Summary and Response to “The Noble Feat of Nike” by Johan Norberg
Summary:
In “The Noble Feat of Nike”, Johan Norberg talks about how The usual hatred towards Nike is unwarranted. After visiting and doing research on Nike factories in Vietnam, Norberg discovered that these factories in fact have helped the economy over there. It cut poverty in half and helped make Vietnam in to a Capitalist. He points out this is the effect of globalization and is not necessary a bad thing.
Response:
At first I skeptical about the main point of Norberg’s essay but after reading it I understand where he is coming from. I would have to agree that the workers conditions have improved, but I still thought they were being exploited in the sense that the work they do is sold for much more than what they receive. But on the contrary, their way of life has improved and is still improving. They are able to get education now and afford better lives for themselves and their families. Compared to their lives before, this is not exploitation.
Looking at this compared to our lives must seem like exploitation but if they have cut Vietnam’s poverty in half in ten years then this is a vast improvement. People need to do more research before they start boycotting things. If we boycott these products from these countries, we are not helping them. What happens when the demand for Nike products is nonexistent? These factories will get shut down. How does that help these people? If they are happy and their lives have been enlighten, who are we to say they are exploited. If they were in America, then yes they are being exploited, but that is not the case. In their economy, they are starting to strive.
As long as their economy continues to improve and also their living conditions, then no this is not exploitation. The minute this is not the cause then yes, it can be called exploitation. People just need to do research before they accuse some of something, and they need to be unbiased in the process and look at it from all sides.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Journal Entry 9
Summary and Response to “Driving Global Warming” by Bill McKibben
Summary:
In Bill McKibben’s essay “Driving Global Warming”, he discusses the issue of vehicles with inefficient engines being a major contributor to global warming. The major vehicles that he is talking about are SUVs. Mckibben points out that these vehicles waste gas and are the major contributor of greenhouse gases from the automotive industry. By using examples, he points out that these vehicles are pointless and not needed in our current lifestyle and are only hurting the environment. He gives stats of how these vehicles are not safer than any other and how they are not needed in harsh weather conditions to get around. Some evidence that he gives on the damage to the environment include, rising sea levels, the death of coral reefs and the beginning of the extinction of polar bears. All of these reasons point out that change is necessary to avert a major disaster.
Response:
All of the reasons that McKibben give are viable and I would have to agree with him. The burning of fossil fuels is known to give off CO2 as an emission and is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the earth to gradually increase in temperature. Although this increase in temperature it gradual, the impacts are very significant. Just look at the examples that McKibben gives in the essay: rising sea level and the death of ecosystems. It changes the earth’s climate.
McKibben talks about how SUVs are not a necessity in our world. He points out that they are inefficient, harmful to the environment, and not safer or better than fuel efficient cars. He gives the reads fact about the energy that is wasted such as that it is equal to leaving a refrigerator door open or a light on for an extended amount of time. Facts that the SUVs are not safer than car are provided and convince the reader even further.
Pretty much the solution that McKibben gives is going green. In other words adopting alternate technologies that have no or little negative impact on the environment and applying them to our lives. More and more fuel efficient cars are create and alternate energy solutions keep popping up. If we want to help alleviate this problem, we need to implement these things into our lives.
Summary:
In Bill McKibben’s essay “Driving Global Warming”, he discusses the issue of vehicles with inefficient engines being a major contributor to global warming. The major vehicles that he is talking about are SUVs. Mckibben points out that these vehicles waste gas and are the major contributor of greenhouse gases from the automotive industry. By using examples, he points out that these vehicles are pointless and not needed in our current lifestyle and are only hurting the environment. He gives stats of how these vehicles are not safer than any other and how they are not needed in harsh weather conditions to get around. Some evidence that he gives on the damage to the environment include, rising sea levels, the death of coral reefs and the beginning of the extinction of polar bears. All of these reasons point out that change is necessary to avert a major disaster.
Response:
All of the reasons that McKibben give are viable and I would have to agree with him. The burning of fossil fuels is known to give off CO2 as an emission and is a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the earth to gradually increase in temperature. Although this increase in temperature it gradual, the impacts are very significant. Just look at the examples that McKibben gives in the essay: rising sea level and the death of ecosystems. It changes the earth’s climate.
