Month: October 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oq24hITFTY

I recently watched the film Food Inc. I find it very interesting that monopolies exist in every sector of life down to the food that we eat. These monopolies (sectors of the food industry controlled by a few companies) prevent the public from having variety or choices in what we consume. I believe that Food Inc. is about how the current mass-producing agricultural system is harmful to not only the environment, but our health, people who work within the plants, and farmers. Society has been hoodwinked into believing that we have a choice in what we put into our bodies, but this documentary exposes to the audience that that is not the case. The wide variety of meat brands that is sold in grocery stores is simply an illusion. The various companies are truly owned by four large ones. This high concentration of power between the four companies creates a monopoly that controls employees, farmers, and the public. The factory-like way that our food is produced puts the public at health due to poor health regulations, and the government is not doing it’s job to protect the public from these health risks.

The use of images, like the small barn that was in the opening scene, is a marketing strategy that is used to convey to the public that the food that is being sold is coming from everyday hard working people. The public is fooled into thinking that there is a variety of brands that they can purchase from; when in all actuality these small companies are all owned by four major companies that monopolize the industry. Robert Kenner illustrates how this negatively impacts and controls both the farmers and the employees throughout the film. As mentioned in Food Inc., the employees and farmers are treated very similarly to the animals in that they are seen as expendable. The farmers are in constant debt because the large companies force them to renovate their farmhouses and buy new equipment; if they do not comply with these demands they face loss of contract. The typical employee is an undocumented immigrant that will spend around 15 years working for the company before they are deported. These employees receive no benefits and they have no rights.

This film also brings light to the dangers of the mass factory-like style of food production. When interviewing the farmers, the audience was able to see the poor living conditions of the animals. Kenner also stressed the point that the meat that is being produced today is genetically modified. Chickens were used as a prime example of genetically modified meat in this film. They were modified to be to grow faster (49 days opposed to 70) and be larger; they were so large that they could not support their weight long enough to walk. Kenner also demonstrated the dangers of the meat industry by featuring a mother who had lost her son due to E. coli that he contracted after eating a hamburger. Food Inc. also stressed the point that corn fillers such as high fructose corn syrup are in most food that are sold on the mark, and these foods increases risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes, especially in people born after 2000. Robert Kenner was able to force the audience to question how their food is produced, but also how food is affecting our health and bodies.

The filmmaker does not clearly state any alternatives due to food libel laws. Kenner does suggest for the public to eat more whole foods as opposed to foods that are heavily processed. The film includes clips of farmers informing the public that to get high quality food, they must demand high quality food. In the ending scene Kenner advises the audience to only buy from companies that treat the workers, animals, and the environment with respect.

As someone who has been vegan for the past five years, I genuinely enjoyed this film. It is very important that the public knows where their food is coming from. We typically go through our day trying to spare a few dollars here and there where food is concerned. This film illustrated that although the food may be cheaper initially it could very well have consequences that cost much more. It is scary to see that the companies that produce our food will not participate in projects like these to inform the public what is going on inside of their plants.

Everyone in life always has an angle to play. Whether we want to admit or not, human beings are inherently selfish people that only analyze the behavior of others to see how they can react to gain the best possible response for them. We do this in our everyday life when we talk to our parents, siblings, friends, professors, and partners. Though it would seem that our government officials would attempt to put this natural behavior aside to do what is in all of our best interests, that is simply not the case.

So what is the exact regime that governs the people of the United States?

–We live in a representative government. This kind of Government is most likely to survive if the rulers of the nation are dependent on a segment of the society that consists of a large number of people. These people must hold liquid or mobile assets; in the USA this group is called “middle class”.

We are also strategically divided into groups (political parties) that might not necessarily reflect our true personal beliefs. This is heavily influenced by the tactic of public surveys. I’m sure many of you have seen this on campus. A random person from a random organization comes up to you and asks a loaded question and you immediately feel uncomfortable. You agree with whatever they say so they can leave you alone and you can rush to your next class without giving it a second thought. This is a tactic that many politicians and political scientists use; it is called “social desirability bias”.

Social desirability bias s refers to the tendency of individuals to over report good behavior and underreport bad behavior. This is typically a problem when surveys that concerning sensitive topics are conducted. Social desirability bias can pose a problem when drawing inferences in surveys because it interferes with the interpretation of a true average response. Respondents can feel pressured to give an answer that they know is socially acceptable when their true feelings on the subject could be completely different. For example, a group on campus surveys students and faculty to see their support on racial diversity on campus. So, they ask a question along the lines of: There should be more racial diversity on university campuses. Do you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree?

