Martin Luther and the 95 Theses

Here's a fun video about the 95 theses and Martin Luther's complaints:

“Catholicism” and “Religious Ecofeminism: Healing the Ecological Crisis”

In Genesis, God gives man "dominion" over God's creation (1:26). Soon enough, humans learned that creation is better suited for their needs if manipulated. Some translations of the text have people believing that humans can do whatever they please in the world, because it is their right to do so. In the past several centuries, the Catholic Church has made statements, from the papal arena down to parochial priests and lay people, on the subject of environmentalism. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas were two of the forefathers of the idea that Catholics should respect all of God's creation, whether or not it is vital to our own existence. These two men made sure to note that humankind is at the top of the hierarchy of nature, and other creatures fell below. Francis of Assisi, however, thought of the prior statement as misinterpreted, and in "Canticle of All Creatures" believes that creation is familial. Which of these views do you feel are true?

Later in Church history, there have been direct addresses by several popes, most notably Leo XIII and John Paul II on the subject of the common good. In their cases, the common good only deals with humankind, but both men state that the rest of creation needs to be taken care of for our own (as well as its own) well-being. Others not directly affiliated with the Church, such as Rosemary Radford Ruether and Leonardo Buff, maintain the position of ecojustice, and all of creation is equivalent. Should the Church stay with its Tradition, with the hierarchy of creation, or should it change its perspective and side with all of the earthly environment?

Radford's "Religious Ecofeminism" also deals with Genesis 1:26 verse, but instead focuses on the word "man." Radford's main point is to confirm the interconnection between the domination of women and the domination of nature. Aristotle and Pluto's claims of feminine inferiority are discussed, and ultimately lead to how a misogynistic interpretation of The Fall lead many to believe that women are subjected to serve man. Later, it is described how Christians made diverse groups into barbarians simply because of their differences, especially race, religion, and gender. Unfortunately, these actions from our ancestry live with us today, and these prejudices continue today. What do you feel is the best way for a truly equal world, both in regards to humankind as well as the rest of creation? Additionally, we have spoken about bias on several occasions in class. How would you feel if Radford was a male and wrote this piece. Would any of your opinions change on the matter?

Lynn White and "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis"

I'm putting this up for Courtney as she was having some trouble.

“The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis” By: Lynn White

         This article is a prime example of how religion and the environment can be related. I think that the key question that White asks is “What did Christianity tell people about their relations with the environment?” If we look at the creation story in Genesis, we see our entire environment being created. At this time the environment is pure and new. If we look at the environment that we live in today, can we say the same thing? White talks about “The Christian dogma of creation”. She states that, “ God had made nature, nature must also reveal the divine mentality. The religious study of nature for the better understanding of God was known as natural theology”. Many people find God through nature and in the natural world and that is their way of experiencing faith. As the world has evolved and changed from its original state, do you think that it is harder to connect with God through nature? And do you think that this ecological crisis has affected the way that some people practice religion? Lastly, do you think that religion has influenced the ecological crisis?   

The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White Jr.

"Quite unintentionally, changes in human ways often affect nonhuman nature." White begins her argument by explaining that, while changes to our environment were caused by humans, they were completely unintended.

That being said, it is an issue that even after technology truly began to affect the earth with the 16th century research of Copernicus and Vesalius, research to save these environmental problems came three centuries later. Even earlier than this was the 14th century allocation of materials for cannon balls or London's 1285 smog issue form burning soft coal. What humans saw as advancement was really turning nature upside down.

White's call to action is simple: "revert to a romanticized past: make those ugly gasoline stations look like Anne Hathaway's Cottage or (in the Far West) like ghost-town saloons." But then she quickly comes to the realization that atavism and prettification are beyond us at this point in our ecological crisis.

Events from Medieval Europe's development of technology turned man into the "exploiter of nature." And with that came the amount of guilt Christianity should feel toward their impact on the environment. White claims that christianity's western ideas make man superior to nature and therefore give man the right to use it at the slightest whim.

