
Someone that might disagree with the author’s viewpoint might question the accuracy of the data given, and if it isn’t data from a credible source, then paper might be thrown out all together.
9.Has the author dealt with these objections?
The author has not really addressed the other side of the argument. A paper can still have a counter argument, just not argued as much or well. However by bringing to the paper both sides of the topic, you let the reader decide what side they want to take.
10.Is the relationship between each paragraph and the thesis clear? If not, what suggestions do you have for the author to improve the connection?
Each paragraph has something to do with sea level rising, however could be polished to improve connection and sharpen the relevancy.
Style11. Are there easy transitions from one paragraph to the next, or does the author jump from topic to topic?
Transitions from one paragraph to the next are somewhat choppy, but that can be expected with a technical subject such as this one. Keeping in mind what you are going to write about in the next paragraph might help with the transitions. In the last sentence of the paragraph, setup the opening of the next paragraph by writing something that pertains to both of them. This is not possible for every transition, but it is an idea.
12. Does the opening of the essay capture the reader’s attention? How so? If not, what suggestions can you make that might strengthen the opening?
The opening of the essay is not very interesting. It is a general and vague statement, and isn’t specific enough. A better one might be, the coastline of the United States and throughout the world are in grave danger. If I were to choose a place to live in the U.S., it wouldn’t be along the coast because of the potential sea level rises today and for years to come. By making it more specific, it draws the reader in, because they might feel personally affected.
13. Does the concluding paragraph serve to bring the discussion to an end that logically follows from the thesis and its direction?
In this draft of the paper, there is no concluding paragraph. The paper ends with another paragraph dealing with salt water levels causing sea level rises.
Research14. How many different sources are cited in the paper (don’t look at Works Cited or References (depending if it's MLA or APA); look at the parenthetical citations. The medium does not matter.)
There are 5 times where he has cited quotes using parenthetical citations. However only once does he give credit to the author using the authors name before the statement.
15. Does the author rely heavily on just 1 or 2 sources, or does the author equally use all of the sources to support the paper’s thesis?
I can not tell if he did or did not rely on just 1 or 2 sources because he did not have a work cited page in his paper.
16. Does the author have more quotes in his/her paper than personal opinion?
The author does not really state his own opinion, relies more on statistical data that wasn’t cited or sourced. 17. Are there any sources listed on the Works Cited or References that are not cited within the body of the essay? (This is a no-no)
N/A due to no work cited.
18. Is all the information retrieved from research, including opinion, ideas, paraphrases, quotes, and statistics, cited with in-text (parenthetical) citations? If not, list specifics of what needs to be cited (friends don’t let friends turn in plagiarized papers).
N/A due to no work cited.
19. All quotes in research papers should be commented upon. Does the author comment after every quote? If not, help the author decide what the underlying reason behind putting the quote in the paper was.
Does not comment after quotes.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Research Paper First Draft: Bottled Water
Research Paper First Draft: Bottled Water
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment and the world and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. By the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of 500,000 bottles a year1. This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year2.” According to a survey in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was increasing seven percent each year3. Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water4. “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries5.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, 90 percent of bottled water is not recycled6. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap7.” The NRDC also found in their study that bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines8.
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much9. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption10.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God.” So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions12.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
1. American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
2. Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
3. Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
4. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
5. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
6. Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
7. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
8. Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
9. Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
10. Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
11. Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
12. Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
The last time you went on a family outing, hiking trip, bike ride; did you bring water, and if so was it pre bought or did you fill up a water bottle yourself. Regardless of where you got it, chances are it is the same quality. Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment and the world and therefore should not produced for profit.
50 years ago, bottled water was non existent. People actually went to the faucet, turned it on, and put a glass or bottle under it and filled it up. They didn’t have to spend money on a resource that was basically free. A person still has to pay an utility bill, but in states like Alaska, one pays a flat rate per month for water. Before the 1900s, bottled water was only purchased and drank by the elite of society, especially in Europe. Nowadays it seems like the rest of the world has caught on. After businesses developed enough technology (cheap plastic bottles) to make a profit off bottled water, companies jumped on the chance to sell a cheap product for 1000 times its worth. By the 1980’s various companies in total were producing upwards of 500,000 bottles a year1. This phenomenon seemed to gain momentum during the health crazy of the 1990s; people were suddenly trying to watch their figure and slim down, and seeing as water is a super healthy ingredient to success, society seemed to jump on board. The way people were able to increase their water intake, was not by filling up their water bottles or canteens, but to instead purchase pre packaged bottled water from supermarkets and bulk food stores (Wal-Mart, COSTCO etc).
With this newly popular product came a new industry for the taking. Drink super-powers Coca-Cola and Pepsi jumped right in. “Last year, we spent more on Poland Spring, Fiji Water, Evian, Aquafina, and Dasani than we spent on iPods or movie tickets-$15 billion. It will be $16 billion this year2.” According to a survey in 1999, it showed that the world’s bottled water consumption was increasing seven percent each year3. Society is able to justify to themselves paying the same price for a gallon of water as they are for a gallon of gasoline, and yet people continue to complain about the price of gas.
Although water is very healthy and everyone is encouraged to drink more of it, bottled water is detrimental to the environment. Pumping the natural springs of water can drain the spring and cause the ecosystems and the surrounding environment. Groundwater levels and downstream water supplies are taking a significant hit due to companies coming in sucking up water, inevitably affecting the communities. Another harmful factor in bottled water is the amount of water it takes to make a bottle. In order to produce plastic, it takes twice the amount of water than it does to fill the bottle. So for instance, it takes 3 liters of water to create one bottle of water, which is really wasting water4. “Furthermore, the effects on pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions, are decidedly harmful. Plastic is made from oil; an estimated 2.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (that is, about 0.1% of U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions) were generated in 2006 for the production of plastic for bottled water. Then, too, a significant amount fossil fuels and more carbon dioxide is generated in transporting the bottles to the water source, and then transport to other countries5.” And lastly, this new craze is contributing to landfills filling up. According to Tom Paulson of the Seattle PI, 90 percent of bottled water is not recycled6. Plastics are 25 percent of today’s landfill growth, and although bottled water is not the only plastic out there, it is safe to say that it still plays a factor.
Bottled water companies have done a great job at selling their product; as most people believe or once believed that its water was a better quality than general tap water. However a four year study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found that there is “no assurance that just because water comes out of a bottle, it is any cleaner or safer than water from the tap7.” The NRDC also found in their study that bottled water facilities were not tested as often as local city water plants, and that although the FDA does regulate bottled water, it is entitled to do so only if the water is sold across state lines8.