McKibben talks about how SUVs are not a necessity in our world. He points out that they are inefficient, harmful to the environment, and not safer or better than fuel efficient cars. He gives the reads fact about the energy that is wasted such as that it is equal to leaving a refrigerator door open or a light on for an extended amount of time. Facts that the SUVs are not safer than car are provided and convince the reader even further.
Pretty much the solution that McKibben gives is going green. In other words adopting alternate technologies that have no or little negative impact on the environment and applying them to our lives. More and more fuel efficient cars are create and alternate energy solutions keep popping up. If we want to help alleviate this problem, we need to implement these things into our lives.
Journal Entry 8
Summary and Response to “A Development Nightmare” by Kenneth Rogoff
“A Development Nightmare” is an essay by Kenneth Rogoff that discusses the issue of global economical development. He talks about possible outcomes, the upside and downside of it. Some possible outcomes he talks about are raise price of oil, change in dominant currency, greater productivity growth, and ultimate source of wealth for everyone. Rogoff also points out the issue that the rich fear this because if everyone is rich, they wouldn’t feel rich. This has lead to counties being stingy on the fact of trying to help the world economy. The point is that the nightmare that people fear is far from happening and it shouldn’t cause stinginess.
I would have to agree most of the problems that Rogoff point out that he says people fear are unrealistic. The fact is that there will always be an upper and middle class. Human nature will not allow us to all become rich. Greed and corruption will always exist in the world and someone will always be exploited. We can see the affects today. People are concerned with mostly money. There are people out there who live with more than enough money than is necessary to live with. We pay movie stars and athletes a lot of money, while children around the world don’t receive education or a meal. Sure the rich life is nice, but is it a necessity.
The fear is only hurting the world, not helping it. Is too much to ask to have all countries up to the same education standard or make it able so that everyone has enough food. By developing education everywhere, it allows there to be more people in different fields, and allows there to be more ingenuity in the creation of new technologies. These new technologies could possibly fix the problems that the rich fear.
Overall the main point that Rogoff is trying to make is that the world will not rapidly become developed. It is pretty much impossible for this to happen because it takes time and money and there are too many unknowns to predict what would happen. He says this should not stand in the way of sensible and generous development and I agree with this.
“A Development Nightmare” is an essay by Kenneth Rogoff that discusses the issue of global economical development. He talks about possible outcomes, the upside and downside of it. Some possible outcomes he talks about are raise price of oil, change in dominant currency, greater productivity growth, and ultimate source of wealth for everyone. Rogoff also points out the issue that the rich fear this because if everyone is rich, they wouldn’t feel rich. This has lead to counties being stingy on the fact of trying to help the world economy. The point is that the nightmare that people fear is far from happening and it shouldn’t cause stinginess.
I would have to agree most of the problems that Rogoff point out that he says people fear are unrealistic. The fact is that there will always be an upper and middle class. Human nature will not allow us to all become rich. Greed and corruption will always exist in the world and someone will always be exploited. We can see the affects today. People are concerned with mostly money. There are people out there who live with more than enough money than is necessary to live with. We pay movie stars and athletes a lot of money, while children around the world don’t receive education or a meal. Sure the rich life is nice, but is it a necessity.
The fear is only hurting the world, not helping it. Is too much to ask to have all countries up to the same education standard or make it able so that everyone has enough food. By developing education everywhere, it allows there to be more people in different fields, and allows there to be more ingenuity in the creation of new technologies. These new technologies could possibly fix the problems that the rich fear.
Overall the main point that Rogoff is trying to make is that the world will not rapidly become developed. It is pretty much impossible for this to happen because it takes time and money and there are too many unknowns to predict what would happen. He says this should not stand in the way of sensible and generous development and I agree with this.
Journal Entry 7
Summary and Response to “Technology Won’t Feed the World’s Hunger” by Anuradha Mittal.
In Anuradha Mittal’s essay called “Technology Won’t Feed the World’s Hunger”, she discusses the problem of world hunger and how technology won’t solve it. Mittal points out even with all the technology advancement and higher yields, people are still starving because they can’t afford it and that people don’t want anything to do genetic altered foods. By using examples of what happened in India, she makes the reader understand that corporations are putting a stranglehold on food supplies and that people should not be tricked into believing the lie of genetic altered foods.
