Dean David V. Powers:
Recently, there have been talks around the idea of splitting the Communications Department and Journalism Department for reasons of funding. Cuts in this program are being proposed around the basis of saving money as the economy continues to maintain negative impacts surrounding the educational system. However, I think that this leads to some serious repercussions that need to be critically addressed and evaluated. Additionally, I think that cuts would ultimately be better served in other departments.
Surrounding the idea of why the split would be a negative decision are several very strong reasons. First, the idea of dependancy within this department is critical to support the mission of 'educating the whole person'. Here, it is quite obvious that the two departments fundamentally need one another to allow for successful fundamental education. A student cannot learn how to effectively communicate unless they are to understand the mediums on which to communicate (which journalism allows for). The opposite is true as well, a journalism student cannot effectively communicate their message unless that fundamentally understand the idea of messaging and audience. Thus, the two are so adherently intertwined I cannot see how any possible benefit could be derived off of this plan. Second, because these two mediums are so fundamentally intertwined, it seems as though it would be counter-productive to split the two departments due to the fact that the same types of curriculum that the other department offers would have to be reintegrated into the new department. This will cause increases in program costs due to staffing as well as new program and curriculum development. Third, as tuition increases are already on the rise and the economy continues to dwindle cutting education (which has the potential to stimulate the economy) is also not the solution. This is a time when education needs to be developed rather than held back. In this, it is important to set the example.
There are other compromises that can be made which cannot fundamentally effect the quality of education. First, instead of increasing new student enrollment at record amounts, it is important to rethink this position. However, questions still remain, without increasing the rate of new student enrollment we are also loosing valuable tuition yet at the same time increased enrollment leads to increased demands in programs. Perhaps, this issue is both instigating and hindering the problem of funding. Perhaps, the best way to address this issue is to consolidate some of the majors that are perhaps not receiving as much growth and allow that particular field to be a specialization within the given major. This would account for any classes that aren't being filled to their appropriate capacity as well as lead to more power and specialization behind one discipline. However, the remember that the departments are fundamentally intertwined so it is important not to cause more problems by leading up to their separation.
The media quite obviously fundamentally fuels our knowledge of the world around us. It is a powerful tool not only for the growth of a nation, but also the growth of the individual. To be an effective citizen, it is imperative that there is an adherent understanding of how our media systems work so we can be and become active citizens as well as consumers.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Rising Tuition - Rising Problems
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2011260737_studentstrike05m.html?syndication=rss&prmid=obinsite;
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget10/highlights/education.pdf
When traveling to places like Europe, most Europeans cannot even believe that we pay for our education in the first place. As if paying for it wasn't enough, we are now during a recession seeing unprecidented hikes in the rate of tuition. I stand at total agreement with one of the statements made in the article, simply put that"our view is that it has a negative impact on education and is counterproductive," Arkans said. In this, one would think that possibly the worst time to raise tuition is during a recession, especially with such dramatic hikes. First, many children who perhaps come from wealthy families but whose family will not help them pay for tuition will suffer the greatest. Second, those who already have trouble affording it will run into even more problems and possibly be priced out of schooling options.
Though I am no policy maker, I definitely believe that education in times like these need to be stressed. Education is imperative to help decrease unemployment rates and thus, stimulate the economy and consumer spending. Yet, none of this is even remotely possibly as students are burdened with hoards of debt after they graduate and simply focus on repaying their accruing debt as opposed to stimulating the economy, small business, etc. Whatever the proper solution is, we cannot turn youth off to the idea and support of strong educational systems. Personally, I believe that these policies are only giving way to a bundle of problems that will only grow in the future.
Another idea to help this situation is to perhaps cap university expansion. It seems as though today institutions are expanding just for the sake of expanding, however, expansions should really fluctuate based on demand rather than growth for growth. This seems to be a good way to keep universities competitive and possibly stabilizing tuition.
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget10/highlights/education.pdf
When traveling to places like Europe, most Europeans cannot even believe that we pay for our education in the first place. As if paying for it wasn't enough, we are now during a recession seeing unprecidented hikes in the rate of tuition. I stand at total agreement with one of the statements made in the article, simply put that"our view is that it has a negative impact on education and is counterproductive," Arkans said. In this, one would think that possibly the worst time to raise tuition is during a recession, especially with such dramatic hikes. First, many children who perhaps come from wealthy families but whose family will not help them pay for tuition will suffer the greatest. Second, those who already have trouble affording it will run into even more problems and possibly be priced out of schooling options.
Though I am no policy maker, I definitely believe that education in times like these need to be stressed. Education is imperative to help decrease unemployment rates and thus, stimulate the economy and consumer spending. Yet, none of this is even remotely possibly as students are burdened with hoards of debt after they graduate and simply focus on repaying their accruing debt as opposed to stimulating the economy, small business, etc. Whatever the proper solution is, we cannot turn youth off to the idea and support of strong educational systems. Personally, I believe that these policies are only giving way to a bundle of problems that will only grow in the future.
Another idea to help this situation is to perhaps cap university expansion. It seems as though today institutions are expanding just for the sake of expanding, however, expansions should really fluctuate based on demand rather than growth for growth. This seems to be a good way to keep universities competitive and possibly stabilizing tuition.
Dear Manager...
A waiter at a local restaurant was rude to you and your guests.
(The following is actually a true story…)
Dear Manager of Coastal Kitchen,
I am writing today in regards to a problem that I encountered last Friday regarding a situation surrounding the meal and how that particular situation was handled. I have been a long time patron of your restaurant. In fact, in all of my other experiences except for this one, I have truly enjoyed the atmosphere, food and experience that your restaurant offers. So much so, that when my boyfriends parents came into town to visit from Utah we collectively suggested that are party of 10 dine together at your 15th avenue location.
While we truly enjoyed our appetizers, a problem occurred during the time that we finished our appetizers and were waiting on our food. As my boyfriends mother was drinking her water, she noticed something strange towards the bottom of her glass. As she begin to essentially ‘fish it out’, she discovered that it was a large unidentified pill capsule that was resting at the bottom of her beverage she had been consuming for some time. Accordingly, we showed the waitress and instead of bringing the manager to us, she fetched the pill from us to show the manager. Upon her return, she offered no explanation and instead said simply that she saw another table crushing ‘vitamins’ and putting them into pill form. Of which, must have stuck to the bottom of a pitcher and fell into one of the glasses. Mortified, we quickly dismissed the situation. When the bill arrived we were offered no compensation. In fact, the waitress carried on as if the situation never happened.
Looking back on the situation, even immediately after we left we realized how serious the situation was. Understandably so, we were very upset and wished that we had taken more action at the time of the incident. Today, I am taking my initiative to act on something that I find to be very serious as a pill containing any type of unidentified medicine is a very serious matter. My family and myself have now all vowed to never return to the location. However, to possibly remedy the situation we would just simply like an apology.
With this, something so simple – you could restore confidence in us as customers. I attend the local university who services a great deal of customers and would love it if I felt confident in supporting your business to the community once more. Additionally, as my boyfriend and I used to dine their multiple times a month, that is valuable revenue that could possibly be restored in your business.
From here, as stated earlier. I would really appreciate an apology we never received. Again, myself and my boyfriend really love your food and I would love regain confidence in your services once more so we can begin to enjoy the experience of your restaurant that we once loved.
I appreciate your consideration and thank you for your attention.
-Kirsten
(The following is actually a true story…)
Dear Manager of Coastal Kitchen,
I am writing today in regards to a problem that I encountered last Friday regarding a situation surrounding the meal and how that particular situation was handled. I have been a long time patron of your restaurant. In fact, in all of my other experiences except for this one, I have truly enjoyed the atmosphere, food and experience that your restaurant offers. So much so, that when my boyfriends parents came into town to visit from Utah we collectively suggested that are party of 10 dine together at your 15th avenue location.
While we truly enjoyed our appetizers, a problem occurred during the time that we finished our appetizers and were waiting on our food. As my boyfriends mother was drinking her water, she noticed something strange towards the bottom of her glass. As she begin to essentially ‘fish it out’, she discovered that it was a large unidentified pill capsule that was resting at the bottom of her beverage she had been consuming for some time. Accordingly, we showed the waitress and instead of bringing the manager to us, she fetched the pill from us to show the manager. Upon her return, she offered no explanation and instead said simply that she saw another table crushing ‘vitamins’ and putting them into pill form. Of which, must have stuck to the bottom of a pitcher and fell into one of the glasses. Mortified, we quickly dismissed the situation. When the bill arrived we were offered no compensation. In fact, the waitress carried on as if the situation never happened.
Looking back on the situation, even immediately after we left we realized how serious the situation was. Understandably so, we were very upset and wished that we had taken more action at the time of the incident. Today, I am taking my initiative to act on something that I find to be very serious as a pill containing any type of unidentified medicine is a very serious matter. My family and myself have now all vowed to never return to the location. However, to possibly remedy the situation we would just simply like an apology.
With this, something so simple – you could restore confidence in us as customers. I attend the local university who services a great deal of customers and would love it if I felt confident in supporting your business to the community once more. Additionally, as my boyfriend and I used to dine their multiple times a month, that is valuable revenue that could possibly be restored in your business.
From here, as stated earlier. I would really appreciate an apology we never received. Again, myself and my boyfriend really love your food and I would love regain confidence in your services once more so we can begin to enjoy the experience of your restaurant that we once loved.
I appreciate your consideration and thank you for your attention.
-Kirsten
Monday, March 8, 2010
Consumers Right to Knowledge - Weekly Writing 8
Since genetically-modified (GM/GMO) crops came onto the market, there’s been a lot of debate about whether foods containing ingredients from GM crops should be labeled. Some people believe it’s a right-to-know issue. There has been a great deal of debate in recent years surrounding the issues of consumer’s right to knowledge especially in relation to the food that they are consuming. Something considered so inherently important has been placed in the spotlight due to recent developments through the progression of genetic modification. Here, there is a very inherent conflict of interest that rests as to what procedures should be implemented as well as the issues of who is responsible to implement such procedures. In such an important issue surrounding this idea of consumer rights, one question remains: Do consumers ultimately have the right to know everything that is in their food?
Within this issue, there are two very strong options that remain at each end of the spectrum with relation as to whether or not Genetically Modified (GM) food should be labeled or whether or not is poses inherent health risks and thus there is no need to label the food at all. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups are demanding that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods. On this side of the argument, consumer groups claim that with regards to GM foods that are either: a) too new to understand the long term effects surrounding genetic modification on both the environment and human body b) effects have already been apparent in environment and thus, should be known.
On the other side of the argument sits the United States government as well as biotech powerhouse, Monsanto. Both these parties claim that mandatory food labels are simply not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. According to Monsanto’s website, “the Food and Drug Administration oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled.” Accordingly, Monsanto claims that by requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws as well as consumer confidence. Additionally, ensuring that such labeling is accurate would also put a huge burden on regulatory agencies. Their solution to those who care? Simply buy organic and avoid such products.
However, here, questions remain as to whether or not labeling GM products would create more benefits than none at all. However, I think that everyone has the inherent right to knowledge about their food as well as where it came from. Here, these claims are not unfounded. Today, the organic industry in the United State is estimated at $23 billion, so there is obviously a want to know what is in the food. Additionally, the ideas surrounding their not being enough knowledge around the effects of GM crops seems to remain relevant as testing for these products have only been around for a few decades.
One noticeable flaw in the argument surrounding the opposition was when they claimed that it “hurts consumer confidence”. Here, it is very obvious that though they don’t blatantly say it, it is indicative that they are simply concerned about losing money. If consumers were as confident in the lack of side-effects as Monsanto was, then inherently there should be no concern about lack in consumer confidence, right? It is clear here, that money is the first priority over the consumer’s right to know exactly what is in their food. It is imperative that we act now to take a stand against something so inherently important to our well being, something that gives us life.
While it is always hard to battle the monopolies of the world, it is important that we as consumers do what we can to be as knowledgeable of the things we are consuming as we can. One good point Monsanto did make is that yes, consumers should buy organic or at farmers markets. However, majority of Americans still can probably not afford the high premiums that eating organic requires. Much of the time high cost to products reflects the high cost of consumption. It is necessary to keep fighting for consumer awareness as well as the issues surrounding consumers’ right to knowledge. It is our duty to continue to raise awareness and keep fighting even the largest of opponents to at least have the right to choose.
Within this issue, there are two very strong options that remain at each end of the spectrum with relation as to whether or not Genetically Modified (GM) food should be labeled or whether or not is poses inherent health risks and thus there is no need to label the food at all. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups are demanding that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods. On this side of the argument, consumer groups claim that with regards to GM foods that are either: a) too new to understand the long term effects surrounding genetic modification on both the environment and human body b) effects have already been apparent in environment and thus, should be known.
On the other side of the argument sits the United States government as well as biotech powerhouse, Monsanto. Both these parties claim that mandatory food labels are simply not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. According to Monsanto’s website, “the Food and Drug Administration oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled.” Accordingly, Monsanto claims that by requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws as well as consumer confidence. Additionally, ensuring that such labeling is accurate would also put a huge burden on regulatory agencies. Their solution to those who care? Simply buy organic and avoid such products.
However, here, questions remain as to whether or not labeling GM products would create more benefits than none at all. However, I think that everyone has the inherent right to knowledge about their food as well as where it came from. Here, these claims are not unfounded. Today, the organic industry in the United State is estimated at $23 billion, so there is obviously a want to know what is in the food. Additionally, the ideas surrounding their not being enough knowledge around the effects of GM crops seems to remain relevant as testing for these products have only been around for a few decades.
One noticeable flaw in the argument surrounding the opposition was when they claimed that it “hurts consumer confidence”. Here, it is very obvious that though they don’t blatantly say it, it is indicative that they are simply concerned about losing money. If consumers were as confident in the lack of side-effects as Monsanto was, then inherently there should be no concern about lack in consumer confidence, right? It is clear here, that money is the first priority over the consumer’s right to know exactly what is in their food. It is imperative that we act now to take a stand against something so inherently important to our well being, something that gives us life.
While it is always hard to battle the monopolies of the world, it is important that we as consumers do what we can to be as knowledgeable of the things we are consuming as we can. One good point Monsanto did make is that yes, consumers should buy organic or at farmers markets. However, majority of Americans still can probably not afford the high premiums that eating organic requires. Much of the time high cost to products reflects the high cost of consumption. It is necessary to keep fighting for consumer awareness as well as the issues surrounding consumers’ right to knowledge. It is our duty to continue to raise awareness and keep fighting even the largest of opponents to at least have the right to choose.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
The Onion - Loveless Marriage Act
The Onion: New Law Would Ban Marriages Between People Who Don't Love Each Other
The always hilarious 'fake' news outlet The Onion never fails to make you laugh while providing sly undertones of impeccable social commentary in the process. In this particular feature, it highlighted the annulment of loveless couples' marriages on the premise that if they don't love one another, they should not be together - outwardly mocking claims regarding the authenticity of a gay marriage. It highlighted the idea that a marriage should be between a man and a woman who, 'love one another' and without that love, there is just no basis for having a marriage.
What this feature does is in a way highlight the absurdity of our claims against gay marriage. In that, is we define marriage as a man and a woman who are in love, then that too is an absurd definition of what marriage is and so would nullify a probably good majority of marriages across the country. Here too, there was mention made of the idea that some people get married for financial purpose while others get married on the basis of citizenship, etc. Here, we again begin to realize how absurd the definition of what constitutes a marriage really is.
Marriage then, is perhaps undefinable. It cannot just be a man and woman who are in love, because there are a lot of people of can and do get married without this being the premise. If the idea of 'love' is a qualification then that really speaks to the idea of gay marriage and allowing that type of definition to be expanded. Ultimately, it is clear that even our definition of marriage is skewed and may individuals that are married don't even fit the criteria. Therefore, if we are already practicing under an institution that is not well defined then perhaps the who institution itself is skewed.
The always hilarious 'fake' news outlet The Onion never fails to make you laugh while providing sly undertones of impeccable social commentary in the process. In this particular feature, it highlighted the annulment of loveless couples' marriages on the premise that if they don't love one another, they should not be together - outwardly mocking claims regarding the authenticity of a gay marriage. It highlighted the idea that a marriage should be between a man and a woman who, 'love one another' and without that love, there is just no basis for having a marriage.
