Home Cooking

Here's the prompt:
In Bich Nguyen's memoir, food is used to "make visible" the "invisible" cultural practices that define us as "American." Reflecting back on your own childhood, think of an example when a particular food (or foods) served to include or exclude you from a group of which you wanted to be a part. Describe the food, the situation, and how it made you feel.

I honestly can't remember any time in my childhood when I was excluded or included from some group because of food. It is possible it happened and I didn't realize it, I was a rather dense child, always with my nose in a book. However, I do remember how a certain food set me apart from other kids.
Before Christmas break, during elementary school, most of the kids would give the teacher a small gift, I guess to show our appreciation for being taught. Well, since my mother and I make chocolate candies around the holidays, I would always take the teacher a small "sampler" of the things we had made.
It always made me very proud that I could give my teacher something that I had made myself. Also, I loved that the teachers liked my present, they knew what it was because I have 3 older siblings who went through the school before me and my mom did the same thing for all of them. My sense of pride and accomplishment was increased because I knew that the teacher liked my present.

Documenting Morals

Here is my writing prompt:
In Zana Briski's documentary film, Born Into Brothels, she documents the lives of children growing up in Calcutta’s red light district. Her film reveals the most intimate details of their lives. Briski uses those details as evidence in an argument about the effects that living in the red light district has on these children. Write a blog in which you explore this. Is it fair that the children’s lives are “on display” for all the world to see? What about their privacy? Can a child “give consent” to be portrayed in this way? Do the “ends” justify the “means”? Is her documentary ultimately “successful”? How do you measure its success?

I shall first address the question of, "can a child give consent to be portrayed in this way?" I would say, of course they can give consent! These are not children as we would think of them in America. They are wonderful kids with hopes and dreams despite their circumstances and they still have a child's happiness, but they are much more mature than the typical child of equivalent age in America. This is due to their poverty, forcing them to work as well as go to school, as well as their surroundings in general. They have developed their own thoughts and ideas about themselves by now, because they have been forced by circumstance to consider these ideas. Therefore, they know what they are getting into when they give consent to be documented.

By answering that question, we can therefore concur that by giving consent to be documented they have put their faith in the documenter to portray their circumstances without undue invasion of their privacy. Yes the film shows their family lives, but the children, and their families, are certainly aware that the cameras are there, so if they objected they could just tell the visitors to shut of the cameras. So, yes, in this case the ends does justify the means because the means were not unreasonable.

Her documentary is successful in that she does portray the effect of growing up in brothels on these children. She shows their worry about their situation and their struggle to rise out of their circumstances by gaining an education. She also displays the difficulties for children like them to rise out of the red light district because good schools don't want their reputations tainted by the stigma associated with the illegal activities.

Quality vs. Quantity? Maybe not.

So, in English class we have been reading a whole slew of material about the scary truth behind the food we eat. US food has unlabeled GMOs (genetically modified foods), the US foods are being boycotted in some areas because they are unlabeled, Monsanto and other companies are patenting genes in plants that spread and then they sue farmers who have been contaminated. Then there is the fact that much of what we eat contains some derivative of corn. All this is pertinent and useful information, but it isn't going to change what I eat.
I do believe that GMOs should be labeled. It would not be that hard to do, and it would make people happier. It may even make people less suspicious of GMOs if they were being "hidden" by the government/food companies. But, I am a college student. I don't have the time, resources, or inclination at this point in my life to track down foods that are GMO free, or corn free. Now, I do go through some effort to exclude certain things like high fructose corn syrup in a lot of my food, but that is about it. I will continue to buy the stuff that is relatively cheep because it allows me to possibly escape college without a lifetime's worth of debt.

*Headdesk of Frustration

The prompt:

1. Choose one of the Adbusters spoof ads in the "food" category and write an analysis of the ad. First, describe the ad visually. Next, explain what the ad is referencing and how it is spoofing the referenced work. Finally, provide your own response: how successful is the spoof? Why does/doesn't it work? Write a minimum of 200 words. [If possible, include an image showing an example of the kind of original ad that is being spoofed.]