According to the United Nations, the access to water is a fundamental human right. UNESCO, an organization within the U.N. that looks into human rights issues around the world, reaffirmed this and designated 2003 the international year of water. This movement toward people paying serious money for water is alarming to the U.N., because for struggling economic countries, they might not be able to secure water of any kind due to the high price behind it. That is why UNESCO along with other watchdog agencies are looking into ways to make sure that it never comes to countries not being able to secure water for its people.
The bottled water phenomenon is headed down a deadly path. According to an article by Alys Edwards, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been.
All of this information is useless we take serious measures to stop this growing problem of purchasing bottled water. People from around the world have begun to take different approaches toward reducing the number of bottles. The city of San Francisco recently decided to stop purchasing bottled water for its city employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much9. This move by the mayor is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; an equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact.
On the other coast of the United States, Smith College is taking a proactive grassroots stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption10.
Bottled Water has even made it into our churches. This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice; however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God.” So they have stopped allowing bottled water in the churches, or the ability to sell them at church functions12.
The International Bottled Water Association is association that presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries such as the oil industry take way more from the ground; therefore not really answering the environmental question, but just putting blame on someone else.
The bottled water craze has shown no sign of stopping. It is still growing at a constant rate, growing substantially more each year. Society loves the convenience and healthy aspects of the water. What most people don’t know is the true harmful affects that bottled water creates for the world. Until we educate the world on the harmful effects of this water, people will continue to buy the product. Commercial advertising have done a great job selling their product; and it will take countless public service announcements that bring the topic to light. So the next time you go on that camping trip or bike ride, fill up your water bottle with tap water, because you will be saving the world from potential environmental hazards.
References:
1. American Beverage Association. (2007). History of Bottled Water. Retrieved Oct 24, 2007 from http://www.ameribev.org/all-about-beverage-products-manufacturing-marketing-consumption/americas-beverage-products/bottled-drinking/history/index.aspx
2. Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
3. Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
4. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
5. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
6. Paulson, Tom. (2007, Apr 19). Thirst For bottled Water may hurt Environment. Seattle PI. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2007 from http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html.
7. Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
8. Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
9. Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
10. Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
11. Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
12. Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Grammar Girl: Run on Sentences
Run on sentences can be a nuisance when writing a paper. They can make your thoughts you relay on paper sound different from what you intended; a lot of the times making you sound dumb. However Grammar girl feels that you should not over think what you write, sometimes people get to caught up in it and it “inhibit your creativity.” The best way to combat run on sentences is to first find out what kind of tone you want to have with the reader or listener. Then you use your conventional skills accordingly to set the tone, for example GG uses the sentence, “I am a woman. I am a truck driver.” This has a strong tone, if you did not want to come across that way, one might instead say “I am a woman; nevertheless, I am a truck driver. It basically comes down to what kind of tone you are tying to set, and then using your conventional skills to make it happen; there is no set rule, more of just a feeling that one gets better with over years of writing.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Final Draft Cause and Affect Essay: Performance Enhancing Drugs
Sports today are becoming increasingly competitive. Some athletes will do whatever it takes to move up the ranks. Although athletes’ today use performance enhancing drugs to gain a competitive advantage, it is not a smart idea in the long run because of the long term effects on the body, possible sanctions from sport organizations, criminal charges, and the negative image shined on the athlete’s sport.
Athlete’s today use performance enhancing drugs to both recover faster from injuries sustained while playing the sport, and also to help muscles recover faster after they have been fatigued (weight lifting). Anabolic steroids are one of the most common drugs used to help build muscle and by increasing the levels of testosterone in the body. Steroids can have serious side effects including; heart and kidney problems, serious mood swings leading to depression, testicular shrinkage in men, and sterility. One of the most famous users of steroids to publicly disclose his drug abuse was Lyle Alzado, an all-pro NFL defensive lineman. He played on various teams throughout the 1970-80s and when he finished, admitted to using anabolic steroids. While he was using, he said he encountered giant mood swings, which led to various off the field incidents. He also blamed the brain tumor that took his life on his use of steroids.
Another type of performance enhancing product is Ephedra, a weight loss drug. It is a drug that athletes use to cut down on weight. Most athletes stay in phenomenal shape, with low body fat percentages, but for some athletes loosing weight can be difficult. Ephedra provides a quick and easy way to shed weight; however it can be potentially deadly. The side effects include; heart attacks, strokes, and seizures. Steve Belcher, a pitching prospect for the Baltimore Orioles used Ephedra. After his death during 2003 spring training from heat stroke the coroner stated the cause of death was extreme dehydration caused by high body temperature and the use of the weight loss drug.
The world of sports has begun to aggressively test for performance enhancing drugs and have suspended, revoked, and sometimes banned athletes from continued participation. The NFL, NHL, and NBA have all created strict random testing in hopes of deterring the usage of performance enhancing drugs. MLB was the last major sport in the United States to start testing their players, after harsh criticism from the media. All four leagues have the same basic three strike policy; first time offenders get suspended without pay for a period of time or number of games, second offenders receive a lengthier suspension without pay and fine, and the third time offenders receive a lifetime ban from the sport. Although athletes are still testing positive, they are doing so at a lower rate than before the policies were initiated. Most sports do not have guaranteed contracts so if a player tests positive a team may release them without question, leaving the athlete without a paycheck or job. . The commissioners throughout the United States believe they are cleaning up their prospective sports and creating an even the playing field for true competition.
The negative press the sport of cycling has received in recent years is saddening. Over the last 10 years cycling has been swept up in controversy by another form of performance enhancer, blood doping and the use of EPA. The Tour de France is the sports biggest event, the super bowl of cycling. In the summer of 2006, the year after the immortal Lance Armstrong retired (won 7 consecutive tours), another American racer, Floyd Landis, won the event. After the race it was discovered that his “B” sample confirmed a positive doping test and the presence of synthetic testosterone. He was stripped of his title and banned from entering the event in the future. Various other world class cyclists have been caught using various performance enhancing drugs, giving the sport a black eye and leading many critics in the media to question if anyone is clean in the sport. Even Lance Armstrong has been accused by the regulatory body of doping in earlier races. This crisis in the sport of cycling has led many sporting organizations such as the Olympic Committee and numerous other athletic regulatory bodies to take a look at their current standards in hopes of combating this growing problem facing the world’s athletes.