What do you think of these ideas? Do you agree that Christianity played a large role in our modern environmental issue? If so, in what ways?

Also, do you agree that there is no solution?

Theology of Money Interview (Alex, Ashley, Catherine, Nick)

I had trouble posting this as a comment, so here it is...

1. What did you think about the text?

Catherine: I thought that very beginning of the introduction was so interesting because Goodchild points out the almost hypocritical nature of Jesus’ and the church’s demands and ideologies about wealth throughout history. Good will mentions how despite wealth being viewed as something evil, “Jesus, by contrast, warned against wealth while feasting and drinking himself” (7). He also talks about taxes from both the church and temple. The text overall, while being quite lengthy, is interesting and introduces new concepts about the church and its monetary history that I had not considered before.

Ashley: I really enjoyed the text, I actually kept reading into the actual chapters until I realized that we were only supposed to read the introduction. I thought it was very well written in the aspect of first defining religion and theology, and then merging them together through the means of money. This perspective on money was relatively new to me, so I was extremely intrigued by the way that it was so radically described ex: “Money is only an extreme and specialized type of ritual.” (Pg. 19)

Nick: The text was interesting, and I like the idea of substituting "Money" for "the devil" in the opening. Goodchild does a good starting at "money is the root of all evil" and evolving it. Additionally, I liked how he analyzed money in a way that I never thought of.

2. What do you think about the quotes on page 4 of the handout?

Catherine: I think the quote that begins with “money is indeed the most important thing in the world…” and ends with “money controls morality” is so interesting, and in so many ways is completely true in today’s society (America’s). We put such an emphasis on the importance of accumulating wealth and power, and those goals definitely drive our goals. I mean, we are all in college and I would assume that that is probably to help us become more intelligent adults to help us get a better job and eventually build up our own wealth

Ashley: Phillip Goodchild presented an almost introduction to the introduction with the quotes and parables found at the beginning of his work. The Emerson quote is my favorite of the two, alluding to the alluring attributes of money/credit; he emphasizes the dangers of money with the comparison to a rose: while they are beautiful, you might hurt yourself if you do not handle it properly.

Nick: I especially like the Herbert quote, as I think that it supplements the idea that states that we deal with money differently when we have it than when we simply think of it hypothetically.

3. God v money?

Catherine: “God and wealth are set in a competition for time” (pg. 11). I think that quote is so true. It definitely feels like people – especially getting older – either go towards fulfillment with a career and building up wealth, or can find fulfillment through religion.

Ashley: I don’t necessarily think that there is a “god vs. money” complex, I think that religious folk tend to create a larger issue than it really is. Trade naturally evolved into the concept of credit and physical money; I think the issue lies with the extreme abuse of money.

Nick: I feel that this complex comes from a literal reading of biblical text. God and money can certainly coincide, and I therefore think that Goodchild was going for a stretch with this particular idea.

4. The reinvention of money in 1694 (credit functions as coinage) thoughts?

Alex: I think this is where our modern sense of materialism and obsession with money really came into being. With the age of colonialism and imperialism in full swing there was a plethora of new goods people could buy, and with credit they were able to. People were able to get individual loans from banks in order to buy land or property at a level and means that was never possible before.

5. Could modern society survive w/out credit?

Catherine: I don’t think it could. I mean banks are starting to charge fees for people/companies to keep physical dollars in their vaults. We are getting to the point where credit and a sort of theoretical/unseen way of maintaining money and wealth is dominant. And in some ways that seems okay with me, as long as credit is monitored and the system makes sense.

Ashley: I do not think that modern society could function without some form of credit, due to the speed of development and the materialistic mentality of today. Everyone wants things now, so naturally if they can get it now, people will be more inclined to take that choice. Also some things need to be on credit. Part of my family is in the housing industry, and financing building homes is virtually impossible without lines of credit.

Nick: Once credit was introduced, there is no way to return to a life before it. Even as people see others becoming broke due to their careless spending, many continue to aimlessly spend anyway. To even be able to manage it, people need to understand that credit is a temporary and not permanent means.

