Let's get together, yeah yeah yeah, two is twice as nice as one...

Let's face it: many of us have, at some point, thought of an idea with which we thought we could "save the world"...and then had reality set in shortly afterward. We can't "save the world" all by ourselves--it's a classic 'but I'm just one person...what can I do?' issue. We need an army to mobilize, a vast number of humans that think much like us that we can unite under the banner of the greater good.

Let's assume that our world-saving idea is a sound one. (It must be. We came up with it!) What legitimizes me? Who or what deems me fit to be a world saving leader? Certainly not experience, because I've never saved the world before. And attracting a vast army of people to lend strength to my argument can rarely be served by charisma alone; people come in all shapes, sizes and mindsets. What one usually must do, then, is water down one’s resolution to attract a broader swath of people to the cause, a cause that most people can get behind, forcing the dissenters to agree to it by majority rule. Behold: the dumbing-down effect. Michael Crichton had a gift for dumbing down the nitty gritty details on complicated subjects like climate control, DNA experimentation, time travel, etc. etc. that allowed him to present scientific data in a palatable form for a public that may not have otherwise given a damn about any of these scientific subjects. The followers to our cause legitimize us. They bestow us with the authority over them until such a time as they think we are no longer worthy. And people are hard, hard, HARD to unite behind a common cause unless one is considered a legitimate leader.

One of the reasons many of us come to college in the first place is for a diploma. A piece of paper that deems us fit to serve in a certain capacity without the requisite experience that would normally precede it--even if the job we desire uses none of the lessons we remember from our classes. Consider it instant legitimacy. When one is given the title 'scientist', one is granted authority over many scientific subjects by the public at large without them having to meet the person and decide for themselves whether or not to believe them. It is no surprise, then, that the public entrusts 'scientists' to fix the issue of global warming (and to convince us that global warming is occurring in the first place!) With this in mind, I'd like to contribute the following link:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/the-copenhagen-accord.html

In it, you can observe the persuasive arguments of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a coalition of scientists who are attempting to save the world through the ever-popular subject of climate control. In it, they present facts that support the notion that the globe is warming overall, and that we may be able to do something about it, provided we make a worldwide effort now. The problem is, worldwide efforts are hampered because the world is made up of nations that each have their own power structure. Even a body like the UN does not rule all these nations!

Though UCSUSA has many different portions of their website, I chose the section that discusses the Copenhagen Accord because it shows just how difficult it is to get nations to agree to substantial reductions in emissions outputs (much like the Kyoto Protocol). Like the Kyoto Protocol before it, though, the thing lacks teeth--it isn't enforceable, because there is no legitimate world leader that all nations bestow with the authority to enforce and regulate this Accord. Like the many emissions-capping efforts before it, it will likely fall by the wayside for this same reason.

What is global warming

Article/Argument

Secondly, through the copious use of station weather data, a number of single station records with long term cooling trends are shown. In particular, the characters visit Punta Arenas (at the tip of South America), where (very pleasingly to my host institution) they have the GISTEMP station record posted on the wall which shows a long-term cooling trend (although slight warming since the 1970’s). “There’s your global warming” one of the good guys declares. I have to disagree. Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature. It does not imply that the whole globe is warming uniformly (which of course it isn’t). (But that doesn’t stop one character later on (p381) declaring that “..it’s effect is presumably the same everywhere in the world. That’s why it’s called global warming”). Had the characters visited the nearby station of Santa Barbara Cruz Aeropuerto, the poster on the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have been proof of global warming? No. Only by amalgamating all of the records we have (after correcting for known problems, such as discussed below) can we have an idea what the regional, hemispheric or global means are doing. That is what is meant by global warming.

To argue either side of global warming i think it is a good idea to decide what global warming is. If it is only happening in some spots around the globe is it still considered global warning? Or does it have to be uniform around basically the entire world. If you choose to argue one way vs the other your facts and arguments are going to be totally different. There even seems to be a little bit of confusion to this in State Of Fear. I feel that no matter what the argument is people are going to look at it different ways and its going to be interpreted much different. Thats pretty much why this issue hasn't been solved. One scientist will look at data and interpret it one way, another will take the same data and interpret it opposite. Crichton does a good job of this. He takes data that has been used to prove global warming and he uses it to disprove global warming.

polar bear

he loves swimming.

Blog Posting #8 (Due Sunday 4/11, 11:59 P.M.): Michael Crichton ('global warming') on the Web--the public rhetoric and 'semantic contagion' of science

On the table in this part of our work is how 'minds' get formed and changed. How ideas get legs. How beliefs can go viral. How common sense becomes so common. Robin will argue ('Beyond...reason') that it's seldom a matter of facts alone.

In a sense, State of Fear is a massive 'intervention'--one that made Dr. Crichton a good deal of money, but more importantly: got him invited to the White House and to testify to Congress, and which probably changed more minds than any more familiarly scientific discovery could. Bruno Latour details how much work Pasteur had to go through to get us to 'believe in germs (ferments).' South Park has made us all knowing cynics.

Visit one of the global-warming websites we posted (or another you found, if you wish). Find a complex rich 'argument' about global warming--for, against, whatever. Show us how it works to construct a view of science, atmospheric science, authority, scientists, politicians, the world, the polis, industry, progress, fear, human agency--whatever. You pick the site, the argument (remember that arguments are typically more than words; when the idea comes out of Cartman's mouth, it's a different argument from if it came from Al Gore), the issue. Work it for us. Show us how the world of ideas gets formed.

Mister Orwell

"Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss." This is an Orwell quote found at the beginning of Crichton's book.
I like this one much more, it seems to fit better: "Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Found at the beginning of the video regarding the Wikileaks scandal -- the Wikileaks organization is trying to reverse the widely accepted belief that if you attain just enough power, you can turn any fiction into a fact, no matter how many people secretly know you're wrong.

I was pretty interested when I purchased this novel from the bookstore. The whole artistry of the cover and the reviews caught my attention. One of the most intriguing reviews that I observed on the back of the book was "In Paris, a young physicist performs an oceangraphic experiment--then dies mysteriously after a ronatic tryst with a beautiful stranger." I thought this was mysteriously intriguing because it seemingly related death and beauty, which both are notably important within our culture. I also thought it was interesting Crichton proceeded to incorporate graphs on pg 107 within the book for us visual learners. It added a little more credibility, I think.

On page 106: "It's taken from the NASA--Goddard data set by the UN and other organizations. Do you consider the UN a trustworthy source?"

"Yes."

"So we can regard this graph as accurate. Unbiased? No monkey business?"

"Yes."

Here, it seems that Evan is just accepting this graph due to discourse. NASA is held in high esteem and people seem to accept everything as fact. We don't have to question their findings beyond a reasonable doubt because NASA is all-knowing. Nobody can argue with statistics. I think Crichton is attempting to make this point during this conversation. We accept science as fact which in turn affects our societal expectations and perceptions. I think that a lot of these paradigms permeate the surface of each page of text.

The tone of the novel seems desperate, as though we must make a change. He is attempting to instill fear as a method of progression. It seems that it would take a huge catastrophe or at least a serious threat in order for society to make a progressive change. We carelessly carry out everyday tasks according to status quo or social class. We strive to reach superiority at any cost without acknowledging the consequences that may follow. Maybe he's attempting a discrete intervention, attempting to reach people and inspire change.

The Propaganda of Fear

It takes an impending catastrophe, so the idea goes, to inspire a change in the status quo. Though we have collectively discussed things such as alternative fuels, reduction of consumption, even drilling in the Alaskan Wilderness Reserve to harvest our own oil, we never really took such ideas seriously until our prices of gasoline skyrocketed past $3.00-$4.00 per gallon. Some of these ideas showed promise: GM began working on the VOLT concept, a commuter-friendly electric car...people gave up driving their massive Hummers...carpools became much more prevalent. Ever since the prices became more affordable, though, it seems we are back to resting on our laurels. Hummers are back on the road with a vengeance. The VOLT has been delayed. Carpooling rarely happens any more, and again it rarely occurs to us to seriously think about re-adopting our conservation mindset.