The response:

A woman who looks to be in her 20s maybe early 30s stands smiling and with good posture, one hand on her hip and the other holding what looks like a glass of milk. A milk mustache coats her upper lip. Her light blue sweater both offsets her from the medium gray background and coordinates with it. A caption next to her head reads, “WHY MILK? Try soy instead.” This caption leads us to believe that it is a glass of soy milk and a soy milk mustache that she accessorizes with. A paragraph at the bottom of the page says, “I was raised to believe that milk was part of a healthy diet. Then I discovered that to increase production, many dairy companies inject cows with hormones and antibiotics that we end up drinking. And that cows are kept “artificially” pregnant so they'll produce milk all year long. So I scraped my milk mustache for a soy one. It's healthier for me AND the cows.”

Unlike many adds that are text heavy, this one is rather effective. The reference to the famous, “GOT MILK?” campaign leads a reader to investigate what the add is about. The cool colors are restful to the eye and so it attracts the eye from the bright white or colors of many magazine pages. This add is endorsing soy milk instead of real milk as a healthier product.

When I read this add, I got really mad. (no rhyme intended) I like milk. Natural milk is one of nature's most perfect foods because it contains many of the things your body needs, such as amino acids and lipids, to name a couple. That the capitalist thirst for money is adding crap like hormones to our milk, even unintentionally makes me angry. I'm not going to stop drinking milk because, as I said earlier, I like it, but I may have to research the different companies that produce milk. It may become a little extra on my budget each month to get better milk instead of the cheaper milk. It's not like all milk isn't already about 4 bucks a gallon anyway, not that I'm bitter... I already buy butter instead of margarine anyway.

Mmm... Yummy

FOOD LOG for Oct. 29

1 med piece of cornbread from Jiffy Mix

Garlic and Onion bagel with muenster cheese slices melted on top

1 8oz glass of instant raspberry green tea from crystal lite

1 med size bowl of homemade chicken fried rice (ingredients: white rice, frozen peas and carrots, egg, chicken, soy sauce, teriyaki sauce)

1 16oz blue Monster energy drink

5 oreos (just for interest, edited 3 times)

1 large piece cornbread

multiple oreos

1 mug tea w/ sugar

1 small bowl of homemade chicken fried rice

1 8 oz glass apple juice

Yeah, so my friend and I cooked chicken fried rice twice in the past week and my freezer is full of it. :) The corn bread probably had GMOs, the Oreos most likely did too. Usually I do better with eating my vegetables but today was not a veggie day. As for distance traveled, I'd have to say that the apples in the apple juice probably traveled the farthest from origin to my gullet, but the soy sauce may give the apples a run for their money. I can't say with actual distance because the apple juice doesn't say what kind of apples it is made from. The chicken fried rice is definitely slow food considering that Katie and I made it in my kitchen. I cook a lot because I don't have a meal plan because I consider it a waste of money. How many people do you know who end up losing meals at the end of the week? And I can feed myself just as well on less money. As a general rule, I do not eat fast food, partly because it is rather unappetizing and partly because I am a poor college kid who can't afford it. I mean, the stuff isn't that expensive on the surface, but I can get a lot more nutrition for my money by cooking for myself.

Wasteful, Polluting Humans....

	CATEGORY ACRES FOOD 4.4 MOBILITY 0.5 SHELTER 3.2 GOODS/SERVICES 3.5 TOTAL FOOTPRINT 12
	IN COMPARISON, THE AVERAGE ECOLOGICAL FOOTPRINT IN YOUR COUNTRY IS 24 ACRES PER PERSON. WORLDWIDE, THERE EXIST 4.5 BIOLOGICALLY PRODUCTIVE ACRES PER PERSON.
	IF EVERYONE LIVED LIKE YOU, WE WOULD NEED 2.6 PLANETS.

