Food, Inc.

I watched the movie Food, Inc to further help my understanding of the food industry. Robbert Kenner, the film maker, wanted to lift the veil of the food industry from over his, and everybody else's eyes. The veil, is the image of the honest farmer on a nice field with happy animals, when truley, factory farming has completely distorted this farming. I highly suggest watching this video because it really opens your eyes to where your food comes from. The conditions in which our food is processed are unsanitary and result in the death of many Americans today. Many of the food factories Kenner went to would not allow an interview because they knew people wouldn't buy their products if they knew what they came from. One farmer wanted to let the film makers in, but he knew the industry that owned his business wouldn't like that.What scares me the most is that these companies have managed to make it illegal to say anything bad about the company. On her show, Oprah said she didn't want to eat a burger because of the outbreak of "mad cow disease." The company sued her because they lost profit, however, Oprah battled it out and didn't let them win. The point is, just for saying she didn't want another burger the company was able to sue her. They also have immense laws protecting them from any lawsuits concerning diseases one might get from their meat. One mother tried to sue because he son died from E. coli in their meat. Then she tried to create and pass a law to make meat industries have more inspections and pass them, but her efforts were in vain. What makes these industries so powerful and seemingly unstoppable, is us. Though we may not think we are, as consumers, we are very powerful. Every time we buy something it's like we're voting for that item and saying we want more of it. Sure big business products may be inexpensive, but they cost more in the long run when considering your health and the health of our world. Take a look at their website- http://www.foodincmovie.com/

Controversial topic: Factory farming

I decided to research the topic of factory farming for my project because I want to learn more about it and I want to inform others about the topic. I think it's important to know what goes in your body because we are what we eat after all. Factory farming all started in the 1920's when we discovered vitamins A and D. When these vitamins are added to feed, the animals no longer require sunlight and exercises for growth. This allowed a large number of animals to be kept in doors all year round. The problem raised with having these animals kept inside all year was the spread of disease. The introduction and use of anti-biotics on the animals were used to combat the disease. This raises issues of animal welfare and agricultural health. Another issue raised due to the mass quantities of farms animals in one area is an ecological one. Mass amounts of animal waste are created and deposited into waste lagoons. These waste lagoons eventually spill and find their way into water systems. The methane gas from cow manure is more harmful than the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation industry. Natural farming, like we used to do, doesn't exactly have this problem because animals are free to grase and relieve themselves on the grass creating fertilizer. Factory farming has turned the natural process of farming into a business production line. The nice image of the red barn and green fields with animals frolicking around, the one you see in grocery stores, is no longer a reality of farming.This is what farming really looks like now. It's hard to call it farming because it has changed so much. Currently, I'm reading Eating Animals and will find out more about this issue and post more about it. Is factory farming worth the problems it causes?

Race in America

I read "Why many Americans prefer their Sundays segregated" and I felt it was an interesting story. I'd say it related to David Hacker's story because it entailed blacks and whites in an integrated community. Hacker claimed blacks wanted to integrate with whites and whites don't want to integrate with blacks. I disagree with this and think neither racial group wants to integrate with the other for the soul purpose of integration. The article I read backs me up. It talks about a black church gaining new members of white race and the black members complained to their pastor. "They warned Sheppard that the church's newest members would try to seize control because members of their race were inherently aggressive." This shows how blacks may feel when integrating with whites. Perhaps they make accusations based on the past and believe whites are aggressive and try to control things. Many pastors of integrated churches claim it is a very hard task to run a racially integrated church because so many conflicts arise based on race. Not only this, but the pastor has to speak in a way that appeals to all groups and have to be very careful about what they say so they don't loose respect. This ordeal isn't just contained within churches, its everywhere in America, it has just made itself apparent within churches. Only 5% of Americas churches are integrated and many of them are slowly becoming one race. It's no secret that Americans want to keep things segregated. Why so many of us want to be segregated, I don't know, but we should try to live together in peace without conflict over power. We have to start seeing everyone as a whole and no longer refer to different races as "they," but as "we."

