- All Best Essays, Term Papers and Book Report

Beauty and the Beef (main Point)

Essay by   •  March 28, 2012  •  Essay  •  438 Words (2 Pages)  •  2,232 Views

Essay Preview: Beauty and the Beef (main Point)

Report this essay
Page 1 of 2

The main point in Beauty And The Beef was to show us how TV commercials make hamburgers more appetizing and appealing to sell more food. I think what I read was absolutely true. I knew there was some airbrushing or photo shop applications used, but no to this extent. I feel it's all about selling and making money, because if a restaurant is advertising food that's burned or not as attractive no one is going to order it. Evidence used were the fresh tomatoes, paintbrushes to help darken in the grill marks. Another trick was using corn oil to produce the crackling and sizzling. There wasn't any fine print in the article other than definitions

The Right to Bear Arms.

Sometimes a single sentence can carry great historical weight, in 2008, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether two Washington, D.C., laws regarding individual ownership of guns violated the Second Amendment of the Constitution, because of these laws banned registration of handguns by individuals, carrying a pistol without a license, and keeping firearms loaded and assembled, Hoping to get these laws enacted in Washington. Known at one time as "the murder capital," as a reaction to violence and the city's alarming number of deaths by shooting. The challenge to those laws. However, revolved upon the Court's interpretation of a single sentence in the Secon Amendment to the Constitution.

The sentence in question was part of the Bill of Rights, adopted in 1791. Since the English that people spoke and wrote was somewhat different that the language we use today. To Interpret the language of 1791 made the decision in 2008 extremely difficulty. Legal scholars " A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. Such as the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Did it mean that the government could not abolish the use of weapons by the military, or could not abolish a military that exists to protect Americans' rights? People in favor of this interpretation point to the historical context: The country had just won independence from the government of England. And it did so because it formed it's own militias (military units). While England opposed and wanted to disband. In this reading of the sentence. Individual rights to have guns are not protected by the Second Amendment, or did the sentence mean people have a right to have guns, individuals as well as military, a decision hinged on nine Supreme Court judges' understanding of that one sentence.

Anker, Susan. Real Writing. Page. 27 New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009.



Download as:   txt (2.5 Kb)   pdf (59.7 Kb)   docx (9.6 Kb)  
Continue for 1 more page »
Only available on