6. "Where god promises eternity, money promises the world."

Ashley: Honestly, this is a very loaded quote. To some extent this may be true, but it all rests with how you treat both god and money. They have the potential to give you both theoretically, but you may not be happy with the outcome of either one.

7. Does $=modern religion?

Catherine: I think that nowadays money definitely is starting to look and feel more like a religion. The same way that people would be devoted to their religion, we see people being devoted to their assets and wealth. I don’t think this is the case for everyone in the world, and certainly not for every society, but for a lot of people without a strong hold on a religion belief I can see how money would become a substitute for that (or vice versa, with religion becomes a substitute for lack of wealth).

Ashley: I don’t think that money is our modern religion. I think that people can become obsessed with it just like with drugs, but it is an avenue to get what we want. Money allows us to build communities, however it also allows us to destroy them. Money is a tool that can be employed for good or bad.

Nick: Money is probably the number one religion in America. We tend to worship those who have it, and put all of our time and attention into it as Americans. Money ties many together, as religion does, and tends to set morals for many. As much as I personally do not approve of this lifestyle, it is very relevant in our society.

8. Do you think $100 in your hand is more powerful than the concept of $100 say on a debit card?

Ashley: I think that hard money is more valuable than credit, partially because I am very “hands on” anyway, so I would rather use cash than credit. The fact that you can see your money being taken allows people to think about what they are purchasing more, than say a little black card. The physical aspect of money also represents security and confirms the agreement between the seller and buyer. I think physical money is more valuable the higher the $ amount, due to the fact that the dollar amount is backed by physical means upfront.

Nick: Personally, I spend more money when I am able to simply swipe a card. With actual money in my hands, I find it harder to spend, and therefore I tend to think twice before making a purchase. It's a sad feeling when I have to break a larger bill, and often I will skip out on a luxury just to avoid doing so.

9. Would you want to read this book?

Catherine: I would want to read this book. It’s very interesting, but the reality is that it would take me SO long to read, so that could become an issue.

Nick: I would read this book just because I am interested to hear what his opinions are on topics mentioned later in the introduction. I may not agree with some of his thought, but I feel that this book would at least give another perspective on the topic.

Goodchild and the Theology of Money

In Philip Goodchild's Introduction to his book, "Theology of Money," he spans many topics: he provides examples of the way the New Testament talks about money, and our relationship with money and how it flirts with our relationship with our religion; he provides an extensive historical background on how money was once used, and he describes the process by which and the resounding effects of money's transition from hard currency in exchange for goods to credit as currency; and he briefly describes his theory on the theological nature of our relationship with money and how that plays into day-to-day life (I say briefly because the whole book is about this [I assume] and this section wasn't exactly brief...).

Since the introduction covered so many different parts of the "Theology of Money," I didn't finish the chapter with one decisive thought on my mind. Instead, I had thoughts and questions on the separate sections of the chapter.

First off, it was interesting that he started the first section with "a parable." The way he described Jesus' teachings was somewhat of a warning, with an overly considerate and delicate tone (at least, compared to the conviction with which he spoke about the topics in the rest of the chapter). He provided and explained the scripture passages in such a way that he was kind of telling the reader something he expected none of them to know, had never heard of, or didn't understand. Though I found it helpful that he "walked" me through the scripture stuff in this way, I was wondering if you guys thought that his explicitness was necessary? Do you think he could've made his point about how Christianity talks about money without being so point-by-point?

Secondly, in the "Bank of England" section, much of the information he provided was historical. He talked extensively, and for good reason, about how our modern world came to depend so heavily on credit as money, and the way that that system shapes our economy and our society. However, a pattern I noticed throughout the whole chapter was that Goodchild spent much time describing the intricate details of a situation, in this case the historical details behind the Bank of England and the system of money that followed and spread, and would then, once he was done explaining it thoroughly, he would sum it up in one, two, or three paragraphs. Do you think the extensiveness to which he went into the topic of the Bank of England was necessary? Could Goodchild have made his point about the Theology of Money without so much detail here, and elsewhere? Why or why not?