George Morton, during his drunken speech on pages 128-129, outlines the massive achievements by the environmental movement over the previous few decades: "We have witnessed the creation of the EPA. We have seen the air and water made cleaner, sewage treatment improved, toxic dumps cleaned up, and we have regulated common poisons like lead for the safety of all. These are real victories my friends. We take justifiable pride in them. And we know more needs to be done" In nearly every one of these cases he stated, it was because of a disaster or series of newsworthy events presenting the matter in a catastrophic light that these things were changed. Without bestowing the subjects with a sense of urgency, it is unlikely such changes would ever have come about.

Ironically enough, Mr. Morton also succinctly presented a quote from Michel de Montaigne, who was thought to be highly influential on thinkers such as Descartes: "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which is least known". To control the knowledge of the truth through manipulation of facts and the use of propaganda is to wield true power to change the world.

It is easy for me to understand, then, and even be a little empathetic, with the drastic measures taken (both in real life and in the book) to make the picture on climate change as bleak as possible. Sure, it's manipulative. It may not be entirely candid about all the facts, but the facts chosen to be presented are not patently false, either. The thing is, the world may not be coming to an end; as Mr. Crichton shows, the world is an endlessly complex interplay of a vast number of factors that don't all come together in support of global warming. Page 95 sums this complexity up nicely--we can't simply measure sea levels with a stick and a marker. What about the geoid? "Glacio-hydro-isostatic modeling? Eustatic and tectonic effects on shoreline dynamics? Holocene sedimentary sequences? Intertidal foraminifera distributions?..." etc. etc. ad nauseum. (I don't think half these terms really apply for climate change measurements, but we'll indulge him.)

Truth be told, I want people to think we are on the brink. It creates a mindset that we have to change right now. Yes, many are simply on the 'Green' bandwagon nowadays because it has become fashionable, not out of a noble sense of conservation. I'm okay with that, however, because a selfless motivation is not necessary be a part of the revolution. If we can bring conservation into vogue, and people simply follow the example for personal prestige, so much the better for those of us who truly believe in taking care of our finite resources.

The Crichton Code.

The first thing I read when I started this novel was the disclaimer:

“This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions, and the organizations in this novel are the product of the author’s imagination, or if real, are used fictionally without any intent to describe their actual conduct.”

I was excited to read farther because one of my favorite guilty pleasures is to read my extensive collection of novels by another controversial author, Dan Brown. His books contain a similar warning. After digging into the plot of “State of Fear” I saw many similarities in the writing styles of Michael Crichton and Dan Brown. Both authors create an unlikely protagonist; in Crichton’s case a junior associate at a law firm named Evans. This main character is relatable to the reader because like the reader he is surprised at what he learns from the NERF and the ELF about global warming and eco-terrorists. Evans may accept new ideas and concepts, but like the reader sometimes questions the validity of what he is learning. A simple example of this is a conversation Evans has with Jennifer over lunch early on in the book (p.123). Evans expresses to Jennifer that he agrees with Balder that the sea-level data will be key in the lawsuit. She disagrees,

“Nobody’s seen all the data. But even if it’s high quality, it needs to show a substantial sea-level rise to impress a jury. It may not.” [Jennifer]

“How could it not?” Evans said. “With glaciers melting, and breaking off Antarctica-“

Evan’s knowledge of melting glaciers in Antarctica is part of the discourse of global warming. It is likely that the reader would have said the same thing in response to Jennifer.

“Even so, it may not,” she said. “You know that Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean? They were concerned about flooding…the scientists found no rise in several centuries-and a fall in the last twenty years.” [Jennifer]

“A fall? Was that published?” [Evans]

Although Jennifer offers a convincing explanation Evans still questions her facts. However, the conversation ends and Evans accepts her explanation when she simply confirms that is was published last year. In this example we see a way in which Crichton is able to contradict common knowledge about global warming by presenting facts and by choosing to have the main character not question the facts too far.

Agreeing with many of the other posts, Michael Crichton has quite the enticing language ethics when sharing with readers his story, perhaps in his words, "theory" of global warming. Putting many twists and turns in a long the way. Another interesting tactic he brings into his book is the conniving relationship between scientists and other business personel such as lawyers. I believe his main purpose is to make us realize the importance of questioning, the known from the unknown, or possibly the side that can out buy the weaker, less side; though at times in a rather far fetched manner.

A selection from the book that points this out is on page 102 when Evans and Balder are in a meeting where Balder is questioning Evans on his knowledge of global warming. "No, it is a theory" Balder said. Crichton is opening the idea that we should be questioning everything, trying to make the reader feel uneasy about the facts we know, and what could be missleading about them. Knowledge is ever changing, growing and developing; how can we be for certain with these new ideas that fact is not theory, or vice versa, theory is fact?

With all of the questioning Crichton has me thinking about, along with the characters, will bring for an interesting end to the book. Where will his winding road of questioning science in society take us?

this book makes me a sad panda.

I'm not gonna lie: this book makes me really mad, and I'm upset that so many deniers of global warming probably got started by reading this bestseller. I haven't gotten very far yet, but I knew the graphs starting on p. 107 were coming the moment I learned what this book was about. "There must have been another factor." -- uh, has Crichton never heard of aerosols? Or is he just hoping his audience is too young or too old to remember that whole debacle?

The tone of this book as a dramatic page-thriller starts on page 5. I'm not kidding: who's going to put down a book after they learn on the FIRST PAGE about some sexy half-Vietnamese model that is definitely going to be getting it on with the introductory character? The book BEGINS as a romance novel! I rolled my eyes when I realized what Crichton was doing, but... sex sells, and it's a very effective hook into a book that claims to be sort of about global warming. Sex? Danger? Global catastrophe? Science sure is interesting to the layman all of a sudden!

In response to Alex's post: I'm not jealous of Crichton's gift of prose, I'm pissed at him because he's using it to convince the public that global warming is a sham! In his message on p. 715 he starts out innocently enough with "Atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause" but quickly discredits all burgeoning science everywhere with the bombshell "An informed guess is just a guess." This is tantamount to claiming the theory of evolution is just a theory and nothing more. It's a stupid thing to say, no matter how you feel about science (whether its effects are good, bad, or both) -- both because whoever says it broadcasts their confusion of the terms "random guess" and "hypothesis," and because nothing anyone does is completely insulated from the rest of the world unless you live in a cave deep underground.

He could just be trying to make a quick buck by writing a book about a controversial topic and expecting (correctly) that the controversy over the book itself will ensure massive sales... but his motive has to be more sinister than pure greed. "Everybody has an agenda. Except me." Bullshit! Actually I think he describes his work rather eloquently himself: "There is no difference in outcomes between greed and incompetence." Not that he's an incompetent writer, but he's no analyst of the merit of science -- as we've learned so far in class, no science is completely free of bias, but Crichton's oozes out from between his carefully chosen passages.

On P. 535 Crichton makes a telling comparison between opposing the death penalty, and opposing global warming as a threat. We're supposed to think at this point that it is equally right and noble to oppose both of these odious things, but I don't think this really works out the way he meant it to. He equates criminals against other humans, to criminals against the environment, which works; but then he equates opposing the death penalty (a human sentencing of a criminal against humanity) to opposing the threat of global warming (presumably the planet's response to human climate interference). We can stop directly someone who's trying to impose the death penalty; we can't stop directly the fear of impending planet-wide repercussions that are resultant of human activity. Humans enjoy freaking out, especially if what they perceive as impending doom has no ready-made band-aid solution prepared for liberal application. It's only indirectly through acting in some way to stop what we perceive as impending doom that a vague threat can be really opposed.

This is what the whole "go green" movement seems to be about -- making people feel less agitated about their consumerism destroying the world, by pretending their action has some meaningful impact. You can now buy cheap recycled plastic sacks at the grocer's for a couple bucks that you can reuse in lieu of having the bagboy pack your groceries in paper or plastic. Seems like a sensible plan, but most people'll probably use it once, bring home, and promptly forget about it until the next time they are in the checkout line... at which time they'll feel uncomfortable about their waste and buy another sack! Genius.

Crichton comes at us again with his claim that climate science is just one big black-box on p. 236 when Kenner says "... if you don't understand something, you can't approximate it. You're really just guessing." The question input to the left of the box is "What is the climate going to be like tomorrow?" The question goes through the box full of wind patterns, warming and cooling air, fluid dynamics (none of which anyone apparently knows anything about) ... and to the right of the blackbox is output a model of climate. Yes, if you have no understanding whatsoever of a phenomenon, you can't do any better than making a guess about it -- but if you know ANYthing about it greater than nothing, your hypothesis is by definition more informed than a blind guess.

