"Healthier fast food: Will kids actually eat it?" reaction

     According to the article “Healthier fast food: Will kids actually eat it?” in The Week magazine, published on July 14, 2011, the author states that a new step has made by the National Restaurant Association, “Kids Live Well” campaign, in order to combat obesity by substituting the fatty fast food for kids to healthier portion, but the author is questioning about the future of this strategy whether it will success or not. In addition, he alleges that the accomplishment of this program depends on the advertisement side, if they will prompt the kids to eat this healthier food and abstain from the French fries, or the restaurants will find the new feature very lucrative by selling the most appealing food like the fries with additional price! At the end, Carroll.M points out that the kids' healthy food is a parental's duties and they shouldn't rely on the restaurants as the only source of that option.

     I am partially agree with Carroll.M on providing healthier food is parental decision and responsibility, where it is better for kids to have homemade healthy food, however circumstances such as traveling, parent busyness, or entertainment, can lead parents to have a meal in restaurants, so they should offer healthy option. At the same time, that nutrition portion does not means unattractive meal, but it has to be displayed in an appealing way. For example, rather than providing burgers, they may substitute it by stars fish fillet; moreover, they can offer smiling face apple's slices which may attract children to try it. In addition, parents may order grilled food instead of fried one in order to reduce the meal's fat. For instance, Burger King has offered grilled chicken and beef burgers which give parents more choices to go with, also they can offered wedges potato rather than Fries. Indeed, healthy food ought to be prevalent in our families' diet to maintain the new generation health.

Are children really 'inferior goods'? - reaction

     Published in July 5th, 2011, an article on The Week magazine titled "Are children really 'inferior goods'?” the economist Wolfers contends that children are low-level goods since the desire of having them decreases as people get wealthier. Conversely, affluence leads people to use more normal goods. The statistics were support Wolfers view point of which wealthier families were having less kids than normal families do. For example, in the United States two third of the high-level income families prefer few kids, in general the kids are deficit especially from the economic's perspective. In addition, Carl Smith propose that children are mandatory thing and people can't substitute them, thus the reason people want few kids is as soon as they become lucrative, they will become busy, so they have to provide time to spend it with their kids. Finally, Sierra Black criticize that children can't be called as 'inferior goods”, since not only the economic situation can determines big vs. small families, but also there are many reasons contribute on families birth's decision.

     In my opinion, I can see the two sides of this issue, but I can't stand with either one. First, the positive side of having fewer kids as the parents get richer is the desire of high lifestyle. Todays' parents aspire to maintain healthier and educated life for their kids, so they know that the money is mandatory to support their life. Therefore, having one or two kids can help the parents to divide and enjoy their time as well as their money, which will leads to have a happy life full of excitement and bright future. On the other hand, I do feel that these parents are selfish and would like to live in an irresponsible way, so that they made a decision to control the birth, . Although God gave them the money that they can support a life of many people, they prefer not to have kids maybe in order to live without duties, to enjoy their time or to travel. At the end, we can't do any thing it is a personal life and preference. 

"Smell-o-vision TV: Coming soon?" Reaction

     In The Week Magazine “Smell-o-vision TV: Coming soon?” published on June 20, 2011, the author raises a new invention which is a system that permits the viewers to smell the scent that associated with what they watch in the show, then he explains how it works and the requirements. First, smell-o-vision is a device, invented by a corporation between Samsung and the University of California, that connected with the TV to emits odor that matches with the smell in the real show. It consists of 10,000 matrix intersection that can produce wide range of smells. In addition, this device has a quite similarity with the printer by changing the smell producer box whenever the whiffs disappeared. On the other hand, the author questioning whether the commercial and the TV producers will support this new technology and keep modifying the odor-generating device with new odors.

     I am convinced that this is a great invention which many people are dreaming about and waiting for, and it will cause revolution in the TV industry. However, I suspect about the success of this new technology for the odor quality and the device benefit. First of all, since the odor-generating device is filled with various smells and it emits the smell when the metal wires stimulate, the scent could be similar to the real smell but not the same quality. Also, it may sometimes produce the same smell for different things. For example, in a cooking TV show the device may releases the smell of italian herbs for both pizza and pasta. In addition, nowadays many products are in constant modification such as perfumes, detergents, drinks and food, so how can this devise includes all of these aromas in a rapid way. Eventually, people now become more aware about the trade's tricks and how it seem as a canal to absorb their money without sense. Thus, in the beginning viewers will appeal to the new invention, then they will recognize it is worthless and far away from the reality. In conclusion, smell-o-vision is still on its beginning and the researchers can improve and modify it until it passes all the barriers.