Theology of Money Interview

The interview for Danny, Helen, and Lindsey:

Danny: Okay, I'll get more specific in a minute, but overall, what did you think of the chapter? Could you understand Goodchild's point? If so, what was it?

Helen: Take it away.

Lindsey: You, like, actually wrote questions. That's very prepared.

Helen: Okay I thought that the article was overall interesting. That it was something I hadn't really thought of before, like, money through a theological lens, if you will. And I think his point, I think like you said, he was doing a thing where like went into extreme details about random stuff, and then was like, at the end of the section "Oh, so basically this is what that all means."

Lindsey: But he would also talk about like, Jesus believed 'this'. But 'this' has nothing to do with our timeframe now. Like, why are you telling us this?

Helen: I think the aim of his book was to like philosophically analyze a connection between money and wealth and religion and theology, and how they're intertwined.

Danny: Yeah, I mean, obviously I don't know how the rest of the book plays out, but the introduction at least was kind of an overall scope of: 'here's Jesus and his point of view on money, here's money and how it related to religion of the time, and then here's more shit that I'm going to talk about...' and I don't know, it got a little convoluted.

Lindsey: Well I can only imagine what the rest of the book is about. 'Cause, he went into so much detail in his introduction, like...it was very dense. I can understand what Professor Berry was talking about.

Danny: Yeah. Um, okay good. So, why do you think Goodchild included all the parts about the teachings of Jesus? He made it very clear later in the introduction that the theology of money is separate from a religion like Christianity, so why not just skip to and start with the section on the Bank of England, which I thought was more relevant to the rest of the chapter?

Helen: Um, I think it helped with the theology part of the essay. It was an interesting way to, I mean that was like the beginning, it was an interesting way to get people thinking about religion in relation to money and wealth. It isn't something that I would necessarily think about. So I think if he started with the Bank of England part, it would've been less...I wouldn't have thought much from a theological perspective.

Lindsey: Yeah, more like from a historical perspective.

Helen: Yeah, so I think that kind of got the reader thinking about religion. I mean it wasn't really necessary because then he explains, like, 'Oh well this doesn't really have anything to do about it,' but it allowed me to consider it. You know what I mean?

Danny: Yeah.

Lindsey: He was just very repetitive. I feel like he could've taken one page and really hit all the key points with Jesus, but he went on for like six pages, and I was like, "I know, you already discussed this." I couldn't even focus on what he was trying to say halfway through because he had already said it like six times, and I was like, "I understand what you're trying to say. Let's move on now."

Danny: Yeah. And I felt like that was a common theme the entire chapter. He just drolled on about certain things. About the economics of money, and the truth behind money, and the theology of money, and theology in general, and then in actually two sentences he goes, 'So here's what I'm saying.'

Helen: It was helpful in the end.

Danny: Yeah, right! I found myself very lost in the details, I don't know about you guys, and then he would sum it up and I'd be like, "Oh, there's your point! Like, I couldn't get there myself but you got there for me."

Helen: Hah, yeah, like, "Thanks, bud."

Lindsey: I mean, he had really good points. One of them that I thought was really cool was like, "The quest for wealth is one practical activity that unites the diverse people of the contemporary globalized world." Like, when you think about that, it's very true. But he could've made an entire section just about that, and people's search for money and their drive to become more financially stable . But he connected it to so many things that he made it, like, overwhelming.

Danny: You know maybe he goes into that later in the book, maybe he doesn't, because that's just not even what his book is about, but I agree with you. There were so many interesting points. I highlighted all the things that I thought were important, but there were certain things I also highlighted lines that I thought were really cool. Like, "The establishment of the Bank of England inaugurated the period when credit effectively functioned as money. Since metal coins had always been tokens of value, the creation of money as credit does not so much change as reveal the essence of money." That's pretty cool. That was at the beginning of the Bank of England section, and he then spends 200,000 pages discussing how the Bank of England was formed, how it propelled this and that, like Amsterdam and the other parts of Europe that adopted that thing, but that's cool! How this one institution literally changed how money is used.

