Water is the most abundant compound on Earth. It covers 70% of the Earth's surface, yet only 30% is safe to drink, and that number seems to be dwindling. The human body requires 1 to 7 liters of water per day to survive. And to think that humans have resorted to fighting over natural resources. The film Blue Gold was a wonderful depiction of the corruption behind the business of water.
Across the world we are polluting and drying out our natural sources of water. We are diminishing the supply from aquifers, drying out lakes, and sending fresh water to the ocean. One good example of our destruction is Owen's lake. What was once a large full lake is now a dry death zone because we were taking the water faster than it was able to replenish.
The government is particularly useless when it comes to issues with water. Developing countries have turned to massive cash crops, which are draining water supplies. In many countries tap water and indoor plumbing isn't even an option, and the people are left to resort to the disease ridden river water. In some countries in Africa bottled water is more expensive than Coca-Cola. On top of all that, big businessmen like George Bush are in the process of making plans to take from other natural sources, and switching business from oil to water.
Water has become so inaccessible and so expensive, at what point does it turn from a necessity into a luxury?
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Annotated Bibliography Continued
http://foodpsychology.cornell.edu/outreach/comfort-food.html
Accessed: 2/23/11
This article was about comfort foods and their link to genders. While the majority of the males' favorite comfort food was pizza, soup, and ice cream, women preferred ice cream, chocolate, and cookies. They go more into detail about gender preferences when it comes to comfort food, and basic trends in comfort food and the emotions associated with it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517172300.htm
Accessed: 2/23/11
This article talked about cravings, and why people have such strong cravings for specific foods. After reading this I'm actually starting to think about narrowing my broad topic of "The Psychology of Food" to food cravings, why we crave food, and it's effects on our bodies.
Accessed: 2/23/11
This article was about comfort foods and their link to genders. While the majority of the males' favorite comfort food was pizza, soup, and ice cream, women preferred ice cream, chocolate, and cookies. They go more into detail about gender preferences when it comes to comfort food, and basic trends in comfort food and the emotions associated with it.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100517172300.htm
Accessed: 2/23/11
This article talked about cravings, and why people have such strong cravings for specific foods. After reading this I'm actually starting to think about narrowing my broad topic of "The Psychology of Food" to food cravings, why we crave food, and it's effects on our bodies.
QQC
Cart A La Carte
"Such problems suggest that street food will fade in importance as the world becomes more affluent: the unsanitary brown stalls in Manila will be replaced by clean, brightly colored enterprises hearing the globally recognizable logos of McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Starbucks, and Yoshinoya."
While this article is about the importance and relevance of street vendors, here they point out that the appeal and marketing of fast-food will run out the local foods. It's interesting how small differences in advertising, location, word-of-mouth, and aesthetics will make or break a business. It's sad to me that the local businesses are suffering due to cheap, processed food. I think it might be interesting to do further research on the marketing of foods/ food businesses, and it might also be interesting to research why people still hang on so tightly to their traditions when it comes to food.
"Such problems suggest that street food will fade in importance as the world becomes more affluent: the unsanitary brown stalls in Manila will be replaced by clean, brightly colored enterprises hearing the globally recognizable logos of McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Starbucks, and Yoshinoya."
While this article is about the importance and relevance of street vendors, here they point out that the appeal and marketing of fast-food will run out the local foods. It's interesting how small differences in advertising, location, word-of-mouth, and aesthetics will make or break a business. It's sad to me that the local businesses are suffering due to cheap, processed food. I think it might be interesting to do further research on the marketing of foods/ food businesses, and it might also be interesting to research why people still hang on so tightly to their traditions when it comes to food.
Annotated Bibliography
Psychology of Food
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200101/food-comfort
Accessed: 2/23/11
This article was about emotional connections to food. When asked their favorite food, a majority of people said it was ice cream, which Brian Wansink believes is an emotional connection to childhood memories. This is a great starting point for my research.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200101/food-comfort
Accessed: 2/23/11
This article was about emotional connections to food. When asked their favorite food, a majority of people said it was ice cream, which Brian Wansink believes is an emotional connection to childhood memories. This is a great starting point for my research.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
The Cove Commentary
1. Does the camera ‘take sides’?
It's hard to tell if the camera took sides. The whole point of the movie was to educate people about the killing of dolphins, so obviously the camera would take the side of an environmental activist.
2. Does the film allow the audience to think for itself, and to draw its own conclusions, or does it manipulate audience reaction and emotion?
I think it really manipulated the audience, but that was really the purpose of the movie. To me it wasn't really a formal documentary, but more of an awareness film about dolphin slaughtering. I didn't see a whole lot of talking from the other point of view.
3. Does it support opinion with evidence?
Yes I think it does. The entire movie was evidence basically. They take you to the location, they hide cameras, they go to the political convention, rather than just talking about all of this stuff.
4. Assess one possible interpretation that it reduces particular groups and individuals referred to, or participating in the film, to simplistic polar opposites of good and evil, heroes and villains.
I'm kind of confused about this question, but I'll address it the best I can. Clearly the producers were very opinionated about the subject, so if they wanted you to think a certain way they had to be extreme about it. There was no "this guy likes to kill fish, but he's a really great family man".
5. Through the range of filmmaking techniques presented, are we overtly manipulated into accepting uncritically the film’s version of truth?
Yeah we are. All of the shots and all of the interviews were chosen for a reason, they didn't decide to throw in any clips for fun. They also mentioned that this is an issue rarely talked about, so it's easy for them to convince us of their truth, because nobody knows the other side.
6. Does the film educate, does it enlighten us, or does it ‘preach to the converted’?
It's hard to speak for "us" because people are going to have different opinions, but for me it was educational
It's hard to tell if the camera took sides. The whole point of the movie was to educate people about the killing of dolphins, so obviously the camera would take the side of an environmental activist.
