First of all, I apologize to Mr. Bolos and Mr. O'Connor for writing this final post a bit past the required deadline; I hope it still meets all of the requirements. The post that I would like to discuss for my final blog reflection is titled Americana, What we See Dictates who we Are. In brief, what I felt that I did well with this post as compared to some of my other ones is that I was careful with the amount of media I included, used a reliable source to spur the post idea, and made a logical progression from my original thought. Also, I feel that I had particularly interesting ideas and posed particularly poignant questions in this post.
I mention that I was careful with the amount of media I included because this seemed to be a problem for me with some of my earlier pieces in that I would have too many embedded videos or pictures. This overwhelms the reader a bit and, although I've found it liberating to use the Internet as a way to further convey my arguments, sometimes the simpler the better with blog posts. This is a less significant part of my post, but a change nonetheless.
More importantly, this post is a good example of how I've progressed in my abilities to come up with blog post ideas. I'm definitely thinking about the world in a different way as a result of taking this class because it's not always typical for a weekly assignment to report on and question the world around you. In this post, my ideas stem from one story I saw on the Sunday Morning Show on CBS. This program often has interesting stories, and in the past, I wouldn't think to share what I've learned. Now, I can tell others and pose follow-up questions. Plus, by using this particular show to come up with my post idea, it makes me feel better about my ability to use certain methods for producing post ideas. The Sunday Morning Show is now one of my go-to's for blog writing, and I'm happy I found such a good source.
I feel that in this post particularly I made some interesting and significant connections on the topic of "Americanization". Although I wrote this post in mid-May, it connects nicely to where our course eventually progressed. Now in class we are discussing the qualms surrounding progression through the lens of Kentucky coal mines. These mines destroy a beautiful landscape and entrap many people in a dangerous line of work, yet we need coal for our daily comforts. I bring up similar controversies surrounding the quintessential "American way" to go bigger, faster, and stronger in my post, tying in well to the direction our class was heading.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Monday, May 28, 2012
Using Sports to Come Together and Overcome
I tend to use the New York Times home page as a way to spur ideas for blog posts often if you've read some of my posts. I enjoy the small videos posted at the bottom of the page that are like a quick column in video form. One of them posted recently on the home page was a video about an increasingly popular form of wrestling in Senegal called Laamb. The short film discusses not only what Laamb is, but who is doing it and why. The wrestling form has gained humongous popularity in Senegal reminiscent of sports in the U.S. such as football and basketball. Like with these sports in America, in Senegal many young boys try to follow in their wrestler-idol's footsteps so as to escape the poverty-stricken villages in which they are born. The young boys emulate the wrestlers and sign up for clinics in droves to try and reach stardom.
A Senegalese man who works at a local television station that covers laamb said that of 60 young men at any wrestling school, only 3-5 of them have the chance to earn a living wrestling when they get older, and those who get rich, he said, "you can count them on your fingers."
I find this situation somewhat similar to the mythology surrounding sports like football and basketball in the U.S. For instance, the redemptive arc or "rags to riches" story is one often thrown around with basketball. To quote a peer of mine's blog, Casey Baer wrote in his post "Economic Factors vs. Physical Factor for JT", "Poor African-Americans have a larger opportunity to play basketball as they have narrower options for sports, and in many cases use playing on the court as a means to escape gang violence, drugs, or poverty at home." Baer mentions LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Carmelo Anthony as a few superstar NBA players who rose above their poor circumstances to get to the pros.
There is some controversy surrounding poverty backgrounds in the NBA, however. An ESPN article said that even though 45 percent of black male kids in the U.S. grow up in "households earning no more than 150 percent of the poverty line", or $22,050 for a four-person family in 2010, only "34 percent of black athletes in the NBA grew up in that financial situation." It is important to not stereotype the situation, but nevertheless, 34 percent is still a large amount, and many more could have lived only slightly above that marker.
No matter what the background of the athlete, people come together over wrestling in Senegal and people come together over sports in America, so the natural decision for many underprivileged in both countries is to join the thing that has gained so much popularity and is synonymous with wealth. Do you feel that education towards a more regular job is the better option for people in poorer situations? What (if anything) do you think that a society is lacking for its population if the best way for someone avoid poverty or worse is to hope to be one of the minutia in professional sports? Or do you think that sports are a phenomenal way to bring a country together for a common goal and a viable success option for many who have few?
