Branding Breast Cancer

"October is an awareness month for breast cancer and domestic violence. Yet media coverage shows we'd rather be aware of breasts, even sick ones, than talk about abuse." I must honestly admit that when I first read this subtitle, it made me a little sick; have we as a society actually reached a point where we make two causes of equal importance compete against one another (realistically, capitalism in its most extreme form)? I will admit reading Marshall's article exposing the connection between pink branding and advertising has reached a questionable level, especially as companies such as Ralph Lauren begin using 'sex' to advertise for breast cancer awareness, I cannot say that I am completely against such means. Having members of my family who have both passed from breast cancer, and others that are current breast cancer survivors, I completely believe that all means necessary should be used in order to raise capital for breast cancer research in order to find cures and treatment for this disease that has impacted the lives of so many.

In addition, while I do not agree that domestic violence should take the back seat in terms of awareness, I do understand, economically how it has. While Marshall's article points out that 967 women were killed by men they knew (with statistics from 2005), in 2007, 40,460 women were expected to die from breast cancer (http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/BCFF-Final.pdf). In simple terms of supply and demand, there are a far greater number of people demanding action in awareness of breast cancer than those demanding awareness for domestic violence, therefore a greater supply of awareness products for breast cancer are being produced by the capitalist machine. 

Marshall's article also points out that breasts are more marketable than black eyes; however, I believe that while this is due to the unreasonable stigma associated with speaking up against abuse, it also has to due with the fact that people can come together in order to unite against a cancer (non-human) invading and destroying another human's body much easier than they can unite against the deviant moral attitudes which allows some humans to abuse other humans. In general, we as a society tend to not wish to discuss anything considered taboo, which we should then characterize as a fault of us as individuals, as compared to blaming corporations for marketing the easier product.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

Response to "The Ingredients of a Shirt"

In response to Sims’ post, I definitely agree that if people stopped to think about the connections a product like a shirt has to the rest of the world, they may in fact not be in support of the actions taken to produce the shirt. However, I’d like to play the devil’s advocate on this one. Would people be in favor of child labor making the shirt that they wear if they knew that the little money the child receives is more than they would receive at any other occupation? I think that child exploitation is awful but in most cases these children want to work and would otherwise starve without the income they receive. I find it very interesting that several mainstream economists are actually willing to take the controversial position that sweatshops and cheap labor are actually necessary for a developing economy to progress.

Breast Cancer and Capitalism

In response to the audio clip that we listened to in Thursday’s class about the development of breast cancer awareness, I’d like to point out the capitalistic qualities that I noticed in this movement. Before I do that though, I would like to say that I am in no way against breast cancer awareness and I feel that women should be aware of the dangers of this disease. First I’d like to bring up M-C-M’, as that has come up several times in our discussions. For me, I found this M-C-M’ model to be evident in the breast cancer movement in the form of organizations pumping out pink merchandise. The breast cancer awareness organizations are taking in monetary donations, converting the donation into the pink mugs, shirts, etc., and then taking in more money from large companies who use the merchandise as a form of advertising. Next, I feel as though the woman being interviewed’s idea about how it is much more profitable to treat breast cancer than it is to cure it represented the planned obsolescence that we talked about on Thursday as well. Health companies are certainly in their line of work to help prevent and cure illnesses, but it is important to remember that they are still businesses looking to make profits. Why not create a new, safer way to have a mammogram or develop other kinds of testing to have repeat customers rather than a one-time customer who is cured? I would like to think that this idea of planned obsolescence cannot be applied to cancer research in general but I think there are some valid points to be made in favor of this argument. Perhaps the reason why cancer research has not progressed very far is because there are conflicting forces that have a good deal of influence. It may be sort of a stretch but I think you can equate the producers of the various cancer treatments to the oil companies that destroyed the Ford EV-1 cars. If cancer is cured these producers don’t stand to make any profits. Again I hope this is not the case, but I think these points must be examined.