What this feature does is in a way highlight the absurdity of our claims against gay marriage. In that, is we define marriage as a man and a woman who are in love, then that too is an absurd definition of what marriage is and so would nullify a probably good majority of marriages across the country. Here too, there was mention made of the idea that some people get married for financial purpose while others get married on the basis of citizenship, etc. Here, we again begin to realize how absurd the definition of what constitutes a marriage really is.
Marriage then, is perhaps undefinable. It cannot just be a man and woman who are in love, because there are a lot of people of can and do get married without this being the premise. If the idea of 'love' is a qualification then that really speaks to the idea of gay marriage and allowing that type of definition to be expanded. Ultimately, it is clear that even our definition of marriage is skewed and may individuals that are married don't even fit the criteria. Therefore, if we are already practicing under an institution that is not well defined then perhaps the who institution itself is skewed.
Causation - Against Teen Drivers
http://www.adcouncil.org/newsDetail.aspx?id=263
While in this campaign the cause seems to remain fairly stable throughout with a very clear message: Don't be a reckless driver. Ways in which teens (their target demographic) demonstrate this type of behavior are demonstrated by their colorful advertisements to poke fun at the teens who appear reckless though speeding, texting, goofing around, etc. This campaign seeks campaign against any teen that could, perhaps, appear reckless and are therefore tapping the sources closest to those teens (friends)to attempt to try to stop it.
The general causation is pretty obvious in that the effects of reckless driving are seriously dangerous, if not fatal. One thing that is interesting is that the idea of fatality seems to be emphasized even over general physical harm to emphasize the severity of the given situation. Still the campaign sends a very clear message as to causation: if you are driving recklessly, you will probably most likely get hurt.
Though the causation is clear, the effect is also emphasized if not a little too much (emphasizing death). However, it is understandable because for a campaign of this kind (especially when targeting the youth demographic) it is important to make a concerted point. Here, reckless driving can cause the individual possible harm to himself or others. Additionally, they draw a nice idea surrounding the idea of relationship and how you as a passenger are not so much in it together - that not everyone feels comfortable in the car. Also, there is a very clear difference in maturity level of teenagers and the the idea of investment in relationships.
Within this, they do a great job at giving sufficient evidence to support their claim. According to the article, "on average, more than 300,000 teens are injured in car crashes each year, nearly 8,000 are involved in fatal crashes and more than 3,500 are killed. Research also shows that teen drivers are involved in more than five times as many fatal crashes as adults. Young drivers are more likely to speed, run red lights, make illegal turns and die in an SUV rollover." Thus, they are making a claim and showing concrete evidence as to why it is necessary to give these types of campaigns relevancy.
That is not the only cause and effect that is presented in this campaign. The other, is more positive. It sends the clear message that if you, as a friend, of a reckless driver take responsibility to speak up you could save not only your life but that of anyone else in the car. Here again, the campaign provides supporting evidence, "Research conducted by the Ad Council shows that teen drivers are more likely to listen to their friends than the adults in their lives. In a survey conducted in 2007, 8 in 10 teens said that when a friend speaks up, they will listen because they don't want to damage the friendship, be labeled a bad driver or cause harm to their friends." In this effect, we see a solution offered to a problem and acknowledge that there are positive ways to fix what could have been a very negative outcome.
While in this campaign the cause seems to remain fairly stable throughout with a very clear message: Don't be a reckless driver. Ways in which teens (their target demographic) demonstrate this type of behavior are demonstrated by their colorful advertisements to poke fun at the teens who appear reckless though speeding, texting, goofing around, etc. This campaign seeks campaign against any teen that could, perhaps, appear reckless and are therefore tapping the sources closest to those teens (friends)to attempt to try to stop it.
The general causation is pretty obvious in that the effects of reckless driving are seriously dangerous, if not fatal. One thing that is interesting is that the idea of fatality seems to be emphasized even over general physical harm to emphasize the severity of the given situation. Still the campaign sends a very clear message as to causation: if you are driving recklessly, you will probably most likely get hurt.
Though the causation is clear, the effect is also emphasized if not a little too much (emphasizing death). However, it is understandable because for a campaign of this kind (especially when targeting the youth demographic) it is important to make a concerted point. Here, reckless driving can cause the individual possible harm to himself or others. Additionally, they draw a nice idea surrounding the idea of relationship and how you as a passenger are not so much in it together - that not everyone feels comfortable in the car. Also, there is a very clear difference in maturity level of teenagers and the the idea of investment in relationships.
Within this, they do a great job at giving sufficient evidence to support their claim. According to the article, "on average, more than 300,000 teens are injured in car crashes each year, nearly 8,000 are involved in fatal crashes and more than 3,500 are killed. Research also shows that teen drivers are involved in more than five times as many fatal crashes as adults. Young drivers are more likely to speed, run red lights, make illegal turns and die in an SUV rollover." Thus, they are making a claim and showing concrete evidence as to why it is necessary to give these types of campaigns relevancy.
That is not the only cause and effect that is presented in this campaign. The other, is more positive. It sends the clear message that if you, as a friend, of a reckless driver take responsibility to speak up you could save not only your life but that of anyone else in the car. Here again, the campaign provides supporting evidence, "Research conducted by the Ad Council shows that teen drivers are more likely to listen to their friends than the adults in their lives. In a survey conducted in 2007, 8 in 10 teens said that when a friend speaks up, they will listen because they don't want to damage the friendship, be labeled a bad driver or cause harm to their friends." In this effect, we see a solution offered to a problem and acknowledge that there are positive ways to fix what could have been a very negative outcome.
Causation
Mom and Dad:
Upon my senior year of high school, I faced one of the greatest decisions I would ever have to make in my life. The decision that stood before me was vast, unprecedented and unclear: which college would I go to? When it comes to making major life decisions, I definitely don’t hesitate when considering myself a procrastinator. It is not that I simply don’t want to take initiative, but rather, I am intimidated by making the wrong decision and living in a world of regret. I should be thankful that my life thus far has presented me with too many options rather than not enough, but that does not deter me from trembling in fear at the thought of committing without being able to test the waters first.
That is the type of person I am. Even when boating every summer on the expanses of Lake Chelan in Eastern Washington, I am the person who will acclimate myself slowly down the latter before I take a leap of faith and jump right in. I suppose this decision was no different. Toward the end of it all, I had to make a decision: do I attend the University of Washington as I thought I would be my entire life or do I take a leap and attend a private university that I hadn’t really known or understood to well.
I think that it is relatively obvious to determine where I ended up, however, that was my leap. To this deal, I am still to always wonder how things would have been if I was to make the decision to go to the UW. Today, I am constantly impressed and surprised with the quality of my education; the fact that I am able to attend classes with highly motivated students. Class sizes are manageable, and often time’s teachers make you account for your lack of attendance. Ultimately, today, I feel that I am more motivated and have been able to network with a lifetime of connections – from professors and business professions alike. If anything, I think that it probably the most important thing that I am able to walk away with. I can honestly say that I can walk away with the confidence of my character and a better, more intimate understanding of the world around me.
However, in the back of my mind is your voice that was so determined to see me become a Husky. All my friends did it, so why didn’t I follow in the same path? However, today, after reflecting back four years later, I can see that our experiences were entirely different. Though I am walking away with grades, knowledge and experience in business, my friends walk away with scores of social memories before they even begin to reference school. However, I went to school to learn and though over the past few years, I have always been slightly jealous of the social aspects my friends concentrate on in their student experience, I can honestly say, I have made the right choice.
I have had some amazing social experiences, but looking back, my best experiences are though academics and I have been able to accomplish that. So, though my experiences are different – Seattle University is well worth the extra money for the wealth of knowledge and real world experience that I have gained. We made the right choice, and I can't thank you enough.
-Kirsten
Upon my senior year of high school, I faced one of the greatest decisions I would ever have to make in my life. The decision that stood before me was vast, unprecedented and unclear: which college would I go to? When it comes to making major life decisions, I definitely don’t hesitate when considering myself a procrastinator. It is not that I simply don’t want to take initiative, but rather, I am intimidated by making the wrong decision and living in a world of regret. I should be thankful that my life thus far has presented me with too many options rather than not enough, but that does not deter me from trembling in fear at the thought of committing without being able to test the waters first.
That is the type of person I am. Even when boating every summer on the expanses of Lake Chelan in Eastern Washington, I am the person who will acclimate myself slowly down the latter before I take a leap of faith and jump right in. I suppose this decision was no different. Toward the end of it all, I had to make a decision: do I attend the University of Washington as I thought I would be my entire life or do I take a leap and attend a private university that I hadn’t really known or understood to well.
I think that it is relatively obvious to determine where I ended up, however, that was my leap. To this deal, I am still to always wonder how things would have been if I was to make the decision to go to the UW. Today, I am constantly impressed and surprised with the quality of my education; the fact that I am able to attend classes with highly motivated students. Class sizes are manageable, and often time’s teachers make you account for your lack of attendance. Ultimately, today, I feel that I am more motivated and have been able to network with a lifetime of connections – from professors and business professions alike. If anything, I think that it probably the most important thing that I am able to walk away with. I can honestly say that I can walk away with the confidence of my character and a better, more intimate understanding of the world around me.
However, in the back of my mind is your voice that was so determined to see me become a Husky. All my friends did it, so why didn’t I follow in the same path? However, today, after reflecting back four years later, I can see that our experiences were entirely different. Though I am walking away with grades, knowledge and experience in business, my friends walk away with scores of social memories before they even begin to reference school. However, I went to school to learn and though over the past few years, I have always been slightly jealous of the social aspects my friends concentrate on in their student experience, I can honestly say, I have made the right choice.
I have had some amazing social experiences, but looking back, my best experiences are though academics and I have been able to accomplish that. So, though my experiences are different – Seattle University is well worth the extra money for the wealth of knowledge and real world experience that I have gained. We made the right choice, and I can't thank you enough.
-Kirsten
Friday, February 26, 2010
Rhetorical Tactis
Part One
Credibility is something that is absolutely necessary to establish, so I think that it is important that we sit and reflect on ways in which we can establish more common ground with our audience as a rhetorical writer. First, in order to demonstrate Good Sense, it may sound rather obvious, but it is absolutely necessary that as an author, you sound like you know what you are talking about. In this, it is important to sound well informed without giving the audience too many details to be overwhelming. If the audience is well informed about what I, as an author, am talking about it is important to utilize language that suggests I am an insider and that I have knowledge in a particular area of interest. Additionally, we can use specialized language but most important it is crucial to demonstrate that I have done research and contemplation that was necessary to understand the issue. Here, it is also important to avoid making irrelevant or trivial arguments as well. According to the text, it is also important to consider how much an audience knows about the issue at hand.
There are many important ways in which to establish Good Character. For this particular project, ways in which it will be important to do this are to cite the relevancies of the author. Therefore, it will be important that within this context I will go about citing why exactly I am and what exactly it is that I might represent or if there is any discussion of a company that I may be standing behind, it will be imperative that I go about establishing the character of establishment that I may be representing as well as any background. According to the book, “rhetors can also shore up an audience’s sense of their character simply by refraining from the use of unfair discursive tactics: faulty reasoning or non-representative evidence, threats, name-calling or lies.” This goes to show also that it is absolutely imperative that not only does the source of the information have to appear credible, but it also importantly has to appear factual as well. Overall, a sense of ethos will convey a person as an authority either by virtue of respectable credentials or long experience in some activity. Therefore, if at any point we are talking about a reference or acting as a part of a company – it is imperative that we establish that context and credibility of who we are and what we do.
Additionally, it is also imperative for a write to establish Good Will. Here, it is crucial for a write to demonstrate their goodwill towards an audience by carefully considering what readers need to know about the issue at hand in order to follow the argument. In doing this, it is necessary to supply any necessary information that the audience might not already have but should be careful not to repeat any information that the audience already knows. In this, it will be important to tell the audience just enough, but allow for them to secure, develop and maintain their own opinions. Essentially, we cannot create opinion and force them upon our audience. We can be suggestive, but we have to give the audience enough information so that they may form their own opinions. Additionally, it is important to say why my presentation of an argument is important and what benefits it will accrue to those who read or listen to it.
Part Two
For this particular assignment, I found it particularly compelling to find authors of blogs that created that particular blog for a cause. In this case, I was able to stumble across an information forum entitled “Health Freedom Alliance” and with that there was a post and an article entitled “Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food.” Overall, I have found some articles in opposition of GM to be strongly opinionated or highly extreme, so I am always interested to see ways in which authors decide to present these arguments.
The first thing that the author Jeffery M. Smith does in this article is a quote from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine in which they call on physicians to educate their patients, medical community and the general public to avoid genetically modified foods. From a reader standpoint, this is actually one of the few articles that I have read that provides medical information surrounding the debate, and from what it sounds like right away the author is only referencing highly credible sources which really draws upon the readers attention. It seems as though he is writing this blog to be informational and on behalf of another organizations message, rather than just his own. His quotes seem to establish his credibility right away that he is representing a cause greater than himself, rather than just his own opinion.
He goes into a detailed discussion as to what exactly the AAEM calls upon, including long-term independent studies and food labeling. Again, he goes onto state their position, quoting them. In this, he addresses adverse health effects and how causation is strongly related to this. He confirms that these assertions and claims are backed by study and proceeds to go in-depth as to what those claims account for – as well as the causation to their claims. One thing that is particularly compelling about his argument is how much information he cites. Every bit of information is not provided without a direct citation and his article is littered with quotes, doctors and representatives from the organization. He does this to establish credibility within his argument and effectively shows the reader that though he as an author may be unknown, the people and references he is making is not. Therefore, he has to make a case for the organization and the references he is making to be highly credible because him as a writer may not be an expert in the field.
In terms of research, majority of the article goes into science of his claims. This includes research into the toxin production within the plant as well as effects that are shown in India to the Pacific Northwest that show adverse effects of the research that he is claiming. For every claim that he makes, he provides extensive scientific evidence, real life examples of how that is affecting either the ecosystem or the animal species. In every step of the way he quotes a scientist to support his claim.
To connect to the audience emotionally, he goes onto describe the adverse effects on humans, both socially and economically; saying that GM contributes to symptoms such as obesity. The way that he presents this information is both shocking and highly compelling. He presents the information as a serious of facts. He is not making any assumptions about the audience but rather letting them infer the severity of the issue. In the end, he provides a proactive solution to what we as a reader can do to learn more. This humanizes the piece, and though it is very non-aggressive, it provides a sense of urgency about the subject matter and makes the reader feel as though they need to act. Overall, his argument is well supported. It is presented in logical sequence and is makes sense to the reader. Additionally, the facts and evidence along with the extensive quotations give him vast amounts of credibility. It is obvious this article is well thought out and has sufficient evidence to thoroughly back his claims.
Credibility is something that is absolutely necessary to establish, so I think that it is important that we sit and reflect on ways in which we can establish more common ground with our audience as a rhetorical writer. First, in order to demonstrate Good Sense, it may sound rather obvious, but it is absolutely necessary that as an author, you sound like you know what you are talking about. In this, it is important to sound well informed without giving the audience too many details to be overwhelming. If the audience is well informed about what I, as an author, am talking about it is important to utilize language that suggests I am an insider and that I have knowledge in a particular area of interest. Additionally, we can use specialized language but most important it is crucial to demonstrate that I have done research and contemplation that was necessary to understand the issue. Here, it is also important to avoid making irrelevant or trivial arguments as well. According to the text, it is also important to consider how much an audience knows about the issue at hand.
There are many important ways in which to establish Good Character. For this particular project, ways in which it will be important to do this are to cite the relevancies of the author. Therefore, it will be important that within this context I will go about citing why exactly I am and what exactly it is that I might represent or if there is any discussion of a company that I may be standing behind, it will be imperative that I go about establishing the character of establishment that I may be representing as well as any background. According to the book, “rhetors can also shore up an audience’s sense of their character simply by refraining from the use of unfair discursive tactics: faulty reasoning or non-representative evidence, threats, name-calling or lies.” This goes to show also that it is absolutely imperative that not only does the source of the information have to appear credible, but it also importantly has to appear factual as well. Overall, a sense of ethos will convey a person as an authority either by virtue of respectable credentials or long experience in some activity. Therefore, if at any point we are talking about a reference or acting as a part of a company – it is imperative that we establish that context and credibility of who we are and what we do.
