Soda Ban Response

The video is basically describing how the mayor is proposing that they control how much soda people drink on a normal basis. But, it seems a little ridiculous, because while some restaurants can't have certain sizes other still can. How are they really controlling something when someone could just walk across the street and get the thing they actually wanted.  I understand what he is trying to do to help people, but on the other hand, he is just making it so they will find ways around the rules to get the size drinks they want. Also, some of the rules they added to the list, like at Dunkin Donuts you can still get a 32 oz oreo vanilla bean coolatta, because they contain more than 50% of milk. At Starbucks getting a venti will be alright because the establishment themselves doesn't add the sugar the consumer does. With controlment over the drink sizes, people are going to find their ways around them, whether they order two or three of the same size cup or just go back for a lot of refills. While this ban does exist in New York, it is getting others thinking about the main reason behind the ban in the first place, why are people getting more obese? I think that the bill and idea is good, but it will take a while for everyone to get used to it. Also will everyone be willing to give up their bigger drink sizes to help the society?

New York Soda Ban

The fight against obesity is alive and well in the United States.  The obesity rate has sky rocketed over the years, but why is that?  It’s a known fact that soda is bad for you and I really like the idea of banning it.   I think it’s great that Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, is really trying to take a stand and do something about obesity.  I think that it is a great idea to ban the sale of super-sized soda drinks and really get the ball rolling on this fight against obesity.  I liked that the video showed just how bad the super-sized soda drinks are for you.  I mean is a double cup really necessary?  That’s about the equivalent of a cup of sugar.  Bloomberg has everyone’s best interest at heart with this ban and that’s where I disagree with the video.  In the video it states that Bloomberg is “forcing” people to do this, which is simply not true.  He is trying to help people make better, more health conscious decisions because obesity really is a serious problem.  Obesity is one of the leading causes of death in America and Bloomberg is trying to put a stop to this.  I think he is on the right track with this ban.

NYC Ban Response

Casey Neistat, in the Youtube video, attempted to take a 67-page document about the soda ban in NYC, and turn it into something that anyone can understand. He started the video with appealing to a credible source (ethos), NBC. Starting with an NBC anchor man and the NYC Major in an interview shows that this is a controversial idea. The major is trying to do something good by limiting the serving size of drinks in the hope of decreasing obesity.

Next the video uses logos. Neistat explains what the legislation does and shows the sugar content in soft drinks of varying sizes. He shows the sugar content by getting sugar cubes and stacking them next to the drink with the soda. This is a visual aid of how much sugar is in soft drinks and it is shocking.

All throughout the video, he appeals to our emotions. He slowly starts off with a 16 oz drink and works his way up all the way to a 5 gallon bucket. This is not only funny, but shows his view on the issue. I believe he is in favor of this legislation because the comedic increase in the size of the drink shows that he believes you have to have boundaries of drink sizes. If you did not have these regulations by his logic the only end is that you would end up carrying a keg of your favorite soft drink around with you. The decrease in drink sizes will not only make people more self conscious of how much soda they are putting into their body but limit how much soda will go into their bodies. No one likes ordering two of the same thing for themselves because it make you will fat.

At the end of the video, he describes all the loop holes of how some companies can get around the small sizes. He thinks it is ridiculous by his tone and how he shows the sugar content on some things that get past the legislature.

However, he does have a biased view no matter how much he is trying to lay out the facts. Assuming he is the man walking out of the McDonalds with the drinks in his hand, he is thin. He is not the type of guy who would normally want to order the large drink. He most likely does not even drink a lot of soda, except in this video. He did a good job explaining the facts but someone who would normally order the DOUBLE GULP could have made a stronger argument.