A Senegalese man who works at a local television station that covers laamb said that of 60 young men at any wrestling school, only 3-5 of them have the chance to earn a living wrestling when they get older, and those who get rich, he said, "you can count them on your fingers."
I find this situation somewhat similar to the mythology surrounding sports like football and basketball in the U.S. For instance, the redemptive arc or "rags to riches" story is one often thrown around with basketball. To quote a peer of mine's blog, Casey Baer wrote in his post "Economic Factors vs. Physical Factor for JT", "Poor African-Americans have a larger opportunity to play basketball as they have narrower options for sports, and in many cases use playing on the court as a means to escape gang violence, drugs, or poverty at home." Baer mentions LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Carmelo Anthony as a few superstar NBA players who rose above their poor circumstances to get to the pros.
There is some controversy surrounding poverty backgrounds in the NBA, however. An ESPN article said that even though 45 percent of black male kids in the U.S. grow up in "households earning no more than 150 percent of the poverty line", or $22,050 for a four-person family in 2010, only "34 percent of black athletes in the NBA grew up in that financial situation." It is important to not stereotype the situation, but nevertheless, 34 percent is still a large amount, and many more could have lived only slightly above that marker.
No matter what the background of the athlete, people come together over wrestling in Senegal and people come together over sports in America, so the natural decision for many underprivileged in both countries is to join the thing that has gained so much popularity and is synonymous with wealth. Do you feel that education towards a more regular job is the better option for people in poorer situations? What (if anything) do you think that a society is lacking for its population if the best way for someone avoid poverty or worse is to hope to be one of the minutia in professional sports? Or do you think that sports are a phenomenal way to bring a country together for a common goal and a viable success option for many who have few?
Building a Dam and the Issues that Follow
I was perusing the New York Times website and stumbled upon a video op-ed at the bottom of the page about plans to build a large dam in northern Lebanon. The video said that the dam would be built to better supply water and electricity to a growing population in Lebanon. The problem, however, is that they only other source open to funding the large-scale project was Iran.
This is an issue for the people of this Lebanese community because, according to the video, the people living around the dam are predominantly and staunchly Christian, and the Iranians are staunchly Muslim. The Lebanese representative in the video was overwhelmingly against having an Muslims "imposed on" his Christian community to build the dam, but did welcome Iranian financial aid for the project. "This is a 100% Christian area and we don't want another ethnicity moving in peacefully and then becoming the majority here," the Lebanese man explained furthering his point with, "We are not of the same social texture nor of the same religious [difficult to understand]."
This is an interesting conflict in one of the most politically and religiously tense areas of the world. This discrepancy seems to layout the basis for the religiously-fueled conflicts in the Middle East. Usually we hear about unrest between the Muslim groups such as the Hezbollah and predominantly Jewish Israel, but the seems to be strong tension between Christians and Muslims of the area as well.
Not to mention, there is a controversial environmental impact that this dam would have. The video's narrator said the the dam would "exploit this area's most abundant natural resource." I found it interesting that use the word "exploit" and not another word choice such as utilize. Exploit does mean to make full use of, but it also has the negative connotation that when one exploits something, they are selfishly using it as a means to an often controversial end. The word conjured a documentary I watched a few weeks ago called "180 Degrees South" where, similarly, a dam was discussed, only this time in Argentina. It's a documentary mostly about enjoying mountain climbing and the outdoors, but more solemnly about the constant need to progress technologically and exploit natural resources for the betterment (or as the movie would argue destruction) of mankind. It's a very well-filmed documentary and poses some difficult questions to ponder. For instance, this area of Lebanon is beautiful, the landscape is starkly gorgeous, so it would be a shame to industrialize it with a dam, right? Not necessarily, however, because people need water and electricity to live comfortably, so what should we do?
I realize that I bring up two distinctly different yet very complex issues regarding this New York Times video, but what do you think about either (or both) of them? Why are people so intolerant of others from a differing faith? Should we make use of our surroundings for industry or respect them the way they are?
