Annotated Bibliography

Kayser, Bengt, and Thomas H. Murray. "Should the Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Be Legalized?" Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org. 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 31 Oct. 2011. <http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001226>.

            This article is a summation of other articles laying out the pros and cons to legalizing performance enhancing drugs in sports. Bengt believes the pros to legalizing drugs in performance enhancing drugs outweigh the cons as long as they are distributed by medical staff accordingly. This would in turn help to encourage a more sensible use of the performance enhancing drugs. While on the other hand the cons in Murray’s eyes far outweigh the pros because they change multiple aspects of the sporting world. He believes they tarnish the respect for the games and cut out people’s natural talent. Both sides of the argument seem to be the more prototypical sounding arguments. This will be useful in showing two perspectives to my argument but finding a third party, new perspective on performance enhancing drugs is my ultimate goal.

Balko, Radley. "Should We Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports?" Reason Magazine. 23 Jan. 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.<http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/23/should-we-allow-performance-en/singlepage>.

            Balko takes an interesting perspective on the allowance of performance enhancing drugs in our sports world. He argues that as times change, society needs to go with those times. As medical practices are enhanced Balko believes that sports should go hand in hand and these enhancing drugs are the way to go. A very pertain ate argument in Balko’s article is the numbers behind health issues from these drugs versus just actually playing the sport. For instance, the NFL has been in serious talks with the players union on keeping health after players retire because it has become such a huge issue. I tend to agree with Balko’s argument, that if the times are changing and the athletes want to take these drugs then it should be allowed. This article will help to give a slightly different viewpoint on why these drugs should be legal or allowed to be used in sports for my exploratory essay.

Jost, Kenneth. "Performance Enhancing Drugs: An Overview." Proxy Login – University  Libraries – USC.2008. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.    <http://ic.galegroup.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDe            tailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints>.

                        This article has reasons for anti-doping through many medical stand points. Jost says that anti-doping officials like Norman Fost believe generally healthy people don’t benefit from these performance enhancers. Fost is against anyone under 18 years old using these drugs because it is all the kids that think these drugs will make them look like Arnold Schwarzenegger when in fact the effects of these drugs are widely exaggerated. Fost goes on to say any sport involves health consequences as it is so that shouldn’t be such a huge factor. I agree with the fact that the side effects of all these drugs are widely exaggerated but Jost seems to have a very casual outlook on all the side effects.           

Guénette, Jasmin. "The Decision to Use Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Be Personal."       Proxy Login - University Libraries - USC. 18 June 2006. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.            <http://ic.galegroup.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsDe   tailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints>.

Guenette takes performance enhancing drugs to a personal level. She believes that performance enhancers are a personal choice and compares them to something like eating a hamburger or choosing to go to the movies. It is your choice and you should not be held accountable by anybody but yourself for it. Using the example of Greg Valentino she shows how this is a one in a million case of steroids going that badly and someone abusing them that badly. She turns choosing to use steroids into a respect factor that no one should have someone make the decisions for them but themselves. I learned that not everyone is against making the choice for themselves. I completely agree with this article because the choice is always yours and shouldn’t be regulated by anyone but a medical staff.  

“ENHANCED PLAYERS WOULD GIVE US BETTER GAMES." Proxy Login – University    Libraries - USC. St. Petersburg Times, 16 Dec. 2007. Web. 07 Nov. 2011.            <http://ic.galegroup.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ic/ovic/NewsDetailsPage/NewsDetailsWind      ow?displayGroupName=News>.

                        This is the most interesting article I have found so far. It has a rebel tone because it compares steroids to the things that people “probably” did back in the day like spit balls, corked bats, and cocaine. They say just to legalize performance enhancers so we can have some good baseball again. It ends by saying we use them for injuries so what’s the difference. I agree with some of the points of this article but it goes to an extreme comparing steroid to other miniscule things.

Dickey, Glenn. "Looking for an Edge Is Part of Sports." Proxy Login - University Libraries          USC. 16 Feb. 2007. Web. 08 Nov. 2011.            <http://ic.galegroup.com.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/ic/ovic/ViewpointsDetailsPage/ViewpointsD    etailsWindow?displayGroupName=Viewpoints>.