Response to Libertarianism

Like many terms, the word 'libertarian' is used in a variety of ways. In it's broadest uses, it is often applied to political philosophy, as well as to various other, conflicting ideologies. The word “liberal” is a proper term which stood for one who defended rights and limited government -except that it never represented a fully consistent political philosophy. So historically, what started as liberalism gradually became modern liberalism. Similarly, some people today use "libertarian" to designate the pro-free enterprise position, but there are some modern liberals who call themselves libertarians as well. This stealing of terms with undefined connotations is so prevalent today that I simply do not use any of these words. This is one reason I prefer "pro-capitalist" to "conservative." When what is being disguised or destroyed is not exactly what you uphold, then drop the word and use another. But we must acknowledge that there are many reasons to support freedom and many paths people may take to get there. Some are better than others, but it doesn't necessarily make the others wrong.

Response to The Omnivore's Dilemma

I totally agree with Sims Frazier that everything around us is actually interconnected. They relate with each other no matter how complicated and hard it is. If we look with our naked eyes, maybe we are unable to see how they are related with each other. However, we can see how they are connected when we think outside the box. For instance, a chicken nugget, piles corn upon corn: what chicken it contains consists of corn, of course, but so do most of a nugget’s other constituents, including the modified corn starch that glues the thing together, the corn flour in the batter that coats it, and the corn oil in which it gets fried. Much less obviously, the leavenings and lecithin, the attractive golden coloring, and even the citric acid that keeps the nugget “fresh” can all be derived from corn. Moreover, to wash down your chicken nuggets with virtually any soft drink in the supermarket is to have some corn with your corn. Now, you realize how amazing the corn is? "Tell me what you eat," said the French gastronomist Anthelme Brillat-Savarin, "and I will tell you what you are." We're corn. Is eating all this corn good for us? Who knows? We think we've tamed nature, but we're just beginning to learn about all that we don't yet know. Ships were once provided with plenty of food, but sailors got scurvy because they needed vitamin C. We're sailing on the same sea, thinking we're eating well but still discovering nutrients in our food that we hadn't known were there -that we don't yet know we need.

The Problem with Libertarianism

According to Hospers, libertarian freedom ensures people the right to behave in any way they choose so long as their behavior does not prevent another person the same degree of freedom. Furthermore, the sole role of the government should be to enforce this freedom. In my opinion, libertarianism is about as practically possible as perpetual motion machinery (read: impossible).

The average person is not knowledgeable about enough things to function independently. The government's involvement in specific spheres allows this man to live as harmlessly as possible. For example, the government's involvement in money and the economy allows this man to put his money in a savings account at a given bank and expect a specific interest rate. This same interest rate set by the government provides the personal banker at this same institution the convenience of not having to negotiate interest rates with individual customers, which in turn saves the management of the bank the headache of keeping track of all the different interest rates for all the bank's customers.

If the government's only role was to ensure that personal freedom were not violated, we would have to rely too heavily on private firms to provide everyday infrastructure. The problem with private firms is that they work for the profit of the firm. While, the government's main goal is acting in accordance with the greater good, private industry's main goal is generating profit. (And we all know that when it comes to choosing between generating profit or acting in accordance with the greater good, the former almost always trumps the latter.)

In conclusion, while the idea of libertarianism is enticing in theory, I don't believe it is practical. It demands too much from the average person. Though our current system is far from perfect, it is good enough. It is a product humans, who by nature are imperfect beings, therefore it is unfair to judge it against standards of perfection.