Are hookah pipes more dangerous than cigarettes? reaction

       In the article “Are hookah pipes more dangerous than cigarettes?” posted on June 1, 2011, in The Week magazine, the author illustrates a new trend among youth called hookah pipes. It is smoking a fruity tobacco using a water pipe, and the author questions whether it is less harmful than cigarettes or they are equal. Many hookah smokers describe it as a healthy substitute for cigarettes, whereas studies show that it degenerates a human's health by causing the same consequences that cigarettes do including lung cancer and heart disease. In addition, these smokers are more vulnerable herpes and tuberculosis because they are inhaling from the same pipe.

       I am convinced that hookah usage causes a lot of hazards, but I doubt that any legislation that tries to govern it will be able to totally succeed. Because it is a trend that has just started in its circulation, and it will thrive. Similar to the population of cigarettes in the late of 19^th century, today popular culture endroses the use of hookah pipes. However, after cigarettes long period of popularity, educated people began to fight this deadly habit (smoking cigarettes). Similarity, maybe people will try to curb and prevent hookah smoking from spreading since they have already seen the majority of diseases that tobacco has caused. I hope this tragedy ends and a high taxes is applied to tobacco products and hookah bars.

“Silk Road: The Amazon.com of illegal drugs” Reaction

       According to the article “Silk Road: The Amazon.com of illegal drugs” in The Week magazine, posted on June 2, 2011, the author states that an illegal drugs e-market, Silk Road, disregards the law by permitting the commerce of drugs without personal identification. Silk Road is a website similar to Amazon which offers many kinds of drugs such as LSD, marijuana, and heroin. Moreover, this website is very protective; thus consumers face some obstacles to get to it. For example, users must download Tor, which is an anonymous network, in order to hide the user's data and information. In addition, this exchange can be done by seeking a dealer who has a good users' feedback. Then Bitcoin, which is an untraceable online currency to buy drugs, can be used. After that, the seller uses inventive packaging to dispatching the order. Finally, Garzik.J, Bitcoins' developer, noted that this currency is not entirely hidden.

       From my perspective, it seems that authorities should take tough actions toward this flagrant violation of the law. First, I think this website should be closed, but if the authorities attempt to marginalize it, then it might develop to include weapons which could increase the black market. Further, the website's creator must tried as a criminal. Also, the sellers must be detected and arrested. In addition, all the mail shipments must be checked. For instance, detectors and police dogs should be used. This way, when the order isn't delivered, users will become distrustful the website, and this will taint the Silk Road's reputation. Furthermore, the Bitcoins method should be modified, so the users can be identified and known. While this modification will indirectly decrease the online buyers, it may also reduce the money laundering. In conclusion, I hope the Silk Road will shot down soon, and we can live in a clear society, less worried for our family's safety.

"Should a baby's gender be kept a secret?" Reaction

        On May 26, 2011, in The Week magazine “Should a baby's gender be kept a secret?” Babble raises contradictory viewpoints on the issue of a Canadian couple who kept their kid -4 months old baby- Storm's gender undeclared to everyone except for his/her two young brothers, two midwives and a one close family friend. Holler, who thinks that raising a genderless baby is a “fascinating experiment”, says that people's interest in knowing the baby's gender support the parents concern of hiding it. On the other hand, Dr. Alvarez states that choosing a personal gender is a personal right, but the Stoker's method in applying it is incorrect. In fact, they are putting their kid in a situation of being unable to identify his gender. Moreover, this decision may harm Storm's siblings by confusing them about the reason for the secret gender.

          After viewing the different opinions, I think that the negative consequences outweigh the benefits of making the decision to hide a child's gender. First of all, keeping a child's gender as a secret may cause psychological problems for the kid. How would the little kid feel about him/herself when others call the child by different pronouns; how can a child get over the misunderstanding of his/her gender, and how can a child's parents explain this to him/her? In addition, the consequences may extend to his/her siblings as well. And not only this, it is a new experiment, so we can't see its full dimensions in the current days. After a while when the kid reaches 40 years old, may it appear. Therefore, i question the likelihood of hiding Storm's gender resulting in protecting Storm from any assault, or giving Storm the freedom to choose his/her gender. In the end, I believe that gender is not a social construction; it is a biological situation that should be declared and embraced.