more of the same... except opposite

As someone who is probably more skeptical about global warming than the average person I appreciate reading something from someone who wasn't convinced beyond doubt that global warming is not only going to happen but already is happening. (obviously Crichton is quite the opposite.) I thought Crichton portrayed this type of thinking well with the statement "It is not speculative. It is happening". I feel like a state of emergency is being declared about to global warming (and perhaps rightfully so) that forces people to "pick a side". And when the consequence of the world doing nothing and being wrong is global destruction it would make sense that the average person would agree that something should be done. And in fact even those who don't neccesarily believe the hype of global warming usually are in support of reducing emmissions. Making a decision to elimate the worst possible scenario isn't all bad but I feel like it prevents productive conversation on the topic.

The novel dissapoints me not that it is one sided but that it seems to think it is objective. He talks about the danger of politics mixed with science and though I agree with him I realize that the seperation of the two is implausable at best. The problem that we are facing is that it seems no one (i hope im wrong in saying this) is willing to take a close look at the facts that don't support their opinions, or atleast not publicly. Isn't there anyone that doens't have so much stake (whether political or otherwise) in their own opinion that they are willing to discuss the facts and admit that science doesn't 100% support their view. I guess this is what we hope to accomplish in this class but few of us have sufficient scientific knowledge to really weigh in with anything that hasn't already been put through a political filter.

In some odd way this book is humbling, even though it is also ridiculous and dramatic. What do we really know and why and how? It also gives me insight into my dad’s strange political turns since he retired and started hanging out with a new crowd in a small town Wisconsin.

This blog post is really list-y, but it’s what I’ve got for you today:
______________
front:
I began the book noting that there was going to be a Billy Joel song somewhere within its 714 pages, and also that the “Footnotes are real.” I read through the praise from a diverse group of publications and was surprised--though was happy to learn I would soon be more fun at cocktail parties.

back:
I made it through p. 543 so far and peeked at Appendix 1---he sets up a scenario similar to this book, in which science brainwashes everyone, and it turns out to be a reference to eugenics and anti-immigration policy. So I guess if by the end of the book I don’t agree with him, I probably am also likely to be convinced to do things like kill the babies of “inferior” people.
______________
women:
Within the first 10 pages, I thought, wow, what cliche and nauseating male-female dynamics so far. As I read on I decided to list all the female characters, just to see who was there. I think I have all the women in the first 400 pages here (maybe all of them in general but I may have been distracted by ice crevasses):

-femme fatale/trickster/murderer
-gossipy secretary
-tall beautiful blondes to entertain a rich man
-dumb mistress who flaunts her body
-hard-bodied sex athlete
-secretary who fakes illness so she can go home early
-tall, blonde glamorous assistant in tennis skirt, unsentimental, with a gun (She’s beautiful when she’s angry, did you know that?) “ice blonde”
-flight attendant, “sweetie”
-30 year old rich man’s daughter, coke addict
-secretary
-lawyer in charge of focus group, also a killer, good at karate, beautiful
-a group of older women in sun hats
-land lady
-comedian’s wife
-(actresses?)
-beautiful wife who sits on boards
-flight attendant
-girl who looks like a receptionist
-woman in skirt in distance above waterfall

He also works in the dynamic of men and women fighting over the remote. (What a regular guy!) (p. 267)

______________
lawyers:
He capitalizes quite a bit on lawyer stereotypes--they are “smart” but not street-smart, not able to fix things or figure out how to handle real-life practical situations. This creates a nice blue collar/white collar divide. (Though I’m still not sure where Kenner fits in exactly, sort of a MacGyver intellectual?)

He spends a lot of time pointing out how someone supposedly “smart,” a lawyer with lots of schooling, may actually know nothing at all (pages 422-424)
“There was no question in his mind that she was dead.” “He was sure she was dead.” “She was dead, all right” On 424--She’s NOT Dead! And if he hadn’t done CPR, contrary to his belief that she was dead, she would have been dead. This reinforces the idea that a well-educated person is easily mislead, and can take something for Truth or certainty that is not at all true. Also (448) they are trained to only really worry about malpractice, getting fired, getting in trouble themselves, not what is really true or right. And they whine.

pacifists:
Pacifists or those against violence likely are naive and suburban-raised. If they knew what real life was like out there, they would want to fight. (448)

movie stars:
He capitalizes on anti-Hollywood sentiment, with the Ted Bradley character being an arrogant buffoon who quotes talking points and really just wants attention and a great-fitting t-shirt. And rides around in a SUV Limo.

intellectuals:
Universities aren’t even smart enough to prevent a fake scientist from using their money and identities to set up a fake research base/terrorist act in Antarctica. No one at these research institutions is even paying attention. (p. 250-251)

government:
The government isn’t paying attention: “Because government oversight of foundations and charities is extraordinarily lax. They don’t get audited. The books don’t get inspected. Environmental groups in the US generate half a billion dollars a year. What they do with it is unsupervised.” (229)

news media:
The news media and its weathermen don’t report news, they just read press releases. (454)
___________________

legitimation:
seeing through common knowledge--”everyone knows” (Peter Evans, first many, many pages, the movie star, etc.); legitimation through high-profile funding; Kenner legitimated by being able to poke holes in others’ arguments; Crichton legitimated by being able to provide lots of footnotes; the Vanuatu lawsuit people trying to legitimate themselves by having fancy offices with lots of researchers; legitimation through the words of confident-sounding movie stars; legitimation through reinforcement by your peer group; legitimation by book reviewers; legitimation through state of emergency; legitimation through quoting Mark Twain and George Orwell; legitimation through having tons of graphs

Seeing Devices:
graphs, graphs and more graphs; newscasts & weathermen, seeing by going somewhere and looking with your eyes; seeing by daily experience--“it’s cold here.” “it’s hot out.”;

Issue Selection:
the conference and accompanying park disaster to select the issue of global warming;

Canadians:
Whatever you do, do NOT trust Canadians.

evil:
Lastly: There are bad people in the world and they need to be stopped. (449)

Student gives Crichton more credit, less respect for being sneaky, dubious

As my title suggests, I do give the author more credit than I originally had intended - yes, intended. I had presumed that anyone who was reputedly writing to legitimate one side of a politically-charged war of theories would not be worth my time. But Crichton is anything but dull, and even while I am disappointed that he doesn't put his "only too aware" voice to better (or less 'skeptical for the smug virtue of being skeptical') use, I am glad that he takes the risk of backing himself up in the end matter. This way there is little doubt as to where he stands.

First off, even when characters aren't discussing the realities of their side of overtly polarized arguments, the voice of the author fills our apparent, momentary void of polemics with more subtle jabs at these 'truths.' How? Put simply, through the tone of narration, with little bits of exposition that are on the surface only 'advancing the story:'
"Christ, it was cold..."
"Not bad at all! Quite warm! You are lucky, it's a pleasant August night."
"...Morton was wearing a down vest, a quilted windbreaker, and heavy pants. And he was still cold."
On the one hand, it's Iceland and our philanthropist patsy Morton is supposed to be on a kick of funding research to ease his guilt over inherited wealth while being slightly oblivious to the facts; but I'm seeing, '"Get it? It's DAYTIME in Iceland [the poster place for 'skeptic' groups], and Morton deep down knows it's cold but is blinded by his hunger for altruism [just like everyone who jumps on the global warming bandwagon, and Theodore Roosevelt, and the Rockefeller Foundation]."'