Re: The Ingredients of A Shirt

Sims brilliantly uses something as simple as a shirt to show how heavily interconnected the world is. Decisions we make that we may feel only affect us rarely are as they appear. I agree that the government should strive to hold themselves to some sort of standard. Similar to corporate responsibility, there should be a self-imposed code of ethics regulating the actions of governmental bodies. However, in order for this to be effective, there needs to be a degree of shame involved in patronizing purveyors of tarnished goods. I wouldn't go as far as saying these standards should be law, but I do believe that the United States should act as the proverbial bigger person and be the first to adopt such a code of ethics. I believe that if we make the first move the rest of the world would follow; therefore, conditions in plants and factories worldwide would have to improve in order for them to remain viable.

Re: Imperialism 101

In response to Alali’s imperialism 101 critique, I think she has a great point and agree with her completely. As workers in this world, I feel that we are more than obligated to be held accountable for our actions that may affect others around the world. It is a bit ironic for a business person to think that because our victims are so far away we do not need to worry about them because isn’t a business person suppose to care about every market around the world? Because every market is a potential business opportunity. I feel that the business world has taken a turn for the worst and has become very corrupt and solely focused on the idea of making money by whatever means are necessary. It all goes back to the old saying of “Do to others as you would want done to you.” Basically saying do not ignore your “victims” around the world because you would not want that disrespect shown to you.

Re: Parenti "Democarcy for the Few" and Marx

I Agree with Dave’s writing on the Wheen tape for the most part. It is easy to say and show how there is many employees in this world that basically slave their lives away on a day to day basis without reaping many benefits. But I feel like when talking about employees that have a job that they sit in a 3 by 3 foot cubicle indicates they are well off by the world’s standards. It does seem unfair that the boss sits and watches his employees labor away while he becomes richer, but could society really function without this role? I think it is important to have the role of the boss and the higher ranked people in the labor force so employees constantly have something to work towards. Everyone wants to be the boss and enjoy all the money and power, and I feel that it is good people strive on a daily basis to become powerful in the company or business. This allows the level of production in our country to be constantly set to a higher standard.

Capitalism

Capitalism is a word coined by Schweickart. ``Capitalism´´ as the private ownership of means of production, as opposed to government ownership of those means of production in the name of the ``collective´´. Capitalism, as a phenomenon, is life itself. Those who fight Capitalism, the phenomenon, are actually seeking to destroy life itself. What is capital? Capital is any resource that has to be reserved in advance, so that production may take place that will only bear fruits later. It includes any tools and machinery, but also the resources needed to sustain the lives of the workers until production is successful. If capital is to be understood in a broader sense, as any material thing that one may possess, that will enable future production, then first capitalist was the first animal to keep food for next year, or even for next day. If we are to understand capital as productive material machinery, then the first capitalist man was the first tool owner, the first person to foresee the future utility of a tool and keep that solid stick or hard stone for a future use. The first capitalist was the first human. Human action is projection into the future. A capitalist is someone who looks into the future. A capitalist makes profit only in as much as he sees further than other people in the direction he's looking. Every consumer who buys goods ahead of consumption time is a capitalist. Every worker who has a savings plan, an insurance, a retirement plan, is a capitalist. Every student who studies now for his future career, every lover who courts a mate now for his future family, every parent who raises children for the future of his kin, is a capitalist.

The Ingredients of a Shirt

Throughout class discussion we have began to reference the idea that something as simple as the shirt we wear on our back has come from places more than just “polo” or some brand name store. For instance, a collared shirt that we may wear on a day to day basis started out with the simple ingredients that make the shirt. If your shirt is 100% cotton, then the shirt traces all the way back to the people that grew the cotton that in turn was sold to a manufacturer to make the shirt. I think that understanding how deeply rooted the process of making something as simple as a shirt allows people to realize that they may in fact be supporting some action that they would not feel comfortable being associated with. For instance, some shirts have come from manufacturers in China where child labor is a common thing due to the cheap wage rates. In my opinion, it is tough for one American to help prevent child labor in foreign countries but if America as a country did not support the importing of Chinese goods, we may be able to have some impact on this issue. Realistically, it would be tough for individual Americans to turn down the cheap prices of clothes and items produced in these countries simply because most people want to get the best deal possible in terms of money spent. On the whole, people need to realize that simple actions they make throughout their daily lives such as buying clothes from another country may have dramatic drawbacks that may outweigh the cheap prices they are paying.

