One of my possible Junior Theme topics would be to investigate why humans depend on public transportation. I initially thought that humans depended on cars way too much; however, after I read an article from the Washington Post entitled "Public Transit Ridership Rises To Highest Level in 52 Years", and I was proven wrong.
According to the American Public Transportation Association President William Millar, "Now, more than ever, the value of public transportation is evident, and the public has clearly demonstrated that they want and need more public transit services". As of March 2009 (when this article was written), the amount of people using public transportation services was at its highest in 52 years. According to the above quote, it would behoove the lives of many people to increase the amount of public transportation available. Undoubtedly, less people are using cars - the opposite of what I had initially thought.
I am still amazed that public transportation is at its peak. Why is this? Is it possibly because cars are increasingly expensive? Is it possibly because the quality of many automobiles is declining and many car companies are going out of business? Could it be that people don't want to spend money on gas?
What do you think?
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Best Blog Post of the Third Quarter
My best blog post this quarter is the one entitled "Effectiveness of Billboards". We spent a lot of class time reading about and discussing advertisement, so this blog really relates to what we learned in class. Also, I am challenging my beliefs in this blog post - I discuss how at first I believed that billboards were NOT effective, but after doing some research and reading an article from which I quoted in the blog, I changed my mind. I have a claim (that billboards are effective), evidence (quotes from the article), and I explain the evidence that I present.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Effectiveness of Billboards
In class recently, we have been discussing the different methods of advertising. Billboard advertising is very common; I see it on roads and highways. I generally only get a 2-4-second glance at each billboard, so I never really understood why people think they are effective. Our class discussion on billboards, as well as my skepticism, got me to do some research, and I have concluded that they are indeed effective.
I read an article written by Stephen Rampur entitled "Billboard Advertising Effectiveness". Advantages are discussed in the article, including the fact that many major businesses consider this form of advertising because of its "cost effectiveness and saving". Also, because of billboards' "colorful, innovative, and catchy product and service advertisements", billboards "create a brand awareness and a strong name recognition among passers-by". Not only are they economically beneficial to the companies, but billboards also really do capture the driver's attention, even though they are generally seen for only about 2-4 seconds. I can especially see how the ones advertising food are effective; if someone is hungry and there is a big McDonald's billboard, then the person may very well think, "hmm...I want McDonald's now". Also, the billboards advertising TV shows can be very catchy. I remember once I think I saw a catchy one that was somewhat funny, advertising the Bernie Mac Show or something like that.
Well, I guess I was wrong; billboards really are effective. What do you think?
I read an article written by Stephen Rampur entitled "Billboard Advertising Effectiveness". Advantages are discussed in the article, including the fact that many major businesses consider this form of advertising because of its "cost effectiveness and saving". Also, because of billboards' "colorful, innovative, and catchy product and service advertisements", billboards "create a brand awareness and a strong name recognition among passers-by". Not only are they economically beneficial to the companies, but billboards also really do capture the driver's attention, even though they are generally seen for only about 2-4 seconds. I can especially see how the ones advertising food are effective; if someone is hungry and there is a big McDonald's billboard, then the person may very well think, "hmm...I want McDonald's now". Also, the billboards advertising TV shows can be very catchy. I remember once I think I saw a catchy one that was somewhat funny, advertising the Bernie Mac Show or something like that.
Well, I guess I was wrong; billboards really are effective. What do you think?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Second-Hand Smoking: Fact or Fiction?
There are many people in America whose agenda is to condemn smoking. Now, it's not debatable that smoking is unhealthy, but when people start bringing up second-hand smoking, that is completely different. The whole idea of second-hand smoking has never been proven, and although it is a possible hypothesis, some people have completely overreacted. For instance, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle outlawed smoking in every Wisconsin restaurant because he believes that smoking is not only harmful to those who smoke but also to people in the same environment. I believe that second-hand smoking is a myth, and it annoys me how people hype it up.
