How stupid close-minded Americans are the real Anti-Americans

"Fundamentalism is not unique to religious people, but is instead a certain approach to the world, rooted in mistaking limited knowledge for wisdom"

"Where the capacity for destruction in the hands of the most powerful state in the history of the world is exacerbated by a pathological hyper-patriotism that tends to suppress internal dissent and leave many unable to hear criticism from the outside"

I extremely agree with Jensen's bit on nationalism. American nationalism in its rooted definition is inherently contradictory. Citizens may believe that we all should support and follow this nation abstractly, as Jensen said, "when in reality it is lines on a map, not an occurring object," so that we may all connect and reinforce the strength of our home and all that it provides for us. This is a reasonable notion to positively influence our abstract love for the feet under our ground.

But if you look at the U.S. as an occurring object, you could see its occurring prevalence on what it was founded on and must survive through, which is democracy. And in a true democracy, fundamentalism would cease to exist, so it makes no sense for nationalism to be ever be based on fundamentalist ways of thinking. Democracy is for the people, by the people. Time changes and the people with it. Within a democracy, a nation must coincide with its ever changing and evolving situations. Fundamentalism fundamentally resists change, so to actually be a supporter of what America stands for more than anything, you would truly only be anti-American by being the type of  fundamentalist Jensen mentions.

Globalization of the Local

As I begin reading I wondered what about the other countries will the same available resources, or those that will be inevitable penetrated, for whatever reason, whom will learn through example this flattening practice and introduce their own version? He touches on this positive side throughout the reading, and I agree. The only problem is that is hasn't happened completely, yet and people can't learn how to upload their culture to the world platform in the snap of a finger. They need the resources first, prolonging the expansion of culture in many third world countries who can't afford to participate. My biggest question and concern is how and when all locals will have the chance to be a part of the global platform.

Everything posted on the flattening platform comes from someone who is cultured by what they consider local, or at least did at one time. So I agree with him that instead of global news overcoming a local community, a local community is sharing their news with the globe as well. It works both ways.

Not just about economics, but about culture. Globalization has the potential to spread new ways of communication, and innovation, a sharing of culture, which to me is the most important aspect. But it does have a lot to do with economics too, and I feel there is major potential for a dark side here as well. Internet sites become profitable through advertising. He mentions "that globalization of the local is not only happening culturally, but commercially as well." A world run by advertising, which is already happening in a big way, could lead to a lot of corruption and unfairness.

I think he says it best when he states "For all these reasons, our job is not to trash this platform but to get the best out of it and prevent the worst."To me this hits the nail on the head. He says if you think globalization is all good, you don't know enough about it. To disregard the "ability to power individuals and enrich our cultural cornucopia would miss its potentially positive effects on human freedom and diversity."But to take advantage of the platform reveals the dangers it presents as well.

Globalization, to me, is a like the entire world having the freedom of speech. Just like in America, there are people that uphold this freedom and contribute to positive changes, acknowledge what's happening domestically and internationally, and those that educate. Knowledge is power and everyone should have the opportunity to empower themselves. The more people are being held accountable to their freedom, the more the world can learn about itself and move towards truth.

Project Idea

Why aren't we forced to recycle? Some country have laws, and get charged fees for putting things in the wrong bins. With the whole government on board, everyone would have to coincide. For those of us that continue to be lazy, the government would make money off of. It would obviously be better for the environment, reduce waste, and pick away at the size of landfills. With this new presence of recycling on the business side, we would need more recycling resources to complete the process. This would create jobs, helping the economy as well. What's stopping us? What would it mean for taxes? Is it probable? How do other countries make it work?

Littering. Because of my last proposal, I wonder how littering is controlled in other countries. What are the fines like? What is litter to them? Do those that have to recycle and separate their trash have less litter? But this could just be something explored within the idea above.

The other issue that has sparked my interest is the grocery store that Sylvia spoke about "Ingredients" although I'm not sure what I could make the story about...

What a Waste!

I am so glad this documentary exists. I agree 100% with everything Jeremy said. It is up to everyone to tackle this problem, although I agree institutions like grocery stores could make a huge impact. It's such a stupid, yet vastly affective problem, that could be easily changed with a little effort from everyone (considering we are all guilty). I first became interested in this issue when I was 18 years old and a waitress at Carrabba's. One day I asked the manager why we waste so much food and recyclable materials. Day after day, it was astonishing how much we threw away.

One reason they had for not doing away with all this 'waste' in an alternative way was that you must go through the government and deal with an extra tax to have these materials recycled. There is a similar process for giving away restaurant food. Because they are a private institution with original recipes, they must write off the food they give away as charity, rather than a general donation. (I would need to do further research to specifically explain how that works). Yet, they end up paying for this tax and more through the Waste Management and landfill process anyway, as Jeremy pointed out.  So in reality, as Jeremy also pointed out, this is a direct result of laziness and apathy.