What's going on today?

I don't really know much about what's going on in Libya, but from what I've read and watched it seems like chaos over there. Many people are in the streets protesting. They are resorting to violence. The government is trying to keep them in control with force with tear gas and stuff. This would make me want to protest more if I were them. Sometimes protesting is necessary for a better country. Amr Abdullah El-Behairy, a protester, was sentenced to five years in prison for protesting. This does not seem just. Protesting  is a citizen asking for change in government. No government should be too controlling, it should be made by the people for the people. Citizens should be able to voice their opinion and if its majority, they should see some changes being made. 

Mock Trial Recap and Response

The first trial that I was apart of, was a civil case between Elyse Roberts and her employer. She claimed they did not protect her from reoccurring sexual harassment. The District of Columbia was found guilty and sued for a large sum of money and Kevin Murphy had to write a lot of apologies.
At first, before I even knew my role, I thought Elyse was overreacting and should not win the case. When assigned my role, my opinion became stronger. However, after the trial was over with and I heard the plaintiff and Mr. Kramer talk about the case, it became apparent to me how she was sexually harassed. I thought Elyse Roberts was a horrible lawyer and under a lot of pressure because of that, not from Kevin Murphy. This may even be true, but the fact is Kevin did sexually harass her, and she could easily blame her stress and performance on that. It was quite apparent that Elyse had social problems with men and getting along with them, but still this does not disprove Kevin Murphy sexually harassed her. In order to reach the opposite outcome, I would have needed to hear that the EEOC had confirmed that she was not a victim of sexual harassment, but of her own problems.

The second trial was a criminal case between the United States and David Jones. Susan Williams claimed she was raped by David Jones, despite him being her boyfriend and them having sex before. David Jones was found not guilty because there was not enough evidence to put David in jail. Throughout the trial I was up and down with the verdict, it was hard to decide. However, the most compelling evidence is that Susan said stop and tried to leave, but was unable to due to David pulling her back. Then I decided he was guilty, but most of the others thought he wasn't guilty because Susan kept kissing David. This case was difficult to decide because they were in a relationship and had had sex before. Susan could have just been upset over the note she found. However, the torn shirt and bruises made me think otherwise. If Susan had made it quite apparent she didn't want to take her cloths of and have sex, and that she was pulled back into the bed, then I think the case would have gone the other way.

I think these are both big issues and are very complex. There are multiple ways a sexual assault and harassment may be perceived. As a juror, the best thing to do is stick to the basics and ask yourself the direct question if the person was truly a victim. What makes these issues so complex, is that the defendant often doesn't know they are committing harassment or assault like in the two cases we did, when they truly are. People should know that there always two sides to the argument, but for these cases you just got to move past the story and stick to the facts and evidence. I would not say these are issues at DHS. Perhaps to a lesser extent a person may tease another person about their sexual orientation, but nothing too serious. No sexual assault takes place at DHS. These matters seem like they would be more prevalent in the workplace or at college. I think here at DHS we believe in respect for women and that's why this doesn't happen much. Our culture here at DHS give women more say and more power. These issues should always still be addressed because they can happen to anyone without them knowing it. With them addressed, people will know how to better treat people and reflect on their actions and their effects. Like I said before, sexual harassment for one person can be joking around for another.

