Blog 5 - Time to ban steroids for good

1. From the video, Truth about Steroids, it is clear that steroids can be used by grown men with great effect on their body and how they view themselves. I personally am against the use of steroids and what they promote. I see them as a way of cheating yourself and the people round you. Whether they can be taken responsibly is down to the person taking them, generally the men taking these drugs are obsessed with their physique and will do anything to be bigger faster and stronger. If they begin to abuse steroids and take them in obscene amount then they will start to have health problems. Like any drugs if you abuse them they will damage and hurt you eventually. But what is abusing steroids? Some argue just taking them is abusing steroids, clearly from this video that may not be true but is it worth taking the risk? Yes it may be fine for a lot of people but there will always be people it does affect and cause harm to. It also sends out a horrible message to children growing up, that when they grow up it is perfectly fine to take steroids. You can make cases for drugs like cannabis and marijuana to be good when they are used to aid pain or for medical reasons but most people see them as illegal and bad. This should be the same with steroids, in certain cases the case can be made that they are needed medically but if not they should be viewed like other drugs; illegal and not worth the risk

2. The Texas State Senate Bill 8 shows how bad the situation has got with high school children now using steroids in school sports. The video stated how steroids could be fine for the fully grown man but these are school children! How are they even getting their hands on these products? I believe that the children taking these drugs come from 2 areas; pressure from parents or coaches, or the negative view professional sport has given them. What these kids don't realise is how much they are cheating themselves as much as anyone else. It will eventually become a burden on what they achieve. Will there still be the same sense of achievement or will they view the drugs as the reason they succeed? We are currently in a time where drug scandals are prominent in professional sports. Rarely do you even see remorse from the athlete who has taken drugs and been caught. Sport should be based on integrity and trust, but abuse of drugs by sportsman in sports such as baseball and track and field has caused people to loose that trust. Professional sport should be; elite athletes who have trained hard competing against each other on a level playing field completely free from steroids. If you're not good enough, don't seek steroids for that extra improvement, find something that you are better at. It really saddens me that this is such a huge topic in sport and in society. The world would be a better place without steroids in sport and in life.

My opinion on the points raised in the article, "Georgetown Students Bristle At New Restrictions on Parties", is that something had to be done to sort out the uncontrolled parties which end up disturbing the community but done in the correct way. Students should be allowed to enjoy themselves but it should not be at the expense of people around them. Kinze states how parties are now ending up in neighbours back yards which is something the University and officers want to crack down on. The need for "15 to 20 officers" as Kinze states also shows the need for change and how the parties are probably starting to get out of hand. They must find a way to calm these parties down without taking away the students rights to have fun. Comments such as "We would prefer that the college kids control their own actions . . . but if they can't or they won't, we'll lock them up," from 2nd District Cmdr. Andy Solberg seem to be a bit forceful and patronising. To call 19- low 20 year old students "kids" will not get a possitive reaction frim the students. There needs to be more cooporation with the students then just threats of change and punishment. Of course if a party becomes to out of hand there is certainly a time and place when officers are needed to sort it out but it should not be the first form of action.

Blog 4 - Are you toying me!?

The difference in opinion between Harrison Pope's: Evolving Ideal of the male Body as Seen Through Action Toys and Kim Franke-Folstad's: Big Biceps are Not a Big Deal.

1.The first argument is discussing how action figures can have an effect on how a person sees their body later in life. It makes the claim that most men are not happy with their body and don't believe they are muscular enough and that this idea might come from the toys they played with as children. Starts off by talking about common body image disorders and the common perceptions of what causes them. He then goes on to his method of trying to find a correlation between toy figures and male perception of their bodies. The writer uses images of toys GI Joe and Star wars action figures to show how toys have evolved into figures with abnormal bodybuilder type physiques. He does state in his discussion that these claims need to be studied further to find out whether trends of toys really affect how men view themselves.

The second argument argues how the points raised in the first argument are "silly, foolish and ugly." Franke-Folstad makes the connection between the article about male action figures and the common perception of Barbie and their image. Franke-Folstad argues that they are just toys and that kids see them more as super hero action figures than actual human beings they want to be like.

