The Meatrix/Organic Rap/OD

Starting with the Meatrix... I thought it was a very interesting and minimally informative clip. While it was not loaded with information that the public already has a general idea about, it still found a way to connect with the audience. The producers of this video realize the importance of capturing their audiences attention, an overstimulated time obsessed audience at that. What fails to interest people of my age in lectures, articles, and interviews, is found to be newly said when put into the mouth of a cartoon mocking a well known movie. I also found it very interesting that after all we have read this quarter, almost everyone in our class still flinched at the debeaking part... and this was from a cartoon, not even actual footage. I also agree with what we discussed in class, this short clip's major downfall was its lack of explanation as to how the family farm turned into a factory farm. It seems as if it was an overnight process when it clearly was not. A question though, for those who still read this, what did our class mean when we agreed that "this is alienating to those who support the big-agro industry?" I understand that it portrays a truth that they do not wish the public to think about, but I don't know if I think the word 'alienating' works here. Opinions?

Moving forward to the Organic Milk Rap Video:
My only thought that I had that I cannot find myself at peace concerning this, is is it not sort of hypocritcal of us to mock them when this company is actually out there doing something to inform others, while at the same time staying in business by selling their products? I think more power to them. Dismissing this video purely cause of a culture clash with ours seems immature for us to do as scholars who are looking to better ourselves and our planet through education. As the video states, "harmony and nature take presidence."

Alas, while writing this I find myself looking over my way over detailed notes from class this past Monday. I apologize if this seems somewhat scatterbrained but it is written in a way that reflects my personal stream of consciousness. If I quote our class members, please realize that I am taking what they say and putting it in my own words, while still attempting to give credit where credit is due.

Starting you with Pollan's opinon that the food industry's biggest threat to us is Global Warming... not health. Does this almost seem to wreck one's opinion of OD? I now feel the health aspect was almost only a ploy in the novel, or a trick of a sort, while not being a truth. I think this is because of society (and my own) social stigma towards Global Warming. While I now believe in it, I still see those two words and feel resentment for my old teachers who droned on about it while not actually explaining the effects it has on me, today.

I like the idea that food preperation should be a pleasure rather than an unwanted time consuming duty. It not a lack of time that people have - it is a lack of ambition. We make decisions and we make time for that which we believe in. "Not having time is a bit of brainwashing" (Pollan), rather it is about adjusting the time we use each day (I'm one of those obnoxious people that demand that we do not make or posess time, we use a culturally formed sense of time. I became this way after reading a book called Here's Looking to Euclid. The narrator of the story spends time in an African culture where time and numbers have no meanings, it is a fascinating easy read, if anyone has time for it).

'The food industry is skewed to seem to support us, when actually we support it' (Kevin). The food industry realizes how the truth would skew us from supporting it if the veil of where our food comes from was lifted. People like living in ignorance (ignorance is bliss- ha), this is something the food industry preys upon. This is why that veil becomes darker, thicker, and more enforced as time passes. Everyone is for cleanliness and higher standards but people aren't willing to suffer the consequences of change, people do not care enough to change. 'We have come from a society of hunters and gatherers' (Natasha) to a society of false pacifists who preach kindness by having others hunt for them. we all have come from people who killed to eat and now we refrain from taking part in the hunt? Now we blame it on money and time, even when we should be able to live off what is around us, yet we would rather side with unnecessary cruelty than the side of human nature.

Closing notes:
Think more of reform rather than renew in an attempt to make a change as an individual. Rather than supporting radical changes that we know cannot happen, collectively organize to support plausible solutions to one problem at a time. To be an individual who causes change, one must act collectively with others to be heard and to tear down social stigmas. Remember, the winner of this fight against the factory farm will be able to write a new future.