This is an issue for the people of this Lebanese community because, according to the video, the people living around the dam are predominantly and staunchly Christian, and the Iranians are staunchly Muslim. The Lebanese representative in the video was overwhelmingly against having an Muslims "imposed on" his Christian community to build the dam, but did welcome Iranian financial aid for the project. "This is a 100% Christian area and we don't want another ethnicity moving in peacefully and then becoming the majority here," the Lebanese man explained furthering his point with, "We are not of the same social texture nor of the same religious [difficult to understand]."
This is an interesting conflict in one of the most politically and religiously tense areas of the world. This discrepancy seems to layout the basis for the religiously-fueled conflicts in the Middle East. Usually we hear about unrest between the Muslim groups such as the Hezbollah and predominantly Jewish Israel, but the seems to be strong tension between Christians and Muslims of the area as well.
Not to mention, there is a controversial environmental impact that this dam would have. The video's narrator said the the dam would "exploit this area's most abundant natural resource." I found it interesting that use the word "exploit" and not another word choice such as utilize. Exploit does mean to make full use of, but it also has the negative connotation that when one exploits something, they are selfishly using it as a means to an often controversial end. The word conjured a documentary I watched a few weeks ago called "180 Degrees South" where, similarly, a dam was discussed, only this time in Argentina. It's a documentary mostly about enjoying mountain climbing and the outdoors, but more solemnly about the constant need to progress technologically and exploit natural resources for the betterment (or as the movie would argue destruction) of mankind. It's a very well-filmed documentary and poses some difficult questions to ponder. For instance, this area of Lebanon is beautiful, the landscape is starkly gorgeous, so it would be a shame to industrialize it with a dam, right? Not necessarily, however, because people need water and electricity to live comfortably, so what should we do?
I realize that I bring up two distinctly different yet very complex issues regarding this New York Times video, but what do you think about either (or both) of them? Why are people so intolerant of others from a differing faith? Should we make use of our surroundings for industry or respect them the way they are?
The Bank's and our American Dream
We all know the story of the American Dream: work hard, and with a little luck, you have the opportunity to make it big, get rich, and live a happy, healthy, and successful life. That's all people in America have ever truly wanted: that freedom to pursue what they want to lead a "successful life" (whatever that means to them). In order to do that, however, you need money. And money is the basis for the American economy. That's because money is the basis of capitalism, America's credo. In order for capitalism to thrive, though, people need to have a constant flow of money, or the ability to spend when they want on what they want. That's why loans exist, because people don't have a constant flow of money at all times. The problem arises when people start to either take out loans or give loans when they can't afford to do so as this posted YouTube video outlines.
The cartoon video starts off with a quintessential American-dream setting: a suburban, beautiful neighborhood, and our main character takes out a loan to purchase a house there. But only soon thereafter, his home is foreclosed upon, and he embarks on a journey with an old grade-school friend to figure out why he is no longer with a home (and apparently no longer with an American dream either). The journey ensues and ends up being an attack on the Federal Bank and how everyday Americans are being cheated out of their hard-earned money in the "biggest theft in human history".
Some of the language, despite the video's comical cartoon style, is a bit difficult for the layperson to understand, especially if said layperson were only in high school (me). But the gist of it is that the Federal Reserve (aka "The Fed") is not a government-owned bank, but rather a private bank that grew to a huge size. According to the video, "it's about as federal as Federal Express." It now lends money to smaller banks who lend money to regular people, and in all of this lending the banks end up making money off each other's debt because when you pay back a loan, you pay it back with the added interest. The crux of all of this, however, is that the Federal Reserve is a privately owned bank that doesn't have a never-ending flow of cash. So, it gets the U.S. Mint to print money for it so it can lend money to smaller banks and even the U.S. government, who in turn needs to pay back their debt. They do this through taxes, and the IRS to gives some tax dollars to The Fed. The video mentions how all of this is unconstitutional due to how a private bank does not have the authority to print money for itself, and that our tax dollars aren't being spent on the best of things, but rather, on our country's debt to a private bank.