I also am biased to this argument, I would not call my self overweight. I agree that soft drinks lead to obesity but it is not the only factor. I personally would not have a problem with a smaller size but where does it stop. Will companies stop using real sugar or ingredients and instead start using artificial sugar or ingredients. Will they put harmful substance in our bodies just so that they can cut calories or sugar content. I know the legislation is just reducing the serving size and has nothing to do with the product but the real purpose of the legislation is to reduce obesity. This is important because companies that can sell the cheapest, lowest calorie food to consumers will make the most money. This greed will lead to artificial substance and more food instead of eating less of a serving of healthier food. I do not know how to solve obesity in America but I do not like the government telling me what I can and cannot do.

I liked the video and I thought he did a good job of explaining the facts. Some of the noises when he changed from video to him talking were unusual but he did not take too much away from his message. He had a comedic tone about a serious topic and did a good job of separating the serious from the comedic.  

NYC Soda ban response

                The video is basically an exposition on the NYC soda ban, and also the general idea of America’s obesity. For the majority of the video, the speaker and presentation takes no “sides” or expresses no opinion on the topic. It simply helps present and explain the subject to the viewer. It does a good job of this by using statistics, interviews, and physical representations. Doing things such as comparing different size drinks next to each other, interviewing Bloomberg, and explaining some of the 62 pages of the actual bill give the viewer direct visuals and explanations of the topic at hand. This explanation allows the viewer to develop his or her own opinion on the topic.

                The tone of the video is somewhat critical, but also understanding. I think it is difficult to create a video like this without sounding critical. When people have something they feel is a personal “choice” or “right” taken away, their first reaction is to be defensive and skeptical. The video’s use of literally “x’ing” off the drinks that are too big and displaying the high sugar levels of non-banned beverages supports this reaction. The video does a good job of countering this reaction by explaining the ways around the law. It shows how a person could buy multiple 16 oz drinks, a 2 liter bottle from the store, or even buy a “big gulp” from the privately owned restaurants. By posing this counter perspective, the tone then moves to understanding and reasonable. Again, this difference in tone helps the viewer to develop his or her own opinion on the law.

                The American public faces a constant struggle with obesity, and therefore the video wants its audience to be all of America. Whether the issues range from banning soda sizes to limiting calories, the overall topic at hand is personal health. I think the ending of the video does a good job of explaining this. The speaker refers to the law as “ridiculous”, but also says the law has forced people to think about the overall issue of health, which is a “good thing.” The end of the video somewhat exposes the speaker’s opinion on the law, but also shows that the speaker believes in the effort that is being made. I think this is very important for the success of the video because it still enables the viewer to not feel pressured into thinking negatively about the law while learning about the overall topic of health in America.

                My personal opinion on the law is mixed. But who doesn’t have mixed opinions when it comes to the government structuring your life? The trouble of creating legislature is trying to make everyone happy while still having to make sacrifices. Overall, I think the law is quite fair and does a good job of confronting the overall issue of health. Taking away the larger drinks in most restaurants may seem like a removal of personal rights, but the ability to buy several drinks, buy larger drinks in other places, etc helps balance this. Ultimately, I think the law allows people to exercise their personal rights if they really want to while doing a great job of establishing a common awareness of health. I think the law is a small cost for a larger, good cause.

               

Response to the Soda Ban

This is the first time I have heard of the Soda Ban in New York City. At first, I did not think it would be possible to ban the city of New York from drinking soda or for restaurants and movie theaters to stop selling soda. The video explains that the people are getting more and more obese every day. To fix the problem of obesity, the people of New York attempt to ban people from drinking the sugary soft drinks no more than 16 oz. a cup. 

 The purpose of the video is to inform people that soft drinks are bad. They are loaded with so much sugar and acids of which we do not need to put in our bodies. The male speaker informs us very well.  His tone throughout is very clever and to the point. He believes in the information he is conveying to the audience. The speaker uses several examples to show to us the cup sizes that fast food restaurants and gas station serves. He also gives additional information about how much sugar is in a 32 oz. of coca cola, which is about 104 grams of sugar equaling 4 bottles of coca cola. To think that I have drank a 32 oz. of coca cola before makes me a little uneasy!