The Omnivore's Dilemma

After reading the first part of Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma, it has awoken me to the idea of how connected everything in this world really is. With the current situation of global warming and the environment issues, it is becoming more relevant of how intertwined our daily activates are with the evolving world around us. Pollan goes through his book describing how corn essentially drives the demand for all other products around the world. This concept is important to understand because while it may seem that something such as oil is in everything we use and buy, but corn is really a predecessor ingredient to these items. The idea of things being connected is relevant in today’s society due to the fact that as a society we need to move away from fossil fuels and find an alternative source of fuel. The reason for this is because our world’s high dependence on fossil fuels in the past has finally caught up with us and our world is paying the price with global warming. As Pollan suggests in his reading, as a society we need to be more conscious of the high usage of the resources that ultimately consume our everyday lives. It is possible that if our ancestors had been more conservative with their use of fossil fuels that this global warming issue would have been delayed for many years down the road. In all, it comes down to the historic fable of the tragedy of the commons. As people in this world we need to look out for the best for society and future generations and not assume others will handle the problems that will arise due to our current everyday actions.

Re: Libertarianism

In the article that is written by Hospers, Hospers defends two ideas central to libertarianisms:(1) Individuals own their own lives. They, therefore have the right to act as they choose unless their actions interfere with the liberty of others to act as they choose. (2) The only appropriate function of goverment is to protect human rights, understood as negative rights. Liberty is a paradigm of harmonic creation, not of destructive conflict. Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Those who believe in libertarianism are called libertarians. Yeah, it is true that no one is anyone else's master, and no one is anyone else's slave. . And it is liberty, not slavery that must be universal; because slavery cannot be universal — there will always be a master; and because liberty is life itself, and lack of liberty is death. Libertarians strive for the best of all worlds - a free, peaceful, abundant world where each individual has the maximum opportunity to pursue his or her dreams and to realize his full potential. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life - as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. Another way of saying this is that libertarians believe you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others. Libertarians believe that this combination of personal and economic liberty produces abundance, peace, harmony, creativity, order, and safety. Indeed, that is one of the central lessons of world history. Virtually all the progress the human race has enjoyed during the past few centuries is due to the increasing acceptance of these principles. But we are still far from a truly libertarian world. Libertarians believe we would see far more progress, abundance and happiness if the ideas of liberty were fully accepted and allowed to work their miracles. Our goal as libertarians is to bring liberty to the world, so that these wonderful and proven ideas can be put into action. This will make our world a far better place for all people.

Response to "Parenti 'Democracy for the Few' and Marx"

While I find Marx and Dave's arguments against capitalism compelling, I cannot agree with them. Even today, amid the quagmire that is the American economy, I still maintain that capitalism is the economic system that best aligns itself with liberty. With freedom comes responsibility. Though, I concede that the government should assist those in need, I believe this assistance should be strictly temporary.

Dave and Marx look and capitalism and see its shortcomings. They see the wealth disparities. I look at capitalism and see its genius. Capitalistic "greed" is positive as far as I'm concerned. Coveting your neighbors car leads to working harder and earning more money so you too can have a car worthy of covet. As a result, you get more money, a nicer car, and the car company makes money, which they spend on something else, which generates more money for someone else, and so on and so forth. Capitalism prevents contented comfort. There is always something bigger and better to pine after and work for.