Response:
I would have to agree with Mittal on this issue. The main problem is getting the food to everyone. If we make the cost of the food to high, wouldn’t it be obvious that the poor wouldn’t be able to buy it. What’s the point of trying to make a lot of food so that we can feed the world, when we won’t allow the poor to have it? So the food goes to waste. It’s terrible that we allow this to happen and that many are oblivious to the fact that it is happening.
Technology is not needed to fix this problem; it is social change that needs to happen. This is another main point that Mittal points out. There might be all these new technological advances that make the food healthier and makes the quantity increase but what is the use. People are trying to solve this problem the wrong way. Instead of helping people get food, they are just technologically advancing the food, which at this point is not solving the problem. These people need food not science. We need to get rid of institutions that make cut back on public services and social-safety nets so that food can get to those who need them.
Overall, Mittal is just pointing out that we are going the wrong way and trying to get people to see why. A world of starvation is a horrible thing and we need to take action to help it. So far all we have done is hampered those who are trying to help the hungry. Social change needs to happen to help solve this problem.
In Anuradha Mittal’s essay called “Technology Won’t Feed the World’s Hunger”, she discusses the problem of world hunger and how technology won’t solve it. Mittal points out even with all the technology advancement and higher yields, people are still starving because they can’t afford it and that people don’t want anything to do genetic altered foods. By using examples of what happened in India, she makes the reader understand that corporations are putting a stranglehold on food supplies and that people should not be tricked into believing the lie of genetic altered foods.
Response:
I would have to agree with Mittal on this issue. The main problem is getting the food to everyone. If we make the cost of the food to high, wouldn’t it be obvious that the poor wouldn’t be able to buy it. What’s the point of trying to make a lot of food so that we can feed the world, when we won’t allow the poor to have it? So the food goes to waste. It’s terrible that we allow this to happen and that many are oblivious to the fact that it is happening.
Technology is not needed to fix this problem; it is social change that needs to happen. This is another main point that Mittal points out. There might be all these new technological advances that make the food healthier and makes the quantity increase but what is the use. People are trying to solve this problem the wrong way. Instead of helping people get food, they are just technologically advancing the food, which at this point is not solving the problem. These people need food not science. We need to get rid of institutions that make cut back on public services and social-safety nets so that food can get to those who need them.
Overall, Mittal is just pointing out that we are going the wrong way and trying to get people to see why. A world of starvation is a horrible thing and we need to take action to help it. So far all we have done is hampered those who are trying to help the hungry. Social change needs to happen to help solve this problem.
Journal Entry 6
Summary and Response to “A Threat Worse Than Terror”, Fareed Zakaria.
“A Threat Worse Than Terror” is an essay by Fareed Zakaria that discusses the flu pandemic. Zakaria points out that the United States government is not prepared for a flu pandemic and how it could be more devastating that a terrorist attack. He also describes how China is the natural habitat for the influenza virus and how their growth as a country is influencing the surge of virus strains. By comparing the amount of funding of weapons of war and how much goes to researching the flum, Zakaria shows that the U.S. is not putting enough into helping solve this problem. Using these examples he points out that we need to take drastic measures so that a devastating pandemic does not occur.
I would have to agree with Zakaria on this matter. The flu pandemic is just as much as a threat to us as a terrorist attack. A day might come when a pandemic breaks out and causes much more casualties than a terrorist attack. To take care of this we should put more funding into it and not just for us, but for the world. We will not only be the ones to suffer from a pandemic, but also our allies, enemies, and neutral parties. Any loss of life would be devastating.
Zakaria’s example of china helps us understand how these viruses spread. When birds and other animals are forced into smaller areas and are within areas of humans, the probability of viruses spreading form animals to humans increases and also points out that sanitary methods of processing food is greatly needed. He also points out how careless development can lead to a devastating pandemic.
I also agree that globalization should not cut back parts of the government that help protect us from pandemics should not be loss in the process. Globalization should not rule out government but help it become a crucial part to help mankind. The belief that the government will become less important is unrealistic. We need the government to help take care of this problem. Zakaria also points out that foreign policy is important in the sense of coordination. Nations need to be united in this cause or else we will fail. It’s kind of like the concept that Ben Franklin had with the serpent in pieces which stood for that if we are not together, we will fail and be done with.