I believe Bloomberg (mayor) is right to ban soda. It is a major problem in today’s society and it must be kept under control or we will be living in the world full of fat, unhealthy people. I like that he is not trying to force anyone into the ban against soda, but that he is trying to inform and prevent his people from getting obese. It is in his nature to protect his people.

This video actually adds to my personal views on soda. I have recently stopped drinking soda because I noticed that I was dependent on it and used it as a substitute for water. I noticed that it was making me somewhat sluggish and I didn't like what it was doing to my body and my moods. So I completely support what Bloomberg was trying to accomplish. I think that more people should try to live a healthier life style by stop drinking these sugary drinks. In the short run, the coca cola might taste really refreshing, but in the long run it’s harmful to your body. 

NYC Soda Ban Explained

To start off I have to say that this “op-doc” is hilarious.  Humor is one of the tools the maker of this film uses to expose the truth behind the New York City soda ban.  He uses images of a man walking out of a restaurant carrying eight small cups of soda and all eight straws in his mouth, or the same guy carrying a bucket of soda and spilling it all on a New York sidewalk.

Casey Neistat is the maker and narrator if this documentary.  He gives a “sort of simple explanation” of the New York City Soda ban. He has a very informative tone.  The purpose of this documentary is to debunk the newly passed legislation in New York.  The New York soda ban, which is not really a ban on soda, was implemented as a plan to decrease obesity and unhealthy eating habits.  The legislation states that a company, regulated by the city, may not sell any sugary drink in excess of sixteen ounces.  The narrator, however, points out that there are many loop holes to this law.  Many companies are not regulated by the city, such as Seven Eleven, and may sell whatever size soda they wish to sell.  Also Starbucks could sell whatever size drink they want to sell because the customer puts the sugar in the drink themselves.  There are more practical ways of getting around this law.  A customer can simply buy more of the sixteen ounce drinks to equal whatever size drink they would normally purchase.

I enjoyed watching this documentary.  The humor made it interesting and the film was made very well.  Casey Neistat did an excellent job of using profound visuals.  At one point in the film, the film maker shows a massive fifty-four ounce drink which is equal to four and a half cans of Coca Cola.  Then he shows just how much sugar that is equal to.  The images and graphics really resonate in the minds of the viewers and are an excellent tool in helping to explain the legislation.    I think that obesity in America is an issue that needs to be dealt with but I do not believe it can be dealt with politically.  It is a personal choice for someone to choose to eat healthier.  The last thing we need in America is more government control and interference. 

NYC Soda Ban

The soda ban in New York City sounded ridiculous to me at first. How could you ban soda, or really limit it when there is no alcohol or drugs in it that would create a direct affect to the drinker. However, after watching the video it does make sense and it is reasoned well. This video explains in simple terms of what each sized drink is equivalent to in sugars and in cans or bottles of soda. It now makes more sense. The people they shoot in the video holding gallons of soda in their hands, or the four large drinks being carried for only one man, definitely gets the point across that how much soda people drink is disgusting and is unnecessary. Obesity is definitely an issue and I believe drinking an obscene amount of soda may and probably does contribute to this issue. The idea of regulating the drink sizes at city regulated places is a clever idea; however, at the same time it is a person’s decision to how much soda they want to drink.

I think that even though the places like 711 can still serve and sell large drinks, people who are going to Subway are still just going to settle for a smaller drink. It is too much of a hassle and just not worth it to buy a sandwich here and then go across the street for a larger drink there. With this reason, I think that this soda ban will definitely have an effect. I do not think obesity is a direct affect of drinking soda however, I do think that by reducing the amount of sugar drinks people have every day, could help reduce obesity in some aspects. Like I said above it’s a person’s decision to how much they want to drink. For instance, if a person really wants coke, then they may not necessarily go across the street for it to have with their meal. But when people are not eating out, there are still grocery stores and convenient stores to go to for unlimited amounts of soda.