Additionally, it is also imperative for a write to establish Good Will. Here, it is crucial for a write to demonstrate their goodwill towards an audience by carefully considering what readers need to know about the issue at hand in order to follow the argument. In doing this, it is necessary to supply any necessary information that the audience might not already have but should be careful not to repeat any information that the audience already knows. In this, it will be important to tell the audience just enough, but allow for them to secure, develop and maintain their own opinions. Essentially, we cannot create opinion and force them upon our audience. We can be suggestive, but we have to give the audience enough information so that they may form their own opinions. Additionally, it is important to say why my presentation of an argument is important and what benefits it will accrue to those who read or listen to it.
Part Two
For this particular assignment, I found it particularly compelling to find authors of blogs that created that particular blog for a cause. In this case, I was able to stumble across an information forum entitled “Health Freedom Alliance” and with that there was a post and an article entitled “Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food.” Overall, I have found some articles in opposition of GM to be strongly opinionated or highly extreme, so I am always interested to see ways in which authors decide to present these arguments.
The first thing that the author Jeffery M. Smith does in this article is a quote from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine in which they call on physicians to educate their patients, medical community and the general public to avoid genetically modified foods. From a reader standpoint, this is actually one of the few articles that I have read that provides medical information surrounding the debate, and from what it sounds like right away the author is only referencing highly credible sources which really draws upon the readers attention. It seems as though he is writing this blog to be informational and on behalf of another organizations message, rather than just his own. His quotes seem to establish his credibility right away that he is representing a cause greater than himself, rather than just his own opinion.
He goes into a detailed discussion as to what exactly the AAEM calls upon, including long-term independent studies and food labeling. Again, he goes onto state their position, quoting them. In this, he addresses adverse health effects and how causation is strongly related to this. He confirms that these assertions and claims are backed by study and proceeds to go in-depth as to what those claims account for – as well as the causation to their claims. One thing that is particularly compelling about his argument is how much information he cites. Every bit of information is not provided without a direct citation and his article is littered with quotes, doctors and representatives from the organization. He does this to establish credibility within his argument and effectively shows the reader that though he as an author may be unknown, the people and references he is making is not. Therefore, he has to make a case for the organization and the references he is making to be highly credible because him as a writer may not be an expert in the field.
In terms of research, majority of the article goes into science of his claims. This includes research into the toxin production within the plant as well as effects that are shown in India to the Pacific Northwest that show adverse effects of the research that he is claiming. For every claim that he makes, he provides extensive scientific evidence, real life examples of how that is affecting either the ecosystem or the animal species. In every step of the way he quotes a scientist to support his claim.
To connect to the audience emotionally, he goes onto describe the adverse effects on humans, both socially and economically; saying that GM contributes to symptoms such as obesity. The way that he presents this information is both shocking and highly compelling. He presents the information as a serious of facts. He is not making any assumptions about the audience but rather letting them infer the severity of the issue. In the end, he provides a proactive solution to what we as a reader can do to learn more. This humanizes the piece, and though it is very non-aggressive, it provides a sense of urgency about the subject matter and makes the reader feel as though they need to act. Overall, his argument is well supported. It is presented in logical sequence and is makes sense to the reader. Additionally, the facts and evidence along with the extensive quotations give him vast amounts of credibility. It is obvious this article is well thought out and has sufficient evidence to thoroughly back his claims.
LOI
Organization Name: Tilth Producers of Washington
Contact Name: Nancy Allen
Title: Administrative Director
E-mail: nancy@tilthproducers.org
Website: http://www.tilthproducers.org/
Organization Background:
Paralleling the growth of the Tilth Association was the growth of the Northwest Organic Food Producers Association, a group of organic farmers who cooperated to form a state-wide production, distribution and marketing group, and which became the Tilth Producers Co-operative in 1977. TPC administered the organic certification program in the state for many years. With the needs of growers as its reason for being, the co-op engaged in many activities: marketing help, growers’ meetings which turned into the annual conference and workshops, a quarterly journal; and grew stronger as more and more growers saw the benefits of organic production. In 1992, the Co-op became simply Tilth Producers, a chapter of Washington Tilth. It is the only chapter which is not ‘localized,’ but rather has approximately 400 grower-members throughout the state. It took the lead in organic certification issues in the state and is involved in working on the national organic standards. It provides a multitude of educational functions for the growers and for the general public. It works with the land grant university in research and the state department of agriculture on certification and small farm issues. It networks with other associations concerned with the survival of the small farm, the safety and purity of the food supply and issues of social equity.
Contact Name: Nancy Allen
Title: Administrative Director
E-mail: nancy@tilthproducers.org
Website: http://www.tilthproducers.org/
Organization Background:
Paralleling the growth of the Tilth Association was the growth of the Northwest Organic Food Producers Association, a group of organic farmers who cooperated to form a state-wide production, distribution and marketing group, and which became the Tilth Producers Co-operative in 1977. TPC administered the organic certification program in the state for many years. With the needs of growers as its reason for being, the co-op engaged in many activities: marketing help, growers’ meetings which turned into the annual conference and workshops, a quarterly journal; and grew stronger as more and more growers saw the benefits of organic production. In 1992, the Co-op became simply Tilth Producers, a chapter of Washington Tilth. It is the only chapter which is not ‘localized,’ but rather has approximately 400 grower-members throughout the state. It took the lead in organic certification issues in the state and is involved in working on the national organic standards. It provides a multitude of educational functions for the growers and for the general public. It works with the land grant university in research and the state department of agriculture on certification and small farm issues. It networks with other associations concerned with the survival of the small farm, the safety and purity of the food supply and issues of social equity.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Women vs. The Olympics
I think the idea of an argument coming together and resting on an issue is a particularly hard thing to do. In this instance, regarding The IOC's decision to exclude women jumpers from the Vancouver Olympics, it seems as though the two arguments are relatively black and white. Additionally, because the two arguments are so strong, it is hard to decipher or determine any middle ground at all. On one hand, the IOC is not actually bound by any jurisdiction so addressing the idea of discrimination they don't actually abide by any set law, so it makes it relatively tricky. On one hand there is a serious issue of discrimination argued against issues of tradition. So, overall, this issue is very overwhelming as to what exactly the necessarily steps are.
What is confusing to me is that they opt to add more trendy sports, such as ski-cross. In this, women do not only need to justify that they should be included but it also arises the question of ratings. How much of their actions revolve around issues or ratings aside from the mere idea of inclusion. I think that one place the parties can come together and 'rest' is the notion of women being underdeveloped in the sport. It is also interesting regarding the issue of the medical idea, that women are not physically fit to compete, again, here there are so many issues relating to discrimination that are so blatantly obvious. At the time the committee made a decision, the women's world championship didn't exist yet and females had only been participating in a competition a notch below the world championship for two years. With that it is reasonable to say that perhaps the sport is simply too new. Here, it mores-so becomes a case surrounding issues with program development rather than discrimination. Here, it is easy to see that there is still a chance for the sport to become more established, which will not hinder any chances of future participation. Yet, the issues relating to obvious discrimination are overwhelming.
What is confusing to me is that they opt to add more trendy sports, such as ski-cross. In this, women do not only need to justify that they should be included but it also arises the question of ratings. How much of their actions revolve around issues or ratings aside from the mere idea of inclusion. I think that one place the parties can come together and 'rest' is the notion of women being underdeveloped in the sport. It is also interesting regarding the issue of the medical idea, that women are not physically fit to compete, again, here there are so many issues relating to discrimination that are so blatantly obvious. At the time the committee made a decision, the women's world championship didn't exist yet and females had only been participating in a competition a notch below the world championship for two years. With that it is reasonable to say that perhaps the sport is simply too new. Here, it mores-so becomes a case surrounding issues with program development rather than discrimination. Here, it is easy to see that there is still a chance for the sport to become more established, which will not hinder any chances of future participation. Yet, the issues relating to obvious discrimination are overwhelming.
Public vs. Private Debate
I think that this debate is particularly hard and poses many tough issues. Having gone to private school all my life, growing up I begged my parents to send me to private school, however, they responded "we will either pay for your highschool or pay for your college." So, obviously I chose college. Yet, my best friends, boyfriend and later my younger brother were all sent to private school - so I am a little biased to begin with.
To begin the debate, I can completely understand the governments argument and think that he did a good job explaining such a tough issue - to ban an institution that has been around for so long. I do like that he incorporated the idea of socialization and used it for the idea of democracy. In his argument, he stated that society is fragmented through private education and I think that this is an impossible fact to disagree with. I agree also that wealth argument, you tend to get a division of wealth amongst public and private schools, but in a sense I feel like that is also not fully true. I feel like location public or private might be the greatest factor in regards to that. As I told the debater, I really liked that he likened this idea to that of a Japanese system of education. I think that by discussing why this works and where it has taken Japan's education system in comparison to ours, would have made for a really strong case - I just wish we could have heard more in regards to this argument. His best argument was in saying that the community leaders are detached from the public system, simply because they are not invested in it. I think that this argument really hit the brunt of the issue. With that, we need more people with influence involved in the progression of our systems. Do they send their own children to private school because they lack faith themselves? Ultimately, he squandered the diversity idea, because we are essentially enforcing this type of integration and making all playing fields equal.
For the opposition, I am surprised that he did not address the idea that extreme wealth division could possibly create serious division or conflict amongst schools. Nor did he discuss the idea that private schools will afford need based students with scholarships which will increase the diversity between potential income levels, but will also segregate the kids that want to be there with the kids who don't (a problem that I have seen firsthand in public schools). He did make a point that public schools are divided in all sorts of ways and that each economic class can choose for themselves what is perhaps best for them in their current situation - this idea of tailoring. Additionally, I liked the democracy argument, it tailors our opinions and helps us understand our own voice and backgrounds thus giving us a difference of opinion and stronger convictions as we grow up (so long as we do learn to integrate eventually). I like the idea of parent rights and control as well, I think in a system it is always good to have options. I would have like to hear more about his idea of rejuvenating his idea of public schools, and how he proposed to do that while maintaining the status quo.
Overall, I think that this presented a very complex issue relating to not only benefits of those involved but of the overall economy as well. I thought they both did a good job considering the complex topic, and it makes me want to investigate this further on my own which I think should be the ultimate goal of any debate - make the audience want to learn more about the topic, regardless of the outcome.
To begin the debate, I can completely understand the governments argument and think that he did a good job explaining such a tough issue - to ban an institution that has been around for so long. I do like that he incorporated the idea of socialization and used it for the idea of democracy. In his argument, he stated that society is fragmented through private education and I think that this is an impossible fact to disagree with. I agree also that wealth argument, you tend to get a division of wealth amongst public and private schools, but in a sense I feel like that is also not fully true. I feel like location public or private might be the greatest factor in regards to that. As I told the debater, I really liked that he likened this idea to that of a Japanese system of education. I think that by discussing why this works and where it has taken Japan's education system in comparison to ours, would have made for a really strong case - I just wish we could have heard more in regards to this argument. His best argument was in saying that the community leaders are detached from the public system, simply because they are not invested in it. I think that this argument really hit the brunt of the issue. With that, we need more people with influence involved in the progression of our systems. Do they send their own children to private school because they lack faith themselves? Ultimately, he squandered the diversity idea, because we are essentially enforcing this type of integration and making all playing fields equal.
For the opposition, I am surprised that he did not address the idea that extreme wealth division could possibly create serious division or conflict amongst schools. Nor did he discuss the idea that private schools will afford need based students with scholarships which will increase the diversity between potential income levels, but will also segregate the kids that want to be there with the kids who don't (a problem that I have seen firsthand in public schools). He did make a point that public schools are divided in all sorts of ways and that each economic class can choose for themselves what is perhaps best for them in their current situation - this idea of tailoring. Additionally, I liked the democracy argument, it tailors our opinions and helps us understand our own voice and backgrounds thus giving us a difference of opinion and stronger convictions as we grow up (so long as we do learn to integrate eventually). I like the idea of parent rights and control as well, I think in a system it is always good to have options. I would have like to hear more about his idea of rejuvenating his idea of public schools, and how he proposed to do that while maintaining the status quo.
Overall, I think that this presented a very complex issue relating to not only benefits of those involved but of the overall economy as well. I thought they both did a good job considering the complex topic, and it makes me want to investigate this further on my own which I think should be the ultimate goal of any debate - make the audience want to learn more about the topic, regardless of the outcome.
The Genetic Food Debate: Monsanto the Bully?
Introduction
Let’s take a look back to the year 1999 as the biotech giant Monsanto came face to face with one of its main critics – Greenpeace. There, in a publically held conference in London, the two organizations consisting of highly polarized views went head-to-head to discuss the potential dangers and benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In that dimply lit room the two giants battled over the issue, whose topics ranged from productivity to pesticide use. Ten years later, the hotly debated issue still rages on and grows as does our advancements in technology and our quest to find solution to the world’s problems.
Whereas ten years ago, the debate was just being introduced, it has grown into a multifaceted, multilayered debate that not only breeches the issues of health but constitute issues of corporate policy and monopolies and question our current legal system. Ultimately, this is an issue that reaches all of us. Biotech plants are now grown on about 130 million acres in 13 countries (including Argentina, Canada and Germany). In 2001, 3.6 million acres were used for GM crop in the U.S. and more than 60% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients from GM soybeans, corn or canola. Most of the time we do not even know we are consuming these types of crops and thus, the issues span from production, to health to overall awareness. Therefore, if you eat food, it is important at least develop an awareness of the issue because the way this is regulated today will ultimately set the precedent for tomorrow.
While some believe that genetically modified crops work to only advance our potential to feed the world and aid in the world’s food supply problems, others believe that the corporations are simply using genetic modification to put small companies out of business. While it seems we are only beginning to scratch the surface around the complexities of genetic modification, one thing is certain: as time progresses this debate will surely become more complicated.
What is GM?
When producing crops, the idea of genetic selection is not a new concept. For thousands of years, farmers have used a process of selection and cross breading to continue to enhance and improve crops. This trend is even found common in nature where we find evidence of plants and animals alike that choose selective breeding methods. Overall, traditional breeding methods are slow, and require intensive labor. In example, a farmer will find undesirable traits that will appear while trying to breed specific traits into the plant. When this occurs the process must start over again, until those traits are essentially gone.
What Genetic Modification (GM) offers is the ability to essentially speed up this process through scientific means. Here, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through GM. This allows the gene to be bred without the other unwanted traits in only a single generation. According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
The Debate for GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest challenge in deciphering this debate it to determine for yourself whether or not the scientific benefits (while still rather new and controversial) outweigh the challenges it has posed for small business. Perhaps, it is not so much the act of genetic modification that causes problems, but how the companies themselves are operating with this new technology. Nevertheless, ‘independent’ scientist hired by Monsanto and research scientists alike have spent countless hours trying to prove that the crops they manufacture are not harmful for the user to consume. Due to the fact that this process is still so new, much of this data is inconclusive as it has still not been tested over the long term.
Monsanto is the one of the lead multinational agricultural biotechnology companies in the world. Monsanto employs a full time team of ‘independent’ researchers to determine the advantages of genetic modification which you can find listed directly on their website. According to Monsanto directly, the first benefit for GM crops is due to the fact that famers can reduce pesticide spraying, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increase yields. Ultimately, their evidence suggests that insect-resistant crops offer and alternative to, and reduce the use of agricultural pesticides such as insecticides and fungicides. Since this type of corn and cotton are able to produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. Accordingly, farmers have been able to reduce pesticide application by 289,000 metric tons since 1996 as a result of GM crops. According to Dr. Roger Beachy, this has the potential to reduce chemicals by 50 million pounds a year.
GM crops can also be produced to be herbicide resistant. This means that farmers could spray these crops with herbicide and kill the weeds, without affecting the crop. This method reduces or eliminates the need to plow to remove weeds and disturb the soil for planting. This conserves topsoil, soil moisture and runoff as well as reduces the release of greenhouse gases. The environmental benefits they argue, allow for more crops to be produced on the same amount of land which reduces the need for additional cultivation.