“A Threat Worse Than Terror” is an essay by Fareed Zakaria that discusses the flu pandemic. Zakaria points out that the United States government is not prepared for a flu pandemic and how it could be more devastating that a terrorist attack. He also describes how China is the natural habitat for the influenza virus and how their growth as a country is influencing the surge of virus strains. By comparing the amount of funding of weapons of war and how much goes to researching the flum, Zakaria shows that the U.S. is not putting enough into helping solve this problem. Using these examples he points out that we need to take drastic measures so that a devastating pandemic does not occur.
I would have to agree with Zakaria on this matter. The flu pandemic is just as much as a threat to us as a terrorist attack. A day might come when a pandemic breaks out and causes much more casualties than a terrorist attack. To take care of this we should put more funding into it and not just for us, but for the world. We will not only be the ones to suffer from a pandemic, but also our allies, enemies, and neutral parties. Any loss of life would be devastating.
Zakaria’s example of china helps us understand how these viruses spread. When birds and other animals are forced into smaller areas and are within areas of humans, the probability of viruses spreading form animals to humans increases and also points out that sanitary methods of processing food is greatly needed. He also points out how careless development can lead to a devastating pandemic.
I also agree that globalization should not cut back parts of the government that help protect us from pandemics should not be loss in the process. Globalization should not rule out government but help it become a crucial part to help mankind. The belief that the government will become less important is unrealistic. We need the government to help take care of this problem. Zakaria also points out that foreign policy is important in the sense of coordination. Nations need to be united in this cause or else we will fail. It’s kind of like the concept that Ben Franklin had with the serpent in pieces which stood for that if we are not together, we will fail and be done with.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Journal Entry 5
Summary and Response to “Fear Not Globalization” by Joseph S. Nye Jr.:
“Fear Not Globalization” is an essay by Joseph S. Nye Jr. that discusses the issue of Globalization. Nye discourages the notion that globalization will destroy countries self cultures and become Americanize. He also points out that when other countries develop into global powers, we should not see that there cultures have become identical to those that have already developed. The next fact is that when people look back to the past, he asks them to name a culture that hasn’t changed? These examples help prove that the act of Globalization helps countries and does not destroy their cultures and replace them with American culture.
Response:
I agree with Nye Jr. that globalization does not totally destroy cultures and Americanize the world. It might affect cultures, but throughout history, cultures have been affected by other cultures and other influences. Just look at the time period of Alexander the Great, as he conquered people, Greek culture was spread across Asia where it was assimilated into the cultures of the area. The period of the Roman Empire is another example. Although it combined people from all over Europe assimilated them into the Roman Culture, the Empire fell and from the different groups of people, today’s modern cultures developed. It just proves that Culture well always be changing.
For those who think that Globalization means being Americanize, Nye points out that it that the globalization of other countries also causes change in America’s Culture. I agree with this because looking at the examples that Nye gave us, such as Pokemon and Sony. Both of these products have affected the younger generations. They grow with these things as part of their culture, when in the beginning they were influence by the Japanese. It’s just proof that America is not the only influence in the process of Globalization.
Towards the end of the essay, Nye talks about what might happen in the future because of the process of globalization. In the future the U.S.’s power and influence actually might diminish because of globalization. The negative views might go away. This is very possible. Right now the U.S. is a powerful and influential force but as time goes on, another country might rise beyond us and then we won’t be viewed as a threatening force.
“Fear Not Globalization” is an essay by Joseph S. Nye Jr. that discusses the issue of Globalization. Nye discourages the notion that globalization will destroy countries self cultures and become Americanize. He also points out that when other countries develop into global powers, we should not see that there cultures have become identical to those that have already developed. The next fact is that when people look back to the past, he asks them to name a culture that hasn’t changed? These examples help prove that the act of Globalization helps countries and does not destroy their cultures and replace them with American culture.
Response:
I agree with Nye Jr. that globalization does not totally destroy cultures and Americanize the world. It might affect cultures, but throughout history, cultures have been affected by other cultures and other influences. Just look at the time period of Alexander the Great, as he conquered people, Greek culture was spread across Asia where it was assimilated into the cultures of the area. The period of the Roman Empire is another example. Although it combined people from all over Europe assimilated them into the Roman Culture, the Empire fell and from the different groups of people, today’s modern cultures developed. It just proves that Culture well always be changing.