In the highly competitive world of professional sports, athletes search for any opportunity to increase their performance. Even with the knowledge of the long term negative physical effects, possible criminal charges and banishment from the sports they love, athletes still continue to use performance enhancing drugs. The reasons most given by athletes to justify their use of these drugs, is to get an edge on the competition or to maintain their competitiveness if their colleagues are also using performance enhancing drugs. Until testing identifies all drug users and the penalty outweighs the gain some athletes will continue to risk both their health careers to improve their short term performance. Improved, real time, testing technology is probably the future solution to the problem.
Athlete’s today use performance enhancing drugs to both recover faster from injuries sustained while playing the sport, and also to help muscles recover faster after they have been fatigued (weight lifting). Anabolic steroids are one of the most common drugs used to help build muscle and by increasing the levels of testosterone in the body. Steroids can have serious side effects including; heart and kidney problems, serious mood swings leading to depression, testicular shrinkage in men, and sterility. One of the most famous users of steroids to publicly disclose his drug abuse was Lyle Alzado, an all-pro NFL defensive lineman. He played on various teams throughout the 1970-80s and when he finished, admitted to using anabolic steroids. While he was using, he said he encountered giant mood swings, which led to various off the field incidents. He also blamed the brain tumor that took his life on his use of steroids.
Another type of performance enhancing product is Ephedra, a weight loss drug. It is a drug that athletes use to cut down on weight. Most athletes stay in phenomenal shape, with low body fat percentages, but for some athletes loosing weight can be difficult. Ephedra provides a quick and easy way to shed weight; however it can be potentially deadly. The side effects include; heart attacks, strokes, and seizures. Steve Belcher, a pitching prospect for the Baltimore Orioles used Ephedra. After his death during 2003 spring training from heat stroke the coroner stated the cause of death was extreme dehydration caused by high body temperature and the use of the weight loss drug.
The world of sports has begun to aggressively test for performance enhancing drugs and have suspended, revoked, and sometimes banned athletes from continued participation. The NFL, NHL, and NBA have all created strict random testing in hopes of deterring the usage of performance enhancing drugs. MLB was the last major sport in the United States to start testing their players, after harsh criticism from the media. All four leagues have the same basic three strike policy; first time offenders get suspended without pay for a period of time or number of games, second offenders receive a lengthier suspension without pay and fine, and the third time offenders receive a lifetime ban from the sport. Although athletes are still testing positive, they are doing so at a lower rate than before the policies were initiated. Most sports do not have guaranteed contracts so if a player tests positive a team may release them without question, leaving the athlete without a paycheck or job. . The commissioners throughout the United States believe they are cleaning up their prospective sports and creating an even the playing field for true competition.
The negative press the sport of cycling has received in recent years is saddening. Over the last 10 years cycling has been swept up in controversy by another form of performance enhancer, blood doping and the use of EPA. The Tour de France is the sports biggest event, the super bowl of cycling. In the summer of 2006, the year after the immortal Lance Armstrong retired (won 7 consecutive tours), another American racer, Floyd Landis, won the event. After the race it was discovered that his “B” sample confirmed a positive doping test and the presence of synthetic testosterone. He was stripped of his title and banned from entering the event in the future. Various other world class cyclists have been caught using various performance enhancing drugs, giving the sport a black eye and leading many critics in the media to question if anyone is clean in the sport. Even Lance Armstrong has been accused by the regulatory body of doping in earlier races. This crisis in the sport of cycling has led many sporting organizations such as the Olympic Committee and numerous other athletic regulatory bodies to take a look at their current standards in hopes of combating this growing problem facing the world’s athletes.
In the highly competitive world of professional sports, athletes search for any opportunity to increase their performance. Even with the knowledge of the long term negative physical effects, possible criminal charges and banishment from the sports they love, athletes still continue to use performance enhancing drugs. The reasons most given by athletes to justify their use of these drugs, is to get an edge on the competition or to maintain their competitiveness if their colleagues are also using performance enhancing drugs. Until testing identifies all drug users and the penalty outweighs the gain some athletes will continue to risk both their health careers to improve their short term performance. Improved, real time, testing technology is probably the future solution to the problem.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is a touchy subject these days. There are no set rules for it. Obviously a person can’t copy someone or something word for word and take credit for it, which is a huge no no. But even changing some words around from a book is still plagiarism. It seems like people use the same excuse over and over again, “I didn’t know how to cite the source” etc. Get educated on how to cite sources or use quotation. My 10th grade English teacher really helped me combat plagiarism. A good technique I learned was, when in doubt give credit to the person you are taking the information from. That way you are in the clear, regardless of how much of the information you might or might not have used. Plagiarism sometimes is harmless and the person might not even thought about it, but most of the time it is due to laziness. So don’t be lazy, do your own work and you will never have to deal with teachers accusing you of plagiarism.
Ann Coulter
First of all Ann Coulter is one of the most polarizing people in today’s political society. Anything that comes out of her mouth has the possibility to be taken as racist, sexist, or just plain condescending. Now don’t get me wrong I am in no way defending Coulter, I just feel that in today’s society, the media does a good job of twisting and paraphrasing comments made by people, in order to turn their so called comments into stories.
During this interview, the host of this show, Donny Deutsch does a great job of winding Ann Coulter up, asking general questions about politics. She rambles on until she stumbles upon religion specifically that all people in the United States should be Christians. This struck a nerve with the host because he stated he was a Jew. She goes on to say that Christianity is a progression of Judaism, a “FedEx” version.
To the everyday viewer, I don’t believe that her comments would have much effect on. However all sorts of pro Judaism groups I’m sure were outraged. These type of groups wait for people to slip up in the media and then attack the person. Overall I don’t think this particular interview will have much effect on Ann Coulter, if anything it will make her even more popular to her constituents. Most people regardless of political leaning expect Coulter to say things like this, because at the end of the day that is why she is getting paid large amounts of money to do.
During this interview, the host of this show, Donny Deutsch does a great job of winding Ann Coulter up, asking general questions about politics. She rambles on until she stumbles upon religion specifically that all people in the United States should be Christians. This struck a nerve with the host because he stated he was a Jew. She goes on to say that Christianity is a progression of Judaism, a “FedEx” version.
To the everyday viewer, I don’t believe that her comments would have much effect on. However all sorts of pro Judaism groups I’m sure were outraged. These type of groups wait for people to slip up in the media and then attack the person. Overall I don’t think this particular interview will have much effect on Ann Coulter, if anything it will make her even more popular to her constituents. Most people regardless of political leaning expect Coulter to say things like this, because at the end of the day that is why she is getting paid large amounts of money to do.
