CupCake Inc.

In this article about Cheerleading, the author defines a sport as : “a physical activity that requires its participants to be healthy and physically able, strong, and skilled”. I think this is too specific and focused on physical ability. This definition discriminates against those who are disabled and still participate in sports. According to this definition, the Special Olympics would not be considered sports. I think this is insensitive to those who are somewhat able and try very hard at what they do. Her definition better fits a word like a “fully-functioning sport”, not just a sport in general.
I personally think that cheer leading should be considered a sport because it is offered in almost all schools and has become more competitive over the years. Cheerleaders practice religiously just as other sports do and also require good physical condition.As for the definition itself, there is a little fine tuning to be done. Perhaps a more broad definition such as : a physical activity in which one participates in competition with others. That is not a perfect definition, but it does leave room for those who cannot perform all the same tasks as fully-able athletes.
Nothing personal, but this discussion doesn’t spark my interest too much and therefore I don’t have much to say about it.
BRING IT ON–Again?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-met-schmich-0126-20110126,0,3684840.column

The article I decided to use was an article that was recently in the Chicago Tribune. It is an opinion article about whether or not Colin Firth is the sexiest actor in movies today–don’t judge me, this is for class credit only. I have no personal interest. At any rate, the author makes compelling arguments using many pronouns: you, we, us, I etc. It works. She really seems to squeeze her way into a role that is not an authoritative figure, but instead just a normal person with a subjective opinion like everyone else. I think she uses a nice combination of her own opinions along with opinions of women that were surveyed on the subject. The bulk of her piece is quotations of other women; it makes the article flow well. It seems to me that maybe Firth is the “old ladies” version of Edward from Twilight. Maybe he’ll have 40 year old girls chasing him down the street in his loafers and sweater.

I can’t write any more; I feel awkward.

http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-persuasive-tv-ads.php                                (copy and paste into URL bar)

This advertisement, that is linked above, is a Proactive commercial with Lindsay Lohan giving her personal testimony and support of the product shown. (It is #10 on the Top 10 most persuasive advertisements.)

To me, the claim being made in this advertisement is quit simple: buy our acne product. The reason behind this claim is that if you do your acne will disappear as if it were never there. The warrant in this advertisement  is the assumption that no one wants to have acne. The reason that this advertisement is effective is because they use a very sensitive subject with people, acne, and give them hope for a miracle cure. By making the claim that you (the consumer) need to buy this product and giving a reason like “your acne will vanish”, the company has made a very compelling case because they can play with peoples emotions and feelings about the subject.

Attractive stats and facts they put in their commercials:

: 1. Lindsay Lohan uses it (meaning you can be beautiful like her)

2. They have 10 million customers worldwide (which means this product obviously works)

3. Named best acne treatment by Allure magazine (Positive publicity from a reputable source)

4. It was developed by “two Stanford trained dermatologists” (Stanford has a great reputation for academia, that means they must be good)

5. Last but not least, they claim Proactive is the “#1 Best Selling acne system in America” (According to whom?)

But clearly with the numbers shown, they have been very successful in accomplishing their goal.

Giggity

I think that prisoners, no matter what crime they have committed, should be allowed to practice their own religion while serving their sentence. With that being said, I also believe that no one should be given special treatment. The Indiana court systems have documents that allow the Muslims in that facility to pray together once a day during Ramadan. Outside of that, they are allowed to pray together once a week. I don’t know the restrictions that each prisoner has with regards to time out of their cells, but if they have any free time outside of their cell with other inmates, they should take advantage of that time together and use it for group prayer. And as the Law Blog from the Wall Street Journal says, “most Muslims don’t adhere to the requirement of five daily prayers”. If that is truly the case then it seems as though the inmates are using the ACLU lawsuit to twist the system and benefit their own situations. Ultimately, I think the prisoners should be grateful for the opportunities they have and should not get greedy. They forfeited their rights to do as they please when they committed the crime that got them there and need to understand that although it may not seem fair, that’s life.

Welcome to Morningside.edu Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Your blog is set to “Private” by default and will not be listed on the main page. To change this behavior use your dashboard, “Settings” and look inside “Privacy”.