A major red flag in Crichton's 'agenda-less' argument comes a few pages later, when Einarsson cites "climate patterns that are rather specific to Iceland and are unlikely to be related to any global pattern." I would suspect that it is equally unlikely that such a true-science hero would in real life suggest that the world is so disconnected. Case in point: the esteemed Prof. James Lovelock, who in a recent BBC interview said that basically the world is beyond human control of saving - and even went as far as to say that all renewable energy is truly good for at this point is good business tactics, and that scientists no longer practice their craft as a vocation but understand 'only too well' who's paying them (all morsels which I would expect Crichton to eat whole) - was himself the very founder of the widely-accepted Gaia Hypothesis, which frames the earth as a single living organism. http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

I wish someone with this author's passion and power over rhetoric would take a fictional adventure such as this a step further, and include organizations that are working just as hard as Crichton's environmental terrorist network, but to fund 'skeptic' research (a lobby for fossil fuels or a fictional company representing Exxon Mobil).
Perhaps Bruno Latour will treat us to such a 'no-win with old world polemics' story sometime in the future...
As far as I'm concerned, that is where State of Fear is most offensive: even with it's "great respect for the corrosive influence of bias [etc]," the novel employs a decidedly hostile air, in both its choice of statistical references (a la footnotes) and it's contemptuous tone for those who would act on the premise of a moral warning against human ignorance.

In the story Crichton exposes the potential workings of a conspiratorial black box - of creating false support for a global theory - and in doing so more implicitly reveals his own: that of the Author's mixture of storytelling and pre-legitimated fact (what he wants us to trust as "real," the footnotes) to apply imagination to sensitive topics and put into the public atmosphere 'another way to see' the issues. Yet, the discrepancy between the way he skillfully summarizes his own reasoning (through the appendices and bibliography) and the significantly more one-sided views in the content of the book is troubling. Why doesn't he apply the same circulating reference to both sides of the paradigm of climatology?

The answer, it occurs to me, may be fairly simple.
Crichton suggests on pages 718 and 719 that we are in a place of stasis, scientifically-speaking, and are in need of a "new environmental movement, with new goals and new organizations." Based on this I would say that he himself is stuck in the same at old cold war paradigm he describes: find a buzz topic based on a binary and focus on one side of this and nothing else, to please the public - this is happening all the time: partisanship, ethanol vs. fossil fuels, and global warming are just a few examples where the 'science' or 'reality' of the issues has evolved, while the public eye is held adamantly on the old favorites.
As Michael Crichton doubtlessly knows well, that's where the money's at.

circulating legitimation

So I must admit, I was pleasantly surprised that this book was actually a pretty fun, interesting read. It wasn't like I had to pull teeth to read it. Thank goodness. Crichton's use of rhetoric really defines where he stands and if there were no preconceived notions about global warming before this book, he would be one-hundred percent convincing especially with his "footnotes [that] are real." It is his use of rhetoric that really opens the readers eyes to what George Orwell says in the beginning, "within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss." No one really wants to talk about global warming and the possible causes because it is something so important. It is not just a matter for the United States but does effect the whole world. Crichton boldly takes on the topic of global warming and really tries to hit his opinion home with his use of scientific evidence, seen within his footnotes. Crichton comes full circle with a circulating reference 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 it. In every debate, all sides overstate the extent of existing knowledge and its degree of certainty." Crichton is hypocritical in a sense that he seems to do the same thing. Instead of showing a great degree of "evidence" for global warming, he turns the tables and overemphasizes the evidences legitimacy. His reference here really reflects that the thing that no one wants to discuss about important issues, is really the lack of knowledge and the questions that still need to be answered.

Blame it on the weatherman

"The atmosphere is a bigger mystery than anyone will admit. Simple example: No one can say for sure if global warming will result in more clouds, or fewer clouds." - Kenner.

"Wait a minute." Evans said. "Global warming is going to raise the temperature, so more moisture will evaporate from the ocean, and more moisture means more clouds."

"That's one idea. But higher temperature also means more water vapor in the air and therefore fewer clouds."

"So which is it?"

"Nobody knows."

"Then how do they make computer models of the climate?"

Kenner smiled. "As far as cloud cover is concerned, they guess."

"They guess?"

"Well, they don't call it a guess. They call it an estimate, or parameterization, or an approximation. But if you on't understand something, you can't approximate it. You're really just guessing."

Page 235

I'll admit, I'm a Michael Crichton fan. I really enjoyed Sphere, even though it caused me about a week's worth of nightmares because I really don't like being underwater, especially in the ocean. I think he's a wonderful writer, and I really enjoy his writing style because it is so easy to follow. A lot of writers these days go very detailed and descriptive when it isn't relevant or necessary to the storyline. I think his writing is especially useful in science fiction where people can get wrapped up in the technology/science that they forget the storyline and the characters. The storyline is compelling, even though I don't think the characters develop or change much besides in their beliefs. We do see that Peter becomes more questioning, but overall is pretty static.

But relevant to the quote that typed at the beginning of the post, weather, the atmosphere, and things relevant to those areas are pretty murky waters. The fact is we don't know exactly how this works. And Crichton reiterates it on the first page of the author's message, first bullet point (page 715). Predicting the weather is tricky business, especially over the long-term. That's why no one really pays attention to meteorologists (except the very cute Sven Sundgaard <3). It's a black box in the sense that no one but meteorologists know what they're talking about.

Michael Crichton admits that carbon dioxide levels are rising, and it's probably due to human effect (author's message). But he says that we shouldn't raise the alarm about it quite yet because it's all so circumstantial. And I have to say I tend to agree with him (probably my own bias). He's seeing this issue through the fact that most citizens think global warming is real, but no one can say the exact effects. The media has a tendency to latch onto things and take them to extremes and exaggerate. I think if we take anything from the book, it is the need to question anything we are presented a fact, especially if it will cost us a lot of money.

Fiction?

Michael Crichton's novel "State of Fear", is suppose to be a fictional book from his own imagination, but in the opening statements of the novel, before the book even begins he says " This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institution, and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination,or,if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions, and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. footnotes are real." This kinda says im writing a book to push my opinions on global warming onto you,and if you dont think how i think then your an idiot, and in the footnotes lies the proof to your own idiotic thoughts.

The book talks alot about the issues of global warming, and an organization named National Environmental Resource Fund (NERF)which is really similar to the Environmental Protection agency (EPA). NERF talks about how dangerous global warming is and if the people dont gives tons of money to them then they will all die. a little extreme, but kinda similar to how we support global warming laws and procedures now a days.

"the more speculative genres"

(via Information Is Beautiful)

All of the front matter in State of Fear is extremely loaded, but the excerpt from the Wall Street Journal review struck me. It called State of Fear, “The Da Vinci Code with real facts, violent storms, and a different kind of faith altogether. . . . Every bit as informative as it is entertaining.” Over 300 pages into State of Fear, I only remember seeing those promised footnotes (according to the disclaimer, the only parts of State of Fear that are accurate and not fiction) maybe three times. That’s, what, 1% fact? How is this “informative”? This is a work of fiction with no more reference to contemporary fact than Twilight (though, I’ll bite, it’s a little better written).

This leads me to genre conventions. In Junot Diaz’s The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, our lovingly geeky protagonist, Oscar, repeatedly refers to science fiction as “the more speculative genres”—and that is what I like about science fiction, the little I have read. The ideas it presents to me are often far-reaching, philosophical fears and beliefs. Aside from that, very generally, science fiction is defined by “WHAT IF” with its factual basis revolving mostly around allegory—around history’s tendency to repeat itself thanks to humanity’s continuing flaws.

I don’t get the same feeling from Crichton (in this specific novel) as I do from other science fiction writers. Crichton isn’t alone in having his beliefs shape his writing—H.G. Wells filled his work with socialism, Orson Scott Card’s Homecoming Saga is patterned on The Book of Mormon, etc. The thing that sets Crichton apart from these writers (well, one thing) is that his work takes place in the present and is “grounded in fact.” This book got President George W. Bush to call Crichton to the White House to discuss how they agree on every point. I somehow don’t think Bush would have read Ender’s Game and got started on training children to kill the insect aliens threatening Earth. Disclaimer aside, State of Fear sells itself as embellished truth for the general public. And it works.