(begin prompt)
On average, people in the United States require more than five times their "share" of world resources in order to maintain the "American Way of Life." In addition, this lifestyle is taking a heavy toll on our environment (e.g., global warming, oil spills, garbage dumps, pesticide/herbicide contamination of waterways, air pollution, destruction of natural environments and ecosystems, etc.). Is it "fair" that Americans (and citizens of other "developed nations") consume more than their "share" of the earth's resources? Does this consumption bring a greater responsibility to redress the environmental consequences of this lifestyle?
(end prompt)

Whether or not it is “fair” or not that Americans, etc. consume more of their “share” of resources is a more academic question than I am prepared to answer. But….

Of course we (the more developed nations) have a greater responsibility for healing the environment after we muck it up! Think back to when you were a little kid, do you ever remember your mother saying, “don’t worry about that mess, it will clean itself up,” I don’t think so. She would say, “you made that mess, now you clean it up.” This applied to your messy room and to the spilled kool-aid on the floor.

This principal (clean up what you mess up) should extend to whatever we do in life. People really have never wrapped their heads around the fact that if we don’t take care of our planet, it will die and take us with it. But, other “more immediate” problems tend to throw conservation to the back burner. Some people would rather research how to move to other planets rather than take care of this one.

Another reason the more developed countries need to take responsibility for fixing the damage our lives have done to the environment is that we can afford it. People throw fits about how much more sustainable ways of life cost, but it doesn’t really cost that much more now, and it would cost less if we researched ways to make things like solar energy more efficient. Plus, if the richest countries in the world aren’t going to do something, then who exactly is supposed to? The lesser developed countries have a lot more they need to spend their money on than we do and they have a lot less money overall.

Putting off planet conservation is stupidly shortsighted. I would be doing things like composting organic wastes and growing a garden like the Earth Day site said, but I live in an apartment at Hilltop and I don’t think they would take kindly to me farming on their well taken care of grass. It would be even harder in a regular dorm. We could probably work to put programs for conservation in place on campus, but it would take a lot of time and effort that is difficult to find in these homework filled days. But we can still try and do what we can, like recycling.

Fuddy Duddy

So yeah, I was one of the few, the proud, the boring during October Break. I stayed at school. It was a nice, relaxing weekend. I made friends with a sophomore in the building next to me and we went to Walmart together. She taught me how to make Rice a Roni on the stovetop. As for the rest of the weekend, I watched an anime called Darker than Black, I read some short stories, and I worked on the Profile paper for class.

Darker than Black is an AMAZING anime. It is a spy themed show about people with superpowers. Sounds a bit dorky but they pulled it off well. It has 25 episodes and the Japanese voice actors were really good. The ending really blew my mind and it is one of the few shows that I loved the ending of. They could make a sequel series, but they wrapped things up such that they don’t really have to. It was wonderful. So here are some characters:

Li Shengshun

Hei (aka BK201)

Yin (aka, the Mysterious and cute sidekick person)

Talking Cat

But anyway, I would really recommend this anime to just about anyone. It has a bit of violence to it, but the plot is pretty complex with many twists and turns. You can rewatch this a few times and catch new things each time. I like stuff like that. ^_^

Shaping Perceptions

The intentions of both Curtis and Neidich are surprisingly similar when you pare them down to the basic idea. Both photographers wanted to change what they thought of as a negative public opinion about Native Americans.

Curtis was being paid to document the vanishing culture of the Indians. This allowed him to try to change the public view of Indians from violent and lawless people to a noble people with their own distinct culture. Unfortunately, in order to change public opinion, he went to the other extreme of the opinion spectrum and created the ideal Indian culture. He removed all traces of western culture from his photos and paid the Indians to pose in costumes. Even though it is now known that a lot of what he ‘documented’ was false, Curtis transformed the Indians’ image from the violent savage to the ‘noble’ savage.

Ironically, Neidich had pretty much set out to partially undo that change. He views the ideal Native American culture as something that detracted from the actual culture of the Native Americans, and as a contributor to the sanitation of history. He wanted to educate people about what actually happened in interactions between the Native Americans and the English settlers. He mostly did this from the Indians point of view. He used staged pictures depicting Native Americans being shot or similarly injured by the settlers. Neidich doesn’t want to deny that the Native Americans had a proud heritage, but he wants to acknowledge that they were as flawed as we were, just less powerful in the end.

