Why did I notice this.. new sign or new knowledge?

Signs like this one have been popping up all over campus. This one was at the entrance of the Ivy Room in Willard Straight Hall. I also noticed one as you walk into Trillium. There was even a small one on an 8 1/2 X 10 posted on a bulletin board in RPCC. At first I thought it was cool that Cornell was switching '100% Natural Local Beef', also trying to figure out what that specifically meant for how the beef was raised. But then I started wondering if these signs are really all that new, or did I just start noticing them because of all the readings and discussions I've been a part of in DSOC 1200? Anyone know when Cornell made the switch?

America is Fat.. but the World is Hungry

The Scarcity Fallacy by Stephen Scanlan

Today, there are more hungry people in the world than ten years ago. The immediate thought would be that people are hungry because there isn't enough food to go around. This article argues that hunger is more a result of lack of accessibility rather than lack of availability. Organizations like the Food and Agriculture Organization and the U.S. Department of Agriculture have solutions aimed towards fixing scarcity. However, food production is at an all time high and globally there is a surplus of food. Famines and food shortages are on local scales.

Poverty is one of the larger factors leading to hunger, for obvious reasons. Other factors include demographics like gender and race. Ethnic discrimination in some countries leads pushes people towards lower income jobs and living in less productive regions. Gender restrictions keep women from being educated in many countries, and this prevents them from having an equal chance of earning enough to afford an adequate amount of food.

Hunger remains persistent in areas because some of the assistance has encountered obstacles. Emergency food delivery can be redirected by corrupt groups who bribe inspectors and officials to claim the food was properly delivered.

The best way to fight hunger is to treat it as a byproduct of underlying causes such as social inequality and organization faults. Only by working to resolve conflict from these other problems can hunger ever be reduced.

Hunger may be a byproduct of problems like inequality, organizational flaws, and social conflict, but it still seems like people will always be labeled as 'hungry'. Personally, I think hearing that someone is going hungry draws more sympathy than someone who is treated unjust socially or doesn't have an equal opportunity for education. Do you think people are given more aid for their hunger than other problems leading to hunger because it is more of a concern or because it is easier to do? When you hear that someone is hungry, its natural to think that they are in poverty. But when you hear someone is in poverty, do you naturally think that they are hungry?

Food Assistance