Monsanto states that the second reason for the production of GM crops is the increased yield and income from biotech crops improves the quality of life for farmers in developing countries. All over the world, small and large scale farms are benefiting from increased yields and reduced production costs, improving net economic returns. According again to Monsanto, of the 12 million farmers who planted biotech crops in 23 countries in 2007, 90 percent were small, resource-poor farmers from 12 developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia and Mexico. This, they say, alleviates poverty and makes a contribution to the economics of family farms. In the same article, Dr. Jeffery Sachs states that “if we give important technologies to grow more food in poor places – better seed varieties, better ways to manage soil nutrients, better ways to manage plant pathogens – it’s going to create livelihoods. It’s going to create income in the villages. Its going to convert what it now sub-subsistence agriculture into commercial farming… helping the poorest of the poor to invest in a sustainable future for themselves.”
While some scientists deny this research as being credible, others back it. In addition to these claims, others argue that GM crops develop a cold tolerance against frost that can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that would normally kill seedlings. Additionally, plants are being developed to grow in conditions that were before previously unsuited for cultivation, creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high contents of salt in the water. In addition, plants are now being created to contain vaccines and medicines in foods such as potatoes and tomatoes which will be easier to ship and store than traditional injectable vaccines.
The Debate Against GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest concern amongst scientists is that the technology is too inherently unpredictable and some even go so far as to believe that it can even produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed. According to Steven Druker, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity:
“The fallacy of equating gene-splicing with traditional breeding is that tradition breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar rot genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.
Druker continues on to explain how this viral booster radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and thus causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus. This is a far cry away from how it might function in nature. Ultimately, what occurs is that the foreign gene will produce a substance that has never before occurred in that species, but does so in an unregulated manner that is not similar to the natural function of the organism. Ultimately, he claims this process, though it may work now, is unnatural and thus could provide unexpected results.
The Debate Against GM – Monsanto vs. The Little Guy
In the article Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, author Robert Weissman claims that the biotech crop is being grown today at astounding rates. For supporters of the biotech revolution, this is cause to celebrate as they claim it helps farmers and promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. However, Weissman claims they are doing exactly the opposite. For all industry hype around the products, it is only four products – soy, corn, cotton and canola which are only bread to resist the Monsanto product ‘Roundup’ and only one naturally occurring pesticide. The benefits, however, stop there.
Weissman’s support is vast. By quoting such individuals as Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and author of Who Benefits from GM Crops?, he has found that they do absolutely nothing to feed the hungry as they are only actually exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed due to the high price. Additionally, he supports his argument by saying that Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but instead farmers must spray the particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. What this does, is it creates expenditures above and beyond, but reduces labor costs, which is good for industrial farms but bad for smaller operations. He further goes on to argue on behalf of the “social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of farmers” as well as the ecological and sustainability problems with these types of crops that are already emerging. Most importantly, he discusses the idea and evidence supporting Monsanto’s “seed imperialism” which is occurring and putting farmers out of business.
In his essay, Weissman interviewed Hope Shand, director of the ETC group, a passionate biotech opponent. According to Shand, we are yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better. Additionally, though the industry has been promising grains to the poor for a decade and a half – they are still yet to deliver. In addition to economic problems, the social problems are two-fold. The introduction of this new type of crop is working to effectively displace small famers and pesticide use is rapid accumulating to no effect. Pesticide use is actually rising in bio-tech heavy counties. The reason for this is due to the fact that new weeds will grow, and old ones will begin to build a tolerance. In effect, seed diversity is dropping and development of new crop variety is slowing. Today, biotech planting remains heavy in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China. Europe is still in heavy opposition in fear of “seed imperialism.”
The Patent War
According to a recent NPR article , dated back just a month ago, famer Luke Ulrich a corn and soybean farmer in Kansas is thinking about spring and about buying seed for his farm once again. However, seed companies by the hundreds are going under over the course of just 20 years. According to the article, Ulrich remembers the days before GM seeds upended the industry. Critics of the giant, Monsanto, say that its popular Roundup Ready technology is solely to blame.
Roundup Ready, is Monsanto’s line of genetically modified seeds that inoculate plants against the herbicide Roundup (also made by Monsanto), that kills just about anything else that may come into contact with the plant. According to Monsanto itself, part of Monsanto’s goals “to increase agricultural production sustainability is to develop better seeds that allow farmers around the world to double yield in corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030. In the U.S., they claim they are already taking steps in that direction through Monsanto’s own dedication to the Roundup brand.
According to Ulrich, “ever since they’ve come out with the Roundup Ready trait and that became popular and basically took over farming, we’ve seen significant increases each year”. Additionally, he adds that the seed costs have increased nearly 50% since last year. The reason? Farmers are contractually prohibited from saving seeds and planting them the following year. Additionally, if they try to save and replant the genetically modified seed they face lawsuits simply because they do not own the technology.
More than 9 out of 10 soybeans seeds carry the Roundup Ready trait; it is about the same for cotton and just a bit lower for corn. This ultimately creates problems for farmers. According to Jim Denvir a lawyer for DuPont (which owns Pioneer – a competing seed company), “a seed company can’t stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business, essentially they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do.” What this does is essentially create a monopoly platform for Monsanto to operate and eliminate any competition.
According to Chris Holman, a patent lawyer at the University of Missouri, he states that “due to the structure of the industry, they are able to really drive participants in the industry into using their technology.” However, Monsanto actively denies the allegations and calls them unfair. Yet, cases all over the world are arising due to royalties that farmers are forced to pay to Monsanto (just this year in February, farmers in Brazil are taking legal action against the company due to this issue ).
According to a 2008 Vanity Fair article , Gary Rinehart a long time small business owner in Eagleville, Missouri was accused by Monsanto representative that he had planted GM soybeans in violation of the company patent. Additionally, they threatened that if he didn’t come clean he would need to “face the consequences”. According to Rinehart “he knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them”. Yet, in this case, he hadn’t planted or sold any seeds. Farmers who buy Roundup ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising to not save any seeds produced after each harvest for re-planting or to sell to other farmers. This guarantees sales for Monsanto for years to come.
According to the article, when Rinehart asked the representative to leave his store as he was making his accusations, he recalls the man saying “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” This account is commonplace amongst rural America as the article claims that Monsanto goes after farmers, farmer’s co-ops seed dealers and anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of GM seeds. Additionally, the article reveals that “as interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into the farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities.” In some instances they have been spotted pretending to be surveyors. In other cases, they will confront farmers and pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records.
According to the same article, when asked about these methods, Monsanto declined to specifically comment but said they are merely protecting their patents. Additionally, a Monsanto spokesman said they spend millions of dollars a day to develop technologies to help famers and are protecting their investment through the patents of these discoveries. Monsanto will additionally, legally defending their patents, if necessary. Historically, the United States Patent and Trademark Office have refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. However, in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four vote overruled this decision which laid the groundwork for corporations to begin to take control of the food supply. Yet, in this decision, it was rather a bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills that would lay the precedent. To date, Monsanto has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultural data.
This is just the start of the problem for farmers. While some farmers don’t understand that they are not supposed to save the seeds, others find that though they don’t use the seeds they are blown into their fields or deposited by birds – thus mixing with traditional varieties and thus infringing on the Monsanto patent. Further, these seeds look identical and can only be identified thorough a laboratory.
Gary Rinehart was eventually taken to federal court for a violation of patent rights. Rinehard was forced to hire a lawyer and when they eventually realized they targeted the wrong person, dropped the suit. Yet, he was left with legal fees and a damaged reputation as many farmers have testified.
The Debate For GM – From Monsanto With Love (Monsanto’s Defense)
Unlike the media over recent years, Monsanto certainly doesn’t paint themselves as the bad guy. Upon looking at Monsanto’s website, one would find nothing but a certainly bright picture – incorporated throughout are key words such as “sustainability, corporate responsibility, and advocates of heart health month”. In addition, they display success story pictures, dedicate sections to National FFA week, and have rolling informational pictures explaining that “The world’s population is growing. To keep up with population growth, farmers will have to produce more food. More food in the next 50 years than the past 10,000 years combined. Farmers will meet this challenge.” These captions are met with pictures of smiling faces belonging to families and farmers alike – painting a picture of a company that cares rather than a greedy corporate conglomerate.
In particular, there were two sections that are worth further investigation: Monsanto’s ‘For the Record Section’ (under News & Media) as well as their ‘Corporate Responsibility Policy’. In the ‘For the Record Section’, Monsanto outlines approximately 25-30 issues that have been brought against them, and offers their defense to these issues. In response to the patent controversy, in a short article entitled “Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?” Monsanto responds by saying that “patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. A more important reason is to help foster innovation. Without the protection of patents there would be little incentive for privately-owned companies to pursue and re-invest in innovation. Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers.” With that, Monsanto feels vindicated.
To further their defense, Monsanto goes on to exclaim that they settle most cases without going to trial. Yet, sometimes they are forced to resort to lawsuits, but it is a ‘rare circumstance’ with only 140 going to trial since 1997, 9 cases of which have gone to full trial and in those 9 cases Monsanto notes that they have won all. In this and other cases, Monsanto maintains their corporate responsibility as well as being in the right of their actions. According to their Corporate Sustainability Policy, “Monsanto helps both large and small growers around the world farm in a more sustainable way and attain a better quality of life. It is the combination of our Pledge, our focus on excellence in business conduct, our commitment to integrity, and our products that help us bring about our vision of a better world.”
The Future of the Debate
Though the GM seed debate has shown to be highly complex on multiple levels, there has been breakthrough in legislation as well as a diversion away from just the modification of seeds to other life organisms. According to Organic Consumers, as of March 2, 2004 California’s Mendocino County became the first county in the nation to ban the growing of genetically altered crops and animals, despite a massive campaign by Monsanto to fight the ballot. Additionally, in 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected four key genetically modified crops because “the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers” . According to the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), they consider this ‘a rare victory for the little guy’. PUBPAT’s Executive Director said about the matter, “hopefully this is the beginning of the end of harm being caused to the public by Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of these patents, which threaten family farms and a diverse American food supply.”
In September 27, 2008 the bill AB 541 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in California which regulates genetically engineered crops. This bill “indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination.” This will ultimately help farmers who usually do not have the means to fight the lawsuits regarding patents.
There is no doubt that Monsanto continues to expand its reach into many industry’s relating to GM patents. In February 2005 at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Monsanto published patent applications relating to methods of pig breeding as well as offspring that result. According to Greenpeace, an avid Monsanto critic, “if these patents are granted, Monsanto can legally prevent breeders and farmers from breeding pigs whose characteristics are described in the patent claims and force them to pay royalties.” Yet, according to Monsanto, they are not in the pig business anymore, and further claim that this patent was simply relating to a specific gene marker for a pig trait, not for the trait itself. Additionally, it included artificial insemination methods relating to the breeding process, not the gene. Indefinitely, this is a case of he-said, she-said.
The other controversy that still reigns supreme in relation to the biotech giant is in relation to the labeling of GM food on food labels. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups have demanded that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods, but the U.S. government as well as Monsanto claims that mandatory food labels are not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. Yet, argument still surrounds the integrity of GM safety testing and whether or not this testing it is actually done. This debate is sure to continue to grow as time progresses.
Conclusion
It is inevitable that debates like these will continue to infiltrate the courtroom as technology only continues to advance and battle of this control remains prominent. One thing remains certain: in the end, genetically engineering is an obviously complex and controversial issue spanning from health to economic controversies. The question that remains is not only regarding human health and whether or not genetically modified foods are good for consumption but whether or not this is a benefit for humanity, and could potentially feed the world one day. However, to do this, will small business be bullied out in the process? Or, is capitalism nearly running its course – as the strongest will defeat the competition. Regardless, this brings up serious issues regarding corporate morals, something that has undeniably been in the spotlight for decades. Issues, which protected by our legal system, make it nearly impossible to answer the question of who is right and who is wrong.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Jennifer. 2002. “Food: How Safe? How Altered?” National Geographic, May issue.
BBC News | Talking Point | Monsanto versus Greenpeace." BBC NEWS | News Front Page. BBC, 13 Oct.
1999. Web. Feb. 2010..
Druker, Steven M., Exec. Dir. of Alliance for Bio-Integrity. “Why concerns about health risks of
genetically modified food are scientifically justified.” http://www.biointegrity.org/health-risks/health-risks-ge-foods.htm. Accessed 2/09.
Experts Debate Genetically Modified Food Crops." Experts Debate Genetically Modified Food Crops.
Monsanto Company, 2008. Web. Feb. 2010..
Kerryn, Sakko. "The Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods (ActionBioscience)." ActionBioscience –
promoting bioscience literacy. Action Bioscience, 2002. Web. Feb. 2010.
.
Medical molecular farming: production of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines in plants
(Trends in Plant Science, Vol 6, No 5, pp 219-226, May 2001)
"Monsanto ~ Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?" Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto
Company, 16 Dec. 2009. Web. Feb. 2010.
.
"Monsanto ~ Corporate Responsibility." Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto Company, 2010. Web. 23 Feb.
2010..
"Monsanto's Global War on Farmers." Organic Consumers Association. 10 Aug. 2009. Web. Feb. 2010.
.
"Monsanto ~ Roundup Ready 2 Yield®." Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto Company, 2009. Web. Feb.
2010.
"Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig." Greenpeace News. Greenpeace International, 02
Aug. 2005. Web. Feb. 2010..
"Genetically modified foods." Healing through Detoxification, Cleansing, Chelation, and Juicing.
Healing Daily, 2002. Web. Feb. 2010..
Rauber, Tania, and Maciel Marcondes. "Brazilian Farmers Declare War on Monsanto." Organic
Consumers Association. 9 Feb. 2010. Web. Feb. 2010..
Steele, James B., and Donald L. Barlett. "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear | Politics | Vanity Fair." Vanity
Fair Magazine. Vanity Fair, May 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit (Nature Biotechnology,
Vol 19, No 8, pp 765-768, Aug 2001)
Type II fish antifreeze protein accumulation in transgenic tobacco does not confer frost resistance
(Transgenic Research, Vol 8, No 2, pp 105-117, Apr 1999)
Weissman, Robert. "Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble –
Editor's Blog." Multinational Monitor. Multinational Monitor, 18 Mar. 2008. Web. Feb. 2010..
.
Whitman, Deborah B. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" CSA. ProQuest, Apr. 2000. Web. Feb. 2010..
Let’s take a look back to the year 1999 as the biotech giant Monsanto came face to face with one of its main critics – Greenpeace. There, in a publically held conference in London, the two organizations consisting of highly polarized views went head-to-head to discuss the potential dangers and benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In that dimply lit room the two giants battled over the issue, whose topics ranged from productivity to pesticide use. Ten years later, the hotly debated issue still rages on and grows as does our advancements in technology and our quest to find solution to the world’s problems.
Whereas ten years ago, the debate was just being introduced, it has grown into a multifaceted, multilayered debate that not only breeches the issues of health but constitute issues of corporate policy and monopolies and question our current legal system. Ultimately, this is an issue that reaches all of us. Biotech plants are now grown on about 130 million acres in 13 countries (including Argentina, Canada and Germany). In 2001, 3.6 million acres were used for GM crop in the U.S. and more than 60% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients from GM soybeans, corn or canola. Most of the time we do not even know we are consuming these types of crops and thus, the issues span from production, to health to overall awareness. Therefore, if you eat food, it is important at least develop an awareness of the issue because the way this is regulated today will ultimately set the precedent for tomorrow.
While some believe that genetically modified crops work to only advance our potential to feed the world and aid in the world’s food supply problems, others believe that the corporations are simply using genetic modification to put small companies out of business. While it seems we are only beginning to scratch the surface around the complexities of genetic modification, one thing is certain: as time progresses this debate will surely become more complicated.
What is GM?
When producing crops, the idea of genetic selection is not a new concept. For thousands of years, farmers have used a process of selection and cross breading to continue to enhance and improve crops. This trend is even found common in nature where we find evidence of plants and animals alike that choose selective breeding methods. Overall, traditional breeding methods are slow, and require intensive labor. In example, a farmer will find undesirable traits that will appear while trying to breed specific traits into the plant. When this occurs the process must start over again, until those traits are essentially gone.
What Genetic Modification (GM) offers is the ability to essentially speed up this process through scientific means. Here, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through GM. This allows the gene to be bred without the other unwanted traits in only a single generation. According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
The Debate for GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest challenge in deciphering this debate it to determine for yourself whether or not the scientific benefits (while still rather new and controversial) outweigh the challenges it has posed for small business. Perhaps, it is not so much the act of genetic modification that causes problems, but how the companies themselves are operating with this new technology. Nevertheless, ‘independent’ scientist hired by Monsanto and research scientists alike have spent countless hours trying to prove that the crops they manufacture are not harmful for the user to consume. Due to the fact that this process is still so new, much of this data is inconclusive as it has still not been tested over the long term.