I prefer the works of Neidich because they are trying to bring a more historical prespective to the fore. He doesn’t claim that his photos were actually taken back then, but he does try to make them more true to the facts.

Excuses

Answering prompt 2) McNamara asks, in the film, “How much evil must we do in order to do good? We have certain ideals, certain responsibilities. Recognize that at times you will have to engage in evil, but minimize it….I think the issue is, in order to win a war should you kill 100,000 people in one night, by firebombing or any other way? [U.S. Air Force General Curtis] LeMay’s answer would be clearly ‘Yes.’” What do you think? Were the firebombings of dozens of Japanese cities “justified” in the context of WWII? Was the dropping of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) “justified”? Were these strategies, as McNamara advises in war, “proportional”? Did the ends justify the means?

Saying that in order to do good you may have to engage in evil is an excuse. The ends cannot be said to justify the means because then there are no boundaries on human behavior. You cannot reasonably say that the ends justify the means, but only up to a certain point because that point is not measurable and basically lets a person who is savvy enough do anything they want. As McNamara said, if we had lost we would have been persecuted as war criminals. Then how was it justified?

So long as people believe that up until a certain point the ends can justify the means they will also believe that humans war by nature and that human nature cannot change. That we will always have war. And so we shall. People can always say, invading this country will have this good result for me so I can justify the loss of life and resources to the war, or similar situation. People will not go through as much effort to exhaust all diplomatic options because sometimes war is just easier. I don’t believe we can change human nature, but I don’t believe war is in human nature. I believe humans are just too lazy to engage in political pussyfooting for long periods of time. The stress is too much. The idea of war, to relieve the stress and to end the pussyfooting becomes more and more attractive as time wears on.

Disclaimer: Of course, I have never taken a psychology class and I have not really studied human behavior. I may be totally wrong about human nature, but I may not be.

Powderkeg

The most disturbing problem that has been raised by Ishmael Beah is one of the aftereffects of being a child soldier. Even though the war in Sierra Leone is over the country is primed and ready to re-explode into violence at any time. Many of those who were child soldiers have been missed by the rehabilitators and even those who took part in the programs are not truly part of society. Those former soldiers have nowhere to call home and no future to look forward to. They are wandering around just trying to eke out an existence with a populace who either ignores them because of their past or resents them because they received the help when the villagers received little or none. Ishmael pointed out in his talk that they are likely to join any kind of organized effort that develops regardless of that organization’s goals because they need to be part of something larger. They are especially susceptible to joining another armed effort because it is all they know and the army unit becomes a sort of family to them. As they are now, most of them have no one to rely upon and no one to take care of them even though some are still young boys.

So basically, almost any charismatic person with a bone to pick can gather an army rather readily. In a country with a fragile government anyway the situation is frightening.

A Diamond? Why?

Growing up I was never really attracted to gems in general or diamonds especially. For one, I don’t wear jewelry that much, and when I do I like intricate wire creations more than jewel studded stuff. I never really understood why diamonds are so attractive to people. I like color and so a clear diamond, while it sparkles, is nowhere near as attractive to me as a rich emerald, sapphire, ruby, garnet, topaz, opal; the list goes on of cheaper and more colorful stones that I would rather have. (admittedly not much cheaper)

However, saying this only dodges the question of whether the information on blood diamonds changes my opinion of them because if the issue was blood sapphires, for example, it would be the same. So, instead of answering about blood diamonds, I am going to say blood gems, because the concept is the same and I’m sure that there are countries that use proceeds from other gem sales for less than worthy endeavors.

