Globalization of the local

I thought an interesting graf in this article was found on page 479:

"...But somehow, more than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it no longer seems inevitable that everyone is going to look, speak, sing, dance, and think like an American because of globalization."

I think it's a very good thing that this hasn't happened. In the graf above this quote, the author attributes Americanization via globalization NOT happening because the forces of particularization are as strong as the forces of homogenization because the flattenization of the world has enabled many nations to "hold on to many aspects of their local culture."

It's funny how we thought that as technology progressed, the world would become more American-ized, but that's actually prevented that from happening

Waste in America

Power plugs

I enjoyed going through the slideshow of the top 10 power-sapping plug-ins and realizing that none of these things are things we actually need to get by, even a dishwasher or a a/c unit or space heater. I counted three things I use in my apartment on a weekly basis: the dishwasher, the a/c unit and the microwave oven. But most of the other things I didn't use on a regular basis, but are things I can see the regular American household using, with the execption of the popcorn maker.

Americans wasting $130 billion

I think the point of the article was offset some by the author admitting this was all very boring and that some of the solutions weren't even necesarry to be summed up. But the most interesting point was that it costs more money to save energy. Obviously, as we stand right now, we'd rather save money than take drastic means to save electiricty.

Reducing FoodWaste

My favorite two numbers from the beginning are that half of our country's land is used for food production — that's pretty incredible. And then: 40 percent of the food that's created doesn't go eaten. That's not very good for efficiency, a waste of land, manpower, energy and resources. Of the five listed categories of things we waste, the three least-wasted are things used for cattle while the most-wasted thing is seafood, which I would think we don't have that much control over the reproduction and rearing process, and then fruits and vegetables.

Dive!

Great documentary. First, to prove that dumpster-diving isn't so disgusting (the whole class was grossed out at the beginning) and then that it could help stop hunger in isolated situations. Hopefully high-profile things like this can spur action. 

The differences between Soul Food and fast food

Food is often much more than what we fill our stomachs with to keep away hunger, but rather a key link to our culture and something that brings us together.

Because of this, it is difficult for the Deep South to part ways with Soul Food, which is unhealthy.

As we saw in the documentary, so many African-Americans identify with Soul Food — mostly because it connects them to their ancestors — that they'll gladly deal with the negative effects of loading up on the fattening foods.

This problem is different than what we're facing with fast food. For those who frequent McDonald's and Burger King and the others, it's a matter of convenience and cost. Five minutes, and less dollar, for a full, filling meal. Soul food, on the other hand, isn't convenient — these big meals include many dishes that take a while to make — and isn't especially affordable. 

As we tackle the problem of obesity, it's important to recognize there are different reasons why people binge eat. 

China readings, documentaries

What was striking to me was the first in-class activity regarding this assignment — the beads video. Not only was it alarming to see the conditions and the wages assigned to the Chinese workers, but it was disappointing to see the United States represented in such a way: drunks laughing and throwing away these beads, which were painstaking to make.

For me, it's always been difficult to assign any particular blame to either Wal-Mart, American consumers or China in the discussion over factory workers. The consumers have the right to buy what they'd like, so Wal-Mart has the right to provide. Its supply-chain methods are quite innovative and have been praised by businessmen, as we learned in one of our readings. Then, if it is willing, China can provide these goods. It's also providing its citizens with jobs, which they seem eager to accept.

Now here's the problem: does it matter how lousy the working conditions are? isn't a bad job better than no job at all? That's the issue I've grappled with when it comes to this. It does not look good, especially when compared to Americans' greed — as on display in the Black Friday anecdote in one of our readings.

What fraction of blame do we put on Wal-Mart for providing good that were made under such awful conditions? Or do we chalk it up to the American Way and the belief that a strong bottom line and good business trumps morals and ethics?

9/11 Package

Framing the War:

I understand the criticism of journalists in the years after 9/11, when it framed the war as "the war on terror." I see how that can look like it's a mouthpiece for the White House — which coined the term — but I ask: What were the journalists supposed to do regarding this framing? Were the major papers supposed to meet up and decide to call this invasion of Iraq something else? Were they supposed to not call it anything specific in general articles? I think once this term caught steam, there was nothing to do to stop it, and that's evidenced by Katie Couric calling it "the war on terror" in 2006.