Monsanto is the one of the lead multinational agricultural biotechnology companies in the world. Monsanto employs a full time team of ‘independent’ researchers to determine the advantages of genetic modification which you can find listed directly on their website. According to Monsanto directly, the first benefit for GM crops is due to the fact that famers can reduce pesticide spraying, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increase yields. Ultimately, their evidence suggests that insect-resistant crops offer and alternative to, and reduce the use of agricultural pesticides such as insecticides and fungicides. Since this type of corn and cotton are able to produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. Accordingly, farmers have been able to reduce pesticide application by 289,000 metric tons since 1996 as a result of GM crops. According to Dr. Roger Beachy, this has the potential to reduce chemicals by 50 million pounds a year.
GM crops can also be produced to be herbicide resistant. This means that farmers could spray these crops with herbicide and kill the weeds, without affecting the crop. This method reduces or eliminates the need to plow to remove weeds and disturb the soil for planting. This conserves topsoil, soil moisture and runoff as well as reduces the release of greenhouse gases. The environmental benefits they argue, allow for more crops to be produced on the same amount of land which reduces the need for additional cultivation.
Monsanto states that the second reason for the production of GM crops is the increased yield and income from biotech crops improves the quality of life for farmers in developing countries. All over the world, small and large scale farms are benefiting from increased yields and reduced production costs, improving net economic returns. According again to Monsanto, of the 12 million farmers who planted biotech crops in 23 countries in 2007, 90 percent were small, resource-poor farmers from 12 developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia and Mexico. This, they say, alleviates poverty and makes a contribution to the economics of family farms. In the same article, Dr. Jeffery Sachs states that “if we give important technologies to grow more food in poor places – better seed varieties, better ways to manage soil nutrients, better ways to manage plant pathogens – it’s going to create livelihoods. It’s going to create income in the villages. Its going to convert what it now sub-subsistence agriculture into commercial farming… helping the poorest of the poor to invest in a sustainable future for themselves.”
While some scientists deny this research as being credible, others back it. In addition to these claims, others argue that GM crops develop a cold tolerance against frost that can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that would normally kill seedlings. Additionally, plants are being developed to grow in conditions that were before previously unsuited for cultivation, creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high contents of salt in the water. In addition, plants are now being created to contain vaccines and medicines in foods such as potatoes and tomatoes which will be easier to ship and store than traditional injectable vaccines.
The Debate Against GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest concern amongst scientists is that the technology is too inherently unpredictable and some even go so far as to believe that it can even produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed. According to Steven Druker, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity:
“The fallacy of equating gene-splicing with traditional breeding is that tradition breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar rot genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.
Druker continues on to explain how this viral booster radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and thus causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus. This is a far cry away from how it might function in nature. Ultimately, what occurs is that the foreign gene will produce a substance that has never before occurred in that species, but does so in an unregulated manner that is not similar to the natural function of the organism. Ultimately, he claims this process, though it may work now, is unnatural and thus could provide unexpected results.
The Debate Against GM – Monsanto vs. The Little Guy
In the article Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, author Robert Weissman claims that the biotech crop is being grown today at astounding rates. For supporters of the biotech revolution, this is cause to celebrate as they claim it helps farmers and promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. However, Weissman claims they are doing exactly the opposite. For all industry hype around the products, it is only four products – soy, corn, cotton and canola which are only bread to resist the Monsanto product ‘Roundup’ and only one naturally occurring pesticide. The benefits, however, stop there.
Weissman’s support is vast. By quoting such individuals as Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and author of Who Benefits from GM Crops?, he has found that they do absolutely nothing to feed the hungry as they are only actually exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed due to the high price. Additionally, he supports his argument by saying that Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but instead farmers must spray the particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. What this does, is it creates expenditures above and beyond, but reduces labor costs, which is good for industrial farms but bad for smaller operations. He further goes on to argue on behalf of the “social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of farmers” as well as the ecological and sustainability problems with these types of crops that are already emerging. Most importantly, he discusses the idea and evidence supporting Monsanto’s “seed imperialism” which is occurring and putting farmers out of business.
In his essay, Weissman interviewed Hope Shand, director of the ETC group, a passionate biotech opponent. According to Shand, we are yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better. Additionally, though the industry has been promising grains to the poor for a decade and a half – they are still yet to deliver. In addition to economic problems, the social problems are two-fold. The introduction of this new type of crop is working to effectively displace small famers and pesticide use is rapid accumulating to no effect. Pesticide use is actually rising in bio-tech heavy counties. The reason for this is due to the fact that new weeds will grow, and old ones will begin to build a tolerance. In effect, seed diversity is dropping and development of new crop variety is slowing. Today, biotech planting remains heavy in just a few countries: the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India and China. Europe is still in heavy opposition in fear of “seed imperialism.”
The Patent War
According to a recent NPR article , dated back just a month ago, famer Luke Ulrich a corn and soybean farmer in Kansas is thinking about spring and about buying seed for his farm once again. However, seed companies by the hundreds are going under over the course of just 20 years. According to the article, Ulrich remembers the days before GM seeds upended the industry. Critics of the giant, Monsanto, say that its popular Roundup Ready technology is solely to blame.
Roundup Ready, is Monsanto’s line of genetically modified seeds that inoculate plants against the herbicide Roundup (also made by Monsanto), that kills just about anything else that may come into contact with the plant. According to Monsanto itself, part of Monsanto’s goals “to increase agricultural production sustainability is to develop better seeds that allow farmers around the world to double yield in corn, soybeans and cotton by 2030. In the U.S., they claim they are already taking steps in that direction through Monsanto’s own dedication to the Roundup brand.
According to Ulrich, “ever since they’ve come out with the Roundup Ready trait and that became popular and basically took over farming, we’ve seen significant increases each year”. Additionally, he adds that the seed costs have increased nearly 50% since last year. The reason? Farmers are contractually prohibited from saving seeds and planting them the following year. Additionally, if they try to save and replant the genetically modified seed they face lawsuits simply because they do not own the technology.
More than 9 out of 10 soybeans seeds carry the Roundup Ready trait; it is about the same for cotton and just a bit lower for corn. This ultimately creates problems for farmers. According to Jim Denvir a lawyer for DuPont (which owns Pioneer – a competing seed company), “a seed company can’t stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business, essentially they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do.” What this does is essentially create a monopoly platform for Monsanto to operate and eliminate any competition.
According to Chris Holman, a patent lawyer at the University of Missouri, he states that “due to the structure of the industry, they are able to really drive participants in the industry into using their technology.” However, Monsanto actively denies the allegations and calls them unfair. Yet, cases all over the world are arising due to royalties that farmers are forced to pay to Monsanto (just this year in February, farmers in Brazil are taking legal action against the company due to this issue ).
According to a 2008 Vanity Fair article , Gary Rinehart a long time small business owner in Eagleville, Missouri was accused by Monsanto representative that he had planted GM soybeans in violation of the company patent. Additionally, they threatened that if he didn’t come clean he would need to “face the consequences”. According to Rinehart “he knew of Monsanto’s fierce reputation for enforcing its patents and suing anyone who allegedly violated them”. Yet, in this case, he hadn’t planted or sold any seeds. Farmers who buy Roundup ready seeds are required to sign an agreement promising to not save any seeds produced after each harvest for re-planting or to sell to other farmers. This guarantees sales for Monsanto for years to come.
According to the article, when Rinehart asked the representative to leave his store as he was making his accusations, he recalls the man saying “Monsanto is big. You can’t win. We will get you. You will pay.” This account is commonplace amongst rural America as the article claims that Monsanto goes after farmers, farmer’s co-ops seed dealers and anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of GM seeds. Additionally, the article reveals that “as interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into the farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities.” In some instances they have been spotted pretending to be surveyors. In other cases, they will confront farmers and pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records.
According to the same article, when asked about these methods, Monsanto declined to specifically comment but said they are merely protecting their patents. Additionally, a Monsanto spokesman said they spend millions of dollars a day to develop technologies to help famers and are protecting their investment through the patents of these discoveries. Monsanto will additionally, legally defending their patents, if necessary. Historically, the United States Patent and Trademark Office have refused to grant patents on seeds, viewing them as life-forms with too many variables to be patented. However, in 1980, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four vote overruled this decision which laid the groundwork for corporations to begin to take control of the food supply. Yet, in this decision, it was rather a bacterium developed by a General Electric scientist to clean up oil spills that would lay the precedent. To date, Monsanto has won 674 biotechnology patents, more than any other company, according to the U.S. Department of Agricultural data.
This is just the start of the problem for farmers. While some farmers don’t understand that they are not supposed to save the seeds, others find that though they don’t use the seeds they are blown into their fields or deposited by birds – thus mixing with traditional varieties and thus infringing on the Monsanto patent. Further, these seeds look identical and can only be identified thorough a laboratory.
Gary Rinehart was eventually taken to federal court for a violation of patent rights. Rinehard was forced to hire a lawyer and when they eventually realized they targeted the wrong person, dropped the suit. Yet, he was left with legal fees and a damaged reputation as many farmers have testified.
The Debate For GM – From Monsanto With Love (Monsanto’s Defense)
Unlike the media over recent years, Monsanto certainly doesn’t paint themselves as the bad guy. Upon looking at Monsanto’s website, one would find nothing but a certainly bright picture – incorporated throughout are key words such as “sustainability, corporate responsibility, and advocates of heart health month”. In addition, they display success story pictures, dedicate sections to National FFA week, and have rolling informational pictures explaining that “The world’s population is growing. To keep up with population growth, farmers will have to produce more food. More food in the next 50 years than the past 10,000 years combined. Farmers will meet this challenge.” These captions are met with pictures of smiling faces belonging to families and farmers alike – painting a picture of a company that cares rather than a greedy corporate conglomerate.
In particular, there were two sections that are worth further investigation: Monsanto’s ‘For the Record Section’ (under News & Media) as well as their ‘Corporate Responsibility Policy’. In the ‘For the Record Section’, Monsanto outlines approximately 25-30 issues that have been brought against them, and offers their defense to these issues. In response to the patent controversy, in a short article entitled “Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?” Monsanto responds by saying that “patents are necessary to ensure that we are paid for our products and for all the investments we put into developing these products. This is one of the basic reasons for patents. A more important reason is to help foster innovation. Without the protection of patents there would be little incentive for privately-owned companies to pursue and re-invest in innovation. Monsanto invests more than $2.6 million per day in research and development that ultimately benefits farmers and consumers.” With that, Monsanto feels vindicated.
To further their defense, Monsanto goes on to exclaim that they settle most cases without going to trial. Yet, sometimes they are forced to resort to lawsuits, but it is a ‘rare circumstance’ with only 140 going to trial since 1997, 9 cases of which have gone to full trial and in those 9 cases Monsanto notes that they have won all. In this and other cases, Monsanto maintains their corporate responsibility as well as being in the right of their actions. According to their Corporate Sustainability Policy, “Monsanto helps both large and small growers around the world farm in a more sustainable way and attain a better quality of life. It is the combination of our Pledge, our focus on excellence in business conduct, our commitment to integrity, and our products that help us bring about our vision of a better world.”
The Future of the Debate
Though the GM seed debate has shown to be highly complex on multiple levels, there has been breakthrough in legislation as well as a diversion away from just the modification of seeds to other life organisms. According to Organic Consumers, as of March 2, 2004 California’s Mendocino County became the first county in the nation to ban the growing of genetically altered crops and animals, despite a massive campaign by Monsanto to fight the ballot. Additionally, in 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected four key genetically modified crops because “the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue – and in some cases literally bankrupt – American farmers” . According to the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), they consider this ‘a rare victory for the little guy’. PUBPAT’s Executive Director said about the matter, “hopefully this is the beginning of the end of harm being caused to the public by Monsanto’s aggressive assertion of these patents, which threaten family farms and a diverse American food supply.”
In September 27, 2008 the bill AB 541 was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in California which regulates genetically engineered crops. This bill “indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination.” This will ultimately help farmers who usually do not have the means to fight the lawsuits regarding patents.
There is no doubt that Monsanto continues to expand its reach into many industry’s relating to GM patents. In February 2005 at the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva, Monsanto published patent applications relating to methods of pig breeding as well as offspring that result. According to Greenpeace, an avid Monsanto critic, “if these patents are granted, Monsanto can legally prevent breeders and farmers from breeding pigs whose characteristics are described in the patent claims and force them to pay royalties.” Yet, according to Monsanto, they are not in the pig business anymore, and further claim that this patent was simply relating to a specific gene marker for a pig trait, not for the trait itself. Additionally, it included artificial insemination methods relating to the breeding process, not the gene. Indefinitely, this is a case of he-said, she-said.
The other controversy that still reigns supreme in relation to the biotech giant is in relation to the labeling of GM food on food labels. According to the International Food Information Council, only 40% of people in the U.S. know that some of the foods they are buying and eating are genetically modified. Today, environmental and consumer groups have demanded that the FDA require the labeling of GM foods, but the U.S. government as well as Monsanto claims that mandatory food labels are not necessary because genetically modified food ‘poses no inherent safety risk’. Yet, argument still surrounds the integrity of GM safety testing and whether or not this testing it is actually done. This debate is sure to continue to grow as time progresses.
Conclusion
It is inevitable that debates like these will continue to infiltrate the courtroom as technology only continues to advance and battle of this control remains prominent. One thing remains certain: in the end, genetically engineering is an obviously complex and controversial issue spanning from health to economic controversies. The question that remains is not only regarding human health and whether or not genetically modified foods are good for consumption but whether or not this is a benefit for humanity, and could potentially feed the world one day. However, to do this, will small business be bullied out in the process? Or, is capitalism nearly running its course – as the strongest will defeat the competition. Regardless, this brings up serious issues regarding corporate morals, something that has undeniably been in the spotlight for decades. Issues, which protected by our legal system, make it nearly impossible to answer the question of who is right and who is wrong.
Works Cited
Ackerman, Jennifer. 2002. “Food: How Safe? How Altered?” National Geographic, May issue.
BBC News | Talking Point | Monsanto versus Greenpeace." BBC NEWS | News Front Page. BBC, 13 Oct.
1999. Web. Feb. 2010.
Druker, Steven M., Exec. Dir. of Alliance for Bio-Integrity. “Why concerns about health risks of
genetically modified food are scientifically justified.” http://www.biointegrity.org/health-risks/health-risks-ge-foods.htm. Accessed 2/09.
Experts Debate Genetically Modified Food Crops." Experts Debate Genetically Modified Food Crops.
Monsanto Company, 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Kerryn, Sakko. "The Debate Over Genetically Modified Foods (ActionBioscience)." ActionBioscience –
promoting bioscience literacy. Action Bioscience, 2002. Web. Feb. 2010.
Medical molecular farming: production of antibodies, biopharmaceuticals and edible vaccines in plants
(Trends in Plant Science, Vol 6, No 5, pp 219-226, May 2001)
"Monsanto ~ Why Does Monsanto Sue Farmers Who Save Seeds?" Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto
Company, 16 Dec. 2009. Web. Feb. 2010.
"Monsanto ~ Corporate Responsibility." Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto Company, 2010. Web. 23 Feb.
2010.
"Monsanto's Global War on Farmers." Organic Consumers Association. 10 Aug. 2009. Web. Feb. 2010.
"Monsanto ~ Roundup Ready 2 Yield®." Monsanto ~ Home. Monsanto Company, 2009. Web. Feb.
2010.
"Monsanto files patent for new invention: the pig." Greenpeace News. Greenpeace International, 02
Aug. 2005. Web. Feb. 2010.
"Genetically modified foods." Healing through Detoxification, Cleansing, Chelation, and Juicing.
Healing Daily, 2002. Web. Feb. 2010.
Rauber, Tania, and Maciel Marcondes. "Brazilian Farmers Declare War on Monsanto." Organic
Consumers Association. 9 Feb. 2010. Web. Feb. 2010.