PostSecret
This website is very interesting. I believe some of the content to be true and original, but some of the humorous ones just seem to be fake. These postcards are from various people around the country, and were all put into a book. I can’t imagine why someone would send in a funny postcard that wasn’t theirs just for kicks, because this would take effort and time. So therefore I am inclined to think that all the postcards are original in that someone had to sit down and at the very least stamp and mail the postcard. Now some of the phrases might be stolen from another postcard, but the intent of the sender was there.
For some people this might be a way for them to air their deepest secrets. Some people are incapable of telling other people information, and using this method, there is still that anonymity that the sender might want. However if I were posting a deep secret of mine, I would want people to know who it was from, because sometimes that is the best part of telling secrets; trusting someone enough to let them in on a very personal piece of information.
The postcard that struck me was the black and white photo with a young girl holding a black cat in front of an old car. The card reads, “I don’t miss you any more daddy, I miss the daddy you could have been.” Black and white photos always draw people’s immediate attention, as it did mine. The picture of the young girl just standing there looking out speaks volumes; not even looking at the writing I was able to tell that this little girl was in some way hurt. The sender of this postcard might have been someone that never had a father in her life, and she is finally at peace with that, just sad of “what her daddy could have been.’
For some people this might be a way for them to air their deepest secrets. Some people are incapable of telling other people information, and using this method, there is still that anonymity that the sender might want. However if I were posting a deep secret of mine, I would want people to know who it was from, because sometimes that is the best part of telling secrets; trusting someone enough to let them in on a very personal piece of information.
The postcard that struck me was the black and white photo with a young girl holding a black cat in front of an old car. The card reads, “I don’t miss you any more daddy, I miss the daddy you could have been.” Black and white photos always draw people’s immediate attention, as it did mine. The picture of the young girl just standing there looking out speaks volumes; not even looking at the writing I was able to tell that this little girl was in some way hurt. The sender of this postcard might have been someone that never had a father in her life, and she is finally at peace with that, just sad of “what her daddy could have been.’
Friday, October 12, 2007
Position Essay
Professional Sports Contracts:
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment, and get paid quite well for it. Although many media critics believe that pro athletes make to much money, they are not justified in their reasoning because of the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for high paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than athletes on team sports. For the individual players, the endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example made $12 million in winnings and $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because they don’t know when their next payday is going to come. If you consistently finish in the lower half of the field, you are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars or what type of clothes you where can keep you in the game for an extended period of time.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN is a huge reason why. ESPN was the first all sports network. It covers the widest variety of sports, which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching it for as little as 5 minutes.
TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league, using a system called profit sharing. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, why not? The media gets on their case for making too much money; however if you turned it around and the media received the same amount there would be no complaints. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening.
Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Despite what the critics think, they will probably continue to do so, because of both the hardcore fans support thru attendance and also the unknowingly supportive fan who might not attend the games, but support pro sports by purchasing advertised items and watching TV on a daily basis.
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment, and get paid quite well for it. Although many media critics believe that pro athletes make to much money, they are not justified in their reasoning because of the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for high paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than athletes on team sports. For the individual players, the endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example made $12 million in winnings and $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because they don’t know when their next payday is going to come. If you consistently finish in the lower half of the field, you are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars or what type of clothes you where can keep you in the game for an extended period of time.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN is a huge reason why. ESPN was the first all sports network. It covers the widest variety of sports, which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching it for as little as 5 minutes.
TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league, using a system called profit sharing. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, why not? The media gets on their case for making too much money; however if you turned it around and the media received the same amount there would be no complaints. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening.
Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Despite what the critics think, they will probably continue to do so, because of both the hardcore fans support thru attendance and also the unknowingly supportive fan who might not attend the games, but support pro sports by purchasing advertised items and watching TV on a daily basis.
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Logical Fallacy
Dicto simpliciter: A sweeping generalization and expecting it to be true in every case. An example would be that most men are faster than women. This on average is probably true but is not true because there are women out there that are faster than men, like I bet Marion Jones is faster than me, but I didn't take steroids. I have made generalizations lots of times without thinking them through, for example when I was young I told my mom I was stronger than her, and she asked why? I responded, because I am a man. She proceeded to pick up a chair and asked me if I could, I tried and was not able to, therefore proving my mother's point.
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introduction
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Introduction
Stung
The author's argument has to do with the disappearance of honeybees throughout the country. The drop in numbers does not relate to the common pesticides and other insects that could potentially harm them, the death of numerous bees had to do with a new form of pesticide newly introduced that is much safer for humans.
This essay is different from newspaper's account of the honeybee situation because the author provided her own incite, humor and person experience to the story. It seems like the author truly cares about the issue, and is trying to relay the message as best she can. A newspaper would probably just discuss that the honeybees numbers have dropped and give a possible reason, nothing else.
Facts:
Is CCD been found in states such as TX, CA, and FL? Yes fact, http://honeybee.tamu.edu/media/pdf/06FAQCCD.pdf
Is David Hackenberg founder of Hackenberg Apiaries? Yes fact,
http://www.pabiodiversity.org/speakers04.html
Before the Colonists, were there any honeybees in the Americas? Yes fact,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299982,00.html
This essay is different from newspaper's account of the honeybee situation because the author provided her own incite, humor and person experience to the story. It seems like the author truly cares about the issue, and is trying to relay the message as best she can. A newspaper would probably just discuss that the honeybees numbers have dropped and give a possible reason, nothing else.
Facts:
Is CCD been found in states such as TX, CA, and FL? Yes fact, http://honeybee.tamu.edu/media/pdf/06FAQCCD.pdf
Is David Hackenberg founder of Hackenberg Apiaries? Yes fact,
http://www.pabiodiversity.org/speakers04.html
Before the Colonists, were there any honeybees in the Americas? Yes fact,
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299982,00.html
Blog Review
My favorite blog layout is Are we on the same page?. It is totally different than everyone else's in that it is unique and original. First off, the background is different than the standard white. Brown is an unusual color in that not a lot of websites have a brown background. Secondly the blog has a picture of the blogger. If I knew how to do this I might think about adding one to my page but for the time being I am satisfied with what I have. Her blog is cool because it is completely different than most of the other people in this class. However since the blog is mainly used as a place where the teacher is able to read and grade our work, I am content to leave it stock and plain, because I would rather be finishing my assignment, than messing around trying to figure out how to make my blog look better.
Annotated Bibliography
Thesis: Although bottled water is convenient and supposedly healthier, it has a negative effect on the environment and should not produced for profit.