2. Does the film allow the audience to think for itself, and to draw its own conclusions, or does it manipulate audience reaction and emotion?
I think it really manipulated the audience, but that was really the purpose of the movie. To me it wasn't really a formal documentary, but more of an awareness film about dolphin slaughtering. I didn't see a whole lot of talking from the other point of view.
3. Does it support opinion with evidence?
Yes I think it does. The entire movie was evidence basically. They take you to the location, they hide cameras, they go to the political convention, rather than just talking about all of this stuff.
4. Assess one possible interpretation that it reduces particular groups and individuals referred to, or participating in the film, to simplistic polar opposites of good and evil, heroes and villains.
I'm kind of confused about this question, but I'll address it the best I can. Clearly the producers were very opinionated about the subject, so if they wanted you to think a certain way they had to be extreme about it. There was no "this guy likes to kill fish, but he's a really great family man".
5. Through the range of filmmaking techniques presented, are we overtly manipulated into accepting uncritically the film’s version of truth?
Yeah we are. All of the shots and all of the interviews were chosen for a reason, they didn't decide to throw in any clips for fun. They also mentioned that this is an issue rarely talked about, so it's easy for them to convince us of their truth, because nobody knows the other side.
6. Does the film educate, does it enlighten us, or does it ‘preach to the converted’?
It's hard to speak for "us" because people are going to have different opinions, but for me it was educational
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Questions for guest speaker
How do you suggest we go about finding food that will satisfy the 100-mile diet?
How can we verify that the food is locally grown?
How do you feel about trader joe's?
Are there local/natural alternatives to junk food?
I know that dairy is "bad", but: Opinions on soymilk?
Local and natural food can be a lot more expensive, any suggestions for consumers looking to spend as little as possible?
How can we verify that the food is locally grown?
How do you feel about trader joe's?
Are there local/natural alternatives to junk food?
I know that dairy is "bad", but: Opinions on soymilk?
Local and natural food can be a lot more expensive, any suggestions for consumers looking to spend as little as possible?
Food prices/ Food riots
Find at least 2 related news or scientific articles. Link the articles on your blog and write a brief synopsis of each. Be sure to indicate exactly what you researched.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110130/BUSINESS/101300340/Food-cost-shocks-ripple-worldwide-from-Iowa?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
This article was primarily about the rise in food prices, specifically corn and meat. It was mainly factual, had a few graphs of the rise in prices. It also talked a lot about Iowa and its corn fields, Ethanol companies, and its economy, which I didn't think would be very relevant, but it was really interesting.
What is the argument of the author? What is the interest of the author?
I would assume the author was from Iowa, because that's pretty much all they talked about. But other than that, I wasn't able to detect an argument.
What was the main idea of the article; in other words what was the author's point?
To inform readers of the causes of the spike in food prices, and to warn them of higher prices to come.
What was the author's bias? Has the author included facts from all sides of the issue?
There didn't seem to be a bias. Like I said, it was very factual and straightforward.
What questions do you still have after reading these articles?
How high can we expect the prices to go this year? Will this affect natural/ locally grown food? What other prices can we expect to go up due to the food price increases?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/24/food-crisis-un-emergency-meeting-rome
This article was written in September of 2010 predicting an upcoming food crisis, and talking about an emergency UN meeting concerning the crisis. They talked about trends in food prices, and how they relate to what might happen soon. The article also ends with a few graphs depicting food prices in the last few years.
What is the argument of the author? What is the interest of the author?
The author isn't really arguing any particular point. There is a clear bias, but just like in the previous article, it's very factual.
What was the main idea of the article; in other words what was the author's point?
I think the authors intent was to warn readers of the food crisis. There was no call for action in the article.
What was the author's bias? Has the author included facts from all sides of the issue?
The author definitely believes that this food crisis is going to happen, and sides with the UN.
What questions do you still have after reading these articles?
What does the UN predict will happen if weather and other agricultural issues persist?
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110130/BUSINESS/101300340/Food-cost-shocks-ripple-worldwide-from-Iowa?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage
This article was primarily about the rise in food prices, specifically corn and meat. It was mainly factual, had a few graphs of the rise in prices. It also talked a lot about Iowa and its corn fields, Ethanol companies, and its economy, which I didn't think would be very relevant, but it was really interesting.
What is the argument of the author? What is the interest of the author?
I would assume the author was from Iowa, because that's pretty much all they talked about. But other than that, I wasn't able to detect an argument.
What was the main idea of the article; in other words what was the author's point?
To inform readers of the causes of the spike in food prices, and to warn them of higher prices to come.
What was the author's bias? Has the author included facts from all sides of the issue?
There didn't seem to be a bias. Like I said, it was very factual and straightforward.
What questions do you still have after reading these articles?
How high can we expect the prices to go this year? Will this affect natural/ locally grown food? What other prices can we expect to go up due to the food price increases?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/24/food-crisis-un-emergency-meeting-rome
This article was written in September of 2010 predicting an upcoming food crisis, and talking about an emergency UN meeting concerning the crisis. They talked about trends in food prices, and how they relate to what might happen soon. The article also ends with a few graphs depicting food prices in the last few years.
What is the argument of the author? What is the interest of the author?
The author isn't really arguing any particular point. There is a clear bias, but just like in the previous article, it's very factual.
What was the main idea of the article; in other words what was the author's point?
I think the authors intent was to warn readers of the food crisis. There was no call for action in the article.
What was the author's bias? Has the author included facts from all sides of the issue?
The author definitely believes that this food crisis is going to happen, and sides with the UN.
What questions do you still have after reading these articles?
What does the UN predict will happen if weather and other agricultural issues persist?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)