In closing, I think that overall this ban will have an affect but probably not as big of an affect as some people wish it to be. 

soda

The purpose of the video we just watched is to persuade civilians to decrease their consumption of sugar as a way to decrease the obesity rate and save more lives. To do so, the mayor of New York City put a ban on the amount of soft drink, which is filled with sugar, one buys each time he goes to a restaurant. Even though the consumption soda is not completely banned, consumers are merely limited to buy a maximum of sixteen ounces of soft drink. Soft drinks have been a popular choice of beverage for numerous generations, and it is likely that they have been one of the major contributors to obesity. As one may agree, the audience of this video is for those who are suffering obesity or for those who are just concerned about their health.

Personally, I think the mayor of NYC has made a good effort in trying to save peoples’ lives. However, putting a ban on the quantity of soda one consumes was not necessary. The general public knows that soft drinks are filled with sugar and bad for one’s health. People choose what they put into their bodies and what they keep out. Even though many individuals are aware that too much sugar is bad for one’s health and can negatively impact one’s life, there are also many people who either do not care what they put in their bodies and/or are ignorant of the harmful effects of consuming too much sugar. With the intelligence of today’s society, people find ways around everything; people are still going to consume large quantities of sugar, regardless if one thinks it’s a bad idea.

A fatter America

 The video takes a somewhat complicated issue and sort of makes it more understandable. The bill Mayor Bloomburg has passed through prohibits places selling drinks to limit their sizes to only 16 ounces. The video does a good job in putting that in visual terms instead of just stating a number making it appealing to anyone. Not only are you hearing the facts but your seeing the actual soda sizes, the actual cubes of sugar that go into each drink and even how many cans or bottles that go into each drink. To me a medium at Mcdonalds never seemed that big into I actually got to see the video and how much sugar is really needed and how a drink that big isn't that necessary. The video brings up the actual documents but them puts them in way that is easier to comprehend.

My thoughts on the bill is that is a good idea to a certain extent. But shouldn't be just limited to stores or places that are run by the city. Places like Starbucks and Dunkin donuts according to this bill are okay because they establishment doesn't sugar the drinks the customers do, or the drink contains 50% dairy is a tricky one.Because in those cases it is the person themselves regulating how much sugar gets put in their drink.The fact that a large at Mcdonalds is 104 grams of sugar is literally just way too much.Its like that at most resturants and places where the portions of things we eat and drink are so much bigger than is necessary and I certainly think that it is contributing to the obesity of America. 


 I also agree to a point that it is each person's choice to what size they want to buy and that it shouldn't be up to me to regulate that.I know it might seem annoying to have someone regulate what size drinks you can buy but if it becomes the standard everywhere to me it wouldnt seem as much as a big deal. Hey if you feel the need to buy 3 16 ounce drinks to quench your thirst for it , go for it, there is no limit there. I just don't like the way Mayor Bloomberg in the video used the word forcing in trying to get people to understand how much sugar were intaking.Those aren't exactly the words I would use since they could be taken out of context so easily, but the bill isn't a bad idea. America is getting fatter and fatter and cutting back on sizes could help control the size increase. I figured also this way places like Mcdonalds can't get sued for making their customers overweight because it would then fall back on the choices the customer decides to make.

The soda ban

The soda ban is actually really nice in my opinion. It doesn't really take away any rights, it's just there to make people a little more aware of themselves. In a slightly biased way, I kind of like how this is coming from Bloomberg, an independent. Regardless, everyone should be able to see that obesity is a thing just a little more after this "ban" [that doesn't take your American rights away really]; those who have seen the video we just saw should be a little more aware of the issue and may have (and will) researched the issue independently. Bloomberg used the word "forcing" to describe how he plans to increase awareness. By creating either a positive or a negative response, it was really his plan to create some sort of response to begin with. This was a very well thought out plan, rather than something a bunch of overzealous liberals who think they can eradicate obesity put together, in my opinion. I really have no objections to anything that was said in this video or by Bloomberg himself. Well done.