By collectively calling something it "the war on terror," it's immediately staking sides to the war, the journalists and the rest of America on one side, and the terrorists and the rest of Iraq on the other. Journalists are supposed to remain objective, sure, but unless we wanted to call it World War 3 — which would surely sensationalize things — I can't see how we expect the collective media to do anything different in this situation.

Ignoring the lessons of 9/11:

Bob Jensen is a good professor an the go-to libel expert here at UT, and by now we all know his contrarian tastes. This article is complicated, and multi-layered, and though Jensen is pointed and direct, it'd be wrong to assume he feels no sympathy for the victims of 9/11, which he mistakenly calls "a crime."

Of course these articles exist. I'd imagine, if the U.S. did nothing after 9/11, there'd be articles lambasting the president for sitting pat and essentially kneeling to the taliban.

Buying the War:

What I think this all boils down to is journalists getting lazy and going off on others' work, instead of better reporting, and the mainstream media being afraid to go against the grain. This is tough stuff, and it's something you can't be wrong about. Why were so many so wrong? It seems they were desperate to get some content pushed out — to take advantage of the demand for new news. This reflects poor journalism, from the top down.

Is anyone responsible?

I think the way news is presented on a nightly basis is just the nature of the beast. For a nightly show, there isn't any other way to cover what happened — whether an hour-long national show or a half-hour regional show — than to use the episodic basis.

Niche shows and other shows with more journalistic chops, like 60 Minutes, which is the long-form magazine feature to the nightly new show's spot news article, are a better medium for the thematic presentation.

Quiet Crisis

The lede anecdote of this story being so out of date — the United States Olympic basketball team has won two consecutive gold medals to go with a FIBA World Championship in 2010 — threw me off, I will admit. However, I do understand the crisis Shirley Jackson spoke of in 2004, and how Americans want to be at the forefront of technological advancements.

I have to ask, though: how many of us have a Sony product? Samsung? It strikes me as funny sometimes we're so obsessed with being the "best" that we overlook how we benefit from the technology of other nations, and vice versa.

Smart power, Chinese style

I thought the author made the United States seem almost childish in the beginning, noting how remarkable it is that there is little tension between the US and China and and still back-handing the Americans, saying this is a product of China, which has overcome Washington's "tendency for incompetence."

What's funny is right before that, the author suggested this may be an "objective study."

Anti-Americanism Down in Europe, but a values gap persists

I found this article to be very informative and easy to read and appreciate the use of heavy statistical comparison to paint a comprehensive picture.

The article suggests Americans and Europeans continue to disagree on a variety of things — identity, religion, military force, homosexuality — but that the gap continues to close.

I wonder if it's remotely important at all for this gap to close. Why is it a big deal? Shouldn't we celebrate the absence of a worldwide group-think? I don't know if I necessarily see one side as being better, with superior ideas. Is the gap closing a product of globalization and increases in technology? We certainly don't seem as far away to the rest of the world as we used to. Or is it something else?

The West and the Rest

I think the author's point of view is interesting, especially toward the end, that it's the West that has to survive to swim. The last few pages, especially, ending with the last graf: "The real danger is that the West will realize too late that — like the defenders of Singapore — it has been preoccupied with old challenges while new ones have been assuming massive proportions."

It strikes me as odd that the West is being accused of looking inward when it should have been looking outward, with an impulse to "shut the doors." The drain of talent from the East to the West is well-known. The "interconnectedness" of the world that the author prophesied near the end has indeed happened, and I think the West has been a major player in that. 

- trey scott

The rest of the west

I wanted to comment on a sentence or two I found interesting in "the rest of the west."

Near the end, the author predicts: "...the West will increasingly absorb good minds from other cultures" and that that will bring about the good in the media and it can become a microcosm of the new world.

Media industries are now being more proactive in trying to bring in journalists of all races and gender. Two years ago, I applied for and did not receive an intership from the Austin American-Statesman. I found it interesting when a family friend of ours, who still works there, disclosed there were certain slots for the internship:

2 males, 2 females. One must be an African-American and one must be an Asian-American. This really isn't too surprising, and I do applaud the efforts to construct a more diverse workplace, which can lead to more diverse and more balanced coverage. But I wonder, is there a difference between making sure somebody or some group gets an opportunity and making sure somebody or some group doesn't?

- Trey Scott