Okay, so, there was a lot of talk about truth in the chapter: truth in relation to religion, truth in relation to money, and the definition of truth in general. Why do you think he discussed this so intently?

Helen: Well truth and honesty are a big part of religion, as well as it is, well, he kept talking about the truth of money and wealth. That's the only connection that I can see, because, like, with wealth there's usually greed associated with it, like when you're writing about it or talking about it. So the fact that he was really into the truth aspect connected it to the theology.

Lindsey: I mean, I think, just like...I didn't really understand initially where he was going with the truth, but I think, over the course of the 26 pages, he finally, somehow, made a point on truth. It was the fact that like, it's like a common understanding between theology and wealth, and that you have to be truthful, in essence, about what you're doing, saying.

Danny: Yeah. This is less a comment on the truth, but, it's in the same section, kind of related to it. He says on page 12, "Financial value is essentially a degree of hope, expectation, trust or credibility." I wrote in my margins, like, "That sounds strikingly similar to how we view faith." Like, hope, expectation, trust, and credibility.

Lindsey: You put your faith in money without even seeing like, where it goes.

Helen: That's a good point.

Danny: So I guess I thought the talk about truth was like, was just a very dense explanation of that. How people put their faith in money, why they have faith in general.

Lindsey: He never really came out and said 'People put their faith in money.'

Helen: It's probably something that's developed later in the chapters, but it's kind of like a blind faith thing. You put blind faith in religion and people put blind faith in money. It's just something people don't usually think about.

Danny: And like, all of that, everything in this chapter was very much like, 'Oh!' It's so hard to think about that. It's like, you have to write a book on it to understand why people don't think about it. Yeah, cool.

So, Goodchild gives the reader a long history lesson on the significance of the introduction of credited money in world that had never operated using such before, and the consequences/results therein. Do you think the history helped you understand the rest of Goodchild's explanations/arguments, why/why not?

Helen: Yeah, I think what he's writing about it our contemporary views on money, and how it works in modern day society. So, like, reading the historical aspect of it made me realize what it was like back then, and allows the reader to kind of understand what's going on right now and how it's different and why it's different. So I think it was necessary and I think it helped his argument.

Lindsey: I think it also establishes where our faith in money comes from. We put faith in credit, not necessarily hard currency, so I think to establish why we switched, not switched but expanded to hard currency and credit, you need to have a specific background for that. Which, I think he demonstrated fairly well. It was just very dense. And very historical for a theological book.

Danny: Yeah, and I'm not sure how historical the rest of the book is, but, basically, the Bank of England section starts on page seven, and on page eleven--and this is very dense writing, so, four pages doesn't sound like a lot--but on page eleven, is where I had my 'Aha!' moment. Like, "this is what he's talking about! This is why he's describing this historical context." Because, of course I found it interesting, I could see the relevance, but I was just like, "Okay, get there faster. Let's get this show on the road." But like, I wrote down my thoughts as I had this 'Aha!' moment, and I think what he was saying was: With the creation of credited money and the resulting effects on the economy (i.e. a happy dance between supply and demand), meant for society that economic activity and money in general was then more important than the previous dominating factor in life, religion. And he didn't go into how important that was, but he did say, "Capitalism, it's growth and globalization is explained by banking. Economic activity, formerly a limited segment of social life, came to predominate over all aspects of social life, including religion. And that's a big deal, I'm sure, in the seventeenth century, when religion was ever present in every aspect of life.

Okay, cool. On page 13, Goodchild says, "Since it is the condition for all social activity, the demands of sustaining the money system and wealth creation take priority over the demands for sustaining the environment, population, or religion." Do you agree with this statement in terms of today's society, why/why not?

Lindsey: Well, you can't do anything else without money.

Helen: Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think if our money system collapsed, our society would cave in, basically.

Lindsey: Which is also scary because we put most of our money on computers.