Soda: The Cigarette for America's Youth

The fight against obesity has become one of the many battles within the US. People are fatter and are eating worse than they ever have before. Why is this? I agree with Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, when he says soda is a major cause of obesity in recent years. Since the explosion of soft drinks in the early 20^th century the average weight of humans has skyrocketed.

                There is no arguing that soda is bad for you. The amount of sugars, along with the amount of acids, make soda very harmful to the human body. This is much like cigarettes and other tobacco products, which have been regulated by the US government. How is soda any different? I believe Bloomberg is well within his rights to try to control the sale of soda to protect America’s youth from something that is harmful. And this is where I think the YouTube video is wrong. Bloomberg is not trying to “force” anyone to do something he is just simply trying to protect the people of New York from obesity, which later leads to worse problems.

                I have been off soda for two years now and have many personal experiences that allow me to see what soda really does to your body. Before I went off of soda I would often have 3-5 sodas a week which doesn't really seem like that much. Then for lent of 2011 I gave it up, and it was a very good decision. After Easter, and lent was over I continued to not drink soda just because I wanted to see how long I could go without it. I suddenly began to realize that I was slowly losing weight and I didn't really know why. I was excited to see this happening and tried to figure out why this was, and the only thing that I can think of was not drinking soda. After the following summer I had lost 46 lbs and could not have felt better. The caffeine found in soda is considered a drug and actually is a depressant. This means that soda actually affects the mood of the user not only their body, which is just one more reason that I believe it should be regulated for the youth of America and the world. And Bloomberg is on the right track with his new bill on soda bans.  

The adequate vs the Capable

Connotations given by the word adequate in comparison to capable are actually quite different.

When one defines a man as adequate, they usually aim to mean that the person is just barely up to par. Much in the same way that one can go into a test and come out with an "adequate" passing score of an 80, no-where near failing but not exactly fantastic either, one at work can be quite "adequate" in that they reach only for a decent amount of work and do it moderately well. These people who are "adequate" could probably do "well" (not outstanding, but well) but just feel like there isn't much of a point trying to do something and being simply "good" at it and not "great" or "outstanding"; these kinds of people would rather settle with the "adequate" with much less effort put into that result.

Someone who might be looked at as "capable" may also have the same type of initial potential and results, being "adequate", yet may have more overall future potential. In the same time someone not working at all only to be adequate may be totally "capable" of more, even much more to the point of being "great" and "amazing". Thus this word, capable, actually has both a negative and positive connotation. When taken with a negative connotation the person in question being "capable" can also be coupled in description as being "adequate" in how he or she does. What one would hope to see more often, however, is the positive connotation. One that shows how someone is showing an effort and can go even farther than "adequate".

Love vs Affection

When writing a love letter to a special someone, let’s say your girlfriend of five years, you are pouring your heart out. You tell her how much she means to you as well as how you can’t go a day without thinking about her. And that she is the most beautiful women you have ever seen and no one can compare. You may even tell her that you want to marry her because seeing her with another man would just break you into two pieces. Love letters are meaningful and somewhat serious. You are describing your feelings to someone you really care about. 

Unlike love, you wouldn't sit down to write an affection letter to a special someone. That would just be odd. Affection cannot be put into words, but rather shown physically. You are affectionate when you are hugging or kissing someone. Or when you are rubbing someones shoulder or holding someones hand. When you are physically attracted to someone you may show affection. Being affectionate to someone doesn't mean you love or care about the person because you may be the kind of person that just likes to show affection. 

Unique / Unusual

In my opinion unique certainly has a better connotation than Unusual does. But denotation wise they aren't really that different from each other just how we feel about the use of the word makes them seem different. 

When I think of the work unique I normally think of something that is different but it is different in a good way. There are a lot of models that are are seen as unique, not necessarily the usual beauty , but different and still pretty in its own way. Dictionary.com defines Unique as existing as the sole example, having no like or equal, not typical, unusual. Unique certainly has a better connotation than unusual. For some being unique and one of a kind is better than that be unusual because for some reason being unusual is seen as a bad thing even though that is also what unique means.