I have a second thought. If so little people are bringing this food to the homeless, why not create an effort to educate the homeless, so that they may bring food to themselves? Jeremy dumpster-dives daily and eats very well. If the homeless or those in poverty with hungry families were aware of just how well off they could be following suit, and these institutions are too lazy to make any effort, why not bring their attention to where unexpired, free food is? Jeremy showed Trader Joe's refusal to move their food anywhere but to the trashcan repetitively. I wonder what would happen if he instead used all his  efforts to move the people who need it to the trashcans...

Soul vs. Fast Food Nation

Soul Food: What he seemed to be saying was that the roots of soul food come in the togetherness of family and a symbol of freedom and success even through the harsh times of slavery. They may not have been able to control much, but they did control the cooking. And that cooking was what all their "masters" grew up on. It was a huge role that is numerously undermined.

Fast Food Nation: To me, fast food has roots more in individualism and skin deep satisfaction, rather than a sense of family and togetherness. Fast food is something you swing through and normally get by yourself, then go eat in front of the TV or at school/work. I can't think of a time when I thought of having a fast food meal as a time with family or something I'd like to think I grew up on. I was very happy with the Fast Food Nation excerpts because the author didn't only bash the industry for all its wrong doing, he revealed just how much it is the consumers fault as well and explained why and how exactly we became like this.

Soul food was the heart and sole of a suppressed people, whereas fast food is, and always has been, a cheap and chemically induced alternative to a real meal. At the same time they both reflect a type of American freedom. With fast food, you don't have to cook for yourself; you don't even have to grocery shop; and it's so cheap, it's practically free. Even poor people in America could survive on fast food financially. With soul food, it was a liberating source of power for black people that they raised this nation on.

On the flip side, one way in which they are extremely similar is that the actual ingredients or each diet are not healthy for anyone...

Capitalism is Survival of the Fittest

I can see the many good points that Mackey makes. But what every business man fails to mention is that capitalism, in its purest form, is impossible. Capitalism is a complex ideology that, like everything, is not perfect, and has both good and bad sides. The root of the problem with capitalism, Mackey states in one of the first paragraphs of his introduction, “the consumers think the prices are too high, the workers think their pay is too low.”  But the prices need to be high to ensure the workers are being paid, and the their pay can't be too high, or the business will have no money to run itself. It seems to me, that for us to live in a perfectly capital world, everyone would need to own his or her own business.

The problem with this perfect capitalist world is that for a business to succeed, it needs workers. One individual cannot hope to run a successful company on his or her own. During the discussion of China Blue, a few of us had stated that when we think of our clothes, and most other goods, being manufactured, the first thought that comes to mind is a machine.

Combining these two ideas, it occurred to me how much potential technology serves to capitalism in general. The more advanced the machines, the less hands a business requires to hire. Years and years from now, maybe a close-to-perfect capitalist world isn’t as far fetched as it sounded. The fewer jobs available to people, the more they would have to create work for themselves, which would force everyone to be innovative and competitive. Everyone would have to have a service to offer, and only the best ones would operate on a large scale. It would be survival of the fittest intellectually, instead of physically like in our caveman time.

At the same time, we would be a stronger knit community because no one could meet their need for every service. For an individual to abandon one’s own practice in attempt to fulfill all their other needs would be the demise of their practice. Mackey says we aren’t forced to be consumers, but I disagree. What else are we going to do? We don’t live in an indigenous world anymore, money is our ticket for the needs we previously scowered the earth for.

In contrast, businesses would go under and get weeded out for their insufficiency compared to those who provide service with the largest demand, and the cycle would begin again. Capitalism is like life in general in the survival of the fittest sense, which is why is appeals to the world we live in today. A world run by money. Although the technology scenario is a dreamer thought, one can see how capitalism serves both good and bad, like human nature itself. At the same time, we can also see there will never be a time that we live in a perfectly capitalist world, which Mackey fails to mention. He believes too much in the good of humanity, when in reality, we all are here for our own self-interest, and when survival is at stake is when you see us in our most primal state. Although, I do agree with him, that it really is our best option. 

Framing Effects of News Coverage: America's Popularity Contest

Framing:


Advertising sells, and no one knows this better than America. By showing people benefits of something, they are more likely to oblige with its message. At the heart of advertising is the tiny kernel of truth that will make people feel happy to support your product or service. Advertising is powerful and influence, which are not bad things, until it is used in place of an actual product or service.

This is the biggest issue with American politics today: the American people allow advertising and pr to buy elections, even war, and politicians for use these means to win. It works. And both are at fault. There are two sports cars next to each other, a blue one and a red one. Sports cars look great in red, you just LOVE red! So you pick that one. But what about the sports car itself? Is it going to run? Is having a sports car going to be the best option for your family's means of transportation? How much does it cost? What's the gas milage? Does it even have an engine underneath the hood? What if you knew you were only picking it because you love red, you believe in it, you grew up being taught that red is the best, and you HATE blue (blue is blasphemy! and you are a devoted Christian)? But the blue is the only one out of the two that actually works you are told. Would you still pick the red?

