Obesity: A Disease or Fault?

America has often taken its time to put a label on problems or issues it can’t seem to grasp. Back when our forefathers came to America, alcoholism was not yet labeled a disease and those who had it were shunned, not helped. Today the label is being placed on obesity.
Researchers are now arguing that obesity is, in fact, a disease. I believe it’s true, some people have slower metabolism, and that could quite possibly be genetics (because let’s face it, we all know somebody who eats like crap and doesn’t seem to gain a pound.) However, I believe it can be prevented.
Let’s say we are born with the unlucky fate of having heart disease run in our family bloodline. Right from the time we are born, doctors begin to take precautions. We may need to constantly exercise to keep out heart strong, or we may need to eat right in order to keep our arteries unclogged. We take these steps in order to prevent something from happening to our heart. If obesity is to be labeled as a disease then shouldn’t we take the same precautions? If we can prevent heart disease right from the start by taking precautions, then we should be able to do the same with obesity.
The question remains, should we label it a disease? I feel it’s one more excuse we have created for people. Now, instead of taking the blame, that maybe we eat food we know is bad for us, or we know we don’t get the right amount of exercise, now they can use the excuse, “It’s a disease!” I personally feel that eating better and exercising regularly would make a huge difference. I’m not talking everyone gets down to a size 4, but it would make some difference. We’ve seen so many positive stories from shows like “The Biggest Loser”, “Celebrity Fit Club”, “Weighing In” and “Ruby”. These shows create positive health, diet, and food preparation for its viewers. If we could change our eating habits and make a better attempt to be active everyday, the fight on obesity might not be as bad as it is today.

Danielle Hritzak
Wilkes University 10’
12 March 2009

Generic Criticism of FDR’s First Inaugural and Obama’s Inaugural

The concept of genre is apparent in even our daily lives and relates strongly to interpersonal communication in terms of communication scripts. Certain situations call for certain types of responses and responses within a certain range can be expected and even predicted in any circumstance. When communication takes on a more formal shape and can be analyzed textually, such responses take on interesting facets and can be more easily studied.

While the concept of generic criticism has been present ever since the days of Aristotle, it was best described by Edwin Black, who explained that situational types will recur throughout history, and that by studying these recurrences, we can learn about the types of responses available in certain situations.

Newly-inaugurated President Barack Obama appears to have studied Edwin Black. This is evidenced by his widely-publicized admiration for and study of Abraham Lincoln and his rhetoric. Obama does not disguise the fact that he bases much of his rhetoric on that of his presidential predecessor, Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln, however, is not the only former president whose addresses can be viewed as belonging in the same genre as Obama’s. In this paper, I will discuss Obama’s inauguration speech specifically and its similarities and dissimilarities to another inaugural address: Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s first.

In terms of situation, there are many parallels between the circumstances under which each man took office. Most obviously, both had the economic situation of the country at the forefront of their minds and agendas. Both were Democrats and seen as innovative in their use of the new media of the time. Roosevelt succeeded Hoover, the most unpopular president up to that time; Obama succeeded Bush, the most unpopular president yet.

There are also differences in situation. Roosevelt stepped up to the plate at a time when the country had already sunk quite deeply into the Great Depression; Obama faces the beginning of such a depression. Obama’s America is entangled in war abroad while Roosevelt’s enjoyed peace with foreign nations. In terms of media, the landscape in FDR’s day allowed for tight control – so much so that the nation did not know their leader was wheelchair-bound. In contrast, today’s media can hardly be stopped from reporting indiscriminately on presidential matters – evidenced by a popular e-card reading “I can’t believe you’re not completely aware of something Obama said or did under 10 minutes ago” (someecards.com).

On the topic of style, there are also many similarities to be observed between the two speeches. Both speak, quite understandably, about the economy in terms that denounce the “unscrupulous” (FDR) who “seek only the pleasure of riches and fame” (Obama). FDR and Obama both attack Wall Street: Roosevelt more strongly with his condemnation of money changers who have “fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization” and Obama more gently when he explained that “a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.” Roosevelt’s Biblical mention of money changers can also be linked stylistically to Obama’s reference to scripture when he speaks of laying to the side childish things.

Linguistically, both mention the words action and unity repeatedly. Both speak of the enduring nature of the Constitution and mention duties that must now be associated with citizenship.
Stylistic differences seen include Obama’s tendency to address topics clearly at first, so his audience is clearly aware of the issue addressed versus Roosevelt’s habit of diving headfirst into each concern.