Steele, James B., and Donald L. Barlett. "Monsanto's Harvest of Fear | Politics | Vanity Fair." Vanity
Fair Magazine. Vanity Fair, May 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Transgenic salt-tolerant tomato plants accumulate salt in foliage but not in fruit (Nature Biotechnology,
Vol 19, No 8, pp 765-768, Aug 2001)
Type II fish antifreeze protein accumulation in transgenic tobacco does not confer frost resistance
(Transgenic Research, Vol 8, No 2, pp 105-117, Apr 1999)
Weissman, Robert. "Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble –
Editor's Blog." Multinational Monitor. Multinational Monitor, 18 Mar. 2008. Web. Feb. 2010.
Whitman, Deborah B. "Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?" CSA. ProQuest, Apr. 2000. Web. Feb. 2010.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Movie Review - 'Basterds'
From the second Col. Hans Landa (played by Christoph Waltz) steps onto screen, the audience cant help but to cheer for the bad guy. In Quentin Tarantino’s twisted world, it is possible for an audience to both love and hate this charming Nazi solider. That’s right, charming Nazi – which is something that is not too often depicted in cinema. In the movie “Inglorious Basterds” (and yes, it basterds is supposed to be spelt with an ‘e’), Tarantino once again reintroduces his audience to showboating performances, plays on classical film and of course gory scenes that will make you cringe.
But, what is a Tarantino movie without the blood and action that makes his nod to classic film so utterly compelling? In the movie Brad Pitt plays the all-American Aldo Raine who without hesitation slaps on an accent reminiscent of a good ol’ everyman from the south. In the movie, Raine leads a mis-matched pack of Jewish avengers to Nazi occupied Europe where they work towards only one goal: destroy the entire Nazi regime. Seems easy enough, right? In the midst of all this he orders his men to “collect 100 Nazi scalps or die trying” and with that, they do.
In the movie, Raine is not the only one on a quest to bring down the German dictatorship. Shosanna who, while being wooed by a German solider who is unaware of her true identity as well as her true intentions. That is only the beginning of the two stories that will later find common ground towards the end of the movie. However, peppered throughout the movie we find a German movie star turned spy (played by the beautiful Diane Kruger), a British film critic turned spy and many rouge soldiers in between that join the ever-determined Basterds. However, most notable is the performance of Col. Landa who brings an interesting and ridiculous performance by this crazed solider.
As most of Tarantino’s films, the conjoining stories all converge at the end but do so in rather long and disconnected sequences towards the beginning (the movie is, after all 2 and a half hours long). Not to be outdone, later sequences offer up images of Winston Churchill and a crazed Hitler as an ultimate plot to kill Hitler is revealed by most of the parties involved. As with any Tarantino film, there is a lot to digest and a great deal depends on whether you not you like Tarantino’s fast-paced style and interesting film techniques.
Overall, in this epic and wonderfully unrealistic fantasy this film takes a look at WW2 as none of us have ever seen. Overall, not only does the film feature a stellar cast it features a story line, which piggybacks off of personal stories, current events and history alike. However, the history is definitely alternative. While there are many parts that are assured to make any audience collectively cringe, it is a worthwhile movie as well as in interesting take of ‘what could have been’.
But, what is a Tarantino movie without the blood and action that makes his nod to classic film so utterly compelling? In the movie Brad Pitt plays the all-American Aldo Raine who without hesitation slaps on an accent reminiscent of a good ol’ everyman from the south. In the movie, Raine leads a mis-matched pack of Jewish avengers to Nazi occupied Europe where they work towards only one goal: destroy the entire Nazi regime. Seems easy enough, right? In the midst of all this he orders his men to “collect 100 Nazi scalps or die trying” and with that, they do.
In the movie, Raine is not the only one on a quest to bring down the German dictatorship. Shosanna who, while being wooed by a German solider who is unaware of her true identity as well as her true intentions. That is only the beginning of the two stories that will later find common ground towards the end of the movie. However, peppered throughout the movie we find a German movie star turned spy (played by the beautiful Diane Kruger), a British film critic turned spy and many rouge soldiers in between that join the ever-determined Basterds. However, most notable is the performance of Col. Landa who brings an interesting and ridiculous performance by this crazed solider.
As most of Tarantino’s films, the conjoining stories all converge at the end but do so in rather long and disconnected sequences towards the beginning (the movie is, after all 2 and a half hours long). Not to be outdone, later sequences offer up images of Winston Churchill and a crazed Hitler as an ultimate plot to kill Hitler is revealed by most of the parties involved. As with any Tarantino film, there is a lot to digest and a great deal depends on whether you not you like Tarantino’s fast-paced style and interesting film techniques.
Overall, in this epic and wonderfully unrealistic fantasy this film takes a look at WW2 as none of us have ever seen. Overall, not only does the film feature a stellar cast it features a story line, which piggybacks off of personal stories, current events and history alike. However, the history is definitely alternative. While there are many parts that are assured to make any audience collectively cringe, it is a worthwhile movie as well as in interesting take of ‘what could have been’.
Understanding Columbine
I think my initial reaction to the story is just that of multi-faceted tragedy not only on the part of those who suffered that great loss as a result of those shootings, but of a mother who did her best to raise a son who choose to disassociate himself from society.
The article does an amazing job at telling a story. It is progressive as it gives background of a good child who grew up to be perceived as a monster. What’s more, is that it tells the story from a mothers perspective and describes her feelings while the tragedy was occurring as well as what was going on after it took place.
During the time the shooting was occurring, it was obvious that Ms. Klebold did not see this coming. She was worried, as any mother would be about her son’s well being and lived in denial until she learned of the evidence that would lead to his persecution. What is important about this story is also the idea that it is relatable despite such extreme circumstances. Even though, she was commonly viewed as a monster and publicly condemned for bad parenting, we can understand what her feelings of anguish are and how devastating this tragedy was for her. It really allows the audience to see another side of the story, and reassess our perceptions of someone we simply thought was doing a bad job at parenting. It is more complicated than that…
It is hard to hear her describe her humiliation. In this sense, it is really obvious that she was ashamed of what her son did and it made it harder that she didn’t see it coming. It is tough to realize that because of her son, she is scarred for life and her parenting, morals, values and ethics are brought into question, as someone of something has to be blamed for such a tragedy. In a way, it helps people cope to find a scapegoat, and this story makes the reader feel as if for months she walked around with a target on her back.
The issue of responsibility is also very interesting. Everyone who was associated to Dylan felt responsible for what occurred. The parents especially felt responsible. It is hard as a reader to even begin to imagine that burden or how that would feel. However, it is also notable that she seems to differ responsibility off of herself and almost projects it onto someone else. However, at the same time, what mom would want to fully accept blame of such a tragedy and admit that maybe there was something that she might have missed.
As a reader, I appreciate the approach into the discussion of suicide and her being proactive in trying to understand the intentions of such a devastating act. I think that this is obviously a very deep and hard subject, but it is approach respectfully with hopes of understanding and most importantly, trying to solve a very serious problem. In this, the actions are still not condoned but it is important to try to understand them so they may not occur again in the future. However, I though that was that it was done was interesting. There is a section that reads "in loving memory of Dylan" and dedicates suicide research. While I get the feelings of why she did this, it definitely didn't sit as easily as I maybe thought it would. Additionally, if anyone was in this situation, I am sure that they would probably approach it in the same way.
The article does an amazing job at telling a story. It is progressive as it gives background of a good child who grew up to be perceived as a monster. What’s more, is that it tells the story from a mothers perspective and describes her feelings while the tragedy was occurring as well as what was going on after it took place.
During the time the shooting was occurring, it was obvious that Ms. Klebold did not see this coming. She was worried, as any mother would be about her son’s well being and lived in denial until she learned of the evidence that would lead to his persecution. What is important about this story is also the idea that it is relatable despite such extreme circumstances. Even though, she was commonly viewed as a monster and publicly condemned for bad parenting, we can understand what her feelings of anguish are and how devastating this tragedy was for her. It really allows the audience to see another side of the story, and reassess our perceptions of someone we simply thought was doing a bad job at parenting. It is more complicated than that…
It is hard to hear her describe her humiliation. In this sense, it is really obvious that she was ashamed of what her son did and it made it harder that she didn’t see it coming. It is tough to realize that because of her son, she is scarred for life and her parenting, morals, values and ethics are brought into question, as someone of something has to be blamed for such a tragedy. In a way, it helps people cope to find a scapegoat, and this story makes the reader feel as if for months she walked around with a target on her back.
The issue of responsibility is also very interesting. Everyone who was associated to Dylan felt responsible for what occurred. The parents especially felt responsible. It is hard as a reader to even begin to imagine that burden or how that would feel. However, it is also notable that she seems to differ responsibility off of herself and almost projects it onto someone else. However, at the same time, what mom would want to fully accept blame of such a tragedy and admit that maybe there was something that she might have missed.
As a reader, I appreciate the approach into the discussion of suicide and her being proactive in trying to understand the intentions of such a devastating act. I think that this is obviously a very deep and hard subject, but it is approach respectfully with hopes of understanding and most importantly, trying to solve a very serious problem. In this, the actions are still not condoned but it is important to try to understand them so they may not occur again in the future. However, I though that was that it was done was interesting. There is a section that reads "in loving memory of Dylan" and dedicates suicide research. While I get the feelings of why she did this, it definitely didn't sit as easily as I maybe thought it would. Additionally, if anyone was in this situation, I am sure that they would probably approach it in the same way.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
"Hook-up Culture"
Ultimately, the claims that Jack Grimes makes in his article "Hook-Up Culture" are something that is hard to deny. In his summary he goes in depth about the intricacies involved in hooking up - something that is arguably inherent in the college culture and has been for a while. In his summary he argues that there is more to hooking-up then just inherently 'being horny'. Ultimately, the author likens this desire rather to emotional intelligence. With that, a hook-up is more than just an act of physical pleasure, but rather an offering of something private. With this, you gain access to something most of the world does not get to see - you become special.
I completely agree with the arguments made by Grimes. However, I think that I would take his argument one step further by saying that it can also be perceived as an act of conquest, victory in some ways to some. By letting people into a space many do not get to see, that person does become 'worthy' as Grimes describes. This worthiness is both self-fulfilling and gratifying and for many they allow the conquest of this experience to relate to positive traits about their character.
Overall, I think that Grimes does a very good job at taking a relatively simple argument and looking at it in a more complex sense. However, I would not go so far as to liken women sexuality as being that of an 'unpaid' prostitute. I think that with both men and women it relates to a sense of self-fulfillment. However, I don't always think that hooking-up is always receiving pleasure without commitment or ultimate happiness. Here, it is important to realize that everyone is different and there are often strings attached, emotionally that he is missing here.
While I agree with some things, I think he misses the mark with others.
I completely agree with the arguments made by Grimes. However, I think that I would take his argument one step further by saying that it can also be perceived as an act of conquest, victory in some ways to some. By letting people into a space many do not get to see, that person does become 'worthy' as Grimes describes. This worthiness is both self-fulfilling and gratifying and for many they allow the conquest of this experience to relate to positive traits about their character.
Overall, I think that Grimes does a very good job at taking a relatively simple argument and looking at it in a more complex sense. However, I would not go so far as to liken women sexuality as being that of an 'unpaid' prostitute. I think that with both men and women it relates to a sense of self-fulfillment. However, I don't always think that hooking-up is always receiving pleasure without commitment or ultimate happiness. Here, it is important to realize that everyone is different and there are often strings attached, emotionally that he is missing here.
While I agree with some things, I think he misses the mark with others.
Valentines Day
There is nothing more simple, refreshing or comforting than a home cooked meal. Though, I am always one to want to go out and experience different restaurants, sometimes you forget to realize that the best meals are those that are often right in front of you.
Initially, when my boyfriend of two years told me that we would be staying home for Valentines Day, I figured that it was out of his lack of preparation that was now forcing us to stay home. It was the 11th hour, literally the day before Valentines Day when he attempted to call restaurants to try to book a reservation. With irritation, I quickly told him that some people plan activities months in advance, there wasn’t a chance that we would get in anywhere, unless of course we wanted to settle for fast food.
So, we were stuck. As Valentines Day quickly approached, I have to admit that I wasn’t overly overwhelmed by it. However, this has always been the case with me – being that I have never been a true romantic, growing up I would try to avoid any site of someone who may have a crush on me on Valentines Day.
However, once the day finally arrived, I was greeting in the morning by something truly delightful and thoughtful – a bouquet of flowers and enough food to create a feast. A feast it was, the meal took several hours to prepare and the best part was that I literally got an opportunity to sit back and do nothing. I don’t mean to sound lazy or uninterested, but a day of truly getting catered to felt pretty amazing.
I am lucky to be dating not only a good chef, but also a good person. With that, I will never be skeptical of his intentions, but because in the end, they always seem to work out. As for Valentines Day, it is safe to say that I am softening up to that idea as well. Whereas I used to find it to be such a commercialized holiday, it is safe to say that any excuse to do something out of the ordinary is a cause worth celebrating.
Initially, when my boyfriend of two years told me that we would be staying home for Valentines Day, I figured that it was out of his lack of preparation that was now forcing us to stay home. It was the 11th hour, literally the day before Valentines Day when he attempted to call restaurants to try to book a reservation. With irritation, I quickly told him that some people plan activities months in advance, there wasn’t a chance that we would get in anywhere, unless of course we wanted to settle for fast food.
So, we were stuck. As Valentines Day quickly approached, I have to admit that I wasn’t overly overwhelmed by it. However, this has always been the case with me – being that I have never been a true romantic, growing up I would try to avoid any site of someone who may have a crush on me on Valentines Day.
However, once the day finally arrived, I was greeting in the morning by something truly delightful and thoughtful – a bouquet of flowers and enough food to create a feast. A feast it was, the meal took several hours to prepare and the best part was that I literally got an opportunity to sit back and do nothing. I don’t mean to sound lazy or uninterested, but a day of truly getting catered to felt pretty amazing.
I am lucky to be dating not only a good chef, but also a good person. With that, I will never be skeptical of his intentions, but because in the end, they always seem to work out. As for Valentines Day, it is safe to say that I am softening up to that idea as well. Whereas I used to find it to be such a commercialized holiday, it is safe to say that any excuse to do something out of the ordinary is a cause worth celebrating.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
DRAFT - Essay One
Introduction
Let’s take a look back to the year 1999 as the biotech giant Monsanto came face to face with one of its main critics – Greenpeace. There, in a publically held conference in London, the two organizations consisting of highly polarized views went head to head to discuss the potential dangers and benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In that dimply lit room the two giants battled over the issue, whose topics ranged from productivity to pesticide use. Ten years later, the hotly debated issue still rages on and grows as does our advancements in technology and our quest to find solution to the world’s problems.
Whereas ten years ago, the debate was just being introduced, it has grown into a multifaceted, multilayered debate that not only breeches the issues of health but constitute issues of corporate policy and monopolies and question our current legal system. Ultimately, this is an issue that affects all of us. Biotech plants are now grown on about 130 million acres in 13 countries (including Argentina, Canada and Germany). In 2001, 3.6 million acres were used for GM crop in the U.S. and more than 60% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients from GM soybeans, corn or canola. Most of the time we do not even know we are consuming these types of crops and thus, the issues span from production, to health to overall awareness. Therefore, if you eat food, it is important at least develop an awareness of the issue because the way this is regulated today will ultimately set the precedent for tomorrow.
While some believe that genetically modified crops work to only advance our potential to feed the world and aid in the world’s food supply problems, others believe that the corporations are simply using genetic modification to put small companies out of business. While it seems we are only beginning to scratch the surface around the complexities of genetic modification, one thing is certain: as time progresses this debate will surely become more complicated.
What is GM?
When producing crops, the idea of genetic selection is not a new concept. For thousands of years, farmers have used a process of selection and cross breading to continue to enhance and improve crops. This trend is even found common in nature where we can find evidence of plants and animals alike that choose selective breeding methods. Overall, traditional breeding methods are slow, and require intensive labor. In example, a farmer will find undesirable traits that will appear while trying to breed specific traits into the plant. When this occurs the process must start over again, until those traits are essentially gone.