Response to Re: Imperialism 101

In response to Alali’s post I too think that Parenti is on target when he exposes the realities of capitalism. Parenti is not torching America for its support of capitalism; he is trying to inform the general public of the inherent problems with capitalism. If anything he is trying to improve America through his critique. Studying economics has made me relatively aware of capitalism’s flaws and that rarely are there Pareto optimal situations (Pareto optimality refers to when no one is worse off and at least one person is better off). There are always losers to make winners in capitalism and I think that the Parenti passage brings this to our attention. Parenti is not attacking the United States, he is simply proving the age-old expression that you can’t have your cake and eat it too. As for the last two lines of Alali’s post, I feel like globalization and the growing interdependence of nations around the world is taking the blinders off the general public. Eventually no one will be too far away to forget about in this ever-shrinking world.

Parenti "Democarcy for the Few" and Marx

Since listening to the Wheen tape I have found Karl Marx’s analogy of capitalism and vampires very interesting. The imagery of a vampire’s thirst for blood encapsulates the exact relationship of the small percentage of extremely wealthy people (past labor) feeding off of the efforts of their employees (present labor). Parenti even makes mention of this relationship in the passage from “Democracy for the Few” that we read, but instead of vampires he chooses to describe the low level workers as slaves or serfs. Parenti states “Workers endure an exploitation of the labor as certainly as do slaves and serfs. The slave obviously toils for the enrichment of the master and receives only bare subsistence in return.” Personally, I like Marx’s ideas on the topic. I mean who hasn’t seen the scenario of the lowly employee slaving away in his 3 foot by 3 foot cubicle while his boss is smoking a big fat stogy, eating a huge steak, and all the while counting wads of money?
I believe this analogy that Marx has laid at our feet can be taken a step further. We all see the employee having his lifeblood sucked out of him, but what happens when his soul is drained leaving nothing but his proverbial shell? I’d like to equate this to the old pink slip, UNemployment. What happens to this capitalistic waste, this byproduct of cutbacks approved to trim the fat and make the company more agile in this ever-evolving corporate market? I propose that the unemployed become undead as well, not in the sense of vampires but more like zombies. These newly dead victims of capitalist society need something not just to get them by, but also to help them rebound. And what is going to help them? Why the tax dollars of their old co-workers in the form of welfare and food stamps. Aided by the government, the unemployed rip off the body parts of the employed that they need. Once the necessary body parts are acquired, which never happens, the unemployed rejoin the workforce (the reason why they are zombies and not vampires). So now the employed workers of the capitalist system find themselves smack in the middle of the horror movie of the century being attacked from both ends of the corporate ladder; all the while trying to amass enough funds to someday retire.

Re: Imperialism 101

Reading Parenti’s Imperialism 101 awoke a dormant resentment for capitalism within me. Don’t get me wrong, I love money and profits as much as the next person, but I find the degree to which we are removed from the realities of capitalism appalling. Though others may contend that Parenti is an anti-patriotic, flaming liberal, I cannot in good conscience dismiss him as such.
In fact, I think I can go as far as saying Parenti hits the nail right on the head. Reading his analysis of the manner in which historians portray capitalism’s leeching practices embarrassed me. I realized that I failed to think for myself, and rather allowed myself to be indoctrinated by European capitalism. I never questioned the underlying assumption that capitalism improves the standard of living in Third World countries. Though I have long found the belief that Western culture is somehow superior to the cultures of Asian, African, and South American suspect, I have never scrutinized the integrity of the economic endeavors of capitalist nations.
Parenti’s illustration of India pre- and post-imperialism completely debunks the myth that capitalism improves conditions for all. But more than that, it exposes capitalism as the take-no-prisoners juggernaut it is. Capitalism is not at all concerned with the interests of the perceived banana republics in its path.
I would love to say that Imperialism 101 has made an activist out of me. However, despite my new enlightenment regarding the sins of capitalism, I will almost definitely continue to patronize products that are the fruits of capitalism’s exploitation of Third World countries. As much as I sympathize with the victims of capitalism, I have to say that the mastermind behind capitalism created a watertight system. The clincher for the capitalist-imperialist system is that we are far away enough from our victims that we can pretend they do not exist. In this case, out of sight truly is out of mind.