State of the Union Address

I think Obama is an excellent speaker and think he did a great job on his speech this time. His main focus of the night seemed to be uniting the Democrat party and Republican party. Also, investing in important and new technology is of great concern for the president if we want to move forward, but we need to do it as one country. Obama said, "Progress is measured not by what Wall street does, but by how the American people are doing." I take from that he sees the potential in the average American to aspire to do great things. I think this is true and everyone should be given an equal opportunity to a job. I agree with Obama when he said "America is founded for the sake of  an idea and freedom of thought." He means we should be able to follow up on an idea we each have to improve the country and invest in new things, after all "this is our generations Sputnik moment." What Obama means by that is that we should invest in new technologies and new ideas and later it will bring us profit. I agree with this when talking about clean and abundant energy. We should no longer invest in things that require oil as an energy source because we will soon run out and its very expensive.He wants America to be the first company to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road and I think this is a good goal to help the environment and decrease our dependancy on oil. Obama's  new goal is to have 80% renewable energy by 2035. Obama's theme throughout his speach seemed to be "Lets fix what needs fixing and move forward."  But the final critical step is not to be buried under dept. Our gov. spends more than it take in, people work to stay in credit, why not the us government? That is why Obama is proposing cuts of government spending. However, some say he isn't making enough cuts. I like Obama's speech because he proposes many good ideas, but some of these ideas require a lot of government spending. How can we find the right way to invest in the future so that we won't be over encumbered by dept like we are now? This is a very important question and according to the Republican rebuttal to Obama's speech we should spend a lot less. If we do not, the Federal government will double in size in order to help maintain all the problems its created through spending. According to the rebuttal, we need less of government interference and less spending. The government is simply supposed to be our safety net. Perhaps this is true, we must consider all opinions on this matter. One thing is for certain, we must do something to get out of debt because we have a lot of it. I believe we should invest in new technologies also because the will be more efficient and we will eventually see profit from them.

Zeitoun: Part 5

It was the kind deed of a missionary in the jail that enabled Zeitoun to begin the process of bail. Zeitoun had asked him to call Kathy and he did, all it took was one phone call. The justice system should have allowed Zeitoun his phone call from the start, but he wrongly was never given one. Finally, Kathy knew the prison Zeitoun was held at, but no one would tell her the whereabouts. This worried Zeitoun's brother because he knew "a Syrian in an American prison in 2005 -- this was not to be trifled with...he had to be freed immediately." (Eggers 274) It's an unfortunate truth that he's right about that. Post 9/11 was an unfair time for people from the middle east. They were discriminated against and suspected for almost anything anywhere. The justice system would treat them unfairly like Zeitoun. Kathy was outraged she couldn't be told the whereabouts of the jail, but once she got the press involved they told her right away. However, they didn't allow her or anyone else testifying in the defense of Zeitoun in the court hearing. How could anything like this happen in America? At times, I wonder what is wrong with our justice system. Kathy had to get proof Zeitoun owned the house he was arrested in, she found the papers and he was soon released. What if that piece of paper had beed destroyed in the destruction of the hurricane? "Her husband might fall deeper into the abyss of this broken judicial system for lack of the paper." (Eggers 286) Without that paper, Zeitoun, innocent and highly respected citizen of the United States could have been in jail for years. How could our justice system have these major malfunctions? If there is one thing I've learned from reading this book, its that our justice system isn't perfect because innocent people can be thrown in jail. 

When Zeitoun was released, he and Kathy pursued information on the reasoning behind his arrest and the jail he stayed at. The government worried that "terrorists might target evacuation routes, creating 'mass panic' and 'loss of public confidence in the government.'" (Eggers 308) After 9/11, it seemed like the government, or at least George Bush's top priority, was terrorism. Sure there are terrorist out there somewhere, but that doesn't mean you put all your recourses toward finding them. Thats a whole other issue, but the point is that the government seemed to be more concerned with terrorism over saving its own people in its own country. "This complex and exceedingly efficient government operation was completed while residents of New Orleans were trapped in attics and begging for rescue from rooftops and highway overpasses. " (Eggers 311) This quote pretty much sums up the governments role in the devastation of New Orleans. It is true that the government is capable of doing many things very efficiently when its on top of their priority list, obviously New Orleans wasn't at the top. How could the people of the United States not be at the top of their own governments priority list? This book has really opened my eyes to see the faults in our, what I thought was near perfect, government. Zeitoun was an average man, and his experience could happen to anyone, and have happened to many. Its a scary thought.