I'm trying to avoid writing about the war and the recruitment stuff right now--so I'll talk a little bit about our ridiculous president and for right now--three ridiculous candidates that are going on some weird things on tv. Clinton, Obama, and McCain went on WWE. Good ol' President Bush was on Deal or No Deal--which was actually pretty funny because he said he liked being anywhere with high ratings!! HAHAH--it's funny. Our president is funny.
So yeah-I just think it's weird that to run for president these days you need to go on a ridiculous wrestling show. I like that they go on the Colbert Report and John Stewart--but they are comical shows that are about politics...last time I checked WWE doesn't have anything to do with politics.
Just seems kind of weird to me and I kind of dislike all of them for doing it!
But i guess on the other hand they're reaching a wider audience--but still--
Here's a link to an article from the NY times...
Friday, April 25, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Olympics
So since the olympics are going to be held in China, I think this is an opportunity for the world to shed light on the violations of human rights that are going on there. I was reading an article and it was discussing some protesting and unrest going on there by the monks. Many people have been fighting for Tibet for a long time and I think having the olympics there is a chance for these people--so I encourage all non-violent protesting going on with that.
When I lived in new york city I got the unbelievable chance to hear the Dalai Lama speak in Central Park--it was an amazing experience, and I hope in the time to come people (meaning the media) will give some attention to what is going on there!
When I lived in new york city I got the unbelievable chance to hear the Dalai Lama speak in Central Park--it was an amazing experience, and I hope in the time to come people (meaning the media) will give some attention to what is going on there!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Moral Dilemma about YouTube
So I am having an ethical/moral dilemma. Should we really be watching some youtube videos? First of all-let me start with the fact that I am NOT saying we should take all youtube videos offline--I do believe in the 1st amendment to apply -that you can post most of what you want-
But here's my point-one of my friend's sent around a youtube video through a myspace bulletin-and it was of 6 cheerleaders (like 15 yrs old or something) and they go beat the crap out of 1 girl who left a comment on their myspace pages that they didn't like. So my friend had sent the video around through the bulletin-and she explained it-and was totally against it and was trying to say how ridiculous things have gotten--and then I went to click on the video and it was "no longer available" so I'm assuming youtube people felt the need to erase it because they're minors and it's probably pretty violent--
So I didn't see it but I was still going to click on it. I would never go out of my way to watch a fight--even in high school-when people would fight and everyone crowds around screaming "fight fight fight." Yeah-I definitely never did that-I would just walk away and I really really really despise violence-like it makes me sick-but for some reason if it's on youtube I'll attempt to watch it--
I think youtube was right in taking off that video (I assume that's what happened)--but what are our moral and ethical responsibilities as the watchers/listeners/etc??
But here's my point-one of my friend's sent around a youtube video through a myspace bulletin-and it was of 6 cheerleaders (like 15 yrs old or something) and they go beat the crap out of 1 girl who left a comment on their myspace pages that they didn't like. So my friend had sent the video around through the bulletin-and she explained it-and was totally against it and was trying to say how ridiculous things have gotten--and then I went to click on the video and it was "no longer available" so I'm assuming youtube people felt the need to erase it because they're minors and it's probably pretty violent--
So I didn't see it but I was still going to click on it. I would never go out of my way to watch a fight--even in high school-when people would fight and everyone crowds around screaming "fight fight fight." Yeah-I definitely never did that-I would just walk away and I really really really despise violence-like it makes me sick-but for some reason if it's on youtube I'll attempt to watch it--
I think youtube was right in taking off that video (I assume that's what happened)--but what are our moral and ethical responsibilities as the watchers/listeners/etc??
Monday, April 7, 2008
The Fire Next Time (2005)
The documentary we watched in class was quite interesting. After watching the video we mostly discussed the radio Dj who was preaching hate and attempting to stir the pot to get others to act out on what he believes is wrong. At first, I felt that his speech had gone into action and that he should be taken off the air. But after thinking about it, I have to disagree with myself. When I read Outspoken there was a story about a young man who wrote, I believe the comic was called Boiled Angels. The comic featured very graphic, stomach-turning images. He was later deemed a suspect in a murder case that he really had nothing to do with. In that case-I remember thinking that for the most part I don't believe what some says should make that liable for another's actions. And one the same level-Marilyn Manson was attacked by the media after the Columbine school shootings, the media and country looking to blame the scapegoat, Manson, instead of looking at the real issues. In these cases I didn't think that what these people, the comic artist and Manson, had anything to do with crimes that they were being accused of.
The radio DJ, I fully and whole-heartedly disagree with him and he does spread hate with his message-which is why I was quick to think that he should be taken off air, but after thinking about it I don't think he should be held responsible for what is going on in that town. I think he is a part of it, but he can't be held liable for another's actions just because he has a hate ideology. The real problem in that town is that a lot of people are out of work and they need someone to blame--which has become mostly environmentalists but also liberals, and others that are deemed to be "outsiders." When you take a good look at that video, I think you can see a lot of people that are in a lot of pain. People can't provide for their family and people don't know a way out of their own situation--and this leads to acting out on your frustrations.