The first point made in the authors note is that "we know astonishingly little about every aspect of the environment, from its past history, to its present state, to how to conserve and protect. In every debate, all sides over-state the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty," p715. This point seemed to carry over in much of the other points made, or that the things we do know may not support the conclusions we are drawing about our environment. As I read this novel, I can't help but feel an undertone that we can't really solve this problem.

As I was reading through some of the previous postings, I read several from my working group and I have to jump on to what they are saying. The green revolution is advertising all of these things that we can do to save the environment but what will they really do? Can we reverse the damage done or slow it by simply using reusable bags? Or eating organically? What we know is the damage we've done, what we don't know is how to fix that. I feel like the environmentalists are trying to come up with answers based on their "over-statement of existing knowledge" in order to make US feel better.

I have done extensive research on the green revolution for our background report and I found a lot of information that states the most rewarding benefit of jumping on the "going green" bandwagon is it will make you feel good and I really think that's all there is to it. We feel good because we think we are doing good.

The Socratic Method

Aside from the prose, I liked this book. Michael Crichton was a scientist writing a novel, a situation that could go well or not so well. I think it worked in this book because it causes a big reaction from readers (including me). This book pretty much contradicts most of the things that are common views held about global warming
One of the features of State of Fear that stood out to me was his extensive (almost relentless) use of the Socratic Method. He had a lot of technical information that he really needed to get through to his audience, so he brought in a Socrates - or, as we know him, Kenner. Kenner coolly argues with those supporting the idea of global warming, asking them guided questions and making them contradict themselves. In the process he gets to tell them what the actual facts are, a reality he cites with endless sources (which Crichton himself does often.) Crichton also uses the monologue as a way to present his information, practiced by an emotional character or by Professor Norman Hoffman.
On page 501, in such a monologue, Hoffman introduces the concrete idea behind "state of fear". He says,

"But the military-industrial complex is no longer the primary driver of society. In reality, for the last fifteen years we have been under the control of an entirely new complex, far more powerful and far more pervasive. I call it the politico-legal-media complex. The PLM. And it is dedicated to promoting fear in the population - under the guise of promoting safety."

And, in his Author's note on page 627, he reflects the same concept:

"The current near-hysterical preoccupation with safety is at best a waste of resources and a crimp on the human spirit, and at worst an invitation to totalitarianism. Public education is desperately needed."

He is addressing a hybrid problem whose generator is a hybrid complex. Now I don't know to what extent Michael Crichton believed the details of all the conspiracies in this book, but it is obvious that there is an underlying theme: disinformation. This passage, combined with many, many others throughout the book, shows us not to trust just anything we hear. Always ask the speaker to site their sources. Even then, check the credentials of the source; if they're a researcher, check the sources of their funding. Obviously not everyone has time (or a burning desire) to do these things. We hear, read, and see so much information every day that most of us really don't do much second-glancing.

This, though, is Crichton's point. He is aware of the "information era" and addresses it and its problems in many ways. Most obviously, he speaks through his characters. Using a novel to embody his opinion has the advantage of characters (vs a science journal article). Not only does he put the information out there, but uses characters to control how we relate to that information. At first it is Evans, who we've already established a relationship with. We like him, and he also happens to ultimately accept the data Kenner presents to him. Later on, it is Ann Garner and Ted Bradley who Kenner rips apart. But they don't/won't accept his basic points. We also happen to not like Anna and Ted very much.

Another thing he does is use footnotes to reference scholarly articles - in a novel! This makes sense, though. He is emphasizing his point about information and disinformation and how much of that there is in the world. He is encouraging us to check credentials. He is also trying to validate his argument, which has some ideas which are radically different from those of the common concerned citizen.

No student fees Protest

Hey Ben Fink. Saw you at the Protest on Wednesday.

....pretty bad ass.

Agenda?

The last bullet point in the author's message is this : "Everyone has an agenda. Except me." I read only the author's message before I began State of Fear, and even 200 pages into the book, I can't get it out of my head. I frankly don't know what Crichton means by that, and it may be irrelevant to the book as a whole, but it has made me focus on the subject of manipulation - by the characters to each other, to scientific data, and by Crichton.

Although the actual writing of the book is rather painful (and admittedly fun to laugh at), its simplicity serves a very direct purpose. By using such formulaic and clicheed writing, Crichton is allowing the focus to be the scientific data. I myself and am confused at this point about what to believe. This book has made me really question my own knowledge about global warming, and how much of it is repeated notions and vague ideas, or actual fact. The scene with Evans getting interviewed by the Vantu team made me incredibly uncomfortable; although I do believe in global warming, and can see Crichton's purpose with this scene, I still began to doubt all the global warming information I'd heard.

But the characters who are fighting to spread (seemingly false) information about global warming are also manipulated to make readers think about data sources. Crichton reverses a kind of paradigm by characterizing the environmentalists with glamour. Instead of hippies and peace loving people, they are sexy, corporate, and armed with advanced tech savvy. The extreme focus on sex (like describing Marisa wearing a "tight skirt and spike heels" and Sarah Jones' long legs and blond hair) and questionable business ethics (Nick Drake [who could not be more wrongly named!]) employs a tactic of making the enemies this book as unlikeable because they are enviable and mean. Crichton creates characters who are hybrids of cultural and scientific 'wrongs', and least according to him.

I'm interested to see how this book will unravel. At my current point I can see the complexity of the book and the interpretation of the scientific data. But so far, it is clear to me that there is an agenda in this book on the behalf of the author, which is carefully crafted to create confusion. With so much manipulation on all parts, the issue of global warming becomes a question of reliable data and how culture proliferates its acceptance.

Michael Crichton is the man--this got nominated for the Pulitzer, right?

Wow Micheal Crichton. Wow. Eco-terrorists? Really? This guy wins my heart every time because he can take any typical science topic and, without any hesitation whatsoever, turn it into the most apocalyptic thriller yet. He doesn’t care, he’ll do whatever it takes. Not interesting enough? Throw in a made up island. Not suspenseful enough? Add some cannibal tribes to the made up island. Need a sweet death? Octopus Venom. Oh wait, this is about global warming—that’s okay, keep the octopus, it’s cool.

The reason why Mr. Crichton can do whatever he wants is completely justified: in the back of the book he says that we can’t predict the future and even trying to is euphemistic. A guess is a guess. Therefore whenever we’re predicting the future, according to Crichton, the world may just end ripped up under lighting storms and tornados, crawling with dinosaurs, or taken over by cowboy-themed amusement park robots. It’s all fair game according to Crichton. People can hate him all they want but really, I think everyone’s just a wee bit jealous of Michael’s mediocre success as a cheese-tastic best-selling author. Sorry guys!

There’s an interesting exchange between Balder and Evans where each try and legitimize global warming. At one point Balder says, “When you have a strongly held belief, don’t you think it’s important to express that belief accurately?” pg. 89. Evans says not really because when it comes to global warming everyone knows what you’re talking about. It’s like when someone is stuck in a paradigm and they can’t see another view—Balder is trying to get Evans to accurately express why his belief in global warming is accurate/true (maybe trying to get Evans to break out of his paradigm), but Evans is perfectly content living in this world of “I don’t have to, people know what I mean.” I definitely felt that whole goldfish in a bowl feeling.

This maybe a little more depth than Michael was going for but it’s pretty accurate. I mean, we’ve all fallen in those traps. I forget what’s real science and what’s the accepted belief. If you’ve ever watched a Michael Moore movie and believed every word only to later realize that it’s Michael Moore, then you know what I’m talking about. So far, I feel like the Evans character is definitely a representation of the common somewhat-informed person (the reader) that believes nearly everything they hear on global warming with little or no evidence. When you think about it, that’s really who Crichton is writing to. Not to scientists, or politicians, or environmentalists. He’s writing to the people who don’t know anything about real science but love sci-fi. He knows his audience. This man is great. And that’s why the Pulitzer Prize should go out to Michael Crichton: for distorting years of research, ignoring some facts and still getting nearly all of America to not only become skeptical towards global warming (to a level of suspicious conspiracy!), but to also fall in love with him. What a guy.