Pages 305-311 reframe the climatology paradigm, essentially stating that climate-prediction is driven by grants from people who want to hear that carbon dioxide emissions are harming the planet and won’t hear otherwise. Kenner—a Crichton Gary Stu if I ever saw one (though I’ve heard Peter Evans is supposed to fill this role)—states that despite the earth warming, the margin of error in prediction is so great that we best not listen to climatologists—or indeed scientists—ever. While it does highlight the shakiness of climate-prediction, it can’t refute past climate trends nor can it refute that global temperatures are rising. The fact that Evans buys it blows my mind. Just pages before this Kenner was disproving the conviction that climatology studies funded by coal companies are going to deny global warming. And if climatology is whack, are we really supposed to believe in Kenner’s cooling trends? Who the hell do we trust? And why does an educated lawyer like Evans fail to see that the polemic’s pieces won’t fit together?

I guess that’s another failing on Crichton’s part, and one that permeates all his work—his characters are just there to add dialogue and keep the story moving. I feel no attachment to anyone mentioned thus far. I was vaguely charmed by George Morton, but mostly because I equated him with Ludo Bagman, a character from a children’s series with more depth than this slop. When it looked like Evans was done for, I didn’t care. When it turned out he was alive, I didn’t care. When both Sarah and Evans were freezing to death, I didn’t care.

Poor Michael Crichton. The literary community spurns him for his writing failures and scientists and diplomats fought to keep him away from testifying about scientific facts due to his status as a science fiction writer (disregarding his BS in anthropological biology and his MD from Harvard). It’s like the story of Romantic poet, John Keats. Except that John Keats was actually quite the lyricist and the only reason no one appreciated him was because he was working class. So, in a couple years, maybe Michael Crichton will be taken seriously by scientific and literary authorities. Maybe.

Cyborg and the technological singularity

A series of videos related to my intervention project, for your viewing pleasure.

http://www.singularitysymposium.com/cyborg.html

"Footnotes are real."

Starting from the introductory quotes, its pretty clear that Crichton's position is one of a sort of smug scrutiny of the scientific process, but no doubt only so far as it serves his case. "There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - And I smugly agree with this position, largely, as is evidenced by some of my previous posts perhaps; I love and trust the pursuit of knowledge but to me the body scientifique is full of conjecture and fascinating science fiction. Another element of the front matter hitched me - in his disclaimer about yadda yadda, these characters are fictional, he ends with "Footnotes are real." No bs, this is a legitimation project, of course.
And on page 43 (at least its page 43 in my book, but I may have a different version?) we get our first taste of footnote legitimation - this science fiction book is making an argument about a real world issue and citing sources, and providing us with characters who are bent on proving the author's point.
*" "The reality," he said, "is that Iceland the first half of the twentieth century was warmer than the second half, as in Greenland." The reality is that in Iceland..."" etc. This italicized word, reality, repeatedly meant to drive home the legitimation of doubt about Global Warming. And it includes a statement (which sounds absolutely ridiculous to me, from what I know of ... well, the globe...) that Iceland has a particular pattern that should be regarded as independent of global phenomena... what? And then there are the graphs starting on page 83, where the scientists repeatedly say something to the effect of, "oh, even in the face of evidence you still hold your position that Global Warming is real? Good. We need blind faith to win." That's cute, Crichton. Especially since the book did *not* include any of the scientific 'conjecture' which has served to explain the phenomena on those graphs. I've heard a lot of the arguments that explain those trends - perhaps because my dad is a lobbyist for alternate energy and owns an LLC where he is a consultant for solar paneling, in conference with Xcel and electrician unions and so forth.
The tone of this story is definitely some sort of action adventure. The global warming scandal is also a war, a dramatic day in court, a conspiracy (and my dad would entirely agree). The characters are in a life and death endeavor where money is being pushed around as nefariously as if this were a global illegal drug market. A la James Bond, the women are sexualized even when in positions of power and the men are in the most predominant positions of power - the prestigious positions. Everyone has a mistress or three and noncommital sexual behavior, the sexiness of being a lawyer on one side of a war in swaying public opinion (I mean, basically Crichton is sexy-fying his own life, right?)
But he is so very lawyer-like - doing the exact sort of legitimating that he is seems dubious of, but of course he knows he's doing it because that is what being a lawyer is all about - on page 90, where he shamelessly lists all of the great legitimators who may argue against Global Warming - even nobel prize winners, imagine that. And who is most trustworthy, The UN? (page 85) or a Nobel Prize winner and an MIT professor? He certainly didn't go out of his way to make the case FOR Global Warming, here. The case for is the feeble, non-scientist Evans saying "Well of course I still believe" in the face of the body scientifique saying, "in spite of all of this reason to doubt Global Warming, we need you little people to believe." So he is turning an issue where the majority of scientists in real life agree into a mockery, and without providing the side of the defense of Global Warming, he is surely a bit convincing - he makes us feel, through his characters, as though there really isn't much of a valid defense against the great doubt. The lawyers in defense of global warming aren't doing a very good job but Crichton is making his one sided case pretty well. Evans, the whole defense, are the foil, the blind faith believers, but the footnotes don't lie (footnotes which are references to scientific papers, so trust Crichton's interpretation of the science.)

what OMG was invented for:

I know we've moved on from food to environmental espionage, but holy crap, look at this thing:

http://consumerist.com/2010/04/kfcs-bacon-sandwich-on-fried-chicken-bread-kills-people-everywhere-on-april-12.html

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!

Obesity intervention!

For my intervention, I took on the obesity crisis in the most grassroots possible fashion: Handwritten admonishments posted around Rainbow Foods. I've posted this thing everywhere else...and I can't fathom why I didn't think to put it up here right away.

You can find it at:

• Facebook
• Tumblr
• and Flickr

If you have any other photo-hosting websites you really like where I should maybe post these, please share!

And while I'm at it, I'll plug another student's intervention in the form of a guest blog entry asking if gender and race can really, meaningfully be studied through biology or science. She's not a group 1 member, but that doesn't mean you can't show her some love.

something for nothing

http://msmagazine.com/blog/blog/2010/03/30/the-splenda-thief/

The Splenda Thief

March 30, 2010 by Aimee Liu

She was in her 20s, dressed to the nines in size 4 Armani, made up for the office, and hunched over the sidebar at my neighborhood Starbucks, shoveling packets of Splenda into her purse.

I’m not proud of my response. I watched her for several long seconds recalling the various articles and listserv notes I’d read recently about people with eating disorders consuming huge quantities of artificial sweeteners, sometimes to the point of experiencing “aspartame poisoning.” At best, this young woman was stealing the equivalent of two boxes of Splenda because she didn’t have the time or money to buy it at the grocery store. At worst, she was stealing and poisoning her body in order to taste “something for nothing.” I should have shown her compassion.

Instead, when the packets were overflowing from her Gucci handbag and she would not meet my gaze, I said in a regrettably snarky tone, “Think you’ve got enough of that stuff?”

She threw me a stony look, clenched her bag to her chest and fled, wobbling down the block on her too-high heels. Starbucks was giving the stuff away, so it wasn’t exactly shoplifting. It was worse.

“Something for nothing” is becoming the name of the game in our culture as it is in eating disorders. Zero-calorie desserts. Waifs who binge. Perfection without connection. Sublime starvation. Size zero fashions. Cadaverous beauty. Status without substance. Oxymoron is too kind a term.

Do I sound angry? You bet! Because this is all a huge, sad, inexcusable con that’s rooted in personal terror, encouraged–and exploited–by our all-consuming society.

I’ve no idea what specific demons were chasing that woman in Starbucks, but she was so intent on her mission to steal fake sugar that she had no idea she was stealing in plain sight of everyone in the store. I was the only one to call her out, but the store was full of witnesses. And we all could see that what she was stealing had no meaningful value. It didn’t supply energy or nutrients. Its value was entirely negative.

Splenda creates an illusory taste that is 600 times sweeter than sugar. Yet according to recent studies, it does not satisfy the craving for sweetness. Instead, it appears to subvert attempts to lose weight. Rats fed artificially sweetened yogurt ate more and gained more weight than rats fed yogurt sweetened with real sugar. This may explain why people who drink diet sodas seem to be at greater risk for obesity than those who drink regular soda.