I do believe that the radio DJ is irresponsible and unethical with his right to free speech, but I don't think his speech should be taken off air. Although I do think he crosses the line when he gives out names and adresses on air-which I think should be limited--
I disagree with all that he says, but is it wrong for me (or the govt) to take him off the air? And what good would that do?
The radio DJ, I fully and whole-heartedly disagree with him and he does spread hate with his message-which is why I was quick to think that he should be taken off air, but after thinking about it I don't think he should be held responsible for what is going on in that town. I think he is a part of it, but he can't be held liable for another's actions just because he has a hate ideology. The real problem in that town is that a lot of people are out of work and they need someone to blame--which has become mostly environmentalists but also liberals, and others that are deemed to be "outsiders." When you take a good look at that video, I think you can see a lot of people that are in a lot of pain. People can't provide for their family and people don't know a way out of their own situation--and this leads to acting out on your frustrations.
I do believe that the radio DJ is irresponsible and unethical with his right to free speech, but I don't think his speech should be taken off air. Although I do think he crosses the line when he gives out names and adresses on air-which I think should be limited--
I disagree with all that he says, but is it wrong for me (or the govt) to take him off the air? And what good would that do?
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Protesting.
The question comes up every once in awhile in class-that if you lived in the time of the Civil Rights Movement, would you have participated in it? I hope I would, but sometimes I am not sure. In many of the revolutionary times in this country and in others, taking part could mean sacrificing your life. There are things that I would like to think I would give my life for, but really--how much can you change if you're dead? Resistance comes in many different forms--and I respect all of them. I was reading a book called Groundwork today--it's about local grassroots movemements during the Civil Rights Movement that you never really hear about. There was a group of women that nurtured the non-locals who would come in for the Freedom Summer and do the sit-ins, protests, and whatnot. They got money to buy them things to help them if they were imprisoned, they gave them places to sleep--oftentimes their own house. Their resistance was nurturing others, not necessarily that they had to do all of the protesting themselves.
I hope of course that I always do what I think is right, but I just think that possibly sacrificing your life can hurt more than just you. If you have three kids who depend on you--should you do something that could put you more at risk of losing your life? Or even just take time away from them?
I am totally for protesting/resistance/revolution and whatnot if it is needed--but when it comes to my personal choice of participating--I'm not sure what I would do and how much I am willing to sacrifice? And what kind of a cause would make me consider sacrificing my life?
I hope of course that I always do what I think is right, but I just think that possibly sacrificing your life can hurt more than just you. If you have three kids who depend on you--should you do something that could put you more at risk of losing your life? Or even just take time away from them?
I am totally for protesting/resistance/revolution and whatnot if it is needed--but when it comes to my personal choice of participating--I'm not sure what I would do and how much I am willing to sacrifice? And what kind of a cause would make me consider sacrificing my life?
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Obama's Race Speech
I went out of town for spring break, and for awhile was out of the loop on the latest news about the election. When I got back my boyfriend made me watch the entire Obama race speech, and thank god he did. The speech is brilliant. And I'm puttign some of my favorite parts below.
The speech I thought was very straightforward and honest. I think Obama has confronted the issue of racism like no one else ever has. He talked about why people are actually angry-black, white, any color. He mentioned that most middle-class white americans don't feel that they are priviledged in any way, which makes it difficult for them to want to "give" any priviledge to others. And he also made the point that it's really the corporations who are screwing us over, but we allow ourselves to be distracted.
I was talking to my best friend Megan about the speech and about Obama. She said she wanted Obama to win because he's the only politician "where when he talks it actually makes sense." I thought that was right on and hilarious. Some people think he's too charismatic and they fault him for many other things, but I think he is a presidential candidate, who if he wins, will change this country in a great way.
Part of the speech is below-ENJOY!
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late '50s and early '60s, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it — those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations — those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy — particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
The speech I thought was very straightforward and honest. I think Obama has confronted the issue of racism like no one else ever has. He talked about why people are actually angry-black, white, any color. He mentioned that most middle-class white americans don't feel that they are priviledged in any way, which makes it difficult for them to want to "give" any priviledge to others. And he also made the point that it's really the corporations who are screwing us over, but we allow ourselves to be distracted.
I was talking to my best friend Megan about the speech and about Obama. She said she wanted Obama to win because he's the only politician "where when he talks it actually makes sense." I thought that was right on and hilarious. Some people think he's too charismatic and they fault him for many other things, but I think he is a presidential candidate, who if he wins, will change this country in a great way.
Part of the speech is below-ENJOY!
A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late '50s and early '60s, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it — those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations — those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.
And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.
Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.
Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide and blocks the path to understanding.
This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naive as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy — particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Ahh...The Bible.
I just think that it doesn't have to be one or the other--just because you believe in evolution doesn't mean you're a godless heathen. I'm not personally very religious, but I guess over the years I have developed my own beliefs, and a faith in a higher power. All i'm saying is, I think if we all just try to be good people and help one another out-we'll be all right in the end.
People say that if you believe in evolution you're like spitting on the bible--but the bible also says some other whacked out stuff that we don't necessarily follow. Below is something I got a kick out of--Please read...