Dickey makes an interesting claim that government money would be better on more important issues than steroids. He claims that the use of steroids is just athletes trying to find another edge on their opponents. I completely agree that if everyone can just come to terms that athletes are always going to be trying to find alternatives and move on to more important issues. Even for sports fans there are more important issues to attend to. This will be another helpful article to my paper because it brings government spending into the issue.

"What Are Performance Enhancing Drugs?" WiseGEEK: Clear Answers for Common Questions.  WiseGeek. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-performance    enhancing-drugs.htm>.

           

This is a very informational article that I think will help to benefit exploring the straight up facts about performance enhancing drugs scientifically. I’m going to use it to help inform the reader in the beginning about the use of these drugs, good and bad. This is also interesting because it touches on how even musicians have started to use performance enhancing drugs to help distress themselves. This articles position is obviously on enforcing the ban of steroids and other drugs and informs that they are used to help increase a particular skill-set. I don’t agree that they should be completely banned but I enjoyed how informational this article is.

Katz, Jeffrey. "Should We Accept Steroid Use in Sports? : NPR." NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. 23 Jan. 2008. Web. 08 Nov. 2011. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18299098>.

                        This article spiked my interest due to one fact. Near the end of Katz’s part of the article he says before the debate 18 percent were for using the drugs and 63 percent were opposed. While after the debate 37 percent were for and only 59 percent were against. I like what Julian Savulescu said during the debate that, “To say that we should reduce drugs in sport or eliminate them because they increase performance, is simply like saying that we should eliminate alcohol from parties because it increases sociability.” This will help to contribute because it has simple comparisons that are quite compelling.

                       

Topic Proposal

     The topic of my exploratory paper is on whether performance enhancing drugs should be legalized in sports around the world or not. Athletes both professional and amateur have stepped in to what has been known as the era of performance enhancers. Some say it has tainted our nation’s pastime, baseball and others believe it could be an advance in the medical world for the greater good of sports. It is obvious that there are two viewpoints on this topic, either for or against the use of these drugs. However, the perspectives on why or why not is what I will be diving into. The first group’s perspective on why there should not be performance enhancers is because it tarnishes the respect for the game and cheats god given natural talent. The second group believes athletes should use these drugs for health reasons and to help solidify athlete’s health after their careers are over. The third party that I’m going to dive into believes that athletes should use the drugs because it takes each sport to another level and if these athletes are adults and want to do that to their bodies then they should be allowed. The last position that most parents and adults take on the issue is the fact that seeing superstars take these drugs affects our youth into believing that that is the only way to attain success. This issue has a very significant effect on parents, pro athletes, the medical world, and children around the world. I personally believe that performance enhancing drugs should be legalized as long as they are emitted by a medical staff and in healthy dosages.       

ICR

The problem is that kids and adults alike are abusing performance enhancing drugs all over the world. It is important because it drastically affects one's health and could be a turning point in the sports world if legalized. The people affected are the athletes using these drugs, the doctors or trainers giving the drugs, and anyone surrounding those people using the drugs such as the organization they play for. People might disagree with these performance enhancing drugs being legalized in sports but both sides of the argument are out there. 

SWA #20

Kayser, Bengt, and Thomas H. Murray. "Should the Use of Performance Enhancing

     

     Drugs in Sports Be Legalized?" Sports and Drugs - ProCon.org. 15 Dec. 2008. Web. 31 Oct.

     2011. <http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=001226>.

            This article is a summation of other articles laying out the pros and cons to legalizing performance enhancing drugs in sports. Bengt believes the pros to legalizing drugs in performance enhancing drugs outweigh the cons as long as they are distributed by medical staff accordingly. This would in turn help to encourage a more sensible use of the performance enhancing drugs. While on the other hand the cons in Murray’s eyes far outweigh the pros because they change multiple aspects of the sporting world. He believes they tarnish the respect for the games and cut out people’s natural talent. Both sides of the argument seem to be the more prototypical sounding arguments. This will be useful in showing two perspectives to my argument but finding a third party, new perspective on performance enhancing drugs is my ultimate goal.

Balko, Radley. "Should We Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports?" Reason

     Magazine. 23 Jan. 2008. Web. 01 Nov. 2011.

     <http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/23/should-we-allow-performance-en/singlepage>.