The whole video was a bit of an eye-opener for me, and I naturally had trouble believing all of it thinking perhaps the source wasn't credible. But it doesn't seem to be lying, and the truth of the matter is that the system described makes sense logically. But at the same time it does feel as though we are being cheated out of our money for purposes not directly behooving us. Do you think this is true or do you think it necessary that a centralized bank keeps the other banks in check? How else do you think money can be regulated in the U.S.?
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Americana, What we See Dictates Who we Are
I was watching a story on CBS's Sunday Morning Show today on the Alex Trebek of the TV show Jeopardy! Trebek at one point during the interview said regarding Saturday Night Live's hilarious parody on him and his show, "When you make fun of someone like me, and a show such as 'Jeopardy!,' it means we've arrived. We're part of Americana, we're part of the American cultural scene."
There was something profoundly important, it seemed, to Trebek that his show was such an integral part of American culture. I also found it especially interesting that Trebek is Canadian, yet finds it to be a final destination for his show to make it in America. As an American, I do not think I've ever fully understood the vast cultural effect my home country has on the rest of the world. America's influence is immense, yet it is only 236 and a half years old, relatively young compared to some places, like Rome or Greece whose cultural heritages span thousands upon thousands of years.
This influence is not always a positive one, however. In the sobering hit documentary Supersize Me, the director interviews a group of first graders on who they think various figures are on different cards. Although it is never true for each of the kids, the majority of them have trouble recognizing George Washington and Jesus Christ, yet have no issues with recalling how they know the Ronald McDonald character.
McDonald's, originally an American company, has, along with most other fast food restaurants, experienced humongous growth over the past decades. It used to be one restaurant in southern California, but now, the chain even has stores as far away as India, a place where Mickey D's most-used animal, the cow, is considered sacred. The Golden Arches can be seen everywhere, and other American-based companies like Starbucks have seen similar success. In fact, recently the coffee giant changed their logo to not even have the name of their company anymore upon entering an elite business strata.
To quote an article from The Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, this type of "globalization of the world by the United States" has been colloquially dubbed "Americanization" or making everything become "the 'American way'. Such globalization can be attributed to many things, especially media the article says, due to how the world can now more than ever see what it's like to live like an American. This entails a sense of businesslike efficiency, it seems, due to how America is known for its immense productivity (cue Henry Ford's assembly line methodology). The article even says Coca-Cola's influence in other countries has caused for "coca-colonization" or "the importation of American goods and American values into a local culture." These values can include the Henry Ford-esque productivity, causing for such phenomena as "McDonalization", as the encyclopedia article says, in other countries. This seems to be quintessentially American; for instance you may have heard of the term McMansion used in your area. These are gigantic homes built seemingly from midair in a matter of days, thus showing the U.S. to be an a consumer-oriented and efficiency-based society. Do you think this is a good thing? Should the world really be more like America? On the other hand, do you think that the U.S. and the rest of the world is changing to be less like this? Why or why not?
This influence is not always a positive one, however. In the sobering hit documentary Supersize Me, the director interviews a group of first graders on who they think various figures are on different cards. Although it is never true for each of the kids, the majority of them have trouble recognizing George Washington and Jesus Christ, yet have no issues with recalling how they know the Ronald McDonald character.
McDonald's, originally an American company, has, along with most other fast food restaurants, experienced humongous growth over the past decades. It used to be one restaurant in southern California, but now, the chain even has stores as far away as India, a place where Mickey D's most-used animal, the cow, is considered sacred. The Golden Arches can be seen everywhere, and other American-based companies like Starbucks have seen similar success. In fact, recently the coffee giant changed their logo to not even have the name of their company anymore upon entering an elite business strata.
To quote an article from The Encyclopedia of Consumer Culture, this type of "globalization of the world by the United States" has been colloquially dubbed "Americanization" or making everything become "the 'American way'. Such globalization can be attributed to many things, especially media the article says, due to how the world can now more than ever see what it's like to live like an American. This entails a sense of businesslike efficiency, it seems, due to how America is known for its immense productivity (cue Henry Ford's assembly line methodology). The article even says Coca-Cola's influence in other countries has caused for "coca-colonization" or "the importation of American goods and American values into a local culture." These values can include the Henry Ford-esque productivity, causing for such phenomena as "McDonalization", as the encyclopedia article says, in other countries. This seems to be quintessentially American; for instance you may have heard of the term McMansion used in your area. These are gigantic homes built seemingly from midair in a matter of days, thus showing the U.S. to be an a consumer-oriented and efficiency-based society. Do you think this is a good thing? Should the world really be more like America? On the other hand, do you think that the U.S. and the rest of the world is changing to be less like this? Why or why not?