For those who think that Globalization means being Americanize, Nye points out that it that the globalization of other countries also causes change in America’s Culture. I agree with this because looking at the examples that Nye gave us, such as Pokemon and Sony. Both of these products have affected the younger generations. They grow with these things as part of their culture, when in the beginning they were influence by the Japanese. It’s just proof that America is not the only influence in the process of Globalization.
Towards the end of the essay, Nye talks about what might happen in the future because of the process of globalization. In the future the U.S.’s power and influence actually might diminish because of globalization. The negative views might go away. This is very possible. Right now the U.S. is a powerful and influential force but as time goes on, another country might rise beyond us and then we won’t be viewed as a threatening force.
Journal Entry 4
Summery and Response to “Besieged by “friends”” by Heather Havrilesky:
In Heather Havrilesky’s essay “Besieged by “friends””, she brings up the issue of how Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood and how Arabs respond to it. In her writing, she talks about a documentary by Charles C. Stuart. He went around to various countries in the Middle East, asking people what they thought about American Movies and television. Most of his responses from these people are negative because they are angry at the way they are portrayed in movies. Havrilesky brings up also brings up the idea that the stereotypes of people in movies portray the U.S. foreign policy at any given time, such as during WW II with the Japanese and Arabs after Sept. 11. She then ends that we would be angry if it was us being portrayed as stereotypes.
Response:
Heather Havrilesky provides an example of people who have become angry at how they are portrayed as stereotypes in the media. Right now it is Arabs who have this problem, in the past and still today, it was Japanese, Chinese, African American, etc. who were portrayed in the media as stereotypes. These people believe that these stereotypes hurt their cultures and how others view them.
It is reasonable that these people are angry with Hollywood and the media. Who wants their culture to be represented by a stereotype that doesn’t define them, makes them look terrible, or mocks them? The image of the Middle East being filled with terrorist has become blown out of proportion by the media after 9/11. Havrilesky points this out in her essay’s introduction, mocking the image that Hollywood has created of the Middle East. She says that it must be dusty, camels running around everywhere, and terrorist everywhere. The way she words it, you can tell that she’s over exaggerating to make the point that Hollywood shows the Middle East as a Stereotype. I would have to agree with her, in most movies that take place in the Middle East, its dusty, camels are everywhere, and there is always a terrorist around. It is the most common image that people think of. The fact though is that it isn’t true.
The same thing can be seen in moves of the past. Native Americans can always be seen as savages or drunks in old westerns. African Americans in older movies were servants, ignorant people, or criminals. There are a number of stereotypes that I could name off. Even at farmers of the mid west are stereotyped by people on the coast. One of my friends met someone at their school from the East coast. They asked my friend if we drive tractors to school.
I agree with Havrilesky, that Hollywood is hurting others cultures. Today we see only the radical parts of culture in the Middle East. This is only a small part of it. It is also seems true that the Hollywood images of people only occur when it mirrors the U.S.’s foreign policy like Havrilesky points out in her essay. I think that this hurts the American people because it cause them to believe in lies about other cultures, which can hurt relations with these cultures.
In Heather Havrilesky’s essay “Besieged by “friends””, she brings up the issue of how Arabs are portrayed in Hollywood and how Arabs respond to it. In her writing, she talks about a documentary by Charles C. Stuart. He went around to various countries in the Middle East, asking people what they thought about American Movies and television. Most of his responses from these people are negative because they are angry at the way they are portrayed in movies. Havrilesky brings up also brings up the idea that the stereotypes of people in movies portray the U.S. foreign policy at any given time, such as during WW II with the Japanese and Arabs after Sept. 11. She then ends that we would be angry if it was us being portrayed as stereotypes.
Response:
Heather Havrilesky provides an example of people who have become angry at how they are portrayed as stereotypes in the media. Right now it is Arabs who have this problem, in the past and still today, it was Japanese, Chinese, African American, etc. who were portrayed in the media as stereotypes. These people believe that these stereotypes hurt their cultures and how others view them.