            Balko takes an interesting perspective on the allowance of performance enhancing drugs in our sports world. He argues that as times change, society needs to go with those times. As medical practices are enhanced Balko believes that sports should go hand in hand and these enhancing drugs are the way to go. A very pertain ate argument in Balko’s article is the numbers behind health issues from these drugs versus just actually playing the sport. For instance, the NFL has been in serious talks with the players union on keeping health after players retire because it has become such a huge issue. I tend to agree with Balko’s argument, that if the times are changing and the athletes want to take these drugs then it should be allowed. This article will help to give a slightly different viewpoint on why these drugs should be legal or allowed to be used in sports for my exploratory essay.

SWA #21

1)

It is very obvious what is being argued right off the bat in this article by The Onion. They are arguing that society never reads anything in a newspaper they only skim and look at pictures because they want to move on with their lives and don't have the time to read all those words. Everyone freaks out when all they can do is read a big article versus just reading a subtitle or looking at a picture. I can tell this is the argument because the quotes in this article from random people convey that they hate having to take the ten minutes out of their day to read and if it was something important, there would be a picture.

2)

This article uses hyperbole to convey the extreme impatience that Americans have when someone puts down a large article to read with only words. For instance, when they say, "endless 500 words" it is an exaggeration because 500 words is not that much writing to read. The best example of hyperbole in this article is when they say, "Sources also reported a 450 percent rise in temple rubbing and under-the-breath cursing around this time." This is extreme exaggeration and shows that society is in that much of an uproar over something as small as reading an article. All of the hyperbole helps to advance The Onion's argument because to a degree it is true and all of the reader's of this article know it. It strengthens the argument because mixed in with the quotes it is just proof such as Landsman saying "Whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it doesn't even have a point."

SWA #19

1)

Andriesen takes the stance that most people end up taking when he talks about what really defines a sport. Most definitions don't fit enough sports or include an "activity" that shouldn't be considered a sport. As he says near the end, "the only point of agreement likely to be reached is that we'll never agree."Every time Andriesen brings up a factor to consider something a sport, there is something that counter acts that factor. For instance, racing under human power is always considered a sport but when one brings a horse or a car into the conversation, can it really be considered a sport? (235) Everytime Andreiesen talks of the activity having to be physical or scoring being apart of the sport there is always a but. He believes that scoring must be objective or boxing isn't a sport. There are so many tiny details that go into claiming something is a sport Andriesen doesn't make his own claim but just that everyone can agree that you know a sport when you see it.

2)

There are a couple circumstances that are important to have accepted criteria for constituting a sport. For instance, the Olympics is something where having an accepted criteria might be important because then no can complain about their "sport" not being in them. Also activities that are very similar to sports could not complain if there were criteria for constituting a sport. For instance, table tennis versus actual tennis. If tennis was defined under sport and table tennis wasn't then there would be no argument to go further with. Having a certain criteria would help to end the argument and the disappoint for certain activities. Activities like "sport stacking" wouldn't be arguing that their name needed to be changed from cup stacking to sport stacking.

SWA #18

Three Possible Issues

1)      Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in all sports?

This issue has always caught my attention and after doing a lot of research I am hooked on it. It is so interesting to research the pros and cons of all the performance enhancing drugs. The numerous amounts of articles both scientific and argumentative on this topic didn’t surprise me. This was an easy topic to research because I am obsessed with the sports world and everything that is going on in it. The facts on the topic are eye opening. For instance almost 50 times more people have died from playing professional and college football than from performance enhancing drugs. I am leaning towards this topic because the topic is worldwide and a huge debate in the sports world.  

2)      Should the drinking age be lowered in America and to what?

Another issue I could possibly explore is the topic of lowering the drinking age in America from 21 to 18. This is another hot button issue throughout the country and also has quite a few credible sources for research. Most sources boil down to the fact that 18 year olds can vote and serve their country through war so why can’t they have a couple of beers. Alcohol is seen as a “forbidden fruit” to youngsters therefore this topic becomes heated because even though that might be true the higher drinking age has saved lives. I am really considering this topic for my paper because it pertains so much to me since I am right in the middle of it being nineteen years old.

3)      Washington D.C farmers market food safety issues.