So, has information about conflict gems changed my opinions of whether or not to buy gems? Not really. It has merely strengthened my opinion that natural gems aren’t worth the expense. There are many synthetic alternatives to almost every gem if you want to have a pretty rock on your earrings/necklace/bracelet. Depending on the quality of the lab grown gem, it may have the exact same properties as natural gems or it may have different properties. Irregardless, they are cheaper and just as pretty so why not use them? In regards to diamonds, since we know how to synthesize tool-quality gems I have no real problem with people wearing them in general, though I believe they are put to better use in precision tools. Until countries in Africa and other places stop fighting, I think we should just boycott natural diamonds/gems and use the synthetic ones.

२० Problems

So these are 20 problems that I believe are touched on in the book A Long Way Gone by Ishmael Beah.

1. The use of child soldiers in conflicts causing semi-permanent and permanent psychological damage to the children.
2. The use of child soldiers in conflicts causing semi-permanent and permanent psychological damage to the parents of the children.
3. The use of child soldiers in conflicts causing permanent physical disability and sometimes death to the children.
4. The negative effect on food production in a conflict area due to destruction of arable lands.
5. The negative effect on food production in a conflict area due to lack of farmers.
6. The lack of trust between people due to fear of rebels/army in disguise.
7. The high mortality rate of civilians causing a loss of skilled workers and knowledge in general.
8. The lack of gun control increases the mortality rate because more people can get ahold of AK 47's.
9. The slow rate of food production causes food shortages that cause starvation and malnutrition in the population.
10. The media fails to cover the civil wars that we (Americans) are directly and indirectly funding so that people cannot make informed decisions about whether or not to buy conflict items.
11. The lack of media coverage causes Americans to view war in a casual manner, and consequently to not care about war.
12. The difficulty for interested parties in distinguishing which side to aid in a civil war. Hard to determine who is in the right because both sides use the same brutal methods.
13. Rape
14. Released livestock gone feral, such as pigs, are dangers to the civilians, especially those hiding in the wilderness from armies.
15. The ignorance of people trying to rehabilitate the child soldiers. They treat them like normal children instead of brainwashed soldiers.
16. The political struggles involved in war are often not understood by the people fighting them.
17. The existence of corrupt government
18. The fact that replacements for corrupt government are usually equally corrupt.
19. Poverty
20. The loss of habitat for animals in wild areas that become war zones causing the populations of some animals to drop.

The problem of deciding who to help in a conflict is an interesting one. I can see 3 possible solutions to it. First, you can decide to help neither side and just distance yourself from until it burns out. Not only does this cause criticism for being uncaring, this is a harder prospect than it first seems because, in the instance of Sierra Leone, if you buy something that the country exports than you are helping either one side or the other through funding. So you decide to help one side so that you at least have some control over who you were helping. Do you choose the side of the established government because they are the "rightful" authority? Do you choose the side of the rebels because they are fighting to bring down the corrupt government? Either way, your problem now becomes getting your populace to support your decision.

An Introduction

Yeah so this a bit about me.
I grew up in a smallish town near a huge city so I could go to museums and stuff, but I didn't have to deal with the traffic on a daily basis. I really like Indiana because the weather is pretty extreme.
In my free time I like to play videogames (Castlevania SOTN, Final Fantasy, DDR, Alundra, and similar), sew, play Ultimate Frisbee, reading, playing card games (SPOONS, full contact SPOONS, and egyptian rats grew), and I love to play D&D.
In the area of religion I am a Christian and I was raised as a Baptist. I believe that every organism on this Earth was created by God and that they have changed (evolved), but I don't believe that everything has a common ancestor, single-celled or otherwise. I also know that I am an imperfect being and I consider myself wise enough not to force my beliefs or personal standards on anyone else. If you want to discuss religion with me, I'm all for it, but otherwise I won't shove it down anyone's throat.
Anyway..... I am majoring in Entomology because I really like to play with bugs and spiders. I may try to get a job as a lab assistant on campus. Right now I'm working in the food industry which is.... interesting.... lol
On a final note, I am a dragon on the chinese zodiac and am absolutely batty about dragons as a consequence. So I have spiders and dragons all over my room. (none living of course)
Signing off....