It is reasonable that these people are angry with Hollywood and the media. Who wants their culture to be represented by a stereotype that doesn’t define them, makes them look terrible, or mocks them? The image of the Middle East being filled with terrorist has become blown out of proportion by the media after 9/11. Havrilesky points this out in her essay’s introduction, mocking the image that Hollywood has created of the Middle East. She says that it must be dusty, camels running around everywhere, and terrorist everywhere. The way she words it, you can tell that she’s over exaggerating to make the point that Hollywood shows the Middle East as a Stereotype. I would have to agree with her, in most movies that take place in the Middle East, its dusty, camels are everywhere, and there is always a terrorist around. It is the most common image that people think of. The fact though is that it isn’t true.
The same thing can be seen in moves of the past. Native Americans can always be seen as savages or drunks in old westerns. African Americans in older movies were servants, ignorant people, or criminals. There are a number of stereotypes that I could name off. Even at farmers of the mid west are stereotyped by people on the coast. One of my friends met someone at their school from the East coast. They asked my friend if we drive tractors to school.
I agree with Havrilesky, that Hollywood is hurting others cultures. Today we see only the radical parts of culture in the Middle East. This is only a small part of it. It is also seems true that the Hollywood images of people only occur when it mirrors the U.S.’s foreign policy like Havrilesky points out in her essay. I think that this hurts the American people because it cause them to believe in lies about other cultures, which can hurt relations with these cultures.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Journal entry 3
Summary and Response to “Talking Trash” by Andy Rooney:
In Andy Rooney’s essay “Talking Trash”, he brings up the issue of Americans being wasteful. He does this by writing about his trip to the dump and grocery store and commenting on things he notices and pointing out facts of how we as Americans and even himself are wasteful. He points out how much garbage New York City makes and where most of it comes from is packaging. He then ask what will happen if we continue dumping garbage and using up all our non renewable resources.
Response:
Andy Rooney makes some good points in his essay “Talking Trash”, such as that we are wasteful people and that we are using up all our national resources and not really trying to reuse the land. He points all this out but all he does in complain and does not offer a solution the problem. Instead he offers an “oh well” Attitude.
Rooney tries to show that we as Americans our wasteful by giving an account of his Saturday trip to the city dump. He describes that he has a carload of news papers, bottle, cans, etc. He then base his experience that we are wasteful. The funny thing is that pretty much every that he is dumping is actually recyclable. He complains about the amount of trash but what is he doing in the story? He’s dumping garbage. He personally is not doing anything about this problem. It for this reason I believe that he is a hypocrite.
It’s a good thing that he’s pointing the problem out and even saying that he’s part of it, but he doesn’t do anything besides complains. He could at least talk about recycling, or at least offer ways for Americans to be less wasteful. This problem was caused by our generation, his generation and the ones before it and now we have to live with it. He offers this “oh well” attitude by doing this, as if he knows that it’s a problem but it won’t affect him in the long run. Instead it will fall upon the future generations.
Overall, Rooney’s essay is effective at pointing out the problems with our wasteful society. His story helps him to relate to everyone and get his message across. The only thing wrong is that he offers and “oh well” attitude, which is doesn’t help to solve the problem.
In Andy Rooney’s essay “Talking Trash”, he brings up the issue of Americans being wasteful. He does this by writing about his trip to the dump and grocery store and commenting on things he notices and pointing out facts of how we as Americans and even himself are wasteful. He points out how much garbage New York City makes and where most of it comes from is packaging. He then ask what will happen if we continue dumping garbage and using up all our non renewable resources.
Response:
Andy Rooney makes some good points in his essay “Talking Trash”, such as that we are wasteful people and that we are using up all our national resources and not really trying to reuse the land. He points all this out but all he does in complain and does not offer a solution the problem. Instead he offers an “oh well” Attitude.
Rooney tries to show that we as Americans our wasteful by giving an account of his Saturday trip to the city dump. He describes that he has a carload of news papers, bottle, cans, etc. He then base his experience that we are wasteful. The funny thing is that pretty much every that he is dumping is actually recyclable. He complains about the amount of trash but what is he doing in the story? He’s dumping garbage. He personally is not doing anything about this problem. It for this reason I believe that he is a hypocrite.
It’s a good thing that he’s pointing the problem out and even saying that he’s part of it, but he doesn’t do anything besides complains. He could at least talk about recycling, or at least offer ways for Americans to be less wasteful. This problem was caused by our generation, his generation and the ones before it and now we have to live with it. He offers this “oh well” attitude by doing this, as if he knows that it’s a problem but it won’t affect him in the long run. Instead it will fall upon the future generations.