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
This article by Alys Edwards of the Swansea Institute of Higher Education, sheds light on the growing shortage of water among other things. According to the article, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been. Article ultimately states that bottled water is a growing environmental and economical issue, and measures need to be implemented in order to fight it.
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
This discussion paper on the bottled water phenomenon basically covers all aspects of the bottled water; from its history to how much money the industry makes a year. This paper is definitely a pro environment paper, as it goes into great length the negative effects of bottled water on the environment. The argument made is very factually based, which usually means that the information is relevant and correct, as it was produced by the WWF or the World Wildlife Fund. The only possible downside of this in-depth information is that the paper was published in 2001, and a lot has changed. However I think that it has solid facts that can help build a foundation into the argument I am trying to present, that in fact bottled water is harmful to the environment.
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
This article by Charles Fishman delves into the economic and psychological reasons for this continually growing industry. According to author, bottled water did not exist thirty years ago. “Now people spend more money on it than they did on the movies or ipods.” This growing industry is a result of bottled waters convenience and being image conscience. Fishman says that “what we once used to get free from our homes, we pay for now, which is more than the price of gasoline.” He believes that until society really knows how harmful it is to society and how easy it would be to go back to tap water, the world will continue to use this ultra popular product.
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
This website, provided by the Food and Water Watch, which is presumably a food and water watchdog group, is yet another site dealing with the harmful effects of bottled water. However this site is all about scare type tactics; providing details as to how the large corporations are bottling up tap water and making sometimes a 1000% profit on something that should be guaranteed for all. One of the sites main points is that just because it is bottled water does not mean it’s safer. “ According to study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found approximately one-third of tested bottled water brands violated, in at least one sample, an enforceable standard or exceeded microbiological-purity guidelines.” This is just one of the many valuable points made throughout the piece.
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Smith College is taking a proactive grassroot stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
IBWA. (2007). Water our most precious resource. IBWA in conjunction with Dept Agriculture. Retrieved October 9, 2007 from http://www.bottledwater.org/public/IBWA_movie.htm
This slideshow produced by the International Bottled Water Association gives a pro-bottled water stance on the issue of bottled water. This association presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries take way more from the ground, basically the blame them defense, which was rather interesting.
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice, however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”. Overall this is an interesting outlook on a largely growing social and economic topic facing the world.
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Article by National Geographic states that according to reports bottled water is not healthier than water retrieved from the tap. “No longer a luxury item, the beverage has become a common sight worldwide.” What once started out as a fad (bottled water) started by health activists, has turned out to be detrimental to the planet. The author of this article James Owen, writes that this water is also becoming expensive, due to the mass transportation across international borders. He cites an example of a Finnish company shipping its own tap water all the way to Saudi Arabia, over 2,700 miles way, just for tap water! Author also shares the pro bottled water side, saying that pro bottled water activists feel that it is convenient and healthy alternative to other on the go products such as soda and juice.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
The San Francisco chapter of the Sierra Club reports in its Sept-Oct 2007 newspaper that the City of San Francisco in accordance with the mayor will stop buying bottled water for its employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. The newspaper also states that California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much. This move by the mayor according to the article is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; a equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact. Although the Sierra Club is a well known Eco-friendly organization, the points made are in fact valid.
United Nations. (2003). International Year of Fresh Water. United Nations: UNESCO Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5226&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
In 2003, the United Nations along with UNESCO which is an organization within the U.N. that among other things looks into human rights; and the access to water is a fundamental human right designated 2003 the international year of water. This website although from 2003, gives numerous facts and figures dealing with water. An interesting topic that the article breaks down is the percentage of bottled water consumption by continent, and surprisingly Europe consumed the most, one would have thought that North America, specifically the United States would be the leading consumer, due to it’s fascination with health and convenience.
Edwards, Alys. (2007). Bottled Water: Pouring resources down the drain? Environmental Ethics. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.environmentalethics-sihe.co.uk/pdfs/ALYSARTICLE_Edit.pdf
This article by Alys Edwards of the Swansea Institute of Higher Education, sheds light on the growing shortage of water among other things. According to the article, “the demand for fresh water will exceed availability by 56 percent by the year 2025.” This is an alarming statistic, because water is a guaranteed human right, and should not be a commodity for sale. Some economists describe bottled water as “Blue Gold” because it could become a trillion dollar industry if the demand for it steadily increases as it has been. Article ultimately states that bottled water is a growing environmental and economical issue, and measures need to be implemented in order to fight it.
Ferrier, Catherine.(2001, April). Bottled Water: Understanding Social Phenomenon. WWF. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://assets.panda.org/downloads/bottled_water.pdf
This discussion paper on the bottled water phenomenon basically covers all aspects of the bottled water; from its history to how much money the industry makes a year. This paper is definitely a pro environment paper, as it goes into great length the negative effects of bottled water on the environment. The argument made is very factually based, which usually means that the information is relevant and correct, as it was produced by the WWF or the World Wildlife Fund. The only possible downside of this in-depth information is that the paper was published in 2001, and a lot has changed. However I think that it has solid facts that can help build a foundation into the argument I am trying to present, that in fact bottled water is harmful to the environment.
Fishman, Charles. (July, 2007). Message in a bottle. Fast Company. Retrieved Oct. 9, 2007 from http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-message-in-a-bottle.html
This article by Charles Fishman delves into the economic and psychological reasons for this continually growing industry. According to author, bottled water did not exist thirty years ago. “Now people spend more money on it than they did on the movies or ipods.” This growing industry is a result of bottled waters convenience and being image conscience. Fishman says that “what we once used to get free from our homes, we pay for now, which is more than the price of gasoline.” He believes that until society really knows how harmful it is to society and how easy it would be to go back to tap water, the world will continue to use this ultra popular product.
Food and Water Watch. (2006, Jun). Bottled Up and tapped Out. Food and Water Watch. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/bottled/BottledUpTappedOut.pdf
This website, provided by the Food and Water Watch, which is presumably a food and water watchdog group, is yet another site dealing with the harmful effects of bottled water. However this site is all about scare type tactics; providing details as to how the large corporations are bottling up tap water and making sometimes a 1000% profit on something that should be guaranteed for all. One of the sites main points is that just because it is bottled water does not mean it’s safer. “ According to study by the Natural Resources Defense Council found approximately one-third of tested bottled water brands violated, in at least one sample, an enforceable standard or exceeded microbiological-purity guidelines.” This is just one of the many valuable points made throughout the piece.