Helen: But I think if you're going to work on sustaining the environment, you need to buy things to do that, with money. So I think you're going to need to take care of, make sure the money system's working properly before anything else, because we use it before anything else.

Danny: I understand why money is so significant, I understand our society would probably cave in if our money system failed, but, why does that mean that the importance of the environment, population and religion can't be equal or just slightly less so?

Lindsey: Well, I guess you could argue that sustaining religion is more important that sustaining wealth, if you really wanted to, but I don't think you could argue for the other two. I mean, population is going to be a result of wealth. I mean, depending on how much money you have, it's how many kids you can support, and the future generations. Protecting the environment takes money, especially because of all the damage that's been done as a result of economic growth. To counteract that, you're gonna need money to fix the problem. I mean, religion isn't really tied to that, but I mean, churches use money. That's half the reason why Parishes are being shut down in big cities, because there's not enough money to fund the church, fund the clergy, that sort of thing. So, everything comes down to money.

Danny: Okay cool. Okay, last question. What was your opinion of Goodchild and the Theology of Money once you reached the end of the chapter? Did you agree with what he was saying? See merit in his argument? Did you care? How does this become significant in our day-to-day lives, other than a reflection on a way of life? Is it at all significant?

Helen: He definitely brought up interesting arguments and interesting facts I'd never thought of. I basically agreed with everything he was saying, and I think he did a good job presenting his argument. It was a little long, I think he could've condensed it a little bit. But I understand what he was saying. For me, it was just a reflection. Like, "Oh, I see that." Does it have an effect on my day-to-day life? Honestly, not really.

Lindsey: Yeah, I mean, I thought it was a very interesting topic, but I was thinking more in a sense of like how money is viewed by different religions. I mean, that's what I was thinking when I was reading it. Because, he only really used Christian theology as proof, or like evidence to support his claim, and I really wondered like, what would happen if he decided to use other religions to support his claim, or if he could support his claim with other religions. But I thought it was interesting. I thought the Church of England section was necessary, but unnecessarily long. And I feel like I would not want to, after reading that section, sit down and read the rest of the book, just because it was really dense.

Danny: I agree with Helen, I think it was very interesting, very relevant. It's probably something we should be aware of, I think he should give speeches on it, on his book--and that would be even a better way to relay the information than the book itself because it would be shorter--but like, I think that it's something people need to be aware of. I can see how it affects my everyday life, because it's a part of my everyday life, but I didn't care in the sense because I didn't see why he was telling me.

Helen: It wasn't like, he wasn't like, 'Oh, here's an issue. Here's what we need to do about it.' It was more just like, 'Here's a thing, do with it what you will.'

Danny: Okay, cool. Thanks guys.

UWP Conference

To fulfill our requirement of attending one of the University Writing and Research conferences/capstones/symposiums (I don't know which one it is...) I chose to attend one entitled "Writing about TV: The Fake Life of Real Life TV Dramas", moderated by our very own Tina Plottel. I was really surprised at how interesting and engaging this seminar was. It helped that we were able to choose a topic because we could relate our interests to that of the writers'. I could see that the rest of the room followed that same line of thinking, as the population was overwhelmingly female (the TV shows of interest were Grey's Anatomy and Sex and the City). Anyway, this convention thing really helped me think about research papers in a new way. While the length was never a daunting issue for me, there paper's showed me that there is a whole new element of voice and analysis in their paper's that I have never explored. Also, one of the most surprising parts of their papers was the use of first person. A somewhat taboo concept in high school analytical papers, their research papers were almost reliant on their passionate interest and personal experience with their topic. The said on numerous occasions that this was integral to the development and execution of their research paper.

I am really glad that I chose to go to this specific topic meeting, because their insight and analysis of their TV shows paralleled the work I am doing on our current paper analyzing social issues in films. They advised to delve into specific scenes and specific themes, and to not even try to take on researching the entirety of the film. This was great to hear, as taking on my rough draft of this paper left me anxiety-ridden at the thought of having to juggle the entire plot of my film as well as a gigantic social issue. This session also gave me some good foresight of what our final paper will be like, and I am looking forward to it as the writers in my session seem to have really enjoyed their experience.