So the Splenda thief wasn’t even stealing “something for nothing”–she was stealing single-digit calories that would just keep stoking her craving for more, more, more, until she finally ate something that would satisfy her brain and body. In the meantime, she’d remain in that same driven stupor she’d been in when I caught her with her hand in the fake sugar jar, able to think of nothing except where and how she was going to get her next fix of imitation sensation. I wouldn’t want to be her boss, her client, her partner, or her friend when she was in that state. She’d have nothing more for them than she had for her own body. But she’d be costing them energy and frustration, just as she was costing herself.

“Something for nothing” is a lie that consumerism loves to perpetuate. And America has fallen for it over and over, not only in the ersatz foods we eat and drink but in “no-cost mortgages,” “zero-financing” credit scams, and now, thanks to reality TV, even zero-talent instant celebrity.

You don’t have to have an eating disorder to get caught up in the con, but eating disorders are a “perfect” reflection of what’s going on throughout our society. Everywhere we look we’re told that perfection depends on mastering the art of weightlessly having it all. Meanwhile, the negative consequences of chasing this empty ideal just keep mounting.

True value in life comes from substance, focus, passion, energy, effort, creativity and strength. It has weight and depth, and requires time to develop and appreciate. Until we recognize and actively defend the true sources of value in our own lives and throughout our culture, we are all, like the Splenda thief, just stealing from ourselves.

Photo courtesy of http://www.flickr.com/photos/drewzak/ / CC BY 2.0

Food Selection

One night, I decided to buy Wendy's on the way home from a soccer game. I ordered two Bacon Jr. Cheeseburgers and a small chili. It was midnight, I played three games in a row, and I heard my mom was cooking a certain stir fry with cucumbers. Not going to lie - I'm not a big fan of cucumbers in stir fry.

Ethics - It is kind of a double edged sword for me (more like a sharper edge on one side) because I knew my mom was cooking dinner, but it makes her unhappy when I don't eat available food at home. And knowing that I have food at home, but I still go out to eat and spend money kind of kills me now.

Economics - Reflecting back, I am not a big fan of fast food chains. I like going out to eat at small, family owned restaurants like Quang or Matt's Bar. By me spending $4-6 dollars on fast food, I further add to their profit, which can push smaller businesses out of business. Even worse, the more I eat at a fast food restaurant, the more likely I am to push people into unemployment. The only reason why I eat fast food - availability. I demand for food, a place has to supply it. Plus friends are busy to eat out.

Politics - I don't see much politics going on here, but it is probably the commercials and their subliminal stimuli that gets me. I see their advertising, and I remember it while I am driving home, driving and (in this case) highly dehydrated. Whatever fast food that can get me that "fix" I need for food, all rationale goes out the window no matter what my mom cooked at home.

random - Comfort food!

I just ordered a ton of comfort food from the local Chinese restaurant - its funny that this is how I think I will be able to get myself to spend the next 10 hours doing homework.

Food as medication! Because doing 10 hours of homework every day when your friends are having fun is depressing!

cream cheese wontons (8), extra white rice, fried jumbo shrimp with fried rice (for my roommate), and Singapore Chow Mei Fun hold the shrimp.

our friend joel salatin from the debate gives movie advice, too

How deep does my muffin run?

At first glance, I would think that there is little to 'uncover' about one of Hard Times Cafe's muffins, as unique (and sometimes unusual) as they are. If I'm justifying my somewhat-frequent purchase of these 'almost meals' on economics grounds, I might claim to be quite rational, as a buyer of local, freshly-made food, and cite its low price of $2 (or $1 the next day) relative to its probability of maximizing my enjoyment, which is high, as the beginning and end of my experience here.

Indeed, all of this is true and is part of why I buy one with a coffee every few days - my favorite is "banana-chocolate chip" (I won't try to do it justice by merely describing it's superior dynamic integrity here); yet after several semesters of Hard Times patronage, I think it is important to ask myself why I come there, as well as what it means to make the decision to do so with intention rather than out of subconscious habit or for convenience's sake.

Funnily enough, the moment I start to uncover these answers, the questions get interesting: the first thing I realize is that beyond the obvious ingredients of [insert fruit, nut, spice, or chocolate here] and 'muffin stuff,' I have no idea what is in the HTC muffin. This is a red flag.

There are plenty of categories through which Hard Times could be argued as an ethical choice: its cooperatively-owned and operated business practice makes a major statement for local economy and fair labor causes; its entirely meatless menu avoids contact with a major link in the factory farming chain, and the extra vegan options acknowledge a sometimes neglected subgroup within the community (- not to mention the other subgroup, which needs a place to stay warm/focus/listen to death metal and talk about god until 4am).

While I have acknowledged these ethical factors from time to time as motivators to spend time there (I would of course prefer to stick to such choices as they become available) the black box represented by my faith in the muffin's goodness - they must be organic, [etc.] right? - might be as much a perpetuation of symbolic violence as I see in the kind of blind support enjoyed by the benevolent image of the Green Movement.
Short of having an existential crisis, I am disturbed by the moral proximity of my situation to that of, say, trusting the 'granola' label of a cheese in the organic dairy section at Rainbow.

When I next stop in at Hard Times, I may inquire about what goes into their 'muffin stuff,' upon the answering of which I could seek out knowledge of the point at which those ingredients connect to the greater picture (of corn, grain, etc); this could ruin it for me, but at that moment, I just may appreciate that muffin more than I ever have.

Vandana Shiva

Last Thursday I saw Vandana Shiva speak at Cowles at HHH.

If you don't know who she is check out her site:

http://www.navdanya.org/

Or the site of the month-long exhibition symposium that brought her here, which has some video clips of her (and will eventually post her talk from last week):

womenandwater.net

She is pretty amazing and mind-blowing (and I'm not saying that lightly), and my notes don't really do her justice but I wanted to share them with you anyhow.

3/26/10 Vandana Shiva @ Cowles Auditoriem (audience of about 600)

* the exhibition at the Nash shows us how art fills a particular role; the inadequace of communication through science; "Only art can communicate the ways out of the catastrophe we face"'; art can have the ability to reach a larger audience

* every river (except for one) in India is characterized as a woman (named for various goddesses and characters from the epic tales)

* chipco (sp?) movement--- women protected a forest by attaching themselves to tree, because they saw haw the forest is the source of their water, the soil holds in water, the trees hold in the soil against the force of the ganga (ganges river)....later told story of coastal villages where commercial shrimping operations (similar to our fish farms here) cleared the mangrove trees from the coast, then when storms came the villages that were no longer protected by the mangroves were destroyed. she had a great phrase along the lines of "the mangrove trees caress the angry waves of the ocean"

* sustenance economy, economy of care--these do not require capital

* ecological responsibility cannot simply be outsourced to organizations and governments--we each must care for our ecology

* "environmentalist" she feels this implies something outside of ourselves that we look at, also that it implies that we can sit back while the environmentalists do the work

prefers "ecologist" because that implies the system you are apart of....

* limestone mining in India--the rain creates caverns in the limestone underground, those caverns then store water supply...there was a case where the mining was shut down because they realized the water is more financially valuable than the limestone

* shrimping--for every $1 earned, $10 of the local infrastructure is lost....

* you can send researchers to look at a place but you could also ask 100 local women to examine the area, they already have the context, they already know the extent to which their wells are being salinated, their glaciers are melting etc.

* a leader in Bolivia (??) is working on a new update to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that will be the Declaration of the Rights of Mother Earth. (In part in response to the failure of Copenhagen--she said Obama flew in at the last minute and presented his own accord, after 190 countries had been working on one...??) anyhow--the idea is that all human rights are predicated on the rights of the earth...