Scare Tactics

I come to this book--and my own background report--with my own perspectives and opinions on global warming and the tactics used by the mainstream media to encourage (or force?) the green revolution and a fear of global warming, but I come also with an open mind. I used to be right on back of the green revolution bandwagon when concerns first started to get really amped up, however my own extensive watch on the media and its manipulative ways has brought me to a more indifferent stance on whether global warming is truly a cause for concern. It's one of those damned if you do, damned if you don't situations, where our beliefs and ideas are strung literally on a line of uncertainties. The fact is, is that nobody can honestly claim that it is a bona fide fact that the climate will catastrophically change, nor can anyone deny that environmental changes have occurred, and that we've seen some particularly strange events as far as weather goes in the past decade. This leaves me, and surely a lot of the people in this class (and outside of this class), dangling between the two extremes. Do we do something, or do we not?

For the basis of this post, I appreciate Crichton's staunch opinions about the environmentalists who use fear in order to promote their own agendas. It reminds me a lot of other organizations, such as PETA, which I won't get into right here and now, but it is sufficed to say that there are some extremists in this group who use similarly terroristic threats upon those who don't necessarily agree with their ideas, specifically the Animal Liberation Front, who seem to care more about chickens than the people whose lives they're hurting in the process of chicken liberation.

That said, I feel like I would like to counterbalance the blatant anti-extremist environmentalist attitude in this book with something else, like Al Gore's lovely little number, An Inconvenient Truth. I feel like it's always important to keep a wide open mind when reading books like this, especially when they have the advantage of using a story rather than just facts to propagate an idea of belief.

Now, one thing that caught my eye, which I wrote down but forgot to grab the page number to, was this quote, where Dr. Kenner says, "If anything, global warming theory predicts less extreme weather." It might seem silly to gripe about this one little thing, butwhat Kenner says is not necessarily true. As I discussed with my group, and as I heard on NPR, global warming causes (obviously) warmer weather, leading to higher evaporation rates from bodies of water, causing more moisture in the atmosphere to create precipitation, probably a lot more precipitation than what we've seen. I'm no scientist, but the thing is, is that you have to get the facts straight. That's why I still only see this as a story with some scientific backing, rather than full scientific support. Crichton wishes to rally against the extremist point of view by using similarly false ideas, which to me is similar to what the extremists are doing, only on a less destructive level.

Global Warming in the American Pop Culture

I find it interesting to look at how much global warming has been incorporated into pop culture. The whole “green revolution” is really taking off. If you think about it, most of the “green” products are not any different than our everyday “non green” products. The “green” vintage t-shirts at Target are not any different than any of the other t-shirts made for Target. I also saw water being sold at Caribou Coffee that was advertising that is was environmentally friendly but it is just like another plastic water bottle that is going to end up in the land fill after the water has been drank.

I started reading the main text of the novel before reading these quotes at the beginning of the book and I thought that this book resembled the Da Vinci code a lot. They take very popular topics and real facts and turn them into a thrilling novel. It is hard to tell what true and what is fiction. The Wall Street Journal writes “The Da Vinci Code with real facts, violent storms, and a different kind of faith altogether…Every bit as informative as it is entertaining. And it is very entertaining.”

On page 114 of State of Fear, Jennifer Haynes from the Vanutu Team states that “Newspapers and television are susceptible to carefully orchestrated media campaigns. Law-suits are not” when talking about getting reliable information. It is so true. Because the global warming campaign has been so embedded in our popular culture, it is hard to know what to believe. Even when it comes to interpreting statistics and graphs, it is hard to know what to believe. Any statistic can be twisted to fit just about any stance.

There is very much a hybrid of information here with the global warming campaign. Two of the main categories of global warming, to me, are the scientific aspect and the popular culture aspect. Scientists need the mainstream media in order to get their research out to the general, unscientific public. In order to do this, much of their research is presented in general terms in a “lets fight back” tone. The “dumbed-down” media is trying to gain support which results in more research funding. It is a circle of events. Research is done, “green” campaigns emerge, support is gained, gifts are made, and more research is done… one big cycle of scientific research and popular culture intertwined.

Statistic un-nalysis

My favorite part of this book that I have read thus far has been the author's message on page 625. throughout the part that I have read, there is a very bleak picture of the environment's future that is decided with profit motives hands on the wheel. The author's message made him far less "Chicken Little-esque". He said that he has been vigorously learning about the scientific reaserch and studies of all different aspects of the environment for the last three years, and that he suspects "the people of 2100 to be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think that we have to worry about them." I consider myself well informed, but to be utterly confused by all the different aspects of global warming. This book has shown me how much business there is behind science.

Another side of this book that I have really liked is the power of "right", being used by the environmentalists. On page 54 Drake says "Scientists can't adopt that lofty attitude anymore. They can't say, 'I do the research, and I don't care how it is used.' That's out of date. It is irresponsible... Because, like it or not, we're in the middle of a war- a global war of information versus disinformation." This shows that there is disinformation coming from both sides to get people to adopt their view. And misinforming the public for their own good is a very steward like behavior, that can be rationalized by the calvary of righteousness. Their quest to make the world a better place with the suggestions hap hazard facts and figures off of a limited data set does not allow scientists, in the book or the real world, to accurate judge global warming or even take it beyond the title of a theory. That makes me wonder how you can fight a problem that even scientists (I understand that it is the dominant idea and I believe in it also) fiercely debate the existence of. So is it a black box, because we see changes in the environment, but we debate even the existence of the "box" from which they come.

As for the book as a piece of writing, I like it. I prefer learning when it comes in story form so this works out great for me. I think that it is very easy to see where things are going when they are supposed to be mysterious, and he uses really obvious metaphors, but it is fun to read.

Blog posting #7 (due Sunday 4/4, 11:59 P.M.): Who's afraid of STATE OF FEAR?

Michael Crichton's State of Fear is, in my opinion, the hardest book we're reading in this class. Nevermind that it's written at about a fourth-grade reading level and the plot and characters are cliché as hell. Crichton has produced an extremely tight, often inscrutably knotted hybrid of research, rhetoric, ideology, history, publics, blackboxes, seeing devices...and a whole lot more. Our task, over the next three weeks, is to untangle it and figure out how it works. Here, we make the first step.

Your assignment: react to the book -- or what you've read of it thus far.

(Try to get about 300-400 pages into it before responding, to get a decent grasp of the whole. It shouldn't take too long.)

Your reaction may take many forms, and go in many different directions, but it should include each of the following:

-- at least one passage from the front or back matter,
-- at least one passage from the text of the novel itself (see the work schedule for the passages we found most noteworthy),
-- at least one term/concept from science studies (hybrids, paradigms, seeing devices, issue selection, circulating reference, black boxes, etc.), and
-- at least one term/concept from literary studies (like, high school stuff: characters, tone, narrative/narrator, language, etc.).

Don't-bore-your-friends (or your instructors) directive: when you post, do look at what's been posted already and try to add to the discussion, bringing in new passages and concepts and ideas, rather than rehashing points that've already been made. There's no shortage of material here -- be bold!

Intervention Piece

ATTENTION CONSUMER:

These images may affect you without your knowledge; side effects may occur

“Extensive research has demonstrated the negative results of female objectification in the media. Depression, appearance anxiety, body shame, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders are only a few among the growing list of repercussions (Fredrickson & Noll, 1997). In addition to the objectification of women, the media commits another assault on the dignity of women. This assault is the dismemberment of women, and it has not received the attention it deserves…Dismemberment advertisements highlight one part of a woman’s body while ignoring all the other parts of her body. Dismemberment ads portray women with missing appendages or substitute appendages. Of course the ads are only symbolic of dismemberment, but the symbolic imagery creates nearly the same effect…self-objectification contributes to disordered eating directly.”

-The Objectification and Dismemberment of Women in the Media

Kacey D. Greening, Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences

DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Write to American Apparel and tell them that what they’re doing is NOT ok with you!

Go to: http://www.americanapparel.net/feedback/

Or, for snail mail options, write to:

United States

American Apparel Inc.

747 Warehouse St.

Los Angeles, CA 90021

United States

what are the drugs *really* doing?