This is what politics has turned into while under the glamourous spotlights of advertising and pr. The text notes that journalism today (referring to elections) consist of, "the poll standings, delegate count, and size of crowd at public rallies far more frequently than coverage of the idealogical stances of the candidates and policy platforms they advocate." Advertising and pr are setting the stage for framing and journalists are recording it. Politicians have begun to use these tools to facilitate a popularity contest while ideology on the issues and actual proposals are overlooked.

Although, the only issues that are not overlooked (and are the focus of most debate) are controversial ones, like abortion and gay marriage. Instead of spending time talking about how they are going to solve America's issues, which would help everyone, candidates finger point at each other, and target audiences with sensitive issues that that they know patrons feel very strongly on about one side of the argument or the other. Advertising and pr illuminates these stances while turning everything else to its shadow.

That way, it becomes an us vs. them, when it should be America versus its current problems and their plan to attempt to fix those problems (which relates to the argument on page 16). Voters should be picking the best answers to those questions, but hot topics gain the most exposure because most people already know what they think about such topics and can, and will, respond to them. Until the limelight is refocused on intelligence and implementing plans to solve our country's problems and away from being in love with a sports car because it's red, progress will continue to stall. The red lovers will never agree with the blue, because they're blue, and vise versus. Nothing will ever be solved until they find a way to work together in a way that will benefit the both of them, even if that means being willing to give a little up on their own end.

Quiet Crisis

It's interesting to note that one of the ways in which America is attempting to educate young people in the engineering and technological fields is to import people from abroad. Why then, are we educating foreigners when we know, "Many of these jobs are reserved for American citizens, because of national security concerns?" I find this strange to follow up an assertion that will we bring people in from abroad  to be educated as a solution, yet many of these students will not be able to work within our country. It seems to me, that if we need Americans to retain these skills and implement them domestically, we should focus on Americans retaining these skills above all.

We need to help ourselves before we can help others. We're continually inviting foreigners into our schools, educating them, and then having them go back home to use what they've just learned from us. In this process, we deny American students a chance to retain the same information that they could use to help us domestically. We hurt ourselves twice in this sense. I understand the need for diversity and the American ideology of saving the rest of the world, but a soccer player with an broken leg isn't going to be scoring any points. We're already behind in numbers and there is a significant percentage of our number that is inhabitant by people we can't use for the sake of knowledge that we provide.

In this "flat world" the author speaks of, it will not be long until former American university students go back home, accumulate, and then establish institutions providing educations that are on par with the ones they acquired here in the U.S. At this point, they will be more active competitors and starting at an upper hand, while the America will be left in a position where we need to catch up. Eventually, they will be thriving and have little need to send students here, while we will be left with a good portion of our S&E schools empty.

"Smart Power, Chinese Style"

On "Smart Power, Chinese Style"



I enjoy that the author begins with the observation that there is an ancient and epic struggle between existing power and an emerging power. It is hopeful to note this because it is then easier to see that if these powers work together, a peaceful submission into the future for all parties and those whom will be effected is possible to achieve. Unfortunately, I think the American way of thinking is more along the lines of, "They have more power. They are a threat. How can we remain #1 immediately?"

I agree with Mahbubani, although this was not objective as he had proclaimed it would be, on some of his important points. China is going through their recovery process in a globally beneficial way by strengthening ties with the world around them. In result, they are not only improving other countries domestically, but inevitably gaining power for themselves along the way. They are looking with an eye to long term success in the future surrounded by allies which makes them the most notable growing power today. America, on the other hand, has become distracted by its power.

He states that, "each time a new problem surfaces, China looks for the advantage in it, assuming that it must adapt to the world, not shape the world as it wishes." When we need something, we ignore everyone else and use force to obtain it instead of figuring out an intelligent solution that will not only get us what we want, but improve conditions around the world as well by strengthening our ties internationally. In other words, while we are only looking to help ourselves at any short term costs, China is carefully seeing what players it needs for long term effects. 

In addition, China began beating us out by "helping" us in 2003. They helped us join a war that wasn't good for international relations. This decision was a win-win for China. While allowing America to dig its own grave, China has been off continuing to make beneficial ties with other global economies. As a side note: How blind was America to this? Or did we just want to go to war so bad, we looked the other way at this realization? It's not to say that China is there yet, but not only their progress is worth paying attention to; the way in which they are progressing, to me, is almost more important.

When one continues to act solely in their own, immediate favor, they end up in position where even their own favor is not favorable. Why? Because you begin in a position that is equal to its end. If you start off taking what you want and giving nothing in return, you're going to end up alone and with enemies. Instead, China is being an active geopolitical acumen creating deals for the good of the publics they mean to associate with. So they are gaining allies as well as revenue. Sound familiar? The irony here is that America is known for these actions. But in the past few decades, we have grown from this practice by ignoring others' needs to focus on our own problems. Yet where's the progress? One step at a time, they are providing the exact example we historically exemplified, while, one step at a time, we are burning bridges along our path to recovery when we should be building them. In this way, China's progress is a reflection of not only where we were, but where we need to be.