Unusual according to dictionary.com is defined as not ordinary or common, uncommon to a certain degree.  Certainly like the word unique. But when called unusual one might see it as actually offensive instead of a compliment. Taking it as one is not normal as everyone else and that could be very hurtful. 

One rather be called unique than unusual.

Fat vs. Plump

When someone refers to another person as being “fat”, it is different than a person calling somebody “plump.” I personally do not like the word fat because it carries negativity with it. No person wants to be called fat. The idea of being or being called fat makes a person unhappy. It hurts a person’s feelings, whether they are being called fat or realizing that they are “fat”, affecting their confidence and in some ways there well being. The word and meaning just brings unhappiness. Now there are some people who love and embrace their figure and say they don’t mind being called fat because he or she knows it and just does not care, however, there has to be a little hurt in the saying “you are fat.” I think that, that person would rather be called “plump.” This word  is not necessarily positive but it carries more positivity with it. When I think of being plump, I think of just a full figured person. A person who is plump may have curves or some pudge. Using the word plump in a way is more mannerly and a little less insulting compared to using the word fat.

Both of these words are defined as a person who is overweight or oversized, however, “fat” is more defined as being very overweight and big, as for, “plump” is more defined as simply being above the average weight. When you compare how and when people use these words, you see that people who either are angry, unhappy, or want to insult someone, use the word “fat”. However, when someone is trying to describe someone or making a comment, a person would use “plump.”

Police Officer vs. Cop

Even though “police officer” and “cop” have the same literal meaning, they each trigger a different connotation.  The phrase, “police officer,” usually triggers a positive connotation. When one hears, “police officer,” he thinks of one who demonstrates integrity, loyalty, leadership, and kindness; many people not only respect police officers for who they as a individuals, but also for their notable roles and positive impacts within the community.

            On the contrary, the word, “cop,” usually triggers a negative connotation.  Many people feel that “cops” are cruel individuals whose goal is to cause a negative impact on others’ lives; in reality, cops are just doing their job and trying to make sure each individual within the community is safe. For example, when people are at a party and someone screams, “Cops are coming!” everyone gets scared and hides. These people typically do not realize that law enforcement officers show up at parties to make sure everything is okay and to make sure that everyone is safe. What many do not realize is that “cops,” like “police officers,” are normal people: they wake up every morning, they have families, and they have hearts.

Lady vs Woman

[Written from the perspective of a person who organizes job fairs]

                At the job fair last week, we have about ten different stations set up in the conference room. Each of these stations had large posters and signs that gave a brief description of what type of employee would fit the job. Many posters had only single words. For example, words such as: tough, intelligent, college educated, nature, and many more. These booths applied to all types of people.

 At the end of the fair, I read over all the evaluations of people who signed up at the individual stations. Something very interesting caught my attention. There were two booths whose posters I thought would attract the exact same person. The first booth read “Woman” and the second booth read “Lady.” Seems similar, right? The evaluations proved different. 

The first booth brought in a very large crowd. Women of all shapes, sizes, ethnicities, backgrounds, and qualifications signed up. These women wore anything from jeans and a t-shirt to turbans and sandals. Reading further into the evaluation, I realized that literally every woman in the fair signed up. 

The second booth proved to be very different. The amount of women to sign up was much smaller. Not only was the group smaller, but the type of women were very particular. Their clothing may have varied, but they all dressed very attractively. Their clothes were more than presentable. On top of that, they were all polite and well spoken. The evaluation even claimed that they seemed to be more “refined.” 

After reading the evaluations, I came to a revelation. “Lady” and “woman” are drastically different. “Woman” refers strictly to the female half of humanity. All women are “women.” In comparison, “lady” refers to a very specific type of woman. A lady is refined, polite, and presentable.  Apparently connotation and denotation are powerful things!