I read an article from ABC News entitled "Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer" written by John Stossel. According to the article, "[T]hey studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere". Clearly, although few people may have been affected by second-hand smoking, there is not enough scientific data to prove that it's harmful in general. And, just like anything in life, there are people who exaggerate the dangers and actively try to ban smoking in public places. To support this assertion with specific studies, I read another article written by Michael Shaw entitled "Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?". Scientists conducted a 39-year study on second-hand smoking, which involved 118,094 adults. They focused on over 35,000 who never smoked themselves but had a spouse with known smoking habits. And according to the article, the scientists concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality". The article also stated that the relation between exposure to smoke and heart disease and lung cancer "may be considerably weaker than generally believed".
I admit that smoking is unhealthy. But, as the evidence presented in this blog supports, it is unfair to ban smoking in public places because of the belief that smoking has a powerful effect on those in the vicinity. I think that second-hand smoking is largely a myth and that it's unfair of Doyle to ban smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin.
What do you think?
I read an article from ABC News entitled "Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer" written by John Stossel. According to the article, "[T]hey studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere". Clearly, although few people may have been affected by second-hand smoking, there is not enough scientific data to prove that it's harmful in general. And, just like anything in life, there are people who exaggerate the dangers and actively try to ban smoking in public places. To support this assertion with specific studies, I read another article written by Michael Shaw entitled "Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?". Scientists conducted a 39-year study on second-hand smoking, which involved 118,094 adults. They focused on over 35,000 who never smoked themselves but had a spouse with known smoking habits. And according to the article, the scientists concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality". The article also stated that the relation between exposure to smoke and heart disease and lung cancer "may be considerably weaker than generally believed".
I admit that smoking is unhealthy. But, as the evidence presented in this blog supports, it is unfair to ban smoking in public places because of the belief that smoking has a powerful effect on those in the vicinity. I think that second-hand smoking is largely a myth and that it's unfair of Doyle to ban smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin.
What do you think?
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Gambling
When I was walking down the hall the other day, I heard some students talking about how they can't wait until they will be able to gamble. This reminded me of my personal beliefs on gambling: I think that it's wrong because it feeds on human greed and encourages people to place their trust in possessions. Plus, not many people benefit from gambling; more people end up losing their jobs, homes, and in some cases even lives due to gambling. It is for these reasons that I believe that casinos should be closed.
I read an article by Roger Dunstan, entitled "Economic Impacts of Gambling." Although he talks about the few benefits of gambling, such as the fact that building a casino can create more jobs, he discusses the many cons of gambling. For one, locally-owned business can easily go bankrupt because consumers and tourists have changed their monetary focus on casinos. Also, these casinos buy more out-of-state products than the businesses they replace. Another important fact is that casinos lead to increased social costs (such as police), as well as the costs of problem gamblers. Additionally, many families are broken and lives are ruined because of someone's gambling addiction and greedy belief that he/she can be fulfilled by a jackpot.
I think that the cons of gambling outweigh the pros. Although some jobs can be created, I do not believe that this is the best way. According to a commentator after the mayor of Chicago proposed a gaming project that was supposedly meant to help our economy, "We could create plenty of construction jobs by building brothels and opium dens." Clearly, he is being sarcastic. What he is saying is in agreement with my argument; just because jobs can be created doesn't make it right!
What do you think?
I read an article by Roger Dunstan, entitled "Economic Impacts of Gambling." Although he talks about the few benefits of gambling, such as the fact that building a casino can create more jobs, he discusses the many cons of gambling. For one, locally-owned business can easily go bankrupt because consumers and tourists have changed their monetary focus on casinos. Also, these casinos buy more out-of-state products than the businesses they replace. Another important fact is that casinos lead to increased social costs (such as police), as well as the costs of problem gamblers. Additionally, many families are broken and lives are ruined because of someone's gambling addiction and greedy belief that he/she can be fulfilled by a jackpot.
I think that the cons of gambling outweigh the pros. Although some jobs can be created, I do not believe that this is the best way. According to a commentator after the mayor of Chicago proposed a gaming project that was supposedly meant to help our economy, "We could create plenty of construction jobs by building brothels and opium dens." Clearly, he is being sarcastic. What he is saying is in agreement with my argument; just because jobs can be created doesn't make it right!
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