Substantively, the two speeches are more divergent than convergent. While Roosevelt’s speech never specifically addresses an international audience, Obama’s does so quite expressly at times (“to those leaders;” “to the people of poor nations;” “to the Muslim world”). FDR’s address spells out a specific plan of action, beginning when he declares that “our greatest primary task is to put people to work,” whereas Obama’s speech purposefully omits mention of plans for policy. Each man feels differently about the moral condition of the country. FDR feels it is strong and calls that belief to the attention of the people when he proclaims that “our distress comes from no failure of substance.” Obama asserts that it is weak and addresses the “sapping of confidence across our land.” Roosevelt addresses the Constitution in a non-Originalist way while Obama refers to it in a more literalist manner.

There are also similarities in substance between the two addresses. Both can be viewed as a call to action of the American citizenry and are aimed primarily at lifting the nation from distressing economic situations.

Future presidents will participate in generic studies of presidential speeches just as Obama studied Lincoln’s and FDR’s speeches in preparing for his inaugural. The use of generic criticism can helpful in almost all spheres of the communication world – from a child learning to interact in Kindergarten to a foreigner hoping to adapt to a new culture to a CEO breaking tough news about layoffs. The proverb that history repeats itself is effectively proven through generic criticism.

Monica Turner
Wilkes University, '10
Communications

The Office of the Vice President and his Recent Travels in Germany

What is the role of the Vice President? This question, seemingly easy, cannot be answered by some Americans and even those running for the office itself. According to http://www.senate.gov/, the formal powers of Vice President are:
- To become President should the President become unable to serve
- President of the US Senate that has 2 primary duties:
· To cast a vote in the event of a Senate deadlock
· To preside over and certify the official vote count of the US Electoral College

Basically a loose translation of a role of the VP is to be the President’s right hand man (or woman); someone to bounce ideas off of in times of policy making and hopefully a voice of reason to combat the occasionally fatal “group think” that can happen in any group. Looking at our current Vice President Joseph Biden, so far it seems like he is fitting into his role nicely, but the true test will be time.

Some may not think of Biden as a good leader and second to Obama because he puts the proverbial “foot in his mouth.” But doesn’t that happen to every politician (and every American citizen for that matter) at some time or another? The difference is the importance of his role as Vice President of the United States, which places him in a fishbowl to have his every move and word, be scrutinized and evaluated. So just what has Biden been doing as VP?

Recently Biden delivered a speech at the Security Conference in Munich, Germany addressing an area he has extensive experience in: foreign relations. This was a good marker to see how Biden measures up on a global scale as Vice President.

The overall message of this address was pressing “the reset button” in regard to US foreign relations and promoting negotiation before using force with those in opposition to the United States. Biden mirrored President Obama’s inaugural address in terms of ideas and content. He actually borrowed phrases from Obama’s inaugural such as “our administration rejects a false choice between our safety and our ideals,” and gives examples of Obama’s attitude of “mutual interest and mutual respect” to move forward in relations with the world.

According to CNN.com, people are seeing this administration as the “dawn of a new era” as far as international relations are concerned. A downside of the address is that it was a bit vague and only gave little specifics on what the US plans to do with negotiations. It did address that Russia should work with the US to help rid the world of the terrorists. But Russia Today reported that their deputy prime minister said that “there were a lot of thaws” between the US and Russia that went nowhere but he does hope that this time things will be different.

Biden had a tough audience for this speech but conveyed his point efficiently. Ideas of unity, negotiation, and peace wafted through the speech trying to persuade the world to see things differently now that a new administration has taken the helm. While not as eloquent and captivating as Obama, Biden had fulfilled his role as Vice President that day. Continuity is important in any campaign, and Biden did not “go rouge” or embarrass himself, but continued the message of the Obama administration.

Overall Biden did a decent job. The one major criticism is where’s the details? I understand that one cannot map out an extensive plan when dealing with foreign relations, but how does the US plan to talk to Iran and other countries about nuclear arms development? What are these “incentives” these countries will receive if they abandon their nuclear development? And how will we be able to convince Russia to help the US destroy, or at least curb terrorism? Time will be the indicator of how and if these questions will be answered.
But it is a step in the right direction.

Michele Flannery
Wilkes University, '10
Communications

Pennsylvania Prop 8? I Don't Think So.

I was hoping a 9am class would be the most of my concerns on a Tuesday morning. Unfortunately, I was disturbed to have my professor tell me she received a letter lobbying for a Proposition 8, similar to the one recently passed in California, to be passed here in Pennsylvania. I wanted to throw something when I heard- H8 wasn’t enough in California, we need to spread it nationwide? To me, it doesn’t make sense- and it shouldn’t make sense to you either. I’m sorry. That sounds extremely biased, I’m sure, but I said it anyway and intend to repeat it- it shouldn’t make sense to you either.