Fuller, Carol. (2007, Aug. 23). Moving away from bottled water. Grecourt Gate News. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.smith.edu/news/2006-07/BottledWater.php
Smith College is taking a proactive grassroot stance to combat the growing problem environmental problem of bottled water. Each student enrolled on campus this fall 2007 will be given a free water bottle, complete with hooks to attach to a backpack. By giving each student a bottle, it will replace the bottled water once given out at the dining hall’s Grab and Go. Although this may be just a local movement, it is still cutting down on the amount of empty bottles in the hope that someday, the rest of society will get the message and begin to ease up on bottled water consumption.
IBWA. (2007). Water our most precious resource. IBWA in conjunction with Dept Agriculture. Retrieved October 9, 2007 from http://www.bottledwater.org/public/IBWA_movie.htm
This slideshow produced by the International Bottled Water Association gives a pro-bottled water stance on the issue of bottled water. This association presumably represents the major corporations responsible for the distribution of bottled water for profit. The IBWA still sees a need for bottled water in society to help replenish our bodies with this liquid needed in order to survive. As far as the environmental impact that bottled water has, they leave that in the hands of consumers. They feel that if the bottles are recycled properly, there would be no issue. They also answer the issue that they (bottled water companies) are extracting large amounts of groundwater according to their critics. However they point out that other industries take way more from the ground, basically the blame them defense, which was rather interesting.
Mittelstaedt, Martin. (2006, Sept. 23). The Religious War on Bottled Water. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved Oct 8, 2007 from http://www.newsdesk.org/old_archives/000866.php
This article by Martin Mittelstaedt provides a different viewpoint to the issue of bottled water. The article still attacks bottled water and believes it is the wrong choice, however it isn’t all based on environmental reasoning. Strangely enough, some religious communities in Canada have spoken on the “extravagantly wasteful way of quenching a thirst” or bottled water. They feel water is an element of life, and shouldn’t be used as a way to make profit. The moral issue of the sale of water is disheartening to the religious groups, who claim that water is “a scared gift from God”. Overall this is an interesting outlook on a largely growing social and economic topic facing the world.
Owen, James. (2006, Feb 24). Bottled Water isn’t healthier than tap. National Geographic News. Retrieved Oct 9, 2007 from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0224_060224_bottled_water_2.html
Article by National Geographic states that according to reports bottled water is not healthier than water retrieved from the tap. “No longer a luxury item, the beverage has become a common sight worldwide.” What once started out as a fad (bottled water) started by health activists, has turned out to be detrimental to the planet. The author of this article James Owen, writes that this water is also becoming expensive, due to the mass transportation across international borders. He cites an example of a Finnish company shipping its own tap water all the way to Saudi Arabia, over 2,700 miles way, just for tap water! Author also shares the pro bottled water side, saying that pro bottled water activists feel that it is convenient and healthy alternative to other on the go products such as soda and juice.
Scow, Adam. (2007 Sept). San Francisco says no to bottled water. Sierra Club Yodeler. Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://sanfranciscobay.sierraclub.org/yodeler/html/2007/09/conservation10.htm
The San Francisco chapter of the Sierra Club reports in its Sept-Oct 2007 newspaper that the City of San Francisco in accordance with the mayor will stop buying bottled water for its employees. This move will save the city and its taxpayers roughly $500,000. It is also a show of faith to the municipal water source, which according to the article, comes from a very clean reservoir in Yosemite National Park. The newspaper also states that California contributes to 23% of bottled water usage in the United States, which is far too much. This move by the mayor according to the article is the first step toward regressing back to the age of tap water; a equally clean, cheaper, and less of an environmental impact. Although the Sierra Club is a well known Eco-friendly organization, the points made are in fact valid.
United Nations. (2003). International Year of Fresh Water. United Nations: UNESCO Retrieved Oct. 8, 2007 from http://www.wateryear2003.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=5226&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
In 2003, the United Nations along with UNESCO which is an organization within the U.N. that among other things looks into human rights; and the access to water is a fundamental human right designated 2003 the international year of water. This website although from 2003, gives numerous facts and figures dealing with water. An interesting topic that the article breaks down is the percentage of bottled water consumption by continent, and surprisingly Europe consumed the most, one would have thought that North America, specifically the United States would be the leading consumer, due to it’s fascination with health and convenience.
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Proofreading Work
Grammar Girl provided some interesting techniques into proofreading one's writings; from emails to essays. Her first piece of advice is to have someone else read your work, however she points out that this is not always possible, like for example an email. She offers four other examples that a person can do themselves. The first is to read the piece of writing backwards. I tried this with my post about my youtube clip and it was confusing. I had never heard of this technique before and to be honest it was quite difficult. My brain couldn't function, it wanted to read the post from top to bottom. Therefore I decided to try read my work out loud, which was another technique of her's. This one went a lot smoother, and I was able to spot multiple errors that would have otherwise gone unnoticed. Overall I will definitely take this advice to heart, because as hard as I try to proofread, I still seem to be marked down for errors.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtF0l-yuL6E
This video clip on youtube is very useful because of the message it poses to its audience. The clip is actually a public awareness video, meant to send a powerful message to the public. This particular one deals with global warming. It shows a train speeding toward the camera, with a man in front of it. He is able to get out of the way of this fast moving disaster, saying he wont be directly affected by global warming, but there is a little girl in front of him. The poses the question that we as a society have the ability to slow down global warming, and therefore save the little girl in this metaphor. This issue of global warming is no joking matter, our world needs to do everything in its power to stop this epidemic. Sea levels are warming, poles are thawing, temperatures are rising etc. This clip is just trying to raise awareness of this very popular and controversial issue, and hopefully people will see it.
This video clip on youtube is very useful because of the message it poses to its audience. The clip is actually a public awareness video, meant to send a powerful message to the public. This particular one deals with global warming. It shows a train speeding toward the camera, with a man in front of it. He is able to get out of the way of this fast moving disaster, saying he wont be directly affected by global warming, but there is a little girl in front of him. The poses the question that we as a society have the ability to slow down global warming, and therefore save the little girl in this metaphor. This issue of global warming is no joking matter, our world needs to do everything in its power to stop this epidemic. Sea levels are warming, poles are thawing, temperatures are rising etc. This clip is just trying to raise awareness of this very popular and controversial issue, and hopefully people will see it.
Where does my food come from?