Thursday, May 10, 2012
The Organic Food Gap and Healthiness
Although we had to turn in our junior theme papers a couple of weeks ago, I would still like to write one more post on my theme topic: organic food and its recent popularity spike. Aside from this spike in popularity, however, is the important, yet depressing fact that many people can barely afford cheap, unhealthy food let alone organic food. Food deserts are rampant in large cities like my hometown of Chicago. Food deserts are areas of a usually sprawling metropolis that do not have access to healthy, fresh food, but instead have an abundance of unhealthy fast food. Fast food is, obviously, extremely cheap, and this fuels an epidemic of obesity among a lower-income population. Ann Cooper, a leader in the fight against the increasing rate of childhood obesity and a grade school , said in a TED Talk that 25% of the food that she serves her students is either organic or locally grown. She says that if her students are, "eating chemicals all the time, they're not going
to be able to think." She added, "They're not going to be smart. You know what? They're just
going to be sick."
It's hard to argue the fact that obesity, in both children and adults, has increased dramatically. According to the CDC 35.7% of American adults in 2009/2010 were obese, and 17% of American children are now considered. This is a strikingly large increase from past years; a generation ago the obesity percentage was closer to 6% of the country's youth population. One of the links on the CDC's website was to a video that describes some of the major players in the obesity epidemic. One of the reasons, the video says, that promotes overall unhealthiness are food desert communities. A study done by Scarborough Research said that people who typically buy organics normally spend 10 percent higher than the national average on groceries and make 22 percent higher income than the national norm. One man from inner-city Philadelphia said in the CDC video that over the course of his entire life living in the city he had never had a regular supermarket within close distance of his home. These types of markets are not even all organic, just food that's not processed and pumped with artificially processed foods that are so harmful according to people like Ann Cooper.
It's hard to argue the fact that obesity, in both children and adults, has increased dramatically. According to the CDC 35.7% of American adults in 2009/2010 were obese, and 17% of American children are now considered. This is a strikingly large increase from past years; a generation ago the obesity percentage was closer to 6% of the country's youth population. One of the links on the CDC's website was to a video that describes some of the major players in the obesity epidemic. One of the reasons, the video says, that promotes overall unhealthiness are food desert communities. A study done by Scarborough Research said that people who typically buy organics normally spend 10 percent higher than the national average on groceries and make 22 percent higher income than the national norm. One man from inner-city Philadelphia said in the CDC video that over the course of his entire life living in the city he had never had a regular supermarket within close distance of his home. These types of markets are not even all organic, just food that's not processed and pumped with artificially processed foods that are so harmful according to people like Ann Cooper.
One of the predominant problems that many have with organics is that they are overpriced, yet do not provide substantial health benefits. Ann Cooper is very apt to serve organics in her cafeteria, but there are not many conclusive studies done to suggest organic food in particular is much healthier than regular food. This, however, is one of the major drivers people who have the means feel regarding the desire to buy organic food. This discrepancy is trivial, however, when compared to the magnitude of the obesity problem in America. I've found that more important than uncovering why organic food has become so popular for my paper, it is crucial to wonder why have Americans become so much more unhealthy over the years? Perhaps organic connotes whole foods like fruits and veggies, and these can help to promote a healthier lifestyle. Nonetheless, I've found that although there are many admirable reasons to buy organic food, it is extremely important to just eat food that's good for you, no matter what kind. What do you think? Should we try and make organic food more accessible or should or priority first be to get healthy food of any type to people as soon as we can?
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Walmart...Organic?