Questions like these are very problematic and play in to the political advancer’s game. When asked this question many people realize that the socially acceptable answer would be ‘strongly agree’ or ‘agree’. Any answer other than these two could give off the impression of the respondent being xenophobic or a racist. To avoid social persecution, college students would be more inclined to give the socially acceptable answer. Now you may say well this is hopeless, there are solutions to this problem. The researcher could conduct anonymous surveys where the respondent could enter a private booth and complete the survey; this way the respondent would be inclined to give an honest response. The researcher could also ask more subtle questions that may not seem like a sensitive topic; they could then interpret the data from that survey and draw a viable conclusion.

 

This past year I witnessed a man, who I will call Andrew, lose a friendship and a job after he soiled his personal brand. It was in the late months of 2016, I believe it was August. The election was nearing, and everyone’s opinions were plastered on every social media platform they had. While having differing political views from a friend or employer is normal and to be expected, there are appropriate ways to express those differing views.

Andrew had a son ,named Eli, who was around my age; we were friends on many social platforms.  One day I was scrolling through my Facebook page, and I saw a shared post that grabbed my attention.  Eli had shared a post that his father had made and I found it very concerning. Andrew had shared a video of Donald Trump speaking about minority/ low-income communities and attached a caption saying how he was “tired of these  n*****s complaining about white people and looking for a handout. If they don’t like it here they can hop on the next boat to whatever African hut they crawled out of”.

I was shocked that Andrew felt this way considering he worked for my father’s company. My father is a black man. I quickly took a screenshot of the post and sent it to my dad. He was shocked that a man that he had employed and even called a friend could say such hateful things. Almost immediately, my father emailed the man saying that they needed to have a meeting the next day. When my father came home he told my family that Andrew had been fired. My dad gave me and my siblings a speech that I will never forget He told us to be wary of the things that we share on social media because what you post can be interpreted many ways by many people who could have an impact on your future.

I think that although we are allowed to have our differing opinions, we must be cautious in how we say them  and who we say them around.  This is relevant to all us of us today on this campus with the sudden boldness of white supremacy groups on campus. How they act will affect their brand but how we respond will also affect our own.

“This is disrespectful to the military.” “These people are disrespecting our nation.” “I’m so tired of these rich athletes disrespecting our country. They have never been oppressed in their lives!” (These quotes have all been taken from various twitter accounts)

Back in 2016, this country was sent into a media frenzy when a picture of Colin Kaepernick surfaced. The former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, was pictured taking a knee during the national anthem.  When asked why he kneeled during the anthem he responded with “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.”

I would think that a person exercising their right to free speech (including symbolic speech) would be seen as nothing but patriotic as they are appreciating the rights that we have in this country. But, unfortunately if you do not agree with the masses you are simply pushed to the wayside and told to keep quiet. The double standard that our government officials preach are truly sickening. It is a sad day in this country when a group of white supremacists who not only rioted in a city, harassed UVA students, burned a cross in front of a black church, but also caused the death of a woman are called “Very fine people” by our own president, but a black man kneeling peacefully during the national anthem as a sign of protest is an” ungrateful son of a b*tch” again these are the words of our own president.

My father is a veteran and my brother is active in the military today, so I conducted an interview with them to see how they felt about the issue. My father expressed his feelings by saying that he is “proud of every man and woman that is willing to risk their careers to protest peacefully. It saddens [him] that racism is so deep rooted in this country, that when people protest racism, many people believe they are protesting America itself”. My brother agreed with my father saying that ” we fight for your right to sit or stand during the national anthem. Patriotism can not be demanded by a nation or a president. Patriotism is earned.”

The criticism surrounding this protest is simply mind boggling to me. It seems as though there is no right way to protest. Rioting obviously is widely criticized and involves illegal activity, so thats a no go. Marching is “disruptive” to communities, so that too is a no go. Creating movements like Black Lives Matter is “divisive” and is “hateful” towards white people, so that is a no go. Kneeling quietly during the national anthem as a peaceful protest is disrespectful to everyone who fights for the nation ,and anyone who does it is just an “ungrateful son of a b*itch” anyways. It is just beginning to seem that there is no correct way to protest in this country if you are black.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-Gx23vH0CE