One Day Worth of Food:
Breakfast:
Eggs
Sausage
Potatoes
Pineapple
Water
Snack:
Pop Tarts
Powerbar
Lunch:
Turkey Sandwich
Celery Sticks
Peaches
Water
Dinner:
Hamburger
Nachos
Dinner salad
Water
Cranberry Juice
This List of food consumption for one day is a pretty basic day for me. I like to get some protein in me at breakfast so that I can be somewhat functional for the day. The eggs, sausage and potatoes provide quite a bit of it. I’m a big fan of fruit also, so anytime I can eat fresh fruit I take advantage of it. The snacks throughout the day are basically just a power boost right before basketball practice, so that I have some energy. So for my lunch I try to keep it healthy, with a sandwich and some fruit and vegetables. Dinner is my time to kind of let go, and eat some better food that isn’t as healthy.
As far as answering the question of where does my food come from, I sadly eat at the cafeteria on campus. The food is not the best, but it is edible. I looked at the dining website and was able to learn that the food is catered by NANA Corp. a native corporation here in Alaska. Obviously most of these food items are not found in Alaska, so they must be flown or shipped into the state. By looking at the food that I ate, I would say that most of the food is processed in the lower 48, frozen, and then shipped up here to Fairbanks in mass bulk. You have to remember that the dining hall serves thousands of UAF students each day.
Breakfast:
Eggs
Sausage
Potatoes
Pineapple
Water
Snack:
Pop Tarts
Powerbar
Lunch:
Turkey Sandwich
Celery Sticks
Peaches
Water
Dinner:
Hamburger
Nachos
Dinner salad
Water
Cranberry Juice
This List of food consumption for one day is a pretty basic day for me. I like to get some protein in me at breakfast so that I can be somewhat functional for the day. The eggs, sausage and potatoes provide quite a bit of it. I’m a big fan of fruit also, so anytime I can eat fresh fruit I take advantage of it. The snacks throughout the day are basically just a power boost right before basketball practice, so that I have some energy. So for my lunch I try to keep it healthy, with a sandwich and some fruit and vegetables. Dinner is my time to kind of let go, and eat some better food that isn’t as healthy.
As far as answering the question of where does my food come from, I sadly eat at the cafeteria on campus. The food is not the best, but it is edible. I looked at the dining website and was able to learn that the food is catered by NANA Corp. a native corporation here in Alaska. Obviously most of these food items are not found in Alaska, so they must be flown or shipped into the state. By looking at the food that I ate, I would say that most of the food is processed in the lower 48, frozen, and then shipped up here to Fairbanks in mass bulk. You have to remember that the dining hall serves thousands of UAF students each day.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Lead Sentence
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/american-labs-mishandle-deadly-germs/20071002074809990002
This lead is a summary. It discusses in the first couple sentences what the article is about. I like this lead because it quickly gets to the point that American Laboratories dealing with the worlds most deadliest germs have had multiple accidents in the last 5 years, which is frightening stuff!
This lead is a summary. It discusses in the first couple sentences what the article is about. I like this lead because it quickly gets to the point that American Laboratories dealing with the worlds most deadliest germs have had multiple accidents in the last 5 years, which is frightening stuff!
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Exploratory Essay
Renewable Energy:
Why Cant the U.S. Be Like Norway?
Norway seems to have it right in this age of energy conservation and constant search for renewable energy. The United States, is totally caught up in the consumption of various fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which puts them in the category of one of the most pollutant countries in the world, along with China. Why does renewable energy interest me? Because if the United States were able to find a renewable resource that is very abundant in their region, costs of literally everything would steadily decrease. No longer would it cost an arm and a leg to purchase a tank of gas. Instead of costly natural gas that heats our houses in the winter, and coal that provides electricity to our cities, we could be using some kind renewable energy.
The renewable resource used in Norway is Hyrdro-electric, basically water. According to an energy summary of Norway, 99.4 % of their electricity comes from hydro power. That is literally their entire power source. That means they are super clean as far as polluting the planet. Even though a lot of the U.S. is powered by huge nuclear power plants, they have to deal with where to put the toxic bi-product.
The other nice thing about getting most of your energy from a renewable resource is that it enables Norway to sell off a large portion of their gas and oil. According to OPEC, Norway is the 3rd largest net exporter of oil, making them one of the wealthiest nations in the world.
The argument against renewable resources in the United States is that it is not cost effective, that it costs more to run than it brings in. In my opinion this argument is pathetic. The energy corporations are set in their ways and at the time being making record profits from the high price of oil. All it would take is some money to invest in technology that would make cost effective for mass population to use. The United States is full of renewable such as wind and water, sunlight, geothermal energy, all it is going to take is a little effort on our part and public awareness to make it happen.
Source:
“Energy Summary Norway.” Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. Dec 28, 2005. Sept 24, 2007. http://www.cslforum.org/norway.htm
What’s The Deal with Bottled Water?
The issue of bottled water has ignited over the last 10 years. It seemed to become the new big thing not just throughtout the U.S. but the world due to its convenience and so called high quality, as opposed to tap water. I feel that water is a huge environmental issue because it is THE fundamental issue to sustaining life. According to the United Nations, water is a fundamental right to all citizens of earth, and this bottled water phenomenon is truly effecting the world. According to my research, bottled water is seriously effecting our environment.
The United States consumes an estimated 8 billion gallons of bottled water this year, equating to roughly $11 billion dollars in revenue. However the real statistic is the 1.5 million barrels of oil it takes to produce the plastic bottles. That oil could be used elsewhere, especially with the price of oil nowadays.
Another point is the direction the corporations are leaning toward water. According to the yearly numbers, there is a huge amount of money to be made in the water industry. Which brings us to the point of privatizing water; which would make it more feasible for the large corporations to make larger profits. Anytime large mega corporations get involved in issues like this, they seem to just see the dollar sign and will do whatever it takes to earn a buck; if that means depriving a poor malnourished child water, so be it. As I have said before water is a fundamental right, and should not be taken away to be sold for profit. Therefore I believe that the United Nations and other powerful entities should set in before its too late and regulate the amount of bottled water made so that the environment is not hurt and all the people the world have free and public access to quality water.
Sources:
Paulson, Tom. “Thirst for Bottled Water may be hurting environment.” Seattle PI. April 19, 2007. Sept 24, 2006. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html
Why Cant the U.S. Be Like Norway?
Norway seems to have it right in this age of energy conservation and constant search for renewable energy. The United States, is totally caught up in the consumption of various fossil fuels such as oil and coal, which puts them in the category of one of the most pollutant countries in the world, along with China. Why does renewable energy interest me? Because if the United States were able to find a renewable resource that is very abundant in their region, costs of literally everything would steadily decrease. No longer would it cost an arm and a leg to purchase a tank of gas. Instead of costly natural gas that heats our houses in the winter, and coal that provides electricity to our cities, we could be using some kind renewable energy.