What Genetic Modification (GM) offers is the ability to essentially speed up this process through scientific means. Here, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through GM. This allows the gene to be bred without the other unwanted traits in only a single generation. According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Yet, through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
The Debate For GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest challenge in deciphering this debate it to determine for yourself whether or not the scientific benefits (while still rather new and controversial) outweigh the challenges it has posed for small business. Perhaps, it is not so much the act of genetic modification that causes problems, but how the companies themselves are operating with this new technology. Nevertheless, ‘independent’ scientist hired by Monsanto and research scientists alike have spent countless hours trying to prove that the crops they manufacture are not harmful for the user to consume. Due to the fact that this process is still so new, much of this data is inconclusive as it has still not been tested over the long term. Still, the pros that they have been able to determine are vast as the debate continues on.
Monsanto employs a full time team of ‘independent’ researchers to determine the advantages of genetic modification which you can find listed directly on their website. According to Monsanto directly, the first reason for GM crops is due to the fact that famers can reduce pesticide spraying, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increase yields. Ultimately, their evidence suggests that insect-resistant crops offer and alternative to, and reduce the use of agricultural pesticides such as insecticides and fungicides. Since this type of corn and cotton are able to produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. Accordingly, farmers have been able to reduce pesticide application by 289,000 metric tons since 1996 as a result of GM crops. According to Dr. Roger Beachy, this has the potential to reduce chemicals by 50 million pounds a year.
GM crops can also be produced to be herbicide resistant. This means that farmers could spray these crops with herbicide and kill the weeds, without affecting the crop. This method reduces or eliminates the need to plow to remove weeds and disturb the soil for planting. This conserves topsoil, soil moisture and runoff as well as reduces the release of greenhouse gases. The environmental benefits they argue, says that this also allows more crops to be produced on the same amount of land which reduces the need for additional cultivation.
Monsanto states that the second reason for the production of GM crops is the increased yield and income from biotech crops improves the quality of life for farmers in developing countries. All over the world, small and large scale farms are benefiting from increased yields and reduced production costs, improving net economic returns. According again to Monsanto, of the 12 million farmers who planted biotech crops in 23 countries in 2007, 90 percent were small, resource-poor farmers from 12 developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia and Mexico. This, they say, alleviates poverty and makes a contribution to the economics of family farms. In the same article, Dr. Jeffery Sachs states that “if we give important technologies to grow more food in poor places – better seed varieties, better ways to manage soil nutrients, better ways to manage plant pathogens – it’s going to create livelihoods. It’s going to create income in the villages. Its going to convert what it now sub-subsistence agriculture into commercial farming… helping the poorest of the poor to invest in a sustainable future for themselves.”
While some scientists deny this research as being credible, others back it. In addition to these claims, others argue that GM crops develop a cold tolerance against frost that can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that would normally kill seedlings. Additionally, plants are being developed to grow in conditions that were before, previously unsuited for cultivation creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high contents of salt in the water. In addition, plants are now being created to contain vaccines and medicines in foods such as potatoes and tomatoes which will be easier to ship and store than traditional injectable vaccines.
The Debate Against GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest concern amongst scientists is that the technology is too inherently unpredictable and some even go so far as to believe that it can even produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed. According to Steven Druker, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity states that
“The fallacy of equating gene-splicing with traditional breeding is that tradition breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar rot genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.
Druker continues on to explain how this viral booster radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and thus causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus. This is a far cry away from how it might function in nature. Ultimately, what occurs is that the foreign gene will produce a substance that has never before occurred in that species, but does so in an unregulated manner that is not similar to the natural function of the organism.
MORE HERE…
The Debate Against GM – Monsanto vs. The Little Guy
In the article Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, the title is relatively self explanatory. According to the article, author Robert Weissman, biotech crop is being grown today at astounding rates. For backers of the biotech revolution, this is cause to celebrate as they claim it helps farmers, promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. However, Weissman claims they are doing exactly the opposite. For all industry hype around the products, it is only four products – soy, corn, cotton and canola which are only bread to resist the Monsanto product ‘Roundup’ and only one naturally occurring pesticide. The benefits, however, stop there.
His support is vast. By quoting such individuals as Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and author of Who Benefits from GM Crops, he has found that they do absolutely nothing to feed the hungry as they are only actually exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed due to the price. Additionally, he supports his argument, by saying that Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but instead farmers must spray the particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. What this does, it creates expenditures above and beyond, but reduces labor costs, which is good for industrial farms but bad for smaller operations. He further goes on to argue on behalf of the “social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of farmers” as well as the ecological and sustainability problems with these type of crops that are already emerging. Most importantly, he discusses the idea and evidence supporting Monsanto’s “seed imperialism” which is occurring and putting farmers out of business.
In his essay, Weissman interview Hope Shand director of the ETC group, an ardent biotech opponent. According to Shand, we are yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better. Additionally, though the industry has been promising grains to the poor for a decade and a half – they are still yet to deliver. In addition to economic problems, the social problems are two-fold. The introduction of this new type of crop is working to effectively displace small famers; pesticide use is rapid accumulating to no effect. Pesticide use is actually rising in bio-tech heavy counties. The reason for this is due to the fact that new weeds will grow, and old ones will begin to build a tolerance.
MORE HERE
The Patent War
LEGALITIES
Conclusion
ADDITIONAL SITES TO INCORPORATE
http://www.saynotogmos.org/CIIR_leaflet.pdf
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog/index.php?/archives/74-Heads-Monsanto-Wins,-Tails-We-Lose;-The-Genetically-Modified-Food-Gamble.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/468270.stm
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/experts.asp?id=GeneticallyModifiedFoodCrops
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/sakko.html
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/experts.asp?id=GeneticallyModifiedFoodCrops
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11702.cfm - use first line for debate
Broaden to make debate against monsanto? Milk is another...
Let’s take a look back to the year 1999 as the biotech giant Monsanto came face to face with one of its main critics – Greenpeace. There, in a publically held conference in London, the two organizations consisting of highly polarized views went head to head to discuss the potential dangers and benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops. In that dimply lit room the two giants battled over the issue, whose topics ranged from productivity to pesticide use. Ten years later, the hotly debated issue still rages on and grows as does our advancements in technology and our quest to find solution to the world’s problems.
Whereas ten years ago, the debate was just being introduced, it has grown into a multifaceted, multilayered debate that not only breeches the issues of health but constitute issues of corporate policy and monopolies and question our current legal system. Ultimately, this is an issue that affects all of us. Biotech plants are now grown on about 130 million acres in 13 countries (including Argentina, Canada and Germany). In 2001, 3.6 million acres were used for GM crop in the U.S. and more than 60% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain ingredients from GM soybeans, corn or canola. Most of the time we do not even know we are consuming these types of crops and thus, the issues span from production, to health to overall awareness. Therefore, if you eat food, it is important at least develop an awareness of the issue because the way this is regulated today will ultimately set the precedent for tomorrow.
While some believe that genetically modified crops work to only advance our potential to feed the world and aid in the world’s food supply problems, others believe that the corporations are simply using genetic modification to put small companies out of business. While it seems we are only beginning to scratch the surface around the complexities of genetic modification, one thing is certain: as time progresses this debate will surely become more complicated.
What is GM?
When producing crops, the idea of genetic selection is not a new concept. For thousands of years, farmers have used a process of selection and cross breading to continue to enhance and improve crops. This trend is even found common in nature where we can find evidence of plants and animals alike that choose selective breeding methods. Overall, traditional breeding methods are slow, and require intensive labor. In example, a farmer will find undesirable traits that will appear while trying to breed specific traits into the plant. When this occurs the process must start over again, until those traits are essentially gone.
What Genetic Modification (GM) offers is the ability to essentially speed up this process through scientific means. Here, organisms acquire one specific gene or a few genes together through GM. This allows the gene to be bred without the other unwanted traits in only a single generation. According to Deborah B. Whitman, in an article entitled Genetically Modified Foods: Harmful or Helpful?, the GM debate was just broaching the surface. While she does outline the debate, she also goes in depth as to what exactly a GM food is. According to the FDA and USDA, there are over 40 plant varieties that have completed all of the federal requirements for commercialization – including tomatoes and cantaloupes which carry modified ripening characteristics and foods like cotton which are resistant to insects. Highly processed foods, such as breakfast cereals will contain some amount of genetic modification. Soybeans and corn are the most widely grown crops, and 75% of them contain genetic modification to date. Most importantly, labeling of these foods is solely based off demand, and agribusiness argues that they will only label if necessary to meet the demands of the free market. Yet, through this alteration of the genetic make-up of plants there are still issues of health that are being raised by organic enthusiasts and farmers on the effects of this modification.
The Debate For GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest challenge in deciphering this debate it to determine for yourself whether or not the scientific benefits (while still rather new and controversial) outweigh the challenges it has posed for small business. Perhaps, it is not so much the act of genetic modification that causes problems, but how the companies themselves are operating with this new technology. Nevertheless, ‘independent’ scientist hired by Monsanto and research scientists alike have spent countless hours trying to prove that the crops they manufacture are not harmful for the user to consume. Due to the fact that this process is still so new, much of this data is inconclusive as it has still not been tested over the long term. Still, the pros that they have been able to determine are vast as the debate continues on.
Monsanto employs a full time team of ‘independent’ researchers to determine the advantages of genetic modification which you can find listed directly on their website. According to Monsanto directly, the first reason for GM crops is due to the fact that famers can reduce pesticide spraying, decreasing greenhouse gas emissions and increase yields. Ultimately, their evidence suggests that insect-resistant crops offer and alternative to, and reduce the use of agricultural pesticides such as insecticides and fungicides. Since this type of corn and cotton are able to produce their own protection against specifically targeted pests, farmers can reduce the amount of pesticides necessary to control them. Accordingly, farmers have been able to reduce pesticide application by 289,000 metric tons since 1996 as a result of GM crops. According to Dr. Roger Beachy, this has the potential to reduce chemicals by 50 million pounds a year.
GM crops can also be produced to be herbicide resistant. This means that farmers could spray these crops with herbicide and kill the weeds, without affecting the crop. This method reduces or eliminates the need to plow to remove weeds and disturb the soil for planting. This conserves topsoil, soil moisture and runoff as well as reduces the release of greenhouse gases. The environmental benefits they argue, says that this also allows more crops to be produced on the same amount of land which reduces the need for additional cultivation.
Monsanto states that the second reason for the production of GM crops is the increased yield and income from biotech crops improves the quality of life for farmers in developing countries. All over the world, small and large scale farms are benefiting from increased yields and reduced production costs, improving net economic returns. According again to Monsanto, of the 12 million farmers who planted biotech crops in 23 countries in 2007, 90 percent were small, resource-poor farmers from 12 developing countries including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia and Mexico. This, they say, alleviates poverty and makes a contribution to the economics of family farms. In the same article, Dr. Jeffery Sachs states that “if we give important technologies to grow more food in poor places – better seed varieties, better ways to manage soil nutrients, better ways to manage plant pathogens – it’s going to create livelihoods. It’s going to create income in the villages. Its going to convert what it now sub-subsistence agriculture into commercial farming… helping the poorest of the poor to invest in a sustainable future for themselves.”
While some scientists deny this research as being credible, others back it. In addition to these claims, others argue that GM crops develop a cold tolerance against frost that can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that would normally kill seedlings. Additionally, plants are being developed to grow in conditions that were before, previously unsuited for cultivation creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high contents of salt in the water. In addition, plants are now being created to contain vaccines and medicines in foods such as potatoes and tomatoes which will be easier to ship and store than traditional injectable vaccines.
The Debate Against GM – Science Standpoint
The greatest concern amongst scientists is that the technology is too inherently unpredictable and some even go so far as to believe that it can even produce potentially dangerous results unless better testing methods are developed. According to Steven Druker, the Executive Director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity states that
“The fallacy of equating gene-splicing with traditional breeding is that tradition breeding is based on sexual reproduction between like organisms. The transferred genes are similar rot genes in the cell they join. They are conveyed in complete groups and in a fixed sequence that harmonizes with the sequence of genes in the partner cell. In contrast, bioengineers isolate a gene from one type of organism and splice it haphazardly into the DNA of a dissimilar species, disrupting its natural sequence. Further, because the transplanted gene is foreign to its new surroundings, it cannot adequately function without a big artificial boost.
Druker continues on to explain how this viral booster radically alters the behavior of the transplanted gene and thus causes it to function in important respects like an invading virus. This is a far cry away from how it might function in nature. Ultimately, what occurs is that the foreign gene will produce a substance that has never before occurred in that species, but does so in an unregulated manner that is not similar to the natural function of the organism.
MORE HERE…
The Debate Against GM – Monsanto vs. The Little Guy
In the article Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose; The Genetically Modified Food Gamble, the title is relatively self explanatory. According to the article, author Robert Weissman, biotech crop is being grown today at astounding rates. For backers of the biotech revolution, this is cause to celebrate as they claim it helps farmers, promises to reduce hunger and poverty in developing countries. However, Weissman claims they are doing exactly the opposite. For all industry hype around the products, it is only four products – soy, corn, cotton and canola which are only bread to resist the Monsanto product ‘Roundup’ and only one naturally occurring pesticide. The benefits, however, stop there.
His support is vast. By quoting such individuals as Bill Freese, a science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety and author of Who Benefits from GM Crops, he has found that they do absolutely nothing to feed the hungry as they are only actually exported to rich countries, primarily as animal feed due to the price. Additionally, he supports his argument, by saying that Glyphosate-resistance is supposed to enable earlier and less frequent spraying, but instead farmers must spray the particular herbicide more frequently and indiscriminately without fear of damaging the crop. What this does, it creates expenditures above and beyond, but reduces labor costs, which is good for industrial farms but bad for smaller operations. He further goes on to argue on behalf of the “social disaster of contributing to land concentration and displacement of farmers” as well as the ecological and sustainability problems with these type of crops that are already emerging. Most importantly, he discusses the idea and evidence supporting Monsanto’s “seed imperialism” which is occurring and putting farmers out of business.
In his essay, Weissman interview Hope Shand director of the ETC group, an ardent biotech opponent. According to Shand, we are yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better. Additionally, though the industry has been promising grains to the poor for a decade and a half – they are still yet to deliver. In addition to economic problems, the social problems are two-fold. The introduction of this new type of crop is working to effectively displace small famers; pesticide use is rapid accumulating to no effect. Pesticide use is actually rising in bio-tech heavy counties. The reason for this is due to the fact that new weeds will grow, and old ones will begin to build a tolerance.
MORE HERE
The Patent War
LEGALITIES
Conclusion
ADDITIONAL SITES TO INCORPORATE
http://www.saynotogmos.org/CIIR_leaflet.pdf
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php
http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/editorsblog/index.php?/archives/74-Heads-Monsanto-Wins,-Tails-We-Lose;-The-Genetically-Modified-Food-Gamble.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/468270.stm
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/monsanto-pig-patent-111
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/experts.asp?id=GeneticallyModifiedFoodCrops
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/sakko.html
http://www.monsanto.com/biotech-gmo/asp/experts.asp?id=GeneticallyModifiedFoodCrops
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_11702.cfm - use first line for debate
Broaden to make debate against monsanto? Milk is another...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
thinkb4youspeak.com
This whole idea of hate speech is something that unfortunately has been around for a long period of time. Today, we use it without thinking. Most people do it without ever actually intending to offend any one person, however, intentions don't always come to fruition. Often times, the victims of hate speech are subjects of language that has become integrated into our everyday vernacular. This speech is in fact hurtful, whether or not we intended it to be that way in the first place.
It is very difficult to attempt to get individuals to change their mentality against something such as language. A lot of the time, it is something we do subconsciously but every now and then it is something that is not. Overall, I think the site does a very successful job in its hopes for persuasion and I agree with the press release by the ad council when they say that the ads are in fact realistic.
For a campaign to not seem overly assumptive, in my opinion, is a difficult thing to accomplish. What I like about this site is that instead of telling us what we are doing wrong and making us feel like we are bad people it provides real solutions. This site simply offers solutions to our actions as well as real facts. I found the part about the language on twitter to be particularly fascinating. It offers ways to look at how we use language differently and simply asks that we take a new perspective on it.
Overall, the site was very easy to relate to. It offered up compelling stories, but didn't feel overly contrived or pushy. I think the cause is worthwhile and the message is very clearly articulated.
It is very difficult to attempt to get individuals to change their mentality against something such as language. A lot of the time, it is something we do subconsciously but every now and then it is something that is not. Overall, I think the site does a very successful job in its hopes for persuasion and I agree with the press release by the ad council when they say that the ads are in fact realistic.