"What [pharmaceutical companies] need to sell is social phobia. If an article, a journal supplement, a conference session -- or even better, a best-selling book -- gets the word out about social phobia, then social phobia is going to be much more widely diagnosed, and the drug that treats it is going to be more widely prescribed."
-- Elliott, Better Than Well p. 125

Popular social phobias: now brought to you by completely fabricated studies!
Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

A Change for the Worse

For the past few years I have made a conscious effort to eat as healthily as possible (although I am a firm believer that a little chocolate everyday can't hurt). I have made the continued effort to spend extra money on food and stock up on fruits and veggies and avoid what is quick and easy (or microwavable). My diet has always consisted of a reasonable amount of all categories on the food pyramid and I make an effort to add those things that I probably don't get enough of. I always go out of my way to make a lunch at home rather than buy something while I'm out. Not only is this a much cheaper option, but is always healthier.

Lately, my habits have changed. My schedule doesn't allow me the time to go to the grocery store often enough or cook the food soon enough before it goes bad. This is typically because I simply don't have time to cook for myself and if I do, I am too tired at that point.

I can't pinpoint a specific meal because this has become a reoccurring event, but lately, my meal is cooked in the microwave or bought on-the-go. There are multiple reasons that this is an unfortunate change but I think the first on my list is the the quality of food in my diet is significantly lower. It is becoming apparent that there are more mysteries to our pre-packaged/prepared/on-the-go food than I'd probably like to know.

Three cheers for processed food!

My wife and I believe it is important to be better stewards of the resources given to us on this Earth. We have a finite amount, and regardless of whether or not we have reached a peak, conservation is ALWAYS important. Nearly every major lifestyle choice has had one thing or another to do with this conservational mindset: our living location, means of transportation, stores we frequent, etc.

One of the best things about where I live is that it is directly behind a Cub Foods grocery store, so when the need arises, we can simply make a short walk and pick up our groceries, buy in smaller quantities to prevent waste (we don't need any "family size" packs), and, where possible, go organic. When the local farmers' markets come to town during the non-winter months, we make every effort to attend them. The produce is fresher and it really does make our food taste better! We spend extra money to obtain the highest quality organic, cage-free, local, humanely raised, etc. etc. etc. products for our stomachs.

Unfortunately, using only the aforementioned buzzwords in one's shopping habits is not really the best way to make one's purchases. For example, last month I decided that I needed to increase my consumption of fresh fruits and veggies because I have a bad habit of dining out FAR too frequently (for proof, you need only take a look at my food journal blog post). With this goal in mind, I snatched up all the organic berries, citrus fruits, chiles, and veggies as I thought I could use for a few days. Here's the catch: last month was February...not exactly peak growing season. Every item I ate from this batch was a dry, leathery, tasteless piece of junk. I try to support our local farmers, but it led me to wonder: when our local farms are covered in snow and ice, where exactly is this organic, local stuff coming from anyway? And is this flavorless way the future for me in the ostensible interests of my future health?

Indeed, food processing technology is not itself inherently evil. Several food studies have shown that frozen and even canned green vegetables are quite close to fresh vegetables in terms of nutritional value. My great-grandparents had a long-standing tradition of canning their food, a skill I'm sure their parents and grandparents passed on to them in order to survive the Minnesota winters. Norman Borlaug grew hardy strains of grains in order to allow farmers to grow things on increasingly barren land. Monsanto famously markets genetically engineered corn labeled "RoundUp ready". In each of these instances, we efficiently gained viable food supplies whereas before, we only had the dry, leathery stuff I spoke of before...or perhaps would have had to do without. Without food processing, our Minnesotan ancestors would never have had an adequate supply of food to last through the winter until they could use the farmland again. Without Mr. Borlaug's ingenuity, millions more would have died of starvation worldwide for lack of nutrition. More recently, without "RoundUp ready" products, our farmers could lose entire years' worth of crops from a simple insect infestation.

Obviously, there's a lot of information to weigh at the supermarket besides the latest food buzzwords!

Frozen Foods vs. Trip to Rainbow

After I came back from spring break there was absolutely nothing in my refrigerator to make. There were a few apples, ketchup, and salad dressings galore. I am the type of person to cook breakfast, lunch, and dinner and I always try to have a balanced meal. I find that making a meal is my “break” from everything else that I am doing. It is not like me to eat strictly out of the freezer but I didn’t want to go to the grocery store. I hate going to Rainbow in the Quarry but it is by far the closest grocery store to my apartment. I especially don’t like Rainbow because I find their produce to be… well not up to par. When I was at home and went to the grocery store, I was shocked at how red and delicious their red peppers were as compared to what I see at Rainbow here in Minneapolis. (It reminded me of Ben talking about the lettuce in Brooklyn as compared to the Upper East side of NYC. My roommates were coming back towards the end of the week and I knew they would have to go so I decided to just wait so that I didn’t have to make 2 horrific trips to Rainbow.

I resorted to eating frozen foods for almost a week. I ate Lean Cuisines, frozen homemade pizza, frozen vegetables, and poppy seed bread that my mom made awhile back. As I was thinking about what I ate, I was also thinking about the money I had spent on it all. I find Lean Cuisines to be pretty expensive, ranging from about $3 to $4 per meal. With the whole popular “diets” these days, Lean Cuisines have come into being and have become quite expensive. As the demand goes up, the price goes up as the graph showed in class. Another thing, they have a ton of ingredients. The list is like a foreign language to me. Despite all this, I resorted to eating them all so I didn’t have to go to Rainbow.

decisions decisions

As the weekend came to an end, my kitchen shelves were looking bare. Typically Sundays are my lazy days and if I don't have anything that looks appetizing to my stomach to eat I resort to going to brunch with some friends or ordering delivery of some sort. Today was different though, after our class discussions and reading Pollen's book I decided to start my day off with a quick trip to the grocery store, giving me the freedom to choose exactly what I wanted to fill my stomach with. I intended on just a quick trip to grab a few things to make a new recipe I've been wanting to try out, but it ended up taking me a bit longer because there are so many different options of the same thing, it took a while to decide this brand over that, organic or conventional, and so on.

Instead of having a large calorie heavy meal, like I normally would on a Sunday, I enjoyed many fresh veggies in a spring time pasta salad, with a few new ingredients I've never tried before but ended up loving. Also at the end of the meal i wasn't feeling draggy and full, more so just content. In addition it was an eye opening experience that helped me to realize that the choice of what I decide to eat is very important, and i dont have to settle for whatever as long as I set aside time to eat the way I want. While this isnt always an option and many times I do have to just settle, in the future when the time is free i will take advantage of it and learn to cook and try new things and get a healthier variety of foods. This sounds more appealing to me especially after learning that there really are a lot of mysteries to the things we eat at restaurants or on the go, and even in the things on the shelf at the grocery store.

Bread

This past week, after returning from spring break, I made a radical food decision. I switched from white bread to whole wheat bread. And not just any whole wheat  bread - the kind with grains and seeds still in it (as my roommate calls it, 'birdseed bread'). For some this may seem like a mundane switch, but for me, it was serious. Life and death serious. I was voluntarily leaving the realm of comfort and taste that my Country Hearth Cottage Bread provided me with for a bumpy, dull colored  and undoubtedly unsavory loaf.

But more importantly, I didn't make this switch on a whim. I'd been thinking about it. For some reason, white bread has become a food faux-pas as of late. I've seen countless ads on television that promote whole wheat and multi-grain breads over white because its 'healthier'. My friends have told me they eat whole wheat bread because its 'healthier'. And companies have created white bread with the same old color and texture that is 'healthier' because it contains the same vitamins found in whole wheat bread. So, when I was walking down that bread aisle I thought, why not be healthier? Even the packaging of the all the different kinds of breads were pushing the same line - eat me, and you'll be healthier! you'll be making a life change that will make you fitter and better! The front of the plastic bags in which the bread was wrapped had things like "12 Great Grains!" "Low in Fat!" 'Wholesome and Nutritious Ingredients!" on them. Even the white bread was amping up its game by adding calcium.

I didn't stop and think about whether or not there even was a benefit to switching my bread. What do all of those words and ads even mean? Is there really a bigger benefit of eating two pieces of whole wheat bread a day instead of two white pieces? I've realized that I didn't switch because I had a concrete idea of why I should. Instead, I had this vague notion that, somehow, it was better. Every food ad is marketing whole grain- those words are on cereal boxes and granola bar wrappers, chip bags too. Instead, consumers should be concentrating on bigger issues, like the fair trade price of the wheat and grains that went into the bread, or the chemicals that are in it, or even the plastic bag the bread is wrapped in.