The renewable resource used in Norway is Hyrdro-electric, basically water. According to an energy summary of Norway, 99.4 % of their electricity comes from hydro power. That is literally their entire power source. That means they are super clean as far as polluting the planet. Even though a lot of the U.S. is powered by huge nuclear power plants, they have to deal with where to put the toxic bi-product.
The other nice thing about getting most of your energy from a renewable resource is that it enables Norway to sell off a large portion of their gas and oil. According to OPEC, Norway is the 3rd largest net exporter of oil, making them one of the wealthiest nations in the world.
The argument against renewable resources in the United States is that it is not cost effective, that it costs more to run than it brings in. In my opinion this argument is pathetic. The energy corporations are set in their ways and at the time being making record profits from the high price of oil. All it would take is some money to invest in technology that would make cost effective for mass population to use. The United States is full of renewable such as wind and water, sunlight, geothermal energy, all it is going to take is a little effort on our part and public awareness to make it happen.
Source:
“Energy Summary Norway.” Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum. Dec 28, 2005. Sept 24, 2007. http://www.cslforum.org/norway.htm
What’s The Deal with Bottled Water?
The issue of bottled water has ignited over the last 10 years. It seemed to become the new big thing not just throughtout the U.S. but the world due to its convenience and so called high quality, as opposed to tap water. I feel that water is a huge environmental issue because it is THE fundamental issue to sustaining life. According to the United Nations, water is a fundamental right to all citizens of earth, and this bottled water phenomenon is truly effecting the world. According to my research, bottled water is seriously effecting our environment.
The United States consumes an estimated 8 billion gallons of bottled water this year, equating to roughly $11 billion dollars in revenue. However the real statistic is the 1.5 million barrels of oil it takes to produce the plastic bottles. That oil could be used elsewhere, especially with the price of oil nowadays.
Another point is the direction the corporations are leaning toward water. According to the yearly numbers, there is a huge amount of money to be made in the water industry. Which brings us to the point of privatizing water; which would make it more feasible for the large corporations to make larger profits. Anytime large mega corporations get involved in issues like this, they seem to just see the dollar sign and will do whatever it takes to earn a buck; if that means depriving a poor malnourished child water, so be it. As I have said before water is a fundamental right, and should not be taken away to be sold for profit. Therefore I believe that the United Nations and other powerful entities should set in before its too late and regulate the amount of bottled water made so that the environment is not hurt and all the people the world have free and public access to quality water.
Sources:
Paulson, Tom. “Thirst for Bottled Water may be hurting environment.” Seattle PI. April 19, 2007. Sept 24, 2006. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/312412_botwaterweb.html
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Position Essay
Professional Sports Contracts:
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment, and get paid quite well for it. In today’s society there is a growing demand for pro sports and thusly pro athletes have seen a sharp increase in salary due to the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage.
However some members of society believe athletes are financially compensated way too much. They claim that our hard earned money and time could be spent elsewhere; with your family etc. According to critics of sports, there is no reason why a person should get paid millions of dollars to play a “sport,” because sports do not positively benefit society whatsoever. The sharp increase in player salaries, which has deeply disturbed critics, is totally societal. . The key element in all of these is that the common man supports it weather he or she likes it or not through watching TV ads and buying the products.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for higher paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than athletes on team sports. For the individual players, the endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example made $12 million in winnings and $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because they don’t know when their next payday is going to come. If you consistently finish in the lower half of the field, you are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars or what type of clothes you where can keep you in the game for an extended period of time.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN is a huge reason why. ESPN was the first all sports network. It covers the widest variety of sports which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching it for as little as 5 minutes. TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, why not? The media gets on their case for making too much money; however if you turned it around and the media received the same amount there would be no complaints. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening. Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Despite what the critics think, they will probably continue to do so, because of both the hardcore fans support thru attending and also the unknowingly supportive fan who might not attend the games, but supports pro sports by purchasing advertised items and watching TV on a daily basis.
Pro sports today are a growing form of entertainment, and therefore the athletes should get paid accordingly, just like Hollywood movie stars. Movies stars also provide a form of entertainment, and get paid quite well for it. In today’s society there is a growing demand for pro sports and thusly pro athletes have seen a sharp increase in salary due to the multi billion dollar TV contracts, endorsements and sponsorships, and 24 hour media coverage.
However some members of society believe athletes are financially compensated way too much. They claim that our hard earned money and time could be spent elsewhere; with your family etc. According to critics of sports, there is no reason why a person should get paid millions of dollars to play a “sport,” because sports do not positively benefit society whatsoever. The sharp increase in player salaries, which has deeply disturbed critics, is totally societal. . The key element in all of these is that the common man supports it weather he or she likes it or not through watching TV ads and buying the products.
Sponsorships and endorsements are a large reason for higher paychecks for athletes. It helps individual sport athletes more than athletes on team sports. For the individual players, the endorsements are the bulk of their income. Tiger Woods for example made $12 million in winnings and $75 million in endorsements. Other sports like tennis and auto racing also rely on sponsorships because they don’t know when their next payday is going to come. If you consistently finish in the lower half of the field, you are not going to survive in the industry very long. Sponsorships that can be seen on cars or what type of clothes you where can keep you in the game for an extended period of time.
The expanding media coverage of pro sports can be directly correlated with the rise in player salaries. The three major channels (NBC, CBS, ABC) have invested billions of dollars in various sports, ranging from golf to baseball to hockey. Cable TV is another big reason for the media coverage. ESPN is a huge reason why. ESPN was the first all sports network. It covers the widest variety of sports which helps smaller sports come to the national forefront. A person can be caught up with the day in sports by watching it for as little as 5 minutes. TV contracts tie in with pro sports contracts because the larger the TV contract, the more money and owner will receive from the league. This allows the owners and general managers to pay players a higher amount of money.
Professional athletes should get paid the amount they do because as long as people are willing to support for it, why not? The media gets on their case for making too much money; however if you turned it around and the media received the same amount there would be no complaints. Athletes are just another target of jealous citizens who instead of doing something constructive; complain about the successful. Some people just seem to have enough time on their hands to attack anything they don’t like, and that is quite saddening. Overall, pro contracts are on the rise. Despite what the critics think, they will probably continue to do so, because of both the hardcore fans support thru attending and also the unknowingly supportive fan who might not attend the games, but supports pro sports by purchasing advertised items and watching TV on a daily basis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)