Omnivore's Dillema, clearly I need to post more often

My apologies to all my group members who have not been able to get in the correct amount of comments per week due to my lack of recent posts. I'm going to pick today's blog post up from our writing activity we did on Monday. Hopefully now my thoughts will be more coherent, now that I've had more time to think about it. Before I delve into that, I would like to point out how seriously this book has affected me. I have found myself only shopping in the organic sections of Kroger, only buying meat and chicken from animals that are free range and injection free, and planning my next visit to the farmers' market. I've also found myself actually anthropomorphizing corn by sending it negative thoughts when I pass corn products... although I have not been able to stop by addiction to soda. But, all of that aside, moving on to Monday's writing prompt and my response:

In TOD, Pollan argues that there is a huge opposition between natural, evolutionary logic and the logic that governs the industrial farm system. An example of this is Naylor's farm in chapter two. When the farm began, as a family personal feeding system, there was four feet of topsoil and the corn that was raised was edible for immediate human consumption. This corn had naturally adapated to its environment and had evolved to the stasis state which it could remain in.

This suffers a sharp contrast to the logic that governs the industrial farm system. The industrial farm system's logic is demonstrated in what Naylor's farm is today. While previously the corn grown was able to feed the family while supporting a lively-hood, it no longer can. He grows more corn than ever before, on a less substantial soil. This corn is treated with all sorts of chemicals in order to produce more in a shorter time (very unnaturally). And, most importantly, this corn cannot be directly edible for humans. This corn is used in a number of other ways, broken down and stripped for different uses. Although this corn cannot be eaten as is, it winds up being consumed through different means. Pollan uses this opposition in order to portray how unnatural our way of life currently is.

This argument is also continued when one looks at Pollan's study of steer 534. On page 84, how he discusses changing the cow to "industrialize the miracle of nature that is ruminant, taking the sunlight - and prairie grass powered organism, and turning it into the last thing we need: another fossil fuel machine.This one, however, is able to suffer." When someone uses such a strong word as 'miracle' its terrible to think how that miracle will no longer exist.

Closing notes: "You are what what you eat eats, too. And what we are or have become, is not just meat but number 2 corn and oil."

Michael Clayton

I feel as if I should start this off by explaining that I tend to watch a lot of movies. I do this, not because I like a particular director or a particular genre, but because I am so easily amused that I enjoy watching a simple plot line that reflects Propp's 31 Narrative Functions in different ways. It is the same for me for books - although I tend to use those as more of a getaway than I do movies.

So, as noted by several of my peers, Michael Clayton does not have a very original plot line... single man takes down the evil corporation by defying all odds. Yet I genuinely enjoyed the way that they executed this in an interesting setting.

Starting with the evil corporation itself, U-North. U-North is supposed to be a company that is all about bettering the environment and the people living in it, as seen in the video which Arthur loops over and over again. While this is supposed to be the company bettering the lives of people, this cheery facade hides a company run by a woman who will do anything to keep her job and the company's name in good esteem. From poisoning the crop fields, to hiring two hitman to take out Arthur and Michael... the audience is left to believe that this may not have been the first time, as the hitman seem to be known by others in the country. So good = evil... that storyline is established.

Cue Lawfirm representing U-North. Knows what really happen, knows what is going on, yet chooses to ignore all of it for money. So, institution of law = evil.

Enter Michael Clayton, from the beginning framework of the story we come to understand that he helps cover up problems with the law (he's called the cleaner). While he is expected to be this almost sleazy individual, he is the one who saves the day. From an environmental activist standpoint, it is difficult to own up to what this movie is trying to say. Is it saying that we put too much faith in the institution of law? Or that we need to stand up for others? Or is it just a movie that thought of an interesting twist on an already done plotline?

Fast Food Nation Lecture

Although I dreaded going to it, I found Eric Schlosser's presentation very interesting. Several things have stuck with me from the lecture. A couple are just the straight facts. I personally am one of the Americans that drink enough Coca Cola products to make up for those who don't drink any. Schlosser's comment about McDonald's taking almost all the money you pay for a big gulp really struck home with me. This is probably because I am very unobservant in some parts of my life but have noticed, and wondered about, the giant sized straws that they use at MacDonald's. It is not as if they are any longer but rather wider. That combined with the 50 teaspoons of sugar estimated to be in a single Big Gulp, have made me realize that the friendly fast food place I loved as a young child was manipulating me as well as every other customer. There is something to be said when one feels shorthanded by a food company. It's depressing to think that there is no moral grounds in business, even a business that is so integrated in our lives like McDonald's.

A few other things I took from this lecture, which I surely will not forget, are the comments he made about the animal and worker abuse, and what is in a quarter pounder. Since I first realized I liked cheese on my burgers, I have loved the quarter pounder from McDonald's. After finding out that there are parts of thousands of steers from possibly five different countries in each one, I hereby state that I refuse to eat one again. He was very good at putting it in terms that one can understand... "Imagine you are married and only sleeping with one person - not much risk for getting sick right? Now, imagine you are sleeping with thousands of people..." That's disgusting. He followed this up about children and people who are immune suppressed have the most possibility of getting sick from McDonald's, I now understand why my mother, who is going through clinical tests for her metastatic breast cancer, refuses to eat there... although why she never shared with me her reasons I'm a little confused.

The animal and worker abuse Schlosser described was disgusting. I understand that people are not as animal focused in their lives as I am but still, the company needs to take responsibility for what it is causing to happen. If they are not going to do that, they need to take responsibility for the care of all of the workers of the suppliers they use. It honestly is a tragedy that this is occurring.

Jewett, Crumb, Sanders, and Silko

So, you know how every once in a while a particular passage speaks to you? More than others? That happened to me today in Scott Russell Sanders' "After the Flood." When he describes his time coming back to the place he loved so much as "this moment from dream [. . .]" (786), I fell in love with this work. In my opinion, that is one of the most intriguing ways to describe an unmet expectation; and how society has impacted the land he once loved. Everything in this passage from this part is described as grey, giving the impression of lifelessness or death. It is haunting and more importantly it connects with the reader on such a unique level that he is able to appeal to empathy in a way that most authors would come off as preachy. He does not make his experience sound as an appeal to society but rather uses it to speak for itself (although to be fair he does use language in a very subtle yet persuasive manner).

To couple this with the Crumb comic is a way to reinforce this idea that is shown in pictures and in text. It is almost as if they were meant to be read side by side.

Jewett's short story, "The White Heron," is an amazing story which deals with the issue of people ruining nature in a narrative way. This story portrays how youth can still stand up for the future of nature. While Sylvia understands what she can receive from telling the Hunter where the bird is she still values the bird's life more. I understand this is a very pessimistic view to share, but, I do not believe the story would have the same ending if Sylvia was in her mid to late twenties and was even less financially stable than she is currently. This story (to me) seems to touch on what the younger generation can do as long as they do not let themselves grow into the older. It's possible to suggest that Sylvia's grandmother would have done the same thing when she was younger. Yes, this conjecture lacks proof but I still think that Sylvia's age plays a huge role in this story.

I apologize to everyone reading this blog and who is following my trains of thoughts, it has been a stressful day and I'm practically writing in my sleep. So, yes, this is being cut short tonight, but expect longer and more easily understandable posts in the future.

Cronon's and Thoreau's Different Wildernesses

Upon reading Cronon's perspective on Thoreau's glorified wilderness I became very conflicted as to which author I side with. While Throreau brings about what one can learn from the wild and the importance of connecting with nature in the ways he had, Cronon's belief that the mystery behind nature is one that is self imposed by humans takes away from the majesty of Thoreau's writing.

Cronon's argument traces how nature used to be something related with fearing God and fearing evil to becoming something about beauty and wonder. It changed from a place of hostility to a place of revelation (no pun intended... the book of Revelations... haha). I love his line, "[t]he place where we are, is the place where nature is not." I found that to be the crux of his argument, proving that nature as we have come to define it, to create it, is something intangible so we can never really experience it without projecting our own beliefs of what it should be.

This is something that Thoreau disparages. In the pieces of his writing that we read he describes nature as being a reclusive place, as unaffected by society as it can be, which he resides for a period of time before returning to his community. He describes the enlarging air space as men affect nature and cut down its trees. While Cronon would explain this as men doing what they do and the only loss is not the actual trees but rather the significance that people have begun to attach to those trees.

From an English major's perspective, I found Thoreau's writing to be more textually appealing. It is written with beauty and he utilizes his own words rather than using others to speak for him. Because Cronon's essay (?) is written as a critique or rather a dismissal of several of Thoreau's points, that beauty is lost as he uses straightforward clean-cut words and sentences to convey his point.