* 80% of humanity is disposable; 20% of humanity is destroying itself through consumption

* you are not just producing good food (with trad'l ag practices) you are also producing good water

* chemical ag requires way more (didn't get the # sorry) water than trad'l ag

* the biggest reservoir of water on the planet is the soil

* forgotten foods (example millet) are foods of the future. who knows how to grow these and how they act---women. these foods also tend to be higher in nutrients

* "the worst pollution is the pollution of the mind" prime minister of tibet who visits and teachers at her farm research center each winter

* dupont suing monsanto....

* technology cannot create big heart full of love

* book: Richistan--about a new class of rich that crosses political borders...

* contested Jeffrey Sachs "end of poverty" esp. ch. 1 because she feels sustenance economies do not require $$.....

issue is cost of living--not income--privatization makes living more expensive

* organic isn't expensive, the other food is too cheap.

Speaking of food: Unearthing the Sex Secrets of the P'erigord Black Truffle

Unearthing the Sex Secrets of the P'erigord Black Truffle

Rot Pockets.

I often let the fridge run down to empty, not because I love looking at ketchup and wasabi as my options for dinner but because I like to make sure that I eat everything I buy before going back to the store. This proved to be difficult and I have spent many years perfecting a grocery run that allows for me to run out of food even with the last bit being considered a meal. But, this proves to be problematic when it happens on a Sunday afternoon and I get hungry Sunday evening. Further issues arise because I live a block from a 24hour gas station in my small suburb of 3000 people. So, naturally I find myself standing at the SuperAmerica at 10pm (in the middle of wrting my blog post of course) on a certain recent sunday with a choice....what to eat?

I try to eat healthy when I can, having most of my food come from the grocery store and preparing my own meals definitely aides in that endevour. But, if you've ever patronized a gas station for dinner you may understand how difficult that becomes. Before making my decision, I was driven by several factors. Economically, I'm not willing to spend much money, like 5 bucks max. That limits my options seeing as gas stations often elevated prices (my demand is high...they are literally the only supply). I wish I could say that ethics played a role, but being realistic, I was hungry and didnt care much what it was as long as I was full when finished. I settled on Hot Pockets.

The thought of hot pockets now makes me gag. They may be one of the most processed foods available to the US consumer. Every ingredient is modified in some way (i.e. hydrogenated oil, modified corn starch) or is simply a byproduct of another (corn syrup solids??). Overall, this leads the average hotpocket to a wonderfully bland, salty, fatty taste. Most importantly for me at the sunday evening juncture...its cheap. None of these ingredients 'cost' anything. Most of them are the remains from other products produced by Nestle. I think Pollan would be rather disappointed in my decision, but he is a succesful writer with money and co-ops, I'm a broke college student with a gas station.

But, the cost is truly passed on to society. Personally, I the consumer see it in the form of life shortening. I swear I'll live a week shorter just for eating the two (yep) that I did. Other costs are the result of small farms closing and rural communties withering as corporate food producers maintain the amount of economic power they do. So Nestle may be able to make monetarily 'cheap' products, but they are societally devestating. After reflecting on this choice, I realize that ethically I made the wrong decision. I should not support unhealthy swill being marketed to the masses as inexpensive option for eating. Rather I should advocate for the opposite. But, sadly in the country, who among us can say they havent made my mistake....even once.

green bean versus meaty-cheesy or the ethopolitics of your mother-in-law's cooking

Food. Okay I must write more about food. My intervention is about food and I just read all your blog posts, my head is full of food.

ethics
politics
economics

To veer away, for a moment, from organics and all that (though I won't get too far away) I would like to address the sensitive subject of in-laws and food.

Instance one: my sister-in-law, Jennifer, did not grow up here and so was deprived in her childhood of the glorious thing known as Green Bean Casserole. It is a foreign and disgusting substance to her. I see where she is coming from-- the cans, the weird creamy mystery soupiness, the crunchy weird onion things, also from a can. But still, I, the one who brings loads of weird vegetables to grill from my CSA box whenever we all visit my parents in WI in the summer, love to eat green bean casserole. Only once or twice a year, but for that weird dish I put aside my politics and supposed standards. Why? Nostalgia, mainly, and, I think, because of my vegetarianism beginning at age 14, that was one traditional family food that I could eat throughout my career with my family. Yes, I unabashedly defend the green bean casserole, coming from the Jolly Green Giant's very own black box. Those "french-style" green beans just taste totally different than a regular green bean, and they meld perfectly with Cream of Mushroom soup, and are complemented so perfectly by crispy dried up onions. Thank you Campbell's, for inventing such a food of celebration. (However I cannot promise to keep you in business with my few servings a year, I apologize. And if I ate it more than those times of year I would probably realize it doesn't actually taste good.)

Switch kitchen tables and I become the daughter-in-law in question. My mother-in-law, for pretty much EVERY gathering, makes this meaty-cheesy-casserole, sometimes topped with more meat. For the first years in my career as her daughter-in-law, I luckily was vegetarian, and I could easily opt out of the meaty-cheesy-casserole beloved by her clan, without causing any suspicion. (sometimes she would make a cheesy broccoli-y version for me, however). Now that I sometimes eat meat and made the mistake of letting the in-laws know, it is usually the main food option. Some times a side of meaty-cheesy-potato-y casserole, and occasionally a salad from a bag contributed by my sister-in-law, the other Julie. There is no nostalgia for me in meaty-cheesy casserole. No tolerance for the can or the creaminess or the lack of actual vegetables. It is not part of my family history, and therefore it is really hard for me to make the exception, or if I do make the exception I feel really sick for many hours because it is just not "my" food, and it doesn't agree with me--and I guess I don't agree with it either.

The casserole is a pretty economical dish--you put a bunch of cheap canned things, whatever's in your pantry, really, into one pan, heat and serve. Mom--just got home from working all day, need to tidy the house and help kids with homework, and have dinner ready? Perfection in Pyrex! Or maybe you just don't really know how to cook or how to cut vegetables or prepare fresh ingredients because you were born after the 1940s? No need to worry, the Jolly G's got your back. Purification through helpfulness and convenience.

Food suddenly requires very little thought (how to grow, cook, store, prepare it) and golly, has that allowed the food industry to blossom. Put your mind to rest and they'll do the work for you, no need to lift a paring knife. Alas, maybe that wasn't the best plan, as Michael Pollan so kindly helps us realize.

Food as something we buy I think is often not a matter of rational acting. I think we often try to make it so, but our basis for making the choices is constantly changing--what was healthy is now deemed unhealthy, what is ethical turns out to be super-bad, what is higher quality turns out to be only over-priced. (darn!) And really, even when we are trying to be rational about food, there are so many things which can affect our ability to "maximize the utility" of food.

When I maximize the utility of my food, there are tons of factors going into the decisions I make, the same sorts of things touted in the blog posts thus far...and this includes maximizing enjoyment of food. We are so good at ruining the enjoyment of food, and I think that is part of what's allowed it to become more industrial--if an eater is only concerned about counting kcals, they won't necessarily stop to care that it is "food" made out of pulverized such-and-such. In this way my food decisions are very qualitative--it is hard for me to shop somewhere like Rainbow--maybe intellectually is part of it, but also the sensation is very different from shopping somewhere where I have a better idea what the food is made from and where it's from. The sheer size of a Rainbow store disturbs me on a visceral level. So I end up spending more on my food (maybe? I've never run a report) but I also feel like I have more of a part in my choices, and I enjoy them more. I have a little bonding time with my food as I learn where it's from and what to do with it. Is this part of being a rational actor? Oh maybe it is, maybe that is why we have 12+ co-ops in Mpls--lots and lots of rational actors? Or suckers succumbing to peer pressure and marketing (the real invisible hand?). Hard to say for sure.

Back to the casserole--is it the labor of my dear mom that makes the Green Bean Casserole acceptable and even delicious? (and then oh, crap, am I seriously disrespecting my mother-in-law by not embracing the meaty-cheesy casserole, thus endorsing all the mother-in-law stereotypes of the world?) Do I "see" the green bean casserole differently than the meaty-cheesey casserole? Yes. Do I legitimate my mom's casserole while de-legitimizing my mother-in-laws? Mmmaybe... Does Cream of Mushroom soup perform an act of circulating reference towards the Mushroom? The Rainbow Paradigm versus the Seward Co-op Paradigm?