Even though I continue to eat my new bread (which is pretty good) I realized that my choice in this simple matter isn't my own. In a country where obesity is an epidemic, every small change in a food product that can be labeled as 'healthier' is a comfort. And companies are jumping on this. It works. Just look at me.

The Right Choice?

I grew up eating many diverse foods; although they always seemed to be influenced by hispanic tendencies. I am Venezuelan, and my mom absolutely loves to cook. Since I can remember, she was always in the kitchen, creating wonderful, delicious smells. This behavior strongly influenced my interest in cooking. I absolutely love to cook any type of food, but I would have to say that my specialty would be either tacos or spanish chicken and rice.

My friends are always asking me to have them over for dinner. I am very busy during the week, so the only time that I have to cook is on the weekend. I finally agreed to cook for my friends and made pulled chicken tacos, spanish beans, and spanish chicken and rice. I didn't initially have all the specific ingredients for these dishes, so I had to go to the grocery store. At this point, I was torn between going to the all natural co-op or the Cub Foods down the street from my house. I knew that the Cub was more convienent as well as less expensive, but I also realized that the co-op was more nutricious and the fresher ingredients would really make a difference in the flavor of my entrees. And having more nutrition meant that these foods were healthier and less fattening. I finally decided that my friends as well as my satisfaction was more important so I went and spent the extra money at the co-op, plus it was right across the street from the Liquor store that sells my favorite German white wine. It made me feel better knowing I was killing two birds with one stone, which relieved some of the anxiety for spending extra money. The meal was delicious and my friends demanded that they take left overs home.

Culture obviously plays its part within all my decisions. I decided to cook these dishes due to my spanish ethnicity. I felt comfortable and confident cooking these dishes because I grew up with them since I can remember, and had much practice preparing them. Gender politics also showed its face here while I was deciding that the co-op would save me from becoming FAT. Every female wants to be thin and trim because that's what's idealized within our culture. This influence shows itself within our food decisions. Economics also lended its hand because I preferred to eat all natural food and without my economic resources, I wouldn't have been able to afford this type of taste; better yet, would I have even considered it if I hadn't the resources to have previously endured it? It's very interesting how we all are governed and almost defined by our own particular "cultures."

Little Tijuana

Today, I experienced the dilemma that begins Pollan's book, the "what should we eat?" dilemma. Driving around uptown and eat street and dinky town from about an hour produced few ideas, for a variety of reasons: too filling, not filling enough, not in the mood, too expensive, don't want red meat, don't want vegetarian, blah blah blah. Finally, my companion and I settled upon Little Tijuana off Nicollet, where I got three small guacamole tacos and he got two cheese and onion enchiladas. As an appetizer, we got fried chips and queso dip. Ishh, I can feel my insides beginning to congeal.

Anyway, I specifically chose the guacamole tacos because, ever since going to Colorado for spring break, a lot of Mexican food has entered my stomach, and none of it has seemed much "safer" than guacamole (and by safe, I mean to say that guacamole seems least likely to give me heartburn, stomach ache, weight gain, etc.), not to mention its based almost completely in the little alligator pear called Avocado, which is, like most "natural" things, healthy, energizing, whatever. Most people think of guac as a chip dip for parties, or just some sort of topping, but I see it as a tasty filling for most anything.

I wasn't too concerned about the economics behind my decision" the guac tacos were the same price as the chicken or steak or whatever else they had there. Anyway, I'd rather get the guacamole at a place like this, rather than some place like Chipotle, because it just feels better to support the underdog sometimes, doesn't it? I mean, we can at least assume that both places make their own guacamole, but who is more likely to have the more authenticity: BIG CORPORATION or the Little Guys around the Corner? I know where I'd rather go, how about you?

Sunday afternoon I decided to drive to St. Paul and sequester myself in my parents house to focus on some homework. This decision was of course influenced by the hopeful prospect of there being a something to eat in the kitchen that was a little more satisfying or merely different than the almonds, cereal and left over chicken at my apartment. There was some left over salmon and collard greens that my mom had cooked for dinner the night before, so I was in luck for some real food to eat. I also had some girl scout cookies and some crackers. I'm not sure where she bought the salmon, so who knows how or where it was fished, but I do know the greens (mustard, collard, chard) were purchased from Cub. I was curious because they are extremely nutritious but I wasn't exactly sure how to cook them/how much greens costed in general. Basically they were sub-par boiled for about twenty minutes and then sauteed in to a pan with garlic and onion and bacon fat. When she mentioned the bacon fat, I was a little grossed out because of my avoidance of extremely fatty foods such as grisly red meat and fried bacon, (not that this avoidance is consistent when looking at other foods I love such as grilled cheese, french fries, and ice cream!) as well as having previous experience of old roommates cumulating cans and cans of disgusting bacon fat for cooking. Maybe I'll get over it, but I just don't love the idea at this point. Anyway, my mom is obviously more concerned with the flavor of the greens than the bacon added. She grew up in the south and I definitely can notice this in her eating habits and her cooking strengths: pot roast, red meat, butter, crispy foods, no bread. Sort of the opposite of my own: nuts, bread, crackers, cheese, hummus, spinach. The foods I eat are relatively healthy, but more expensive. I can afford to buy healthier foods because I have a job and therefore some extra cash to prioritize eating well. I also have the luxury of parents living 15 minutes away that I can also take advantage of their food, but also be influenced by their eating habits, both good and bad. I should maybe be influenced by their decisions to actually cook means rather than snacking all day, but at this point my life just caters to snacking all day...

Shopping Spree

At the begining of spring break I went back to my parents house. They have more condiments than food, so we went to the grocery store to get food for me to eat through out the week. We went up and down the isles and I got to choose whatever i wanted, because this time I wasn't paying for it. I noticed that when I didn't have to pony up the funds for the grocery bill I chose foods according to things other than price.

I am unemployed and live in a dorm, so most of the time I don't get to choose what brand my food is, because I eat from the cafeteria. When I go over to my best friends house (3-4 nights a week) we have to make food for ourselves. Our most common choices are dollar menu foods, noodles with some kind of sauce, or if we splurge we will split a Hamburger Helper between him, his girl friend, and I. We eat these foods not because we especially like them, but they are cheap and you get the most bang for your buck. We also don't really like where our food comes from; the slave-driving corporations, the deep fat fryers, and the preservatives that let them be transported from across the nation.

When I went shopping over spring break I chose foods that I deemed healthy, not to processed, and of general higher quality. Part of my health evaluation of a food is, does it look like the food its made of. I saw this mentioned by Pollan, "When I asked Isaac if the new nuggets tasted more like chicken than the old ones, he seemed baffled by the question. 'No, they taste like what they are, which is nuggets.' In this consumer's mind at least, the link between a nugget and the chicken in it was never more than notional, and probably irrelevant." I also got snack foods which is a rarity back at school. Besides the food being "healthier" the food also came from sources that I thought of as less tyrannic; foods that came from sources that are not house hold names.

The part of this trip to the grocery store that was different than any other was that I saw what effect price has on my habits. Given the opportunity to get the food I wanted I fought "the man", lowered the number of "processes" before it reaches my plate, tried to help the hard working farmers that I will never meet in third world countries, and did as little damage to the earth as I could. It seems almost comical that when I have to pay the bill, these causes are instantly seconded to the value of a couple more bucks left in my pocket.

Are there eco-friendly co-ops in the ghetto? How many Aldi's are in Edina? Do the people with food stamps consider the shack dwelling farmers of who know where?

Ramen Noodles

My choice of food in college has been Ramen Noodles. If I don't eat in the dining center you can be sure I will be eating my Ramen Noodles. Not only do I love the taste of them but they are also very cheap. One packet of Ramen is about 29 cents. When I am at home my mom buys me a big box which contains many packets of chicken flavored Ramen at Sam's club. If I run out of Ramen before I am able to go home it is easy for me to afford because it is so inexpensive.
A bad thing about Ramen is it is very unhealthy for you. It contains 14 grams of fat, 1660 mg of sodium (which is about 70% of the amount of salt you should be consuming in one day), and 52 grams of carbohydrates. As you can see, this is not a good set of nutrition facts. So the fact that I eat this almost every day is definitely not good for my health. My arteries must hate me!
When I am at home I usually take a break from my consumption of Ramen Noodles. My parents take me out to eat or buy me foods that are more expensive. It is nice to eat good food that doesn't come in a plastic packet. I also eat healthier at home because more healthy food is available to me but when I come back to campus it's back to eating my ramen with hot sauce. I think that when I live in an apartment next year I will be eating more healthy foods again because I will have a kitchen available to me to make the food I want to eat vs. living here in the dorms with no kitchen only a microwave (and most food made in a microwave is not very good for you). I also will have a job so I will be able to afford food that is more then 29 cents per meal. It will be nice to be able eat good meals again but for now I will enjoy eating my unhealthy Ramen Noodles!