Overall, Rooney’s essay is effective at pointing out the problems with our wasteful society. His story helps him to relate to everyone and get his message across. The only thing wrong is that he offers and “oh well” attitude, which is doesn’t help to solve the problem.
Journal entry Two
Summary and Response to “Justice for Women” by Ellen Goodman:
In Ellen Goodman’s essay “Justice for Women”, she brings up issue of justice for women around the world. She catches the reader’s attention by providing stories of injustices to women in places such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan. For women and men with feelings that women everywhere should be treated equal to men, these stories infuriate them. Goodman points out that the image of the United States being a fighter for women rights is contradicted by the government’s act of not signing an international treaty for a bill of rights of women around the world.
Response:
Goodman makes a good point about Americans contradicting themselves. If we want to promote equality for women everywhere we have to be united with everyone, by not signing the treaty we say but we don’t do. We hurt our image and give those who hurt women more of cause to reject the treaty.
This essay also hurts my pride in America and I think it will for others. The fact that politicians are just pushing back the act of just looking at the treaty, tells us how prepared the government is on promoting women rights internationally. The fact they the United States help make the treaty is worse yet. It says that we want other countries to do this but America doesn’t have to or that we are above them.
She used the stories at the beginning to get the reader’s attention because it such a horrible act of injustice. It appeals to the reader’s emotions. They get angry at the injustice and it causes them to read on to see what the rest of the essay says. She gives us the idea that this is going to be an essay about a country in the middle east, but instead it goes back to the United States. This caused me to do double take and see what article I was reading again. I use to believe that America was always a supporter of women’s rights internationally. Then this essay came along I read the part about the treaty and it turned my idea of the government being a supporter of women rights upside down. Goodman lists the bogus reasons the government gave so that they could push back the signing of the treating. This just infuriates me of what bureaucrats can do and how they can mess everything up. I also agree with Goodman that by not signing the treaty, it gives the Taliban the idea that the treaty is not universal. So they continue mistreat women. In the end, not signing the treaty hurts more than it helps.
At the end Goodman says that when people here about injustices against women, it gives them the impulse to do something. I just wish that out government would get the impulse to do something useful on this treaty’s account and help women internationally.
In Ellen Goodman’s essay “Justice for Women”, she brings up issue of justice for women around the world. She catches the reader’s attention by providing stories of injustices to women in places such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Afghanistan. For women and men with feelings that women everywhere should be treated equal to men, these stories infuriate them. Goodman points out that the image of the United States being a fighter for women rights is contradicted by the government’s act of not signing an international treaty for a bill of rights of women around the world.
Response:
Goodman makes a good point about Americans contradicting themselves. If we want to promote equality for women everywhere we have to be united with everyone, by not signing the treaty we say but we don’t do. We hurt our image and give those who hurt women more of cause to reject the treaty.
This essay also hurts my pride in America and I think it will for others. The fact that politicians are just pushing back the act of just looking at the treaty, tells us how prepared the government is on promoting women rights internationally. The fact they the United States help make the treaty is worse yet. It says that we want other countries to do this but America doesn’t have to or that we are above them.
She used the stories at the beginning to get the reader’s attention because it such a horrible act of injustice. It appeals to the reader’s emotions. They get angry at the injustice and it causes them to read on to see what the rest of the essay says. She gives us the idea that this is going to be an essay about a country in the middle east, but instead it goes back to the United States. This caused me to do double take and see what article I was reading again. I use to believe that America was always a supporter of women’s rights internationally. Then this essay came along I read the part about the treaty and it turned my idea of the government being a supporter of women rights upside down. Goodman lists the bogus reasons the government gave so that they could push back the signing of the treating. This just infuriates me of what bureaucrats can do and how they can mess everything up. I also agree with Goodman that by not signing the treaty, it gives the Taliban the idea that the treaty is not universal. So they continue mistreat women. In the end, not signing the treaty hurts more than it helps.
At the end Goodman says that when people here about injustices against women, it gives them the impulse to do something. I just wish that out government would get the impulse to do something useful on this treaty’s account and help women internationally.
Journal entry one
Summary and Response to “Love and Race” by Nicholas D. Kristof.