According to a study done by Scarborough Research in 2007, Wal-Mart is the leading seller of organic food in the United States. The study says, "Twenty-nine percent of organics consumers shopped Wal-Mart Supercenter during the past week." Wal-Mart, known for its immense store sizes and unbeatable prices, has now not only entered the realm of the often perceived elitist foodie, it has now mastered the market. How is this possible you might ask? "The company sells 18 percent of all the groceries bought in the United States--more than anyone else by a wide margin," says an article in the Mother Jones publication. If a company of that magnitude enters any new market, it seems that that company is headed for success.
Wal-Mart first began its "green initiatives" in 2005, according to an article in the encyclopedia Green Food. The company has pushed to be more energy efficient; S. Robson Walton is on the board of Conservation International and his grandson, Sam R. Walton, currently serves on the board of Environmental Defense. One of the largest green advances that Wal-Mart has made is to have all of their fish certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. In order to attract more suppliers, the megalith company encouraged non-sustainable fisheries to become sustainable instead of simply skipping them over.
But there has been a substantial amount of controversy surrounding Wal-Mart's switch to go green. Take the fisheries for example. Critics say that perhaps Wal-Mart is doing what is called "greenwashing" or over-promoting green PR to the point that it is not sincere, but merely based in marketing stratagem. Some think that the over-fishing many suppliers do to meet high consumer demand is strategically overshadowed by the retailer's commitment to stay sustainable. Also, according to the Mother Jones article, produce industry analyst Jim Prevor said that a company as big as Wal-Mart can't waste its time "chasing down small organic apple wholesalers and buying 60 cases of apples because that's all they have...I'd be surprised if it's [organic food] more than 2 percent of their total produce."
From the critical point of view, Wal-Mart is not the most environmental or local-minded company around either, and its sheer size doesn't help. According to an Economic Policy Institute article, Wal-Mart fuels unemployment in the U.S. by using vast amounts of Chinese imports. The company sells cheap products to many, many people in the U.S. that are easy to make in China, but only through certain, often labor-rights-abusive methods. This process is profit-minded, which is not in keeping with the organic mindset promoting local businesses and a low carbon footprint. Yet, Wal-Mart must be doing something right if it has gained so much more notoriety for going green. The company has built environmentally friendly stores and has packaged items with less material than before. So what is one to think about all of this controversy? Is what Wal-Mart doing laudable or immoral? Should companies like Wal-Mart's still try to be more sustainable or is it just too difficult because of their size?
Wal-Mart first began its "green initiatives" in 2005, according to an article in the encyclopedia Green Food. The company has pushed to be more energy efficient; S. Robson Walton is on the board of Conservation International and his grandson, Sam R. Walton, currently serves on the board of Environmental Defense. One of the largest green advances that Wal-Mart has made is to have all of their fish certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. In order to attract more suppliers, the megalith company encouraged non-sustainable fisheries to become sustainable instead of simply skipping them over.
But there has been a substantial amount of controversy surrounding Wal-Mart's switch to go green. Take the fisheries for example. Critics say that perhaps Wal-Mart is doing what is called "greenwashing" or over-promoting green PR to the point that it is not sincere, but merely based in marketing stratagem. Some think that the over-fishing many suppliers do to meet high consumer demand is strategically overshadowed by the retailer's commitment to stay sustainable. Also, according to the Mother Jones article, produce industry analyst Jim Prevor said that a company as big as Wal-Mart can't waste its time "chasing down small organic apple wholesalers and buying 60 cases of apples because that's all they have...I'd be surprised if it's [organic food] more than 2 percent of their total produce."
From the critical point of view, Wal-Mart is not the most environmental or local-minded company around either, and its sheer size doesn't help. According to an Economic Policy Institute article, Wal-Mart fuels unemployment in the U.S. by using vast amounts of Chinese imports. The company sells cheap products to many, many people in the U.S. that are easy to make in China, but only through certain, often labor-rights-abusive methods. This process is profit-minded, which is not in keeping with the organic mindset promoting local businesses and a low carbon footprint. Yet, Wal-Mart must be doing something right if it has gained so much more notoriety for going green. The company has built environmentally friendly stores and has packaged items with less material than before. So what is one to think about all of this controversy? Is what Wal-Mart doing laudable or immoral? Should companies like Wal-Mart's still try to be more sustainable or is it just too difficult because of their size?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)