Italian Cuisine

I grew up in a very italian household. Our dinners always consisted of some type of really good pasta and meat. But since ive been in college, I havent had anyone make those wonderfully delicious dinners for me, and most of the time I dont have time to cook a meal like such. So, while grocery shopping on friday afternoon, I decided that i was going to make a delicious italian meal for my roommates and myself on saturday. I bought some ravioli and tortellini, along with ingredients to make my moms meatballs, and some garlic bread. I chose these items because they werent as expensive as buying ingredients for lasagna or something more tedious to make. Ravioli are simple to make, and i have made meatballs many times before so that was easy. I normally make garlic bread from scratch but it was on sale for very cheap so i chose to buy it.

As i can see from my selection of this meal, my culture growing up had a lot to do with it. Also that amount of money that i could spend was limited becuase of the limited amount of funds that i have. I probably would have chose something mmore expensive to make like manicotti, or lasagna, but i couldnt afford them. I also would have bought the best ingredients but i couldnt afford them either.

Steak

Every monday i go to the grocery store and find the best deals i possibly can for steak to last me throughout the week. I usually find the steak thats on sale and that has the most marbling in it because i love my fat! This week instead of going for the cheapest steak possible which has alot of fat i decided to help my body out a little bit. I eat alot of unhealthy foods throughout the week so i decided that just this once i will spend more money on the better cuts which has less fat and in return is healthier for you. I felt good knowing i was eating something better for my body than i usually do. However the guilt i felt from spending more money on it was not worth is for me. And the steak just wasnt the same without the large ammounts of fat that im used to. So tomorrow i will not be stepping it up again with the more expensive steak but instead ill be going back to clogging my arteries and enjoying it greatly!

"fast food with a conscience"

On Tuesday evening around 5:30 PM I was coming back from the St. Paul campus via the connector. I hadn't eaten since 11:00 and my stomach was growling, so I decided to buy dinner on campus instead of going all the way home first, cuz that'd take ~fifty minutes. Money is always a concern (I'm trying to save, Keynes' theories be damned) and I am uncomfortable spending more than six or seven bucks on my dinner, whatever it is.

Thought about getting a burrito from Chipotle (both because it was two blocks away, inexpensive, and their veggie burrito is delicious) but then remembered a picture I'd seen a few days earlier of a vandalized ad for Chipotle. Despite their reputation as the fast-food restaurant with a conscience, I decided not to go there, thinking instead that it would be a good idea to walk to the Hard Times café on the West bank. Advantages to going to Hard Times:

The food would probably be healthier for me, as it's made using vegan ingredients that I doubt have ever been tainted by HFCS. Even though Chipotle buys 100% of its pork from non-CAFO sources, the animals are raised on vegetarian diets without antibiotics and hormones, and have room to move around (stats from AlterNet which I generally trust) . The standard includes animals raised without antibiotics or growth hormones, given room to move around, and fed vegetarian diets.; about half the price, meaning the relative value of my dollars increased there in comparison to what they were worth at Chipotle, in terms of the quality* of the food I would receive; and I would be keeping money in our community of Minneapolis by spending money locally at a place of whose business practices I approve. If someone had to have a monopoly on my dinner that night, I'd be damned if it wasn't Hard Times: even though Chipotle is no longer virtually owned by McDonald's, Inc., it's a huge chain that really doesn't need one more consumer's business. Hard Times as a local restaurant is much more accountable to its customers.

*Of course I would have received a lot MORE food if I'd chosen Chipotle -- their burritos are all but impossible to finish. But as we've seen from Ch. 1 of Omnivore's dilemma, quantity is not as valuable nor does it substitute for quality, and pounds of white rice, frozen corn and fried onions wrapped in a corn tortilla do not supersede in healthiness a smaller (i.e. appropriately sized) portion of barley, lentils, and long-grained rice.

So I walked over to the West Bank and had some soup and whole-wheat bread (wild rice and barley sounded better to me at the time than the other soup of the day). I was satisfied then both in terms of hunger and the purchase I'd made, and I still am; a local vegan community-run restaurant is in my mind much better than any corporation, no matter how sustainable... companies just really don't need to be that large. But today to write this blog I did some research as to what that sign was referring, to see whether my perception against Chipotle was still justified. I found my answer through AlterNet!

Chipotle for a while refused to patronize the Fair Food program, which has been calling for an increase in migrant workers' wage rates by $0.01/lb (the article claims this amounts to a 64% increase in wages for tomato pickers). This refusal is ostensibly what inspired the vandalism of the Chipotle ad, especially in light of the letter sent by CIW (Coalition of Immokalee Workers) to Chipotle founder Steve Ells: "Chipotle cannot claim the same integrity for the tomatoes it serves as it does for its meat, much less guarantee its customers that the tomatoes in its burritos were not picked by slaves."

Since then Chipotle has agreed to buy their tomatoes from East Coast Growers, which has everyone pleased. It's not much, and the migrant workers are still going to be exploited to an extent (and on the same website there is an article detailing exactly why migrant workers now lead lives not much different from those of slaves) but... it may be a start.

Here's an exchange between Chipotle and an activist with Change.org, who are understandably ^^ about the decision.

Blog Posting #6 (due Sunday 3/28, 11:59 P.M.): 'Freely' 'Choosing' 'Food'

We've been talking all week about the many 'invisible hands' (economics, science, politics...) that determine food production and consumption. We'll soon take our work into more personal, more 'pleasure-able' more 'body' aspects of cooking and eating.

Let's look at the degree to which we really are 'free to choose' what we eat. Let's analyze a specific eating act.

• select a moment when you made a choice about what to eat (or purchase, or cook, or whatever eating dimensions turn out to be important). 'Food logs' are an obvious place to look, but any recent, interesting food choice is fine.

• explain it in terms of its ethics, politics and economics.

No-BS guideline: it's really easy to say 'I ate the chocolate raised doughnut because I always do, and I was hungry and they were on a plate in the kitchen.' Right. But that doesn't say much. Our models here—and the ideas / concepts / ways of explaining, even the terms—come from Friedman, Keynes, Posner, Pollan and our discussions and Background Reports. Use 'em.

Just Like the Flintstones, but Better

While checking my email tonight, I came across this article about a human powered car. I thought it was interesting.

This car can apparently do-it-all. And by do-it-all i mean get up to speeds of 60 mph and power your home...

Anyway, just a cool thing I thought might intrigue a few. Just copy and paste the link

http://autos.aol.com/article/human-car/

Declaring Your Independence From the Factory Food System

This Tuesday evening at 7:30 PM there will be a lecture at Club Jager in Minneapolis about living outside of the industrial food chain. It is hosted by the Twin Cities Agora Cadre -- agora is Greek for "open-air assembly and market" in ancient city-states, and cadre refers to a small group of specially trained people.

Facebook event link

Event description:
"If being free requires living freely, then there is no greater opportunity for liberty than in how and where we get our food. The Corporate / Government Food system in the United States penalizes small farms at the expense of giant government subsidized corporate farms. By using alternate methods of sustaining ourselves we can withdraw our support and participation from this unsustainable system AND live healthier and higher quality lives.

"Corey Sax and Britt Lundberg-Sax will talk about how they've almost completely withdrawn from the Corporate Food System and how they did it. They will talk about their experiences with buying meat from local farmers, raising your own garden, preserving food, Farmer's Markets and working with your neighbors to develop a neighborhood market.

"Even if you live in an apartment, you can do this!"

the "science" of sexing the brain

Find the sex of your brain! Just take this short quiz -- it's from the BBC's "Science and Nature" website, so it must be legit, right?

Food Humor

Per the request of Jenny, I'll put up this rather amusing picture I found ages ago on the famous (or perhaps infamous) somethingawful forums, which I sometimes read through for witty news commentary and funny pictures/photoshops, like this.