In Nicholas D. Kristof’s essay called “Love and Race”, he brings up the issue of interracial marriage in today’s society. He informs the reader of how views on this matter have changed in the past 50 years and for the better. By using evidence and facts, he proves that marriage between different ethnic groups are happening more and has the hope that they will build bridges between the barriers that divide people of different ethnic backgrounds.
Response:
By the facts the Kristof provided in his essay “Love and Race”, I would have to agree that the increase in interracial is a “happy trend”. All we ever hear about is racism, intolerance and injustice in our country’s past and present. Then this comes and its wonderful news to show that change is coming. This essay is the proof that we are starting to knock down the walls that divide us.
In his essay, Kristof gives us a bunch of stats that prove the interracial marriages are on the rise. I can see this to be true in my daily life at Iowa State. Walking across campus, I see interracial couples all the time. College institutions are places that encourage interaction with people of all different ethnic backgrounds. It is these interactions that I believe lead to the increase in interracial marriages.
I would also agree with Krisof that the media is trying to promote interracial marriages and couples. We see it all the time now in movies and on TV. It’s a good thing that this is happening. People get a lot of influence from the media around them and for once this influence is actually good.
Looking at the past of our country, we can see a lot terrible things that happened. Segregation, racism, hate crimes, and intolerance. It’s a sad part of our history, one that I wish that we could erase. Well we can’t erase it but we can try to make up for it. This information about the rising numbers of interracial marriages proves that the times are changing. It proves that people are accepting and tolerant of each other.
This is the sign of a happy trend because like Kristoff said, it’s leading to the breaking down of barriers between people of different ethnic backgrounds. For once it’s not a trend that is hurting anyone, instead its helping the cause of acceptance and equality. I would have to agree with Kristoff that this is the beginning of change because people in the U.S. Still don’t accept it. Most are southerners with old prejudices or older generations that still hold on to the prejudices of their time. But it’s a sign of something good and new. Over time we will become the older generation and hopefull prejudices of the past are just a memory then.
Response:
By the facts the Kristof provided in his essay “Love and Race”, I would have to agree that the increase in interracial is a “happy trend”. All we ever hear about is racism, intolerance and injustice in our country’s past and present. Then this comes and its wonderful news to show that change is coming. This essay is the proof that we are starting to knock down the walls that divide us.
In his essay, Kristof gives us a bunch of stats that prove the interracial marriages are on the rise. I can see this to be true in my daily life at Iowa State. Walking across campus, I see interracial couples all the time. College institutions are places that encourage interaction with people of all different ethnic backgrounds. It is these interactions that I believe lead to the increase in interracial marriages.
I would also agree with Krisof that the media is trying to promote interracial marriages and couples. We see it all the time now in movies and on TV. It’s a good thing that this is happening. People get a lot of influence from the media around them and for once this influence is actually good.
Looking at the past of our country, we can see a lot terrible things that happened. Segregation, racism, hate crimes, and intolerance. It’s a sad part of our history, one that I wish that we could erase. Well we can’t erase it but we can try to make up for it. This information about the rising numbers of interracial marriages proves that the times are changing. It proves that people are accepting and tolerant of each other.
This is the sign of a happy trend because like Kristoff said, it’s leading to the breaking down of barriers between people of different ethnic backgrounds. For once it’s not a trend that is hurting anyone, instead its helping the cause of acceptance and equality. I would have to agree with Kristoff that this is the beginning of change because people in the U.S. Still don’t accept it. Most are southerners with old prejudices or older generations that still hold on to the prejudices of their time. But it’s a sign of something good and new. Over time we will become the older generation and hopefull prejudices of the past are just a memory then.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Response to "The Globalization of Eating Disorders by Susan Bordo
I agree with Susan Bordo in the fact that images affect us and that eating disorders are a global problem. Images of models and things that look " perfect" are all around us. We compare ourselves to these images and find out that we dont match them quite often. We dont realize that these people are a small percentage of world population and in no way define what normal or average is. Instead of being ourselves, we let the media influence us and take control of us in a sense. I truly believe that the media had spread eating disorders around the world. Media tells people all around the world what is popular and appealing. Again agreeing with Bordo that until we realize what we allow to influence us, we can not start a change for the better
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)