Is there a need for the MIB?

When I was in 2nd grade, I wanted to grow up to be an agent from Men in Black. That was my life plan; to don a slick black suit and sunglasses and defend the earth from aliens. I would be Agent S, I would carry the Noisy Cricket wherever I went, and I would kick the snot out of any bug like extraterrestrial that even came a light year near earth. That is until my mother informed me that aliens weren’t real……Steve’s dream crushed.

Or maybe not….

The controversy behind UFO’s rages on to this day. Both sides seem to have arguments for and against the existence of space species. I found two articles that argue differing sides of the controversy – both extremely un-legit in my opinion.

The first article argued that aliens were real – and the reason stated was because some astronaut said so. The article reported Edgar Mitchell, the 6th man to walk on the moon, reported that NASA was involved in a cover up and that aliens did in fact visit earth. Therefore, because some astronaut in his early 70’s (dementia sets in about this age) claims this, it becomes fact in some people’s minds. This reasoning relies completely on the ethos of one man that was once involved in NASA. In my opinion, that just doesn’t cut it. I’m sorry Mr. Mitchell, you don’t sway me with your crazy words.

The other article I found was also based on the ethos of one man: Air Force Captain Hank Beckman. The Captain made a statement saying “In almost five years as an agent, I never saw any evidence -- and I mean none -- that alien spacecraft exist, or that the government even thinks they do”. So there you have it folks. Another mystery debunked because of one man who is “on the inside” saying nothings going on.

The problem with both of these articles is that they rely 100% on the opinions of two men, who we know nothing about, just their title. But because these men have titles, their opinions are taken as facts. These articles did nothing to sway my opinion and ergo, I guess I’ll just have to stay in college before I take the leap to join the MIB…

Response to Shelby

In her article entitled Preparing a Meal, Ms. Springer dicusses just that: preparing a meal. The meal she reports on making was homemade pizza for her family. Now, unless she has fine Italian familial roots (and maybe she does, but for this point, we’ll pretend not), I can make a prediction that the materials she needed for the pizza (and rest of side dishes) were already packaged, already ready items that just needed to be put together like legos to make the regular Joe feel like he actually accomplished the task of making a homemade meal. For instance, the crust was either dough bought, or an already ready crust that was just waiting for the preservative laden canned mush called sauce and low moist, non-fat, pasteurized, machine shredded mozzerella cheese to be placed on top before the Frankenstein could be brought to life by the oven. I will coin the term home-frankenooked for the kind of meals we claim to home cook. By this I mean we take separate packaged items we buy at the grocery store – things that came from “body parts” of deceased food – to make a new monster. I think Polan would agree with me, Springer goes on to talk about his chapter about processed food, in that our food today uses the remnants of real food to make the artificial crap that tastes appeals more to our senses. All in all, I apologize if it seems I think Ms. Springer is not a legit culinary wizard, she probably is, but I do have a problem with “homecooked meals” when all the ingredients come from a can.

Blog #3 - Battle of the Oatmeals

Sunday mornings around the Ticknor house would always be ushered in by the amazing smell of fresh oatmeal – made with real natural oats and love by my darling mother. I remember the taste of that oaty breakfast – nothing but oats, water, and sugar – the simplest of ingredients, but pure deliciousness nonetheless. But those were days of simply – when the only worries were if my friends were home to play. Middle school morning mayhem ushered in new kind of oatmeal, the kind that the ingredient of love is cut away from – instant oatmeal. This was the pre-packaged, unloved child of oatmeal – a sloppy mush that could never amount to what its parent is. Whereas with the homemade oatmeal, you could taste each individual piece of oat, with its straight from the farm grainy texture, with instant oatmeal everything is mashed up together to make a paper like pulp that resembled baby food. Gross.

In an article that I found concerning the nutritional information about the two products – to my surprise, one serving of instant oatmeal actually contains more fiber and nutrients than regular oatmeal (although not a significant amount). I found that this was because in the refining process, they add oat flower and nutrients to the mix. The article went on to say that there isn’t much of a difference between the two foods. The main difference that it did point out was texture and flavor (two of the things that I distinguished in regular oatmeal’s superiority).

In conclusion, if you’re in a rush and still want a solid breakfast food and can handle mushy texture, grab the instant oatmeal – it won’t live up to the dynasty of its forefathers, but it will still give the great health benefits of classic oatmeal.

Self-Eval

A common saying goes, “you’re only as strong as your weakest link”, so I’m gonna start this self-analysis with all the weak points in my presentation. First of all, I’d like to make the statement that its unbearably hard to watch oneself perform. Like, I had to stop the video whenever I saw someone even passing me, because of the embarrassment it brought. I’m sure there’s a psychological explanation for why I feel this way; like the ID acting out to protect itself or something, but this blog is not the venue for that discussion.

The first think I noticed reviewing myself, was that I need to speak slower. It seemed as if I was in some SAW movie, with a bomb strapped to my leg that would go off if I didn’t complete my speech in a certain time. This speedy talking may get me out of a speeding ticket, but it only leaves the audience in a “wait a minute….could you repeat the 8 points you just made in 3 seconds?” state of shock. In my defense, whenever I practiced my speech, I took over 6 minutes, so I knew ahead of time that I needed to be speedy. Lesson #1 learned: slow down speed racer, set a steady pace.


I’m not sure if the camera’s audio reflected reality, but if it did, I need to have a better understanding of the level of my voice. The other big problem I had watching it was my conclusion… or lack there of. I just wanted to get done and sit down, so I skipped over my conclusion. Lesson learned #2: Take the time to conclude everything you just said.

Now for some positives: I think I did an alright job of explaining my topic, I could have expanded on relevance a little, and I think my steps were organized. Overall, I think this speech was par for the course..