Enjoy your food, guys!

On the topic of sexing the body...

I'd like to make mention of something I saw last week.

I was sitting at a friends house, watching TV, having some pizza, just relaxing, you know? As I flipped through the channels I came across the Maury show. Now, I know that nobody can really take shows like Maury seriously, but! I found this episode to be strangely fascinating, if not horrifying, but it was hard to change the channel.

In this episode, they were showcasing a set of eight "women", or rather, a few women and a few men dressed as women. Maury had these people, these women and undercover men, flaunt themselves in bikinis, dresses and nightclub wear, all while the audience sat (and stood) screaming, laughing, and yelling to the camera about who they thought were the real women, and who they thought were the undercover men. Maury even focused on a few audience members, holding the microphone to their mouths as they sat trying to decide whether "Carmen" was a boy or a girl. Their rationale was amazing: they all seemed so confident in their assertions that, when the time to unveil the truth came, these people were SO surprised and some of them looked SO disappointed (especially the men in the crowd) that their ideas about men and women (and what makes a woman a woman and a man a man) were deceived and pulled out from underneath them like a dirty old rug.

I will admit: I, too, was surprised at how flawlessly some men can appear as women on the outside. Shows like these, once you start watching, are difficult to stop watching sometimes, no matter how obscene or stupid they may seem. And I think the fact that a whole show was dedicated to this idea of fucking with our ideas of gender and gender roles is a really strong commentary on the mentality of our society. We're still learning to cope with having our preconceptions destroyed, and the result of our coming to understanding is more of a freakshow than a true, educated approach.

But alas: this is the beauty of the talk show. We allow the most simplistic minds expose and exploit themselves so we don't have to.

But, come on... we all know what's really going on here.

How Long Can You Live Without Food?

You can train yourself to live on less in case our glorious world of consumables should ever decline... but it might be best to stockpile your belly with calories while you can, in preparation for those hard times.

"Your Online Survival Kit!"

cheese curds.

For some reason my blog did not post, maybe I hit save rather than publish, however it was simple and here is a recap. It started on last Tuesday after having class from 7:30-2:30 and going directly to work at 3:30 without having a chance to eat. Needless to say I was starving. Normally it doesn't hit me until I'm finished with class, but last Tuesday I had no time to get food, just bike home, change, and go to work. Luckily I work at a restaurant so I wasn't too worried. All of this went out the window when I walk in and its busier than ever for being in-between normal rush hours on top of the Travel Channel arriving right as I clock in because they are special on our cheese curds, voted best in the city. Long story short, we were making a lot of cheese curds. We have a diner/bar that was full of people, and we wanted everyone to have cheese curds in front of them. Therefore, I always had cheese curds in front of me. I think I had about 75 cheese curds. That is enough cheese curds for ones entire life. I left work feeling so crappy that I decided to give up deep fried food for the foreseeable future, and cleanse my body. Wednesday, I only drank water. Thursday, I only drank water and then about half way through the day I had a fruit cup. Later on 2 oranges. So, For three days, my diet was extremely different and hopefully progressing towards foods that have nutrients and have not been deep fried. The idea I am going with is green tea and strictly fruits and veggies. That worked until I was at a bar on Saturday and had nachos. Basically, in a vacuum I could eat zero cheese curds and only raw food, but in a social reality that is much more difficult.

food journal

Friday. 1:20 pm. Sanford Hall. Hot dog, wild rice soup, salami provolone sandwich. White bread. I woke up pretty late and i know Sanford's got tasty food. I had to be somewhere at 3 and most dining halls close by 2. I drank Grape juice. It was delicious.

At 6:15pm I had some Panda Express at coffman--fried rice and orange chicken, of course. Didn't finish it, though. I was surprised. I needed to get something quick before 7 and Panda has a pretty good reputation with me. No liquids.

Sometime between 7 and 10pm I had an orange. I wasn't really hungry but i wanted an orange in my body, you know?

Saturday. 11:10am. A ham and cheese breakfast burrito that my roommate had in the fridge. I needed something i could travel across campus with. Again, no liquids.

Around 3:30 i went to Jimmy John's and got a BLT. I love BLT's, it's hard to have another reason. I guess it was close to my rehearsal and we did only have a 30 minute break--but really BLT's trump all. That's why I ate there. I got avocado sauce on it too. Yet, again no liquids.

I had an orange sometime before 6 pm. Like i said before, i wasn't really hungry. But i do enjoy me a good orange.

Then at around 12:30 am I really pigged out and had half a bag of Pizza Combos, two bowls of Cocoa Krispies, 1 chocolate graham cracker, and two peanut butter sandwiches. I think I probably had more than that. I was at one of my friend's parent's house and they sorta gave me the green light to do so. I felt no guilt. I still don't.

Sunday at noon. I had a delicious brunch BLT at Bailey Hall. Had a mixture of Orange Juice and Cranberry juice. The BLT never needs a why. It's always the answer. no exceptions.

To end this post on a high note I made sure i got a satisfying dinner. 5:10 pm, bailey hall. Spaghetti, patty melt (grilled cheese with caramelized onions and a burger patty), a pile of tator tots. And for desert i had chocolate silk pie and coconut pie and a brownie. It all just looked so good.

Then at midnight i had a slice of philly cheese-stake pizza from my roommates and some apple/raspberry juice. I get hungry when i do homework.

Food Journal

A recurring theme I see in my diet is a distinct ‘always pressed for time’ flavor coupled with ‘damn, I didn’t bother cooking last night so now I don’t have lunch’. On a related note, either there are a lot of liars here or college life and its diet has changed significantly in the last few years! Unfortunately for me, I haven’t paid much attention to what I am taking in because I knew I wouldn’t have to see it in print…until now.

Day 1: Friday, 5 Mar

Breakfast

8:15 am—Life cereal with skim milk. I like to have a nice big bowl, because it usually doesn’t last me until lunch without a soda or some kind of snack.

Snacks

10:30 am—20 oz. bottle of Mountain Dew. I brought it with me and I can’t take the temptation! Oh, and it went well with beer nuts.

Lunch

1:15 pm—I work near campus and I need to eat before my shift starts, so I grab some Panda Express from Coffman union…white rice, steamed veggies and firecracker chicken washed down with water as quickly as I can scoop it in!

Dinner

8:00 pm—I have a half an hour for dinner before I need to get back to it, so…hmm… haven’t had a Toscano from Punch Pizza in a while…

Snacks

10:30 pm—I had some beer nuts in my backpack, and they went well with the mountain dew earlier today, so I repeated the act while I got a page or two of homework done.

Day 2: Saturday, 6 Mar

Breakfast

Dammit, it’s 6:15 already? I gotta go in 15 minutes and I just finished showering! Okay, uh, Life cereal and milk. I’ll just have to buy lunch out today.

Snack

10:15 am—two hard boiled eggs from the cafeteria and an energy drink. Hey, I was up late last night.

Lunch

1:30 pm—Chipotle chicken fajita burrito with some hot salsa! Cheap, fast, AND filling!

Dinner

8:45 pm—Well, I better eat soon or I’ll never get to sleep at a decent hour. What’s in the fridge…leftover spaghetti and meatballs, some bell peppers to mix in…yep. That’ll do.

Day 3: Sunday, 7 Mar

Breakfast

6:20 am—Cereal, meet milk. Milk, cereal. Aw, you two look great together!

Snack

10:45 am—well, those eggs sure hit the spot yesterday, and they keep me full until lunch, so what the heck. I'll have a 20 oz bottle of Vault while I'm at it.

Lunch

1:00 pm—Jasmine orchid’s spicy beef Thai salad and chicken satay. My day’s looking MUCH better now!

Dinner

8:00 pm—Cub is right behind my apartment, so I acquired some groceries and a pre-made sub sandwich with pepperoni, ham, turkey, bell peppers and lettuce on a white roll. Pretty massive, but bland. Gotta remember to avoid those from now on.

Yes, unfortunately, these things were the only food to go in my body, as I usually look for whatever fulfills the need to eat so I can get to more pressing matters. Plenty of water with each meal, though I seem to be going through about 24 oz of soda a day as well. Soon, though, (after graduation!) I’ll have a lot more time to focus on those pesky things like diet and fitness again. How will I ever manage?