Kunstler

I am posting this for Zohra, as she was having problems:

Zohra, Jon, Aaron, and Andrew

1) What do you think Kuntsler is saying about society?


Aaron: He says that the roots of our culture started out in small societies and we see that because we seek solace in small, rural communities. The scale of the global economy has resulted in the destruction of small communities from which most people originated. He also made it seem that suburban communities are not really communities because people are isolated and do not even know their neighbors. They are not self-sufficient and do not have to rely on each other; there is not ownership.



Andrew: There has been a shift in the way the communities form. Small communities have been taken over by large cities and urbanization.



Jon: I think he is arguing that as society becomes more urban we are losing touch with the small towns that built our country.



2) Do you agree with the idea that as the national economy grew, local economies ceased to be important?



Aaron: In mainstream culture, yes, because we do not really pay attention to small towns, probably because most people do not care. The only time we do care is when there is a disaster in small towns—putting massive amounts of money and resources into fixing the situation.



Andrew: Yes, people do not really pay attention to small towns. The nation’s economy is a reflection of all the small town’s economies. We cease to recognize this.



Jon: I do, after WW2 main street ceased to be a tangible thing and became an idea that politicians always use.



3) What does Kuntsler say about corporations?



Aaron: Corporations are important on a global, national scale. However, their headquarters are located far from most cities and so they move into small towns with small economies. They drain their resources and make the community depend on a foreign entity rather than the community itself.



Andrew: Large corporations make towns dependent on their company. If the corporation goes under, the community will also suffer.



Jon: He argues that these large corporations are robbing the country of it's local economies and history that helped shape the nation.



4) What environmental connections does Kuntsler make, or fail to make, in reference to urban planning?



Aaron: He points out that urban planning is created purely for the convenience of people and maximized profit. Environmental concerns are out of the question. Also, in the planning process the small town imitation in the suburbs leads to an increase in pollution. People need to travel long distances to work, burning fossil fuels. Increased transportation leads to the increase in highway constructions, which is also harmful for the environment.



Andrew: Urban planning is detrimental to the environment because of pollution.



Jon: He argues that the urbanization mixed with the apathetic attitude people take towards the environment is what makes it so dangerous.



5) What social issues does Kunstler point to as urbanization occurred?



Aaron: There is an increase in crime, poverty, poor education, poor health, inadequate access to basic necessities. Some cases there is total isolation from the rest of society.



Andrew: Also, there is a rise in teenage crimes. There is an increase in teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, and vandalism.



Jon: He talks about how the development of suburbia caused kids in his home in Northwood to turn to drugs and alcohol.



6) Do you agree with the idea that Americans have lost the notion of a community?



Andrew: I do not agree with the idea that all of America has lost the sense of community. In my town, there is a definitely a sense of community, you know everyone in the neighborhood. There are other towns like this. However, in cities there are so many people that it is hard to know everyone. There could, however, still be a sense of a community, it is just much harder to acquire.



Aaron: I would agree that we lost some of our sense of community, but not all of it. Its most notable in the lack of eye contact in the city. There is no human contact and acknowledgement of other humans. In a small town, you can walk down the streets and you know everyone and acknowledge everyone. In moving to a city, we lose the small town feel where everyone knows everyone’s business. In the city, we expand our horizons and build a new sense of community.



Jon: I do not think that Americans as a whole have lost the sense of community because in the Midwest its still pretty strong but out in the east coast I could understand why someone would think that.

Interviews on Kunstler

Josh, Philip and Aparna

Do you personally believe that industrialism is good for our country?

· Its necessary, but because of long term effects, it changes the way we think and we’ve become more materialistic. Industry has changed environment we are living in in terms of transportation, production, etc. It has become more individualized… result is too much waste. It was required for us to become a world power. Created a precedent for other countries and raised the standard. If you want to become powerful, you must get into industry.