Peer Response #2

Today in the world of SSST’s Blog: a response to Kat Saltarelli’s blog about celebrity endorsements.

Saltarelli opens her post by making a statement concerning the ridiculous appearance of models – being too skinny, too made-up, etc – and how those models create an unrealistic image for young women across the country. She uses this opening to explain why Serena Williams endorsement with Nike goes against the mainstream of celebrity role models.

She says that Williams is confident, powerful and uncaring of criticism, and is thus a role model to be looked up to for young women. Her achievements and “cool” make her a wholesome athlete that little girls can aspire to be like when they grow up. And for this reason, Nike made the right decision to endorse her and her image.

I don’t know much about Williams’ character; if she’s as calm and confident as Saltarelli proposes, so I’ll just have to take her word for it. The only thing that still bothers me is that Serena still has the “looks” that all those little girls envy. I’m not attacking Serena for looking good and being a good person, I’m just making the point that little girls will still be in envy of her “beautiful athletic body” (see picture above - a little more modesty would be appreciated Ms Williams). Saltarelli even says in the post that unlike many other women tennis players, Williams has a body that she can and does “flaunt”. I think its almost a cop-out to picture her as a perfect role-model, just for the reason that she still fits the description of what a model should have: a glamorous body. This still creates an unrealistic view of how a female body should look for little girls, despite the fact that Williams is a nice person.

In the future, I’d like to see Nike endorse a “normal” looking athlete, so that girls can see that they don’t have to be an hour-glass to be beautiful and successful.

Response to Mr. Behling

In this latest installment of SSST’s LSC 100 Blog:

I will respond to Mr. Frank Behling’s blog concerning Michael Pollan’s introduction chapters.

Mr. Behling’s blog concentrates on Pollan’s attack on the food industry for being unable to scientifically manufacture a superdooper food that has all of the nutrient powers as unaltered food. Behling brings up the point that no matter how much scientific information we have, all of our technology and information still is no match for mother’s homegrown garden (go figure, mother still knows best). When I read this, the image I got was that montage scene in Rocky IV (I still can’t believe they made that many movies with the same plot; Rocky is down in the dumps, a new opponent steps into the picture, montage, and Rocky wins something in the end. Come on Hollywood. Lets get original) where Rocky trains under “old school” techniques, while that Russian Aryan has all these professional trainers using science to push him to the limits of the human body. I’m not gonna spoil the ending, go watch the movie, but as for the food match, the old-school home-grown food wins.

Mr. Behling then makes the point that Pollan is a bit too…..sassy with the food industry. Pollan, stop your tirade. The food industry isn’t the devil. It’s okay for them to be interested in how our body and food interact and then try to make it better. That’s called science. It’s not going anywhere. Deal with it.

All in all, Mr. Behling establishes many good points about Pollan’s strict way of thinking about food.

Blog #2 Celeb Endorsement

Nothing says artery clogging, industry processed burger like two really famous guys playing basketball. McDonalds has somehow recruited two of the NBA’s top players to star in a commercial in which the two duke it out in competition. What’s at stake you might ask? A McDonalds meal. That’s right. Nothing says top physical fitness and athleticism like a Big Mac. This commercial, featuring Lebron James and Dwight Howard, is a remake of another that starred Michael Jordan Larry Bird that aired in the early 90’s (oh, sweet memories of childhood).

I can totally understand why McDonalds picked two talented and fit basketball players for an endorsement deal. I mean, if you can convince the public that you’re everything that you’re not, then you’ve pulled a Shallow Hal over their eyes (not to take away from the message of that movie, I absolutely loved it). If McDonalds wanted to be genuine and honest with their customers, they’d choose this guy for their add campaigns (have you seen Supersize Me??).

As to whether or not this campaign idea will be successful, I am unsure. If people were smart, they would see the hypocrisy right away. But if people don’t use their brains, like so many of us fail to do these days, they’ll believe anything they see on TV, and will most likely be in line for a Big Mac right now.

To be fair, I’ve posted an official article on the topic from NBA.com. In the article, Lebron states his reasons for working with McDonalds have a lot to do with working with the Ronald McDonald House. Touché Mr. James, touché. If this is the reason why Lebron betrays his athletic image with the devil in disguise food, then I have nothing to say. If there’s one reason to join the McDonalds’ side, it’s to help children with cancer. Good form, sir.

Blog #1

Michael Pollan is out for vengeance. He feels he’s been tricked, lied to, manipulated, and he’s had enough. Its time to strike back. His target: our modern food industry.

That might sound like an overly dramatic way to describe a book on food, but it nonetheless reflects Pollan’s want to shake up our way of thinking about food. In the first words of the book, Pollan summarizes his message – “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” and from there tells us why our attitude toward food is long expired. Pollan believes that we should return to the foods of our grandparents – good, natural homegrown food. In the opening chapters, he summarizes his belief that the food industry has been mislead throughout history by scientists who think they know more than they really do. These scientific findings have prompted the government to support and grow an industry based on the scientific “food”.

I believe Pollan’s idea that our modern food industry has “got it all wrong” and that the government has supported the industry to this point. One such example of the government subsidizing “food” is in the corn industry. The documentary King Corn gives an insightful look at the problems with the crop. The more I think about Pollan’s claims that our “food” today isn’t really food, the more I doubt what exactly it is that I’m eating. For simple evidence, just look at the ingredients of the next thing you eat (should I really be eating something that contains an ingredient that I can’t even pronounce? Maltodextrin?). Pollan’s argument that our grandparents’ diets were healthier than ours now is hard to argue with; based on all the health complications we have today that they never had to deal with. Michale Polan is a food prophet that will hopefully help turn our stray society around.