2. The first argument is laid out as a research paper with; an introduction, the method, the result and a discussion. Pope draws in many of others ideas in the introduction which he later discusses later. "Another form of body image disturbance is body dysmophic disorder (Phillips, 1991, 1997; Hollander, Cohen & Simeon, 1993)." The use of quoting names and publications adds integrity to the article. This gives the article good ethos and lots of validity despite the points he wants to raise. There are 28 references for his article and shows that he has made thorough research to justify his points.

However, the second argument is laid out as an article you might find n a newspaper or magazine. Just looking at the article in its form with 3 columns and short paragraphs to make his points, you as the reader, give it less credibility just on what it looks like. You can immediately tell it's a report based only on one persons view without the research that can be found Pope's argument. The article is pathos motivated with an emotional tone. You get the idea of outrage of the author from reading Pope's article; "And it now turns out good old G.I Joe has been subject to the sae silly poking and probing." His use of words "foolish and silly," show that he is trying to talk more to peoples emotion than intellect.

3. I agree with Franke-Folstad that saying toys affect how men look at their appearance is a bit far fetched. However I completely agree with the idea that what people see in the media and are surrounded by each day is causing people to question there physical appearance. The media has created the image of beauty through celebrities and super models, which people now judge their self against. Toys being an influence of men's appearance may be bit more farfetched. It may be more relevant with females and barbie dolls, girls when younger are more likely to be thinking about what they look like and what they want to be like when they are older. I didn't really have any action figure toys so maybe I don't have the best view of the situation but I can say for sure that toys would not be a reason I question my muscular appearance.

Paraphrasing Practice

There is frequent overuse of quotations in notes and final papers and that only 10% of the final paper should be direct quotes according to James D. Lester.

What makes me really angry...

What really makes me angry is... Selfish sportsman that aren't happy with the millions upon millions they make and then abuse there roles by taking steroids ruining the integrity of the game.

Blog 1 – America's Army - is it really a game?

At first glance of the America's Army website I was surprised to see so little about the game itself. Your eye is first drawn to the large story about real life soldier SGT Monica Brown. When visiting websites for other games you are normally introduced with a video or large image of the game-play. America's Army does not follow this principle because it is clear they do not want your main focus to be on the game, but on the United States Army. Rather the colour scheme and background of the website is that of the camouflage worn by American soldiers drawing focus to the army.

In the image of SGT Monica Brown is the text 'We salute our newest REAL HERO.' 'Real hero' really emphasises the point that this is more than a game. Real life people are out there in Iraq and Afghanistan risking their lives for the protection of their country. Most teenagers dream of being a hero, and this taps into that offering them a chance to be a 'real hero', not just a winner of a computer game. I salute SGT Monica Brown and the many others like her, but there are also many heroes who have died leaving families without loved ones. This is a harsh reality of the army and war, and I could not find one instance of this on the website.

With the website so focused on recruiting, I do not believe it gives a fair picture of the reality of war. The graphic novel that sets the scene for the game has a too simplistic view of war, with a simple good guy - bad guy scenario. There is no context of where they will be going to war, or the culture of people they are going to liberate and provide assistance to. In the real life interviews, there was no talk about life at war or even an interview with anyone in a front line position. They were all in nice army camps in the US talking about how great the benefits were, and how proud people were of them. This may be a fair reflection of one part of army life, but the website should deliver a wider range view of Army life.

Nearly all animated images on the website are of soldiers carrying weapons. When looking at the roles you can play in the game, all but one role is shown with a soldier carry a weapon. The exception is a medic. This really plays to the teenage market as teenagers, when they think about the Army or being a soldier, relate best to shooting because of computer games and films.

With the way the website and the game are set up, I think it does promote a more controlled view of combat compared to a usual game's promotion of killing. This is because it aims to teach the user about different postings in the army. This gives them a way to channel aggression in a game that teaches them not only how to fight but also how to avoid conflict, which is just as important. Killing in a game context is much different to killing in real life. On a game it is easy to click a button without consequences and kill an animated figure, whereas doing it in a real life setting at war is far different. This is something I am sceptical of when using games, and gaming events, to recruit teens and young adults to the Army.