Hospital Food

I spend every Monday afternoon volunteering at Abbott Northwestern Hospital and in return for my time I get free food. For each shift that I volunteer, I get the option of eating in the hospital's cafeteria or in the McDonalds that is also in the hospital.

Let's just pause right there. McDonalds in a hospital?! That's what I thought when I first saw it and it's something I commonly hear from people who are visiting the hospital. It certainly doesn't seem like a great idea to me, but apparently it is fairly common in hospitals across the country. Here's an article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/nyregion/26fast.html

Back to my weekly options: the cafeteria or McDonalds. My decision is usually influenced by food selection, the dollar amount worth of food that I get, and the hours that each are open.
-The cafeteria has many more options as far as healthy choices, though it has its fair share of unhealthy choices (such as burgers, pizza, etc). It's a pretty standard cafeteria. If you're familiar with UDS, you get it. McDonalds has everything that any other McDonalds would have: greasy burgers, overpriced salads, you get it.
-If I go to the cafeteria, I get get $6.50 worth of food. If I go to McDonalds, I can get $4 worth of food.
-The cafeteria is open until 8 (I think) but only has "hot meals" during specific periods around breakfast, lunch, dinner. Of course, my shift always ends about 45 minutes before the hot meals are available. McDonalds is open 24/7 and you can always get the usual menu (with the usual exception of the breakfast menu).

So what do I choose? Generally, I go for the cafeteria. There are more "healthy" options available and I can afford to get a larger amount of food. Occasionally though I get sucked in to McDonalds. I usually justify this with "it's faster" or "I just really want some of those french fries". It really isn't that much faster. Those fries just get me sometimes. I don't know how they did it, but McDonalds somehow tricked me into believing that their fries are so delicious that it outweighs the health/economic factors in my decision.

Food, Inglorious Food

I don't know if any of you are familiar with the strangely alluring and unfailingly not-worth-it culinary atrocity known as the McDonald's Big & Tasty, but a couple times a year, I find myself almost supernaturally compelled to procure and ingest one of these accursed things (with a small order of fries and six chicken McNuggets--THE INCLUSION OF SWEET AND SOUR SAUCE HERE BEING NON-F--KING-NEGOTIABLE--and an Oreo McFlurry for good measure), and every time I cave in to this unholy craving, I always end up wallowing in a deep, dark morass of Liberal self-recrimination and shame. Normally, the drive home is performed in silence, without music or open windows. You know, so I can "think about what I've done."

Why do I do this? It might well be the result of a lifetime of taste-based conditioning at the hands of Big Agribusiness, but I grew up eating home-cooked meals most of the time, so I'm inclined to doubt that. Could it be purely economic in origin? After all, in this "meal" I can get about five times as many calories for a fraction of the money I would spend at a proper restaurant. I doubt this too, because although I'm not made of money, I can afford to eat fairly well most of the time, and as I said, it's more of a werewolf-type craving than any kind of rational, cost/benefit-based decision. And the crippling guilt I feel seems to indicate that it isn't just that I flat-out don't care what I eat--to the contrary; I'm fully aware of the horrible, corporate murder-beast I'm feeding (and, I suppose, suckling) when I do this.

As near as I can tell, it's mostly due to successful marketing on McDonald's part when I was too young or stupid to know or care about the health or ethical implications of my food choices, and also to the fact that my parents would sometimes--as a treat--take me and my brother to McDonalds on the way to or from school when I was in elementary school. My parents were stridently anti-fast-food, but we would lean on them mercilessly until they gave in, and this was, after all, before the discovery of the prion. I don't blame my parents, but I do think that they were brought up in an era when less skepticism of corporate motives and ethical practices was common among people, and a cheap hamburger was really just a cheap hamburger. We live in different times now, of course; big agribusiness and other corporate and capitalist interests and processes have changed the way we eat, and the way we have to think about our food. Which is a shame, because when I have kids, I don't think I'll be able to bring my kids to McDonalds without feeling like a monster (which my parents may well have felt too, but kept hidden from us), and those little trips were really fun.

So fun, in fact, that I'm finding myself craving one of those awful frankenburgers right now. Thank goodness I've got a flat tire.

My moment of weakness

On Friday I had a very large craving for Oreos and milk. However, in my daily life I don’t usually eat many sweets or empty calories but Friday I was craving them. My friend Sam came over that night for a bit and so I asked her if she would one like some and two take the package with her because I don’t want that kind of food in my room for later temptation. She agreed and I went down to the C3 using my flex dine and bought some Oreos and milk.

To me ethics means right or wrong. So to me I knew that eating these Oreos would be wrong since I am trying to eat healthy and watch my calorie intake. I also had healthy choices in my room and at the C3 but chose not to partake in those choices which was in my mind not the right choice for my goals. I did have some relief for my battle between what I wanted and what was right when I asked Sam if she would have some knowing that she would say yes and to take them later so then I would feel like I only had a few and would not have any more than what was needed at the time.

Politically I also had a multitude of help. From what I understand political means having others approval or as the dictionary would say controlling the government entire relation of people in a society. I have a clear case of that with my Oreo choice. I asked Sam if she would have some and her saying yes is a way of giving approval for my choice. In this way she, my mini-society, approved of having Oreos and milk and therefore made me getting them an easier choice.

Economically my choice was also made easier. I had the money already on my flex dine and the C3 is in the basement of my hall so it was not only convenient but it was also economically sound since the money was there and junk food is cheaper. According to Michael Pollan the author of Omnivore’s Dilemma “people with limited money to spend on food would spend it on the cheapest calories they can find, especially when the cheapest calories- fats and sugars- are precisely the ones offering the biggest neurobiological rewards” (Page 108). Therefore I bought these Oreos at a cheap value to for fill my neurobiological needs. I also was not following the Friedman economics because I was not only not making a rational choice because I had already eaten dinner and really didn't need to eat anything else but I was also not making it as an individual I had Sam's help. I also sent the rest of the package home with her so I don’t feel like I wasted any money since someone was going to consume the Oreos.

Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. Logan, Iowa: Perfection Learning, 2007.

Avocados mmmmm

The most recent edible occurrence that comes to mind when thinking about how economics, politics, and ethics was is my most recent trip to the grocery store a few days ago. I think it is easy to simply go to the grocery store and purchase literally whatever you want at nearly any time in the year. The most prominent thing that comes to mind was how over the entire winter i was able to purchase avocados on every trip to the store. It seems strange that in the tundra of Minnesota winter i am still able to make fresh guacamole. Regions are much more connected with respects to food than may be shown at the surface, isn't it amazing how large food distributors have been able to in essence negate the large scale affects that the seasons have on the choices at the grocery store. Not only were these little avocados brought across the country, like some fruits and vegetable are, but these avocados cross national borders. They came a few thousand miles from Mexico. This begs the question, why mexico? Avocados can be made in many parts throughout the US, like California. But then again, not many people care where they come from. They see a price and a quality, that's what i do most of the time. Isn't it interesting that when economics and politics roll together in the food industry, somehow tropical fruits end up on my counter in the middle of a Minnesota winter.

Oh the choices...

Food Food Food. When I have to think about food choices I just want to cringe. I'm not a huge fan of eating because I have gastroesophogial reflux disease, that pretty much makes me feel like I'm going to die when I eat. Not to mention that my stomach problems put a damper on the kinds of food I eat, I am also trying to lose a little weight with the help of Weight Watchers. Weight Watchers is the healthiest diet out there because it cuts down proportions, allows snacking throughout the day and does not cut anything out of your diet!