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative, Enjoy!
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
People say that if you believe in evolution you're like spitting on the bible--but the bible also says some other whacked out stuff that we don't necessarily follow. Below is something I got a kick out of--Please read...
Dr. Laura Schlessinger is a radio personality who dispenses advice to people who call in to her radio show. Recently, she said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22 and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following is an open letter to Dr. Laura penned by a east coast resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative, Enjoy!
Dear Dr. Laura:
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Damn People Flipping Houses.
So I work at Home Depot-I'm in the world of lumber, remodels, kitchen countertops, and whatnot. I love wathing the Home Channels-but tonight I was watching Property Ladder-and there's these three guys who are friends who decided to do a flip together. They are retarded. They bought their "flip" house as a foreclosure home and the previous owner was attempting to flip it as well--so most of the house was actually done and basically ready to go. So they get in and they want to knock down walls and get rid of bathrooms. FIRST RULE IN FLIPPING: NEVER GET RID OF A BATHROOM-THAT ONLY MAKES YOU LOSE MONEY. Then-these dumb bastards want to put an addition on the house-which will be a master suite and master bath. The original timeline was 45 days....like 120 days later they actually finished. Stay to your timelines--You're losing money every time you have to pay the mortgage each month! When they were trying to lay the foundation for the addition they ran into this huge problem with the drainage system--so that was horrible-BUT THEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE PUT THE ADDITION ON. There was no need-the size the house is-it was perfect for the neighborhood--you have to research the local market! So yeah-by the end of the show they went from a possible profit of $84,000 to, at the very most, $34,000 and the house still hadn't sold-and was just sitting on the market. My whole point is: that flip was almost finished when they bought the house for $146000-they ended up putting $95,000 dollars into the house, mostly due to the addition they didn't need, and they could have done touch-ups and finished what the previous flipper couldn't finish--spent less than $15,000 and been done with it. But no, those dumb bastards were trying to get rich quick. Flipping houses-I don't do it--but people don't make millions off of just one house-they do it with many houses over a long period of time. So my whole point is: they were dumb.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
My Edible, Organic, soon-to-be Garden
Okay so first of all, my blog like disappeared or something. If you click on the link on the court website it's still there but when I log into my blog account it is not on my dashboard--so this is free speech part 2!!
Anyway. Onto other things. In order to graduate I had to finish one more URL this semester, which was democratic participation--and I'm taking SBS 350 Domination and Resistance-it's an awesome class and I've already talked about it on my first blog. But in the class we have to do a political project. Professor Shenk had us do a paper defining what politics means to us, and then today we had to present our proposal on our poltical project. My political project will be starting and growing an edible, organic garden in my backyard. I think it's funny because it's totally inspired by Dave's class from last semester--it was service learning but in class we talked about sustainability as a social movement. At the very end of the semester Lisa, another student in the class, was talking about a book she read about gardening being a political action. At first I was confused by it, but when I started to think about it I totally agreed. Having your own garden means that you know where your food is coming from and what gets put in it. I don't trust a lot of food that is being sold these days, especially because it seems like the almighty dollar seems to be more important. High fructose corn syrup is bad for people!! No matter which way you slice it, it is unhealthy for people, yet we make no effort to reduce the amount of it in items we eat and drink every day. To me, it just seems that obesity, diabetes, and other health problems are just running rampant today and I think it has a lot to do with what we think is okay to eat from the store. Most people don't know about the antiobiotics and hormones in food, and if they do know about it then they may not know WHY that is bad to have. In general, I think we all need to get a bit more local-know where your food is coming from. So yeah-I'm way excited to start this garden--any gardening tips would be helpful since i really have no clue how to do it!!!
Anyway. Onto other things. In order to graduate I had to finish one more URL this semester, which was democratic participation--and I'm taking SBS 350 Domination and Resistance-it's an awesome class and I've already talked about it on my first blog. But in the class we have to do a political project. Professor Shenk had us do a paper defining what politics means to us, and then today we had to present our proposal on our poltical project. My political project will be starting and growing an edible, organic garden in my backyard. I think it's funny because it's totally inspired by Dave's class from last semester--it was service learning but in class we talked about sustainability as a social movement. At the very end of the semester Lisa, another student in the class, was talking about a book she read about gardening being a political action. At first I was confused by it, but when I started to think about it I totally agreed. Having your own garden means that you know where your food is coming from and what gets put in it. I don't trust a lot of food that is being sold these days, especially because it seems like the almighty dollar seems to be more important. High fructose corn syrup is bad for people!! No matter which way you slice it, it is unhealthy for people, yet we make no effort to reduce the amount of it in items we eat and drink every day. To me, it just seems that obesity, diabetes, and other health problems are just running rampant today and I think it has a lot to do with what we think is okay to eat from the store. Most people don't know about the antiobiotics and hormones in food, and if they do know about it then they may not know WHY that is bad to have. In general, I think we all need to get a bit more local-know where your food is coming from. So yeah-I'm way excited to start this garden--any gardening tips would be helpful since i really have no clue how to do it!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)