Do you see any parallels between your town and the author’s?

· Philip lives in neighborhood, woods near home. He can relate to feeling of spirit away from city, more peace and quiet. If you want to go camping its available, away from loud industry.

Does the author really make any suggestions to fix the issue he raises?

· No… I’m sure he does farther into the book but in this reading, he tends to simply point out the flaws and increase in production that is tarnishing the smaller things in life.

Would you prefer a small town with more expensive products or a large city with cheaper products?

· To live??? No Balance??? Too difficult – Aparna would rather live in city as younger, older in town. Transportation costs… reasons like that.

Back to the Start

I meant to post this yesterday as well and forgot.

 I. Love. This.

And I love that it commits Chipotle to working to make this happen as they have now put there name on it. I hope you enjoy it:

A few more things about food...

I made reference to this image in passing today and so I wanted to add it to the blog:

Also, here is Julia Child cooking, in case you have never seen her, as well as Meryl Streep's portrayal of her in Julie & Julia:

Also, you might be interested to know that the model we talked about in class works in restaurants too. A very successful and very tasty one, Founding Farmers, is in Foggy Bottom.

Mark Bittman on what's wrong with what we eat | Video on TED.com

In light of your reading and our class discussion tomorrow, this TED talk is interesting. I'll likely be referring to it in class throughout our discussion tomorrow.

Mark Bittman on what's wrong with what we eat | Video on TED.com

Out of the Kitchen, Onto the Couch

Monday- (after class)

Orange Juice-USA and Brazil

Pb and J Sandwich-

Peanut butter-Ohio

Jelly-Ohio

Bread-Connecticut

Fruity Pebbles-

Milk-Pennsylvania

Fruity Pebbles-Missouri

Kraft Cheddar Cheese-Illinois

Ritz Crackers-Illinois

Tuesday-

Yoplait Yogurt-Missouri

Crunchy Chicken Wrap from Unos- I don’t know

Pb and J Sandwich-

Peanut Butter-Ohio

Jelly-Ohio

Bread-Connecticut

Milk-

(What I have got to eat for dinner):

Baby carrots- Delaware

Turkey Sandwich-

Turkey-West Virginia

Bread-Connecticut

Cheddar Cheese-Illinois

Wednesday-( What I Will have for Breakfast):

Yoplait Yogurt-Missouri

Nature Valley Honey n’ Oats Granola Bar-South East Asia

After reading Pollan‘s article it made me really wonder why no one makes their food anymore. It is kind of scary to think that we really have no idea what ingredients we are eating and where they have been. If we cooked for ourselves then we would know. My list of food places wouldn’t be scattered across the globe. Cooking from scratch could be a very healthy way to eat. It also scares me that the ingredients of food in restaurants like Unos are almost impossible to find out. Although I am not able to cook due to lack of a kitchen, I’m not sure I would if I could. I can’t imagine cooking every meal for myself like people used to have to do. I wonder why this has happened. Food used to be a huge part of culture in Italy, Rome, China, and Mexico. Now we can go buy any type of food we want and be eating it within twenty minutes. Buying our food has become our culture. Is it because it is easy to make food in bulk? Are we just too busy to cook ourselves food three times a day? Have we let huge companies take over the food industry and our culture?

An open smile on a friendly shore!

Hi everyone...

nice work in the library yesterday. To reiterate the point of our exercise: we used the blog entry on Wall-E as a jumping off point for a brainstorming exercise as an organizational tactic for the film analysis assignment. Hopefully, it gave you a clearer picture of how the film element you chose sheds light (no pun intended... but maybe...) on the social issue and environmental factors of your movie. You should be in a good place for your first draft, which is due on Friday.

I'm posting two things here... the first: this is the theme song to the Love Boat, which I referenced in class yesterday. If I were to write a paper about Wall-E, I would talk about how the creators totally referenced this tv show to create the spaceship environment.



The second item I'm sharing is a photo my band mate shared with me, after I posted this video to facebook: