Where's Beef From? By Sarah

Beef2 from Sarah Foster on Vimeo.

Oh Jensen...

Jensen is right in that people really need to utilize some critical thinking. For example, why do people complain so much about there being no plastic bags anymore or why do people not see sexism in marketing and even everyday language? But, even that shouldn’t take critical thinking, it’s just denial and unawareness. I mean heaven forbid people feel uncomfortable about looking at the deeper picture of what’s really going on. We need to question why we do things and why we’ve been doing things. Just because that’s the way it is doesn’t mean that’s the way it should be. The U.S. needs some change on many different levels like healthcare and maternity and paternity leave, but we are so tied up in a two-party system and an either/or mindset that we are so scared of change and no one wants the responsibility of being blamed for the bumps in the road. Americans say they want change…but don’t vote for it neither do our legislatures. (Gun control debate, same-sex marriage – why are these even being debated?) The Nordic countries are high on the scale of happiness and social equality because they question their norms all the time and actually use research to implement and structure policies.

I’ve always thought that capitalism, as an ideal market system, is a load of crap. The invisible hand is really the same hand attached to wealthy people who keep providing for themselves while the poor get poorer. Capitalism does not provided social services. For example, privatization of water in Latin America left many more people without water because companies could no longer make a profit and so they pulled out of the countries. I feel like our current finance system is one that punishes and is in favor of the rich, which is why I prefer Islamic Economics – risks are shared equally, zakat or wealthy tax and no interest on loans.

I agree that free markets do not create equality and that the government must be a part of the process for the people’s sake and not to serve the businesses. However, earlier Jensen criticized patriotism. I understand that patriotism is a major blindfold and results in unnecessary strict borders, but I would think governments need some patriotism at least…but maybe getting people involved in government is better.

I like Jensen’s point about the colossal amount of money being pumped in to the military and defense system. We already have a very advanced military with very powerful weapons that even if outdated technology would over-power another country’s military. Yet, we continue to fund and build war machines of obliteration instead of obliterating poverty and teen pregnancy and hunger and low-education attainment.

I am one of those slow adopters to technology. I thinks its great in that it has improved many lives in terms of health especially and bad in what it has done to the environment. I also do not like how it has restructured interpersonal communication. I think people have forgotten how to talk to strangers. I also think it’s a shame that kids spend more time with TV, ipads, video games rather than playing outside and appreciating nature (which is probably why there is less empathy for taking care of our planet). Sometimes, simple is better.

I feel like so many people are tired, bored and frustrated with how we live. It boils down to living a rehearsed life without true satisfaction and happiness.

At the same time, I’ve always wondered what it would be like to be Jensen. Journalism makes you see the world in many negative lights to a point where its unsatisfying and depressing. I’m glad the world has people like Jensen who bring up great points, but I wonder if he is ever happy. 

Local and Global

I still feel that America and England are still major influences on other cultures primarily because of the media and transnational corporations. To me, there still seems to be this idea that individuals strive to live like the Americans and British despite the fact that the Nordic countries rate much higher on social attainment and overall wellbeing. For example, I don’t think there is a single person who doesn’t about the royal family in England whereas who knows about the royalty in other countries? I also feel there is still a major push around the world to learn English whereas the prevalence of bilingual speakers in the U.S. is not as common.

It’s great that the media is starting to globalize the local and that several segments of the economy are operating under many languages. But, I don’t think this is to bring people together and to promote other cultures, as it is a business move to bring in more revenue.

Because of globalization, I believe more and more people are becoming accepting of other cultures, however, I feel that a lot of cultures have become commercialized. For example, third world countries commercialize their culture for tourist packages to attract foreigners. In one documentary that I watched in the past, one country was selling burkas to tourists, and they would try them on “pretending” they were part of the local culture. There was no respect as if it were a mask. Globalization and consumption allow us to become "the other" or act like we are part of another culture by consuming their products and attire. 

Waste not, want not

I like how the documentary provided historical context. Yes, we all know the history of the U.S., but we all forget that the lifestyle was very different back in the day. According to Gunder’s article, Americas waste 50 percent more than they did in the 70s, and I’m sure a much larger percent during the World Wars. So, not only are we stuffing ourselves more, but we’re wasting more. I honestly think people put less value on this likes the environment, food, the value of one dollar and other people. We have detached ourselves so much that empathy no longer moves us to take action.

Obviously, we all need to eat healthier, recycle and reuse. On the larger level, corporations need to be more socially and environmentally responsible. This is one of the reasons why I disagreed with Mackney and Sisodia earlier…They looked at the big picture instead of at the smaller responsibilities. There’s no reason why nice grocery stores shouldn’t be in low-income neighborhoods with just as good quality of food. It is appalling that grocery stores discard food so easily. If anything, they should be sold at discount, given to nonprofits or even out on a table for people to take, especially the homeless. What’s worse is that merchants and buyers buy food based on its prettiness. It should be ok that carrots are crooked.

The environment and energy consumption is a realm that needs help and support by the government. It should be affordable for people to buy environmentally friendly products. Companies and construction should inform consumers of their options and push for such products. Yes, we pay for our utilities, but is it enough money to curb our excessive usage? Should water be so cheap when people take 30 minute showers? There’s no incentive to save when it is cheap and at the flip of a switch.

I can see how we use more energy and power because we certainly have a lot more things to plug into the wall. I wasn’t surprised about most of the items on E Source’s energy-consuming and power-drawing lists, but I was surprised about the hair dryer and fish tank. These two items would not have crossed my mind. I don’t know much about power, energy and cars. But, even hybrid cars need electricity, which usually needs coal, which is a huge polluter in itself. 

Food!

Soul Food

This documentary was well put together with a mix of humor, seriousness, culture and history. The film definitely captures the central role food plays in our lives. Food is necessary, fun, delightful, cultural, historical and biologically intriguing. For these reasons, food holds a lot of power directly and indirectly. Since I lived in the Bible Belt for the majority of my life, I can vouch that there is a KFC on just about every block. Soul food is huge in Memphis especially fried chicken and BBQ. Every May there is a HUGE festival dedicated to southern food. It’s literally rows upon rows or soul food. However, I don’t think soul food is that bad. I think it’s more of the transition that soul food has gone through like the adding of more more salt, grease, chemicals, preservatives and fast food style that has brought on obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease. I do commend the schools though that preach fresh foods and gardens.  

Fast Food Nation

Fast food is one of the first things that comes to mind when one says America. It’s too convenient because they’re everywhere. They’re fast and cheap. People have to work more so there really isn’t time to spend cooking and shopping for food. There’s also this mentality to eat on the go when we’re not sitting watching TV. Overall, the industry has certainly shaped popular culture and agriculture as well as the health of Americans. I like Schlosser’s point in that he says, “Unlike other commodities, however, fast food isn’t viewed, read, played, or worn. It enters the body and becomes part of the consumer.” I always knew that advertisements were being directed more at kids, and I knew that textbooks had secret marketing strategies. But, I didn’t know that it was that extensive. I should have known that it would be tax deductable for these companies as well.

I remember my school would put on a magazine drive to help raise money for the school. The goal was to raise the most you could so you could prizes and participate in the festival – which meant skipping class. My mom hated because she said that it makes the parents feel so guilty if they don’t want to contribute. Plus, the kids are selling magazines which are just harbors of more advertisements. 

Conscious Capitalism

Coffee

Living with Coffee was a good documentary in that it made the connection between buyer, seller and producer. Like China Blue, it put faces to those who produce our commodities. Even though I see their faces and see their labor, it is still hard for me to grasp that kind of lifestyle. It’s almost unimaginable. It’s important for people to care where their products come from. People should buy with a conscience as in buying fair trade coffee. Yet, it’s sad when the full truth about these programs and ideas are not revealed or are scams. It’s not that we should stop buying our products because that would be detrimental to individual producers, but we should vote with our money and buy from companies that actually practice fair trade and fair labor. This change would lessen the profits of those social unfriendly companies and hopefully change the way they do business.

Capitalism is good

I don’t completely agree with Mackney and Sisodia. Their point of view is very different from Robert Reich’s who has written many books on capitalism. Reich calls our modern day capitalism, supercapitalism. Yes, businesses are good and they have provided many opportunities and social advances for people. The authors mention how businesses need to be more moral and do business ethically and how there are many who do have act consciously. Yet, I don’t think the authors hold businesses accountable enough. They do not mention how businesses have contributed to the inequality in the US and other countries. They also do not mention the role of the stock markets and how many businesses are more concerned about returns rather than the social good. 

China

Made in China:

After watching the movies, I thought, wow, I am so fortunate. I could not imagine living that life style. How can they enjoy life when they do the same task over and over without even being able to talk? I also never realized that the workers live at the factories. It’s sad to think that people’s lives are dictated by the supply and demand chain of business. I loved how the documentarians showed how neither side knows where their products go or where they come from. It’s like they are just there, there to be sold and to be bought without any conscious of why.

Supply Chaining:

As a business model, Wal-Mart is quite impressive. I never knew how they actually operated and worked, nor did I consider that technology was their strong niche. It is amazing how they are able to have so many suppliers and so many stores around the world. To think that if it were its own economy, that it would be China eighth largest trading power is ridiculous. This only demonstrates their success, but also their tremendous power. The problem with Wal-Mart is that its cheap prices do not match their social irresponsibility. They do not treat their employees well and their suppliers are at their mercy. The problem with Wal-Mart is that it is too convenient just like the rest of the big box stores that no one is willing to change the current status quo. We want the cheap prices, but we also want employees around the world to be treated right. Is there a point where you can’t cut costs anymore or weaken employer’s rights? It’s hard to believe that Wal-Mart doesn’t have an effect on off shoring of merchandise. I understand that it’s the suppliers’ decision to go to other countries, but they must feel the pressure (from Wal-Mart mostly) to reduce costs and pay employees less so that they can be competitive.

The Price of Bargaining:

Clearly, any changes China makes to its labor laws and factories will have repercussions everywhere. It’s almost like the US and China has relied on each other too much. China has grown economically and our debt has increased.  As a side not, this article does bring up how all the U.S. does is consume. I think over the next decades, people will have to learn to buy and less and be satisfied with less. It’s not okay for a large population to be living in factories with those conditions and another country to be reaping the benefits at a low cost. But, if China decides to enforce stricter labor laws, then those kinds of jobs will just go to another third world country unless consumers decide they don’t want a bargain. The author is right in that the world especially the U.S. has been enjoying a “free ride on pollution, social strife, violence and poverty.”

Journalists acting in a time of crisis

Buying the War:

I think this is a great documentary of how journalists need to better reporters and skepticals. It illustrates that journalism failed and failed the public when it came to relaying the facts. Coverage of the officials and the war was a collaboration of government propaganda and groupthink. There wasn’t much double-checking of the sources and facts or holding officials accountable. It was pretty pathetic that one journalist asked Bush about his faith during a press conference about Iraq. Now, let’s not ask the hard questions…I mean it’s war, what’s to lose…America never loses. The documentary also demonstrates how journalists turned against the public by saying that if you were not for the war than you were unpatriotic and unsympathetic to the victims of 9/11. Bill O’Reilly even said that if you were not for the war then you were a “bad American.” There’s also shame that the bureaucracy within journalism conglomerates would not open the gates to dissenting views. And even when skepticism started to leak through, it seemed the opinion was to continue to back the government so that we can protect their reputation as well as ours’. What’s even sadder is that broadcast journalism, which can reach a larger mass of people, has turned into pundits talking on talk shows rather than reporters.

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:

As part of his opening statements, Jensen is essentially saying that the U.S. has significant soft power, but we don’t mind to show that we have the hard power to back it up. I also like how he used the word critical thinking in two different ways: one of being consciousness of the war and one of showing dislike toward dissenters. Jensen also reflects on what we have been talking about and that is the U.S unwilling to relinquish its power and global control based on its founding principals. My favorite two lines of his article are of the following: It's tempting to argue that we should refrain from political debate on the 9/11 anniversary to honor those who died and to respect those who lost loved ones. I would be willing to do that if the cheerleaders for the U.S. empire would refrain from using the day to justify the wars of aggression that followed 9/11.” Loss is tragic not just American tragic. We define terrorist as physical attacks and Middle Eastern. However, I think many countries would label the U.S. as a terrorist in terms of finance, trade and enablers of corrupt leaders. Instead of being quick to blame, we should look inwardly at ourselves and use critical thinking as to why Al Qaeda attacked us.

Framing the war:

Journalists are very important when it comes to shaping public opinion where that’s cover elections or crimes. The amount of coverage and use of frames is significant. Unfortunately, after 9/11, the media created an “us” vs. “them.” There wasn’t much room for debate nor room to add context in regards to America’s past with the Middle East and the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the word “terror” is a loaded word that naturally instills fear. The word, in my opinion, also suggests never-ending, and, honesty, the war has lasted entirely too long.

As a side note, journalists were crafty in how they framed the war after it was in progress. (Remember the backlash against the Dixie Chicks?) I remember during 2004, I was one of the few in my eighth grade class to show disproval of Bush and the war. People around me said the war was good because we were helping people who were being tortured and under a dictatorship. There was less talk about weapons of mass destruction and connections with 9/11 than it was with the welfare of the Iraqi people and power battle among the Shiites and Sunnis. Granted we were in eighth grade with not much knowledge about foreign affairs, but my classmates had to get that idea from somewhere… 

Television and Responsibility

I found this article very intriguing. Everyone knows that television has effects on people, but I don’t think people understand the full scope of it. As a side note, I thought it was funny how Iyengar said that people spend more time in front of screens rather than in interpersonal interaction. I had a read an article last year how social scientists were studying the social behaviors of men toward women, and they said men who play videogames are losing the confidence to flirt and approach women.

To get back on topic, it is true that t.v. news gives way more attention to events and occurrences and not on issues that can’t be reduced to short clips. I think this is why there really isn’t much discussion on the environment and quality of reservations like Dillon had mentioned. There are plenty of issues that the public is unaware of because of this. Therefore, politicians are not being questioned about issues that are important but overlooked.

When it comes to elections, it is true that news stations focus on the turnout and swing states. They do focus on the candidates’ platforms, but only on the standard issues. T.V. news always needs to provide more context even if it’s hard news or a thematic event. I think more people would vote if they knew more about their platforms in regards to other issues.

This articles demonstrates the power journalists have in shaping public thought and political discussion. 

Falling behind in science

In terms of the American lifestyle, we have gotten very comfortable with our lifestyles, yet we complain that we don’t have the latest products and that we work too much. You always hear stories from grandparents and how they struggled and had to work hard and live with the basics…and most of their work was manual labor. However most of us are still living off of our parents and probably will be for a couple of more years. We don’t like manual labor like skilled jobs and we don’t like to pursue demanding educational jobs either. We like the middle range, but we want to reap the benefits of wealth.

We need to update our education system, and this needs to start at the elementary levels. But, this is something the levels of government need to enforce. In addition, it starts with the family. Parents need to be stricter with their children. Kids these days are way too spoiled. I’m not comfortable with the idea of giving young kids ipads to play with because most of the time I see them playing pointless games. Kids demand something and the parents give it to them. For holidays and birthdays, relatives give children toys and toys, whereas there should be more toys that are at least educating.

The author mentions several times how in mid-20^th century, we, as a country, had dreams, goals and role models. We don’t have these anymore except get rich quick via the internet. It seems like once we landed on the moon, we were like well that fantasy is now reality and so imagination ceased. The author made a good point in saying that Chinese worship Bill Gates like he was Britney Spears, and in America, we worship Britney Spears because she’s Britney Spears. We spend more time and energy on educating ourselves on figures like Kim Kardashian and Tony Parker.

At the same time, I wonder what effects these social pressures are having on individuals in Asia. For example, my roommate is from India, and she is constantly being lectured on how she is not pursuing a medical or engineering career field. She always is beating herself up about it as well. In this sense, I am glad that I am not pressured to pursue a field of study that I’m not interested in.  

China vs. U.S.

I think this chapter was quite one-sided and harsh toward to the U.S. But, I also haven’t agreed much with our choices in regard to foreign policy. I remember tweeting the Presidential Debate, and both candidates kept saying how they are going to go after the bad guys and make sure that the U.S. is a strong global power. Romney at one point said that he didn’t see our influence growing and that he sees the Middle East as a rising tide of chaos. Both candidates said they wanted to promote freedom. At the same time though, we like to be the police of other countries. This attitude is demeaning and patronizing. It is very inward thinking.

Therefore in this light, I agree with Mahbubani when he says the political planning in the U.S. is for four years or the next presidential cycle, whereas the Chinese make long-term plans, 50+ years down the road. It does concern me though, how China was the country that helped the U.S. gain the UN resolution, making the invasion of Iraq legal…

The U.S. seems to always have short-term self-interest in mind when it comes to agreements and trade. I think we do put too many restrictions and stipulations that it causes the opposite of economic sovereignty for countries. So, in this regard, we should be more like China and really look out for other countries’ interests. However, I think China is too soft in this regard by not demanding environmental policies and human rights.

However, if China doesn’t want to be a superpower and seek global interdependence, then why are they choosing to become so powerful and influential? Like Mahbubani said, China is a closed society with an open mind. Granted I don’t know much about the life of a typical Chinese, but I feel that China should focus on taking care of their own people in terms of freedoms and pollution more than geopolitical influence. Also, what about China’s control over Tibet? 

Smart Power, Chinese Style

• Mahbubani says that there is surprisingly no tension between America and China. I'd have to agree with that, I suppose. But there is, I believe, tension (or at least some type of rivalry) between American and Chinese people. Americans typically believe that Chinese = genius, and this creates a divide between the two cultures. Also, this may be a completely ignorant comment, but I think Chinese people are sneaky! They don't express themselves like Americans do, Facebook is banned in their country (what?!) and they're Communists (which, historically, automatically means that they are untrustworthy). I also had a really bad roommate experience with a Chinese girl, so I'm probably biased.
• Three of Xiaoping's seven guidelines are: "conceal our capabilities and avoid the limelight... keep a low profile... strive for achievements." This basically sums up my view of Chinese people in general, so they seem to be doing a good job! I agree that these are why it is  "difficult to describe Chinese successes, because the Chinese themselves say so little about them."
• When Mahbubani talks about how American diplomats aren't the best and brightest (like those of China), I immediately connected. There are way too many jobs in the United States that just have the "wrong man for the job," but there is one in particular that I have a problem with. I love my future-teacher friends, and most of them are adequately prepared, but there are a lot of teachers who really confuse me as to how they were ever qualified to teach children, the future of our country. I blame these problems on our poor public education, but how are they going to get fixed when bad teachers are constantly being put into classrooms?
• "American diplomats live and work in fortress-like compounds" - Well, especially now after the attack on the U.S. diplomacy in Benghazi, Libya.
• "Obtaining any kind of assistance from the US requires compliance on a battery of restrictions." - It would be nice to just help countries out, but we live by "If I do that for you, then I have to do it for everyone else, too." We believe in contracts because we like rules and don't want to get jipped. What's wrong with that?
• "Western incompetence has provided significant opportunities that China has been able to exploit without paying any serious political price." - Ouch.
• "It is amazing how solid and stable the sino-american relationship has become" - I will refer back to an earlier statement: Chinese people are sneaky! I think I may just be a conspiracy theorist, but if I were China, I would play nice with America (my biggest threat) for the time being, at least until I've gotten strong enough to be the world's absolute superpower. Because if I'm not nice to America, they'll get suspicious, and I can't have them snooping around. (Maybe I watched too many Scooby-Doo cartoons as a kid...)

*Most of what I write has a sarcastic undertone, so please don't think I'm anti-China!

People in Denmark live by the American Dream, not Americans

The idea of the American dream and meritocracy is still very prevalent in our culture. It seems like behind every speech whether political or for an award acceptance, the story of someone pulling themselves up from their bootstraps is interwoven within the speech if it’s the opener itself.

Americans are very focused of themselves and need instant gratification. We believe that people who make it deserve it and those who don’t make it, deserve it as well. I think this cultural idea is what has placed us socially behind other countries. We focus too much on ourselves and our beliefs and don't consider other viewpoints. I think this is why we still argue about homosexuality and religion.

This view transcends into our health care system and welfare. Every developed nation has some kind of national or universal health care, but us. Yet, We spend the largest GDP on healthcare expenses. We tend to view it as a privilege and not a right.

Richard Wilkinson, author of The Impact of Inequality, focuses on inequality and the faults of the American dream. http://www.ted.com/speakers/richard_wilkinson.html

The Rest of the West

Mahbubani makes a great point that the world sees what is going around them through the eyes of the West’s media. As journalism majors, this is important because we are the gatekeepers. As of now, we are the ones who decide what will be on the agenda. We are the ones who decide what will get publicity. The fact that we adorn and over-publicize British royalty is an example of our attachment to the West, and we allow others to believe they are of higher significance.

It will be interesting to see how countries embrace interdependence. There are too many global issues now that cannot be solved by one country. Even though interdependence will be a must, I feel that there will still be a power imbalance due to continued self-interests and refusal to adopt other societies’ ideals and principals.

Mahbubani mentioned how in the future, the West will become truly cosmopolitan. With our large city hubs like NYC and our melting pot slogan, we feel that we are cosmopolitan. However, I know that I am a consumer of the West. In high schools, there is an emphasis to learn U.S. and European history and only languages like French and Spanish. But, in other countries, they are consuming their own culture and that of the West. Mahbubani mentioned how technology has allowed some countries to renew their culture.

I feel disadvantaged because I have only been consuming Western thoughts, education and media.

The West and the Rest

It doesn’t take a think-tank like Niall Ferguson to tell us that Western societies have played a dominant and influential role across the globe. Now, he says the tables are turning. The U.S. and most European countries have been quite comfortable with their global status, but despite their efforts to spread democracy and liberal markets, they otherwise close their doors for fear of losing the competitive advantage.

Ferguson said that the Cold War kept the West’s colonies and Third World countries close at hand to be used as allies and at the same time containing instability. Now that the Cold War has been over, Ferguson said that these countries’ instability has been unleashed.

The fact that 97 percent of the world’s population growth is within Third World countries demonstrates that these countries have great potential for power and influence. To me, that is huge. It no wonder, why Western countries feel threatened by immigration. Yet, if living conditions improve in these countries as well as government stability, people will not want to immigrate. Something that did not cross my mind is that through the use of technology, people across the world see how comfortable the West is living, and they want that.

Given that the nation state concept is deteriorating, the U.S., especially, is still trying to have an influence on other countries. But it’s no surprise that their influence comes when it is beneficial for them. Our push on other countries is sometimes welcomed, but not always, especially in Islamic countries. I think it especially interesting how Ferguson said that democracy comes after economic development.

It is even more interesting how Ferguson said that countries look to Japan as an example of how to enter the global market. As more countries strive to be like Japan and not remain under the label of a former colony, I wonder how the U.S. will do economically with more competitors. I also wonder how we will control such development. At the same, as more countries become competitive, will inequality continue to increase globally?