My eating habits, driven by my stomach problems and my motivation to lost weight, are only helped some of the time. Let me explain. Eating at UDS and my sorority house the food is generally not the healthiest, especially UDS. But, grocery stores and doing your own cooking really make a difference! The economy has changed to incorporate many foods with lower calories, and yes, of course the 100 calorie pack snacks. It is because of American's diet that many people have so many health problems, especially upon reaching being obese. This caused a radical change in our economy to make things healthier. Economics, as Posner says is the study of rational choice, and here in question is the choice of what to eat. It is Keynes that "wanted to be realistic about decision-making rather than explore how far an economist could get by assuming that people really do base decisions on some approximation to cost-benefit analysis." Keynes might be surprised to see that people make choices such as buying 100 calorie packs based not on the price, but on the benefit their body will gain.

As far as ethics and Weight Watchers, there is a moral pull to eat better and healthier especially after all the news reports on being obese and how many diseases or health problems it can cause. Many people feel the need to diet and eat right to remain healthy!

No Drunken Midnight Dinky Town McDonald's Runs for Me!

So, as taboo as this is for many college students, I very, verrrry rarely will purchase, much less eat, anything from a fast food chain. I've kind of been anti-fast food for a while, because I always feel like a total piece of crap after eating anything from one of those places (seriously, it makes me just want to sit on a couch for about 3 hours straight) but more importantly, because the whole idea of the black box of the inter-workings of the fast food companies, whether it comes to food processing, or treatment of their animals, makes me super skeptical and uneasy of the thought of eating even touching one of their burgers.

I watched the documentary Super Size Me when it first came out, and re-watched it again over spring break to kind of reminisce about all of the same feelings I felt about the film the first time around. I know the documentary mainly focuses on McDonald's, but I don't think it would be too out of line for me to box most fast food chains all together regarding this post.

Super Size Me gives the general public the first real glance within the black box of the process of creating the Chicken McNuggets, and for me, that's all it took to swear off of them for the rest of my life. I choose not only to refrain from purchasing meals from fast food chains because of the horrible treatment many of the animals are subjected to, but also because I don't want to associate myself as one of the people who supports these companies in any way at all. Even though my lack of participation will not affect their revenue at all, for me it's not about the idea that I have to try to bankrupt these companies to make a difference, or prove myself to a bunch of people how hardcore anti-fast food I am. Instead, it's on a completely personal level for me; what helps me feel better about myself as an individual and as a member of our society. That, along with trying to eat as healthy, overall, as I can, is the basic foundation behind the food that I purchase.

What I buy, and where I buy it all comes down to where I feel most comfortable spending my money, and what makes me feel better as an individual with how I spend my money. I prefer to buy locally, and I do as often as I can. Even though fair trade coffee is more expensive than a tin of Folger's, knowing that more of my money is going towards the growers rather than a huge company is enough incentive for me. Granted, I'm not perfect, and there will be times that I will buy things that are cheap and on sale and definitely not healthy, but as a busy, sleep-deprived, borderline crazy college student, I feel I'm doing the best I can do.

When Organic is a bad thing

This isn't really a story about a specific eating act per se, but a story about choosing what not to eat. Recently, one of my coworkers told me about visiting an organic cattle feedlot. These are cows that aren't given any antibiotics. Unfortunately, the cows are still fed corn and live in very confined areas. Consequently, the cows had digestive problems, and a weakened immune system. My coworker said that the udders on the cows were badly infected, but the infections went untreated. It was then that my personal crusade against organic dairy products began.

Theoretically, cows that are not given antibiotics should live under more favorable conditions. According to "The Omnivore's Dilemma," antibiotics are given to the cows because the cows are sick from eating food that is incompatible with their digestive system and living in very close quarters. But when cows live under nearly the same conditions that make them sick, withholding antibiotics from them is even worse.

Digression time: it seems like the general public has a mentality that if a lot of something is bad for you, than none of it must be good for you. For example, people with eating disorders feel that if too many calories are bad, then no calories at all must somehow be better. Another example - I heard mentioned on the radio a "sodium-free" diet. This misconception is at the base of any fad diet - Atkins, fat-free, etc. So now to bring it back to my main point: once people heard that antibiotics in animal products was a bad thing, they figured that no antibiotics at all must be the best thing. Perhaps people don't take into account the factors that cause the cows to need the antibiotics in the first place. In my opinion, organic animal products should be marketed as "responsible use of antibiotics" in addition to changing the living conditions of the animals. That, in turn, would require the USDA to change its definition of organic, which is by far easier said than done.

Well, there's always hope. Until then, I'll just remain a vegetarian, buying conventional dairy and egg products. That's about all I can do.

The Omnivore, or There and Back Again

The summer after I graduated high school, I gave a moment to a thought that had been simmering in the back of my mind since I was a preteen—could I kill and process an animal in order to eat it? I grew up in a small town surrounded by forests and lakes brimming with creatures to be killed as well as farms full of cattle to be slaughtered. Eating meat in a place like this was even more ingrained than in others, given that hunting and fishing were the most popular sports and supporting the local economy meant supporting farmers.

I was one of the few people I knew who took issue with hunting—I enjoyed the fawns that wandered into our yard to eat crab apples too much to think of killing their mothers. I had long since given up eating fish (when your dad brings home six of them every night, you get tired of them), and as ugly as the average walleye is, something about it struggling to get back in the water was getting to me. My family for several years had been raising chickens, and as much as I despised their smell and incessant crowing, I couldn’t eat them when they were served to me.

In liberal college educated fashion, I got my first Compassionate Action for Animals packet when I came to the U for orientation. I paged through it when I got home, and the carefully-placed pictures of chickens in factory farms and piles of dead pigs combined with statistics about farming’s impact on the environment and what we could be doing with the food we feed to farm animals (fighting human poverty, for example) finally broke me. No more meat.

So far, I was influenced by personal ethics and a few facts about environmental and economical impact of factory farming.

I met a lot of other vegetarians when I started college—some who had been at it since they were children; some who, like me, were just beginning. Middlebrook UDS was pretty short on good food with meat in it (though I hear things have improved), and even shorter on tasty vegetarian options. I was dimly aware that my protein intake was pitiful and that I’d put on the Freshman 15 without drinking any alcohol, but without a car (the combined forces of the parking lottery and the pricing eliminated that option), the easiest place to grocery shop was downtown at Target (no bus changes, little waiting), and then I could only buy what was easy to carry for blocks and blocks and that could be cooked in a microwave.

When I was at home, I suddenly carried another stigma (being one of the only political liberals was already crime enough—being a vegetarian was just mind-blowing). In addition to having almost no vegetarian options in restaurants, my family didn’t have a clue how to cook a meatless meal, so I was fending for myself there, too.

About a year and a half after I started my personal crusade, I stopped getting my period. Then I would get it for six weeks straight. Then it would go away. Then I would have it so badly I couldn’t go to class—I had to be lying down and in close proximity to a bathroom at all times. I went to the doctor and explained. My stress levels hadn’t really changed; moving back and forth from my hometown and college hadn’t bothered me before; my sexual activity wasn’t meant to be a factor…the thing that was different was my diet.

She advised me to try to balance out my eating habits, and instead of trying protein pills or asking for extra tofu in the UDS line, I just started eating meat again. I got better, but looking back, it seems a lot like a placebo effect. I was sick of having so little to eat at UDS, I was sick of being judged at home, and to be honest—I missed eating meat. I started eating it again, some of the pressure on me lifted, and suddenly I was menstruating like a normal person.

The pressures that partially caused my personal ethics to fail: the U’s economic decisions (limited parking for a high price, bad food) and sociopolitical anxiety about my position as a vegetarian in my backwoods hometown.

Now I carry a new stigma: failed vegetarian (it’s an internal struggle—no one has ever mocked my inability to resist hamburgers). I care less and less what my hometown thinks of me and meet more and more dedicated vegetarians and vegans. Now what?