This issue caught my eye because it bears striking similarities to the Jaime Oliver topic. This is a harder topic to create an exploratory essay on because it doesn’t have a lot of information to go off of. If I could expand it a little and compare this to the nationwide troubles with food safety I would enjoy this issue. Researching this topic was tough and steered me away from wanting to go further on the issue.

Natural News Article Response

In Ethan A. Huff's "Factory Food artificially cheap, bad for your health", his argument is clear and straight forward when early on he says, "the new methods have actually reduced the overall quality, nutritional value and safety of food, which is why there are frequent contamination outbreaks, not to mention skyrocketing increases in new disease among the population."Huff's claim in this article is that factories are producing problems not only with food but with the health of society. By giving all the antibiotics to these animals just for cost benefits versus health benefits Huff believes that this is creating a lower quality product and in turn making the antibiotics ineffective against bacteria. He also claims that the tight courters and over crowded farm factories is making for a bacteria filled food product and is also making all the animals sick and not healthy. I believe that Huff's argument is well planned and convincing because he goes from explaining what is happening in these factories and why it's bad, to ending his article with suggestions on how it should be. By using the recent example of the salmonella outbreak in Iowa the reader can understand first hand the bad affects of these factories having to dense a population in such small areas. His argument is sealed at the end when he suggests that we need to respect the land and have local farming that employs clean and natural methods of growing and raising foods.

Fear Factories #1

In Fear Factories by Matthew Scully, his support for getting the animal cruelty movement backed by a conservative cause is best summed up by the statement, "We need our conservative vaule voters to get behind a Humane Farming Act so that we can all quit averting our eyes. The basis of Scully's argument is around the negatives of animal cruelty in the factory farming system coupled with the basic value that consertives are turning there head to it and ignoring it because of the corporate side of it and also because they believe humans come first, animals come second. That statement to a certain degree is true but as Scully says, "they don't follow their own thought to its moral conclusion". Scully goes on to say how far do we want to see all of the industries and technological advances go before a change is made with animal treatment. The most telling statement Scully makes on conseratives having a twisted sense on the subject and on why they need to not turn their heads is when he speaks about the review of Dominion. All the conservatives said how awful a business factory farming was and a "betrayal of human responsibility. It statements like these that should show the conservatives a public policy or law of some sorts should be put in place.  

Rhetorical Outline #2

Cody Mangano                                                                                                                                                              

English 102-028

10/6/2011

Essay 2, Outline

Title: Rhetorical Analysis of Alcohol Advertisements

Thesis: Using two different, yet the same, styles of advertising to attract the same consumer, Sello Dorado crosses the boundary of inappropriate while Bacardi Limon sticks to a much more common tactic of advertising.

I.                   In comparing these two ads slogans the viewer gets exactly what the ad makers want to convey because of how upfront and over the top each are.  

a.       Does one slogan’s color, font, or meaning pull you in more to buying that alcohol?

b.      With key placement and style of each slogan for their respective ad, the values and morals of Bacardi Limon and Sello Dorado are conveyed in completely different manners.

II.                Each ad approaches their image in a different style. While one shows a classy, social gathering, the other shows a field party.

a.       Sello Dorado uses a silhouette to convey a more abstract theme. They want the audience to feel at ease but then end up having a great time.

b.      While on the other hand, Bacardi Limon is conveyed in a classy bar scene with well dressed, young adults all around a sparkling theme.

III.             Each ad has its own unique twist to it that makes one more effective than the other. Now whether that be good or bad is at question.

a.       In effectiveness on the audience I believe that the Bacardi Limon ad is much more effective if not only for that it isn’t offensive in the way the Sello Dorado ad is.

b.       Is Sello Dorado’s claim that if you drink this you will make decisions you normally wouldn’t make better than the claim of Bacardi Limon?

C.  I believe the claim of Bacardi Limon portrays itself in a much cleaner way than that of Sello Dorado for the simple fact that the Bacardi ad is focused more on the social aspect of alcohol rather than the sexual portrayal Sello Dorado is putting out.

            a. Does sex really sell alcohol as these ads are trying to do?

Conclusion: While alcohol ads will always try and sell the aspect of creating sexual tension between men and women, the Sello Dorado ad does this in an obscene manner while the Bacardi Limon ad does this in a much more subtle way. Even though selling alcohol on the basis that it makes one want to “party” and “loosens them up” comes off as ugly, it sells, plain and simple.