You can have Religion, that’s fine. You can tell me Jesus rose from the dead, or that God has yet to send the Messiah. Tell me the plans Allah has for you or recite the 7 pillars of Islam. Please, give me details about the tiny aliens that infest our bodies that must be purified through meetings (and you can do it while jumping around on Oprah’s couch if you feel you must) but DON’T tell me who can and who can’t get married. It doesn’t matter if Jesus, Allah, God, and Buddha had a meeting and said they disapproved- not everyone believes in all of them (not to mention, if they all managed to exist at once, none of the Religions of which they come from could still technically exist… but that’s completely beside the point).

Considering that unfair argument, I would love for someone to propose a point to me that does not, in some way, relate back to Religion. Not everyone has one, let us remember, and in this great land, not only is there freedom of Religion (meaning, that even if Atheism isn’t considered a “Religion”, freedom thereof entitles us all to deny it… hence, atheism is valid) but there is also separation of Church and State. So, write up a constitutional amendment that in no way, shape, or form relates back to any form of a Religious argument. Maybe, you can change my mind.

Having said that, allow me to make a plea to the other side of this argument. Again, I’ll be blunt- to the lazy side. Proposition 8 passed in California. Where were you? Did you make any attempts at a donation, a phone call, an email? Maybe, if we all actually moved as one force we can stop the next wave of H8 before it sweeps the nation like some wacked-out version of Beatle Mania. Or worse (and I’m gonna use the other side’s way of thinking in retaliation) the rights movement will move so far backward, women will lose their right to vote again and then… well, you do the math.

Sal Infantino
Wilkes University '10
Communication Studies/Theater Minor

Jon and Kate: Separated?!

It’s running around the rumor mill that power couple, Jon and Kate Gosselin, is separated. According to Star magazine, who was the first to publish the article, Jon Gosselin was found partying out at a bar with college girls, eventually making his way to a co-ed house located near Juniata College. A photo of what appears to be Gosselin, although not proven to be Jon, shows a highly intoxicated Asian man posing for a picture between two college girls at a bar. This photo has surfaced all across the Internet and has fueled the fire of this rumor. Jon was allegedly seen “dirty dancing”, kissing, and drinking with college-aged women. It has also been reported that Jon has moved out of the couple’s new home in Wernersville, PA and is now living with his mother in Huntingdon, PA. Kate still lives at home with the kids, but visits her mother regularly. Another source reported seeing Kate alone at a bar smoking while talking to other men, none of which were Jon. As mentioned before this is only a rumor and nothing has been confirmed from TLC or the Gosselins themselves.

I honestly don’t believe any of this is true because I have been an avid watcher of their television show: Jon and Kate Plus Eight. There is nothing shown on the show that provides any evidence of such an event occurring or even about to occur. The couple even dedicated an episode to their second wedding in Hawaii to show their children that they would never break apart because their family always had to stick together. They have been a loving couple for several years now and have always trekked through the hard times together, especially the birth of their sextuplets. However, I will agree that Kate has become a bit rude and tyrannical toward Jon on the most recently televised episodes of their show, but then again, what kind of person wouldn’t be a bit crabby and on edge having to take care of eight kids and, now, two puppies? I also believe that if this couple were ever to come to a disagreement that could harm their marriage they would first look to marriage counseling or pray in order for their issue to be resolved. They are not the type of people to fight one day and call it quits; they work through their mistakes and come out victorious. And another thing, I know Jon may not like how he is treated every now and then, but do you honestly think he’d want to pay child support for all of those kids? I don’t think he would even want to split the kids up. I think both Jon and Kate would find that highly unacceptable and work together on their problems to keep the kids together.

As far as I’m concerned, I think people need to keep their own perceptions of people to themselves rather than use their judgments to come up with ideas to spice up rumors. For all we know, this story could be just a media ploy to get opinions on the Gosselins and break down their media royalty status on TLC. I just think we should keep the false rumors to ourselves and wait until the couple publicly addresses the issue at hand. It isn’t any of our business to talk about their private lives when they didn’t address it to begin with.

Kristen Karpinski
Wilkes University '11
Communication Studies

Slumdog Millionaire: Will the film impact India's government and its citizens?

According to the article, “‘Slumdog’ turns spotlight on Mumbai’s biggest slum” by Rina Chandran (Boston.com), the hit movie Slumdog Millionaire portrays the slums throughout India in a light that Indian filmmakers and actors do not accept. Dharavi, the slums where part of the film was shot, is Asia’s largest slum. Some residents actually hope the film will pressure their government to support their rights and continue to redevelop the area, which is now under a $3 billion revitalization plan.