Currently, as reflected by my food log, I am living on all discount, store-brand foods, and what little meat I have is processed and put on sandwiches. My diet is definitely better than it was at UDS, but it’s a short jump to vegetarianism from here. Maybe I should make it.

intervention inspiration (not my blog assignment)

hey all,

in case any of you are looking for some intervention inspiration, i keep thinking about this interview with Tim O'Brien (The Things They Carried) I heard on NPR this week. It's a really moving testament to the power of storytelling as intervention (among other things):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125128156

Social Responsibility - (Post-modern) European style

transitional times....

Rather than choosing one particular meal as the assignment requires, I choose to rebel and talk about how my whole eating decision-making process has been shifting to the left over the past few years.  When I moved in with my current roommate, in 2008, I had not realized that he was a complete non-meat eater (until I made him a real steak - turns out he was a closet carnivore).  But worse, he was in to recycling, composting, backyard gardening and wanted to build a chicken coop, too.  Now, I spent the first six weeks in my new home sort of nodding and laughing and making it clear that I was a proud consumer - I used things, ate things and threw things away; I was an unrepentant customer of big national chains and corporate looters (I felt I couldn't beat them, so I joined them).

As time passed however, I began to internalize some of the sideways glances I was receiving at home and  became self-conscious about how my best friend might feel relatively hostile about some of my blatantly un-green choices.  I do not typically cave to pressure from external sources (my internal pressures are more than enough, thank you), but this dissonance between Jordan and I was starting to eat at me; thus, very incrementally, I began to emulate some of the shopping and eating choices of my best friend, more out of guilt than a sense of social responsibility.

Once the seed is planted (forgive me), it is difficult to stop the growth.  I began to read labels and look into companies with which I was about to do business.  This was especially difficult for me because of the work I was doing - my clients were Big Oil, Big Agriculture, Big Chemical, and, coincidentally, the biggest corn processor in Chicago (and thus in the country).  I made a lot of money from these big companies and I was glad to be working.

Once I was laid off from my position and had a lot more time to think about social responsibility, I found myself taking a lot more trouble to buy locally, organically, and raw.  I am still a consumer.  I still use things, eat things, and throw things away, but I now stop to ask and check and recycle.  Guilt was a good place to start, but the black boxing of the entire processed food industry has left me with a very strong suspicion that we have been duped.  Mr. Pollan helped to confirm that, not only have we been duped, we have been robbed, tied up, thrown in the trunk of a car and driven off a cliff (AND we paid dearly for the privilege).

If the banks in the United States can be so outrageously irresponsible as they have proven to be, what then reassures us that food companies are any less susceptible to cutting corners, making wildly erroneous guesses, risking nearly anything to keep profits as high as possible, or just plain eviscerating the truth to avoid accountability at any cost?  If you have the legitimacy and the authority of the federal government behind you (FDA, etc.), the extraordinary spending power to purchase your own R&D complex full of "yes"-"scientists" (mercenary-legitimizers) to toe the line, AND a willing poor-ish population to buy your (non-food) products at a high profit margin, well, that's what companies are for, right?  Profit: it's what America proudly eats.

I have come to believe that the only truly effective voice the typical American has left is not experienced by way of the vote.  The only truly effective voice left for the post-modern American is the spend.  A vote surely sounds America's voice by choosing one of only two viable ideological polarities; the two polarities are nearly the same aside from the ways in which they allocate our spend as a nation.  There are other differences, but, most clearly, the effective difference between the two choices lies in the way the money is spent.  The spending power of every individual, however, is a science; our individual spend is the black box companies have spent decades - well over a century, actually - trying to demystify.  We individuals are facing an entirely new black box ourselves, one which makes sweeping gestures in order to separate an individual from the dollars he or she possesses and food is a primary source and method of profit for a vast number of companies - what's in your hot dog?

MEAT

For many years, I barely ate any meat. My best friend was an ethical vegetarian and I was more or less living off of starch and Hard Times food. This was during my high school years and it sort of just accidentally spilled into my first few years of college - I would always argue with her about how frustrated I was that she was more focused on animal rights than human rights. I had no ethical reason for not eating meat - I was just surrounded by a mostly vegetarian culture, and it just so happened that when Emily (my best friend) talked about PETA videos on animal torture, I would begin to feel sick when I tasted meat - meatiness - gamey-ness, beefiness, etc.

When I came to college I ventured into the sciences and was exposed to things like videos of open heart surgery. I would distinctly remember feeling a morbid sensation that you could throw some of this human meat on the grill and eat it. I went to Israel once and was philosophically fascinated by a menu item - a skewer of chicken hearts - but I was horrified by the idea of eating it. I watched in awe as one of my peers stuffed his mouth with about 10 little chicken hearts.

It wasn't until college that I was exposed to the idea of the economic cost of producing meat for human consumption. Some people would talk about the production of green-house gas due to cow farts, or the ratio of grain to beef in the context of efficiently feeding humans. And then there was free-range which to this day just doesn't sit right with me - the notion that it is better to be loved before you are slaughtered and eaten is hard for me, although maybe a free range animal is supposed to taste better?

Within the last few months, I began eating meat again. Because I tried it, and it was delicious, and I embraced the morbidity of it - don't ask me why. Anything wrapped in bacon is unbelievable. I've contemplated the idea of the cost of meat in terms of pricing - perhaps we don't price meat correctly. I've contemplated a future in which meat is grown on rooftops from cow muscle cells in giant vats using solar power - I would totally still eat it.

The grain that we feed the cows - could we instead use that very same grain to create a welfare state out of a third world nation and just feed every person there, have them be beholden to us but well fed on a simple diet? In looking into this, I found heavy controversy - For one, it requires a total economic restructuring of the world.

How do I distinguish between white guilt and having a conscience? Where do I draw the lines in the sand about what I will or won't participate in - if I were to boycott every dirty business, I wouldn't do business. If I were to refrain from participating in unfair economic acts, I would as an American have to just cease to exist. To be a "good" person seems meaningless - because I can decide I am good, sure enough, but I am surrounded by people who in order to be good would never live as I do. So the ethics, and the intersection of the ethics and the politics - blow my mind. And I eat cheeseburgers and sausages wrapped in bacon and chickens wrapped in bacon. mmmmm. -

but the "choice" to eat meat comes packaged with a reality that makes the concept of "maximizing my utility" increasingly complicated. First of all, the choice is a monetary transaction - can I afford to eat meat? And this is a function of geography, caste, luck, etc. Then, there is the history of that meat - did the animal live well? What were the trade offs in developing this product versus another? What was the real cost? And then, is it healthy? Is it healthy for me, or for anyone? And then, what of the fact that I cannot choose to say, "I will pay to have this grain shipped to _x_ instead of being used to sustain a cow." (Because if eating less cheeseburgers drew a direct connection to more people being fed, then it would maximize my utility to see it happen. But that's not how it works.)

The choice is connected, so heavily, to so many factors, that the notion of individuals, rummaging through products and engaging them rationally in terms of personal utility (affording that everyone will have a variable that correlates to "how much I give a shit" packaged into their utility function) is bizarre to me. Coupled with neuroscientific evidence that humans are on average extremely impulsive, that humans construct 'rationales' but that these rationales need bear no resemblance to reality, etc - I am feeling like I should just participate fully on impulse and just hoping that my life work (perhaps helping to invent solar-powered meat-in-a-vat growing) will make the world better. Hope that the fact that the monetary value of my life is considered higher than most people in the world means that I am going to do something worthwhile.

So eating meat doesn't make me feel sick anymore. The deliciousness overpowered the grotesqueness and while I have buzzing in my mind two sides of a great controversy on meat-eating ethics, I, overwhelmed, just want to do whatever makes me feel good in the immediate future. My "rationality" extends, at most points, about 10 minutes into the future, and maybe that is overly generous. As far as living based on issues goes... I don't. I think most people don't. I think we just do what is easy and feels good with regard to most things, and that we're living passionately about a few things at once - a job, a relationship maybe. Our children, our favorite car. A bill we are lobbying for. One little piece of something huge and complicated.