For a campaign to not seem overly assumptive, in my opinion, is a difficult thing to accomplish. What I like about this site is that instead of telling us what we are doing wrong and making us feel like we are bad people it provides real solutions. This site simply offers solutions to our actions as well as real facts. I found the part about the language on twitter to be particularly fascinating. It offers ways to look at how we use language differently and simply asks that we take a new perspective on it.
Overall, the site was very easy to relate to. It offered up compelling stories, but didn't feel overly contrived or pushy. I think the cause is worthwhile and the message is very clearly articulated.
Appeal to Audience - Analyzing Debate
(WEEKLY WRITING NUMBER 5)
Revisiting the two articles from last week, it grows even more apparent as to how different their imagined audiences are. Additionally, just the tone and voice alone truly distinguish the purpose and intention of the two articles. Last week, the first articles that was analyzed was written by Karryn Sakko and was written very formally with little voice but a great deal of facts. The second article, was Robert Weissmans’ Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose article which was a passionate discussion regarding the extent of corporate monopolies as well as how they are destroying the small farmer by forcing them into legal binds as well as putting them out of business.
In Sakko’s article she presents facts almost entirely throughout her essay. She goes into facts for both sides of the debate, but ultimately provides more facts for the side in which she supports – which is the benefits of Genetically Modified Food. She presents her arguments almost list-like as she divulges reasons for and against the argument present. She relies on information from personal observation as well as research alike to draw upon these conclusions set forth by a relatively scientific audience. Additionally, she relies on the idea that her audience is interested in hearing both sides of the debate and assumes that they can and will draw upon conclusions for themselves. However, being a scientific researcher to a scientific audience she readily assumes that they will be more bias to her preference due to the fact that she lists more reasons for her argument as opposed to the other.
In her article Sakko values first hand information as well as facts and observation. Yet, because there is so little voice, it is really hard to determine why exactly her convictions exist, though we know they are there. She values information, and so, it seems that she is more interested in the scientific benefits of continual research, and thus, it might outweigh the costs. As for personal hierarchy, it seems as though she values economics first. Throughout her article, the first point that she introduces is the fact that it will ultimately be cheaper in the long run. Additionally, she values food quality which she addresses as her second point. Additionally, she seems less concerned about the spread of the genes as well as impact on the environment. Ultimately, to evaluate the value object she employs logic as well as information and research to evaluation the effects of GMO’s. She is making a very clear appeal to logic and she is working to deduce reasons as to why it is good and why it is bad, but shoes that there is perhaps more good than bad present. By doing this she is initiating the loci of quantity by saying that ultimately the greatest number of people will benefit though this, and that is what is the most important. However, this too is debatable due to the health issues that she brings up.
Weissman approaches his argument from a whole different perspective. In his argument, he rests on the experts of the matter. He uses concrete numbers to show Monsantos’ profits as well as specific cases in which Monsanto has destroyed a farmers business as well as industry statistics and scientific evidence to back up any claims that he makes while citing scientific sources. It is hard to determine initially what audience assumptions that he relies on, however, upon further reading it would seem that if the audience is going to read something with such a bias title, they are either going to completely agree with what he is saying or completely disagree (and from there he will try to persuade them). He assumes that his audience is very opinionated and possibly already has some kind of impression or stance on the issue prior to reading the article.
It is very obvious that he values entrepreneurship and small family business. It is not necessarily that he is saying major industry is terrible, but he is saying that their current practices right now are hurting others and binding them in a way they cannot sustain. He values company morals, and is taking a stance as to where he sees those morals being compromised. I think it is apparent in his essay that he holds individual business rights above anything else; from there economics is important as well as legal rights. I say this specifically because it seems as though he is really fighting for the little guy, and in doing so is making a statement as to flaws in our systems. It seems also that he values the loci of the person. While he is not fighting for a specific individual, it seems as though he is taking a stance for small business and refusing to let large companies push him around.
The two arguments both offer very different perspectives and both conjure up images of two completely different sides as to where business and technology is taking us as a society. While there is no immediate right and wrong, it becomes more clear that there are ways to convict a given audience that are perhaps more successful than others.
Revisiting the two articles from last week, it grows even more apparent as to how different their imagined audiences are. Additionally, just the tone and voice alone truly distinguish the purpose and intention of the two articles. Last week, the first articles that was analyzed was written by Karryn Sakko and was written very formally with little voice but a great deal of facts. The second article, was Robert Weissmans’ Heads Monsanto Wins, Tails We Lose article which was a passionate discussion regarding the extent of corporate monopolies as well as how they are destroying the small farmer by forcing them into legal binds as well as putting them out of business.
In Sakko’s article she presents facts almost entirely throughout her essay. She goes into facts for both sides of the debate, but ultimately provides more facts for the side in which she supports – which is the benefits of Genetically Modified Food. She presents her arguments almost list-like as she divulges reasons for and against the argument present. She relies on information from personal observation as well as research alike to draw upon these conclusions set forth by a relatively scientific audience. Additionally, she relies on the idea that her audience is interested in hearing both sides of the debate and assumes that they can and will draw upon conclusions for themselves. However, being a scientific researcher to a scientific audience she readily assumes that they will be more bias to her preference due to the fact that she lists more reasons for her argument as opposed to the other.
In her article Sakko values first hand information as well as facts and observation. Yet, because there is so little voice, it is really hard to determine why exactly her convictions exist, though we know they are there. She values information, and so, it seems that she is more interested in the scientific benefits of continual research, and thus, it might outweigh the costs. As for personal hierarchy, it seems as though she values economics first. Throughout her article, the first point that she introduces is the fact that it will ultimately be cheaper in the long run. Additionally, she values food quality which she addresses as her second point. Additionally, she seems less concerned about the spread of the genes as well as impact on the environment. Ultimately, to evaluate the value object she employs logic as well as information and research to evaluation the effects of GMO’s. She is making a very clear appeal to logic and she is working to deduce reasons as to why it is good and why it is bad, but shoes that there is perhaps more good than bad present. By doing this she is initiating the loci of quantity by saying that ultimately the greatest number of people will benefit though this, and that is what is the most important. However, this too is debatable due to the health issues that she brings up.
Weissman approaches his argument from a whole different perspective. In his argument, he rests on the experts of the matter. He uses concrete numbers to show Monsantos’ profits as well as specific cases in which Monsanto has destroyed a farmers business as well as industry statistics and scientific evidence to back up any claims that he makes while citing scientific sources. It is hard to determine initially what audience assumptions that he relies on, however, upon further reading it would seem that if the audience is going to read something with such a bias title, they are either going to completely agree with what he is saying or completely disagree (and from there he will try to persuade them). He assumes that his audience is very opinionated and possibly already has some kind of impression or stance on the issue prior to reading the article.
It is very obvious that he values entrepreneurship and small family business. It is not necessarily that he is saying major industry is terrible, but he is saying that their current practices right now are hurting others and binding them in a way they cannot sustain. He values company morals, and is taking a stance as to where he sees those morals being compromised. I think it is apparent in his essay that he holds individual business rights above anything else; from there economics is important as well as legal rights. I say this specifically because it seems as though he is really fighting for the little guy, and in doing so is making a statement as to flaws in our systems. It seems also that he values the loci of the person. While he is not fighting for a specific individual, it seems as though he is taking a stance for small business and refusing to let large companies push him around.
The two arguments both offer very different perspectives and both conjure up images of two completely different sides as to where business and technology is taking us as a society. While there is no immediate right and wrong, it becomes more clear that there are ways to convict a given audience that are perhaps more successful than others.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Aesthetics of Decision-Making
Through the fields of marketing and communications, we are often introduced to the idea of aesthetic appeal; what about an advertisement makes us want to buy something? When we see a model holding a bottle of perfume, is she embodying something we want to be? Does that desire make us want to buy the product more? There is undoubtedly so much that goes into our day-to-day thought process, especially when making purchasing decisions or almost every decision for that matter. Ultimately, I think the author sums up beautifully our consumerist need to acquire the beautiful and thus how visuals influence our decision-making.
Virginia Postrel’s argument is very obvious as she makes claims focused around the importance of aesthetics today. Whereas projections of the future conjured up images of conformity and simplicity, we do just the opposite to differentiate ourselves from others around us. Ultimately: we are visual creatures and we have become in tuned to ideas of what we find beautiful and appealing that makes us all unique. She is not saying that taste is apparent in all things, but that we have some standard as a society of what we find to be beautiful and what then we are attracted to. While ultimately, aesthetics is not something that takes place of an actually art, it becomes a compliment to that art without taking away the meaning of what that art truly is. In the end, aesthetics arouses positive and stimulating responses that are sensory but are also highly appealing to us. With this, we employ them to help us make decisions and triggers responses within us.
With this model, there are some very obvious value hierarchies to be had as well. She argues that aesthetics is in no way the end all, be all decision making tool. First, we seek functionality within the products that we are buying. With this, we always take into consideration cost, comfort and convenience. While we want places to look good, we also prefer service and selection – so aesthetics cannot reign as the ultimate trump card when stimulating our decision-making abilities.
Aesthetics is something that defines who we are. It translates into everything we do, from our clothing to our bedroom to our personal appearance and tastes. So, with that, I completely agree with the argument that the author is presenting. I know that when I am looking to go on a date, the aesthetics of the other person are something that will play a very significant role in my decision making process. Ultimately, it will not act as the finial decision-making tool (if he is good-looking, but acts very arrogant, the arrogance overrides the aesthetic appeal) but it is impossible to discredit its importance when we face choices. I also tend to gravitate towards things that are beautiful, and often times it will override my sense for how much something might cost, for example. It is something that we look to both consciously and unconsciously and it is important. For example, chances are a major reason why I chose Seattle University because I liked the appeal of the campus. While other things were also important, this factor was very significant in my decision-making. While it is not the only thing, it certainly accounts for a great deal of impact when assessing value judgments upon something. For this, I agree and liked the author’s argument.
Virginia Postrel’s argument is very obvious as she makes claims focused around the importance of aesthetics today. Whereas projections of the future conjured up images of conformity and simplicity, we do just the opposite to differentiate ourselves from others around us. Ultimately: we are visual creatures and we have become in tuned to ideas of what we find beautiful and appealing that makes us all unique. She is not saying that taste is apparent in all things, but that we have some standard as a society of what we find to be beautiful and what then we are attracted to. While ultimately, aesthetics is not something that takes place of an actually art, it becomes a compliment to that art without taking away the meaning of what that art truly is. In the end, aesthetics arouses positive and stimulating responses that are sensory but are also highly appealing to us. With this, we employ them to help us make decisions and triggers responses within us.
With this model, there are some very obvious value hierarchies to be had as well. She argues that aesthetics is in no way the end all, be all decision making tool. First, we seek functionality within the products that we are buying. With this, we always take into consideration cost, comfort and convenience. While we want places to look good, we also prefer service and selection – so aesthetics cannot reign as the ultimate trump card when stimulating our decision-making abilities.
Aesthetics is something that defines who we are. It translates into everything we do, from our clothing to our bedroom to our personal appearance and tastes. So, with that, I completely agree with the argument that the author is presenting. I know that when I am looking to go on a date, the aesthetics of the other person are something that will play a very significant role in my decision making process. Ultimately, it will not act as the finial decision-making tool (if he is good-looking, but acts very arrogant, the arrogance overrides the aesthetic appeal) but it is impossible to discredit its importance when we face choices. I also tend to gravitate towards things that are beautiful, and often times it will override my sense for how much something might cost, for example. It is something that we look to both consciously and unconsciously and it is important. For example, chances are a major reason why I chose Seattle University because I liked the appeal of the campus. While other things were also important, this factor was very significant in my decision-making. While it is not the only thing, it certainly accounts for a great deal of impact when assessing value judgments upon something. For this, I agree and liked the author’s argument.
The Battle of the WBC
While the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) proudly announces their teachings as adherently ‘Old School’, it is still hard to see such a divergence from where we have come as a nation since the civil rights movements and the like. According to WBC on their website, they spare no time getting right into the brunt of what they are all about. Though they claim they adhere only to the teachings of the bible, in doing so, they believe that it is only their interpretation that is correct and every other church that teaches the idea of equality – is simply wrong. Instead, WBC believes in doctrines that they describe are no longer favorable and in doing so believe in such ideas as: total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, etc. Further, they imply that is anyone reading the words on their site “cares about their never-dying soul, they will carefully read every word of this web site”.
However, they do not stop there. To announce and demonstrate their values to the world, they engage in ‘peaceful’ sidewalk demonstrations to demonize homosexuality, materialism, divorce, Judaism, etc. all of which they interpret as being blasphemous according to the bible. Additionally, they strongly believe against homosexuality in the military and continue to picket funerals in their honor.
Though many churches believe such acts as adultery are wrong. Never before has an issue such as this been taken to such an extreme. In a county that has progressed so far and has come such a long way, it is hard to even witness blatant messages of hate being demonstrated so openly and so proudly. I cannot share common ground with the members of this particular church, especially, since a majority of my friend base is, in fact, gay. Through them, I realize that ‘gay’ isn’t a choice, as some believe. I think that it is important to keep an open mind about people and respect others for who they are, so long as there is no harm being done. Though I support their right to say what they are saying, I don’t necessarily agree with the way they are approaching the situation or what they are saying.
Upon talking to the WBC about whether or not I thought what they were doing is right, I would gladly accept the opportunity to do so. However, I think that also, part of being successful at rhetoric means to understand your audience and in this instance I do not think that they would be open to hearing outside opinions. Through interviews I have seen and speeches they have made, I realize that their beliefs are set in stone, and this will go unchallenged. Thus, if I did have a conversation, I would not ask them to change their values (as everyone is entitled to their own). I would instead ask them to change their mechanisms to make their message less hurtful. I think a major pitfall surround the group lies within how they are demonstrating their message. They are doing it for shock value. While they get a lot of publicity, probably more so than most, people absolutely hate them. Thus, they are not getting anyone to take them seriously, etc. If I was to have a conversation with them, I would simply ask them to consider other means of demonstration and attempt to convince them that if they want to be taken more seriously as an organization, they need to not make spectacles of themselves. Ultimately, I don’t want to do anything that would even menially support their cause, but if I could get them to present their ideals in less-hurtful ways, that could perhaps be considered a win for all parties involved, especially since this is probably the only message they would even consider hearing.
However, they do not stop there. To announce and demonstrate their values to the world, they engage in ‘peaceful’ sidewalk demonstrations to demonize homosexuality, materialism, divorce, Judaism, etc. all of which they interpret as being blasphemous according to the bible. Additionally, they strongly believe against homosexuality in the military and continue to picket funerals in their honor.
Though many churches believe such acts as adultery are wrong. Never before has an issue such as this been taken to such an extreme. In a county that has progressed so far and has come such a long way, it is hard to even witness blatant messages of hate being demonstrated so openly and so proudly. I cannot share common ground with the members of this particular church, especially, since a majority of my friend base is, in fact, gay. Through them, I realize that ‘gay’ isn’t a choice, as some believe. I think that it is important to keep an open mind about people and respect others for who they are, so long as there is no harm being done. Though I support their right to say what they are saying, I don’t necessarily agree with the way they are approaching the situation or what they are saying.
Upon talking to the WBC about whether or not I thought what they were doing is right, I would gladly accept the opportunity to do so. However, I think that also, part of being successful at rhetoric means to understand your audience and in this instance I do not think that they would be open to hearing outside opinions. Through interviews I have seen and speeches they have made, I realize that their beliefs are set in stone, and this will go unchallenged. Thus, if I did have a conversation, I would not ask them to change their values (as everyone is entitled to their own). I would instead ask them to change their mechanisms to make their message less hurtful. I think a major pitfall surround the group lies within how they are demonstrating their message. They are doing it for shock value. While they get a lot of publicity, probably more so than most, people absolutely hate them. Thus, they are not getting anyone to take them seriously, etc. If I was to have a conversation with them, I would simply ask them to consider other means of demonstration and attempt to convince them that if they want to be taken more seriously as an organization, they need to not make spectacles of themselves. Ultimately, I don’t want to do anything that would even menially support their cause, but if I could get them to present their ideals in less-hurtful ways, that could perhaps be considered a win for all parties involved, especially since this is probably the only message they would even consider hearing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)