With the plan, residents have been relocated until the construction is complete. Through this relocation process, tens of thousands of families have nowhere to go. The plan was drawn up by a U.S.-based architect and was approved by the city in 2004.

It is now 2009…how much time will it take to manage and alleviate the criminal activity and starvation in Dharavi? Maybe Slumdog Millionaire will be beneficial to India and its citizens, even though people feel it is shedding poor light on India.

According to the article “Bollywood icon Amitabh Bachchan rubbishes Slumdog Millionaire”, from Guardian.co.uk, the famous actor, Bachchan, disliked the way the film portrayed India as a “third-world, dirty, underbelly developing nation”. The film was directed by the British film-maker Danny Boyle, which means it was not a true Bollywood film. However, Slumdog Millionaire is based on a novel, Q&A, by Vikas Swarup, an Indian writer and diplomat.

Throughout the movie, there are scenes in lower class India, upper class, of the slums and of the riches. The number of India’s urban poor is expected to rise with more urbanization occurring. With the relocation process and many citizens being removed from their homes, crime has also increased in the slums. The conditions of the slums cannot be denied, although some people believe the film brought Dharavi into false light.

Although Slumdog Millionaire is quite different than the movies in the Bollywood film industry, it is still an exceptional piece of work, which has won many Oscars this year. Due to this film, controversies of the slums in India has arisen and brought more awareness to the difficulties of the people living there. The question is if the film will raise enough curiosity and attention of others to affect the plans for Dharavi in a positive way.

Amy Fusco
Wilkes University '10
Communication Studies

Thoughts of an Independent Voter

Hillary won the Pennsylvania Primary? How did that happen??
I was a little disappointed that Hillary was able to grasp the Pennsylvania delegates even though I am not in the Democratic Party. Although she only won ten percent higher than Obama of the popular votes, I believe Hillary will continue to run for presidency, since her campaign plans on gaining $10 million as a result of her win in Pennsylvania.

Unfortunately, it does not really matter that I dislike Hillary because for the 2008 Presidential Election, I would not endorse any of the candidates. I am a registered Independent and I feel that neither Obama, Clinton, nor McCain fits the qualifications I deem necessary for the President of the United States.

Since January 2008, I have been researching the current issues of our nation and each candidate’s position on the concerns. Each candidate has his and her own strengths in their campaign, but I cannot bring myself to choose between them. I feel that I am choosing between “the lesser of two/three evils”. When speaking to many people about the presidential race, it seems as though they feel the same way I do at this point in time, especially young voters.

I believe the reasons for my choice relates to my limited experience with voting and politics. This election is the first time I have the ability to vote and I never truly followed politics before in my life. Regrettably, I admit that I am apathetic to issues concerning the United States, like many of my college peers.

I believe my Controlling Spin class has made me more aware of the issues and I will be more in-tune with my country now and into the future years. Even though I dislike the presidential candidates this year, I hope to become more educated before the next election in order to fully participate as a voter and “endorse” a candidate.

Amy Fusco '10
Wilkes University
Communication Studies

Controlling Spin Students Endorse the Democratic Candidates for President

As a group of young, educated voters, we want to encourage the American people to vote for a change from the status quo, to vote Democratic in the 2008 election. The Democratic candidates in this year’s Presidential election are perhaps two of the best we have seen in a long time.

Senator Hillary Clinton is a strong woman who believes in the American people. She is reestablishing trust in the federal government for both Americans and international societies as well. Her plans for accessible and affordable healthcare are sure to be a vast improvement from the way things currently are. She seeks to increase the number of those who matriculate as well as decrease the number of high school students who drop out, by administering programs that will increase tuition aid while promoting community service. Her expretise extends not only to domestic affairs, but also to foreign affairs. Clinton has continued to raise questions about the War in Iraq, and is determined to bring our troops home sooner rather later. For all these reasons, one should undoubtedly see the differences between her and Senator John McCain, the GOP candidate. However, there are not many differences to be found between Senator Barack Obama and Senator Clinton.

Senator Obama is just as committed to change as Clinton is. He has continued to fight for our educational system, not only at the college level but beginning with our children. He will also fight for a better healthcare system. Senator Obama is an articulate and charismatic individual who sees what America can be and where the American people can go. He also is determined to bring our troops home and end this war, a war that has put a huge strain on our failing economy.

By now it is evident that our government needs reformation, and only a Democratic President will be able to bring the salvation that America needs. The Democratic candidates represent the change that we need. They are dealing with issues that are most pertinent and important to us. We are not asking you to vote Democratic for the sake of the Democratic Party, but because either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton will bring the change that this country needs in 2008. For these reasons and many more, we endorse the Democratic Party and their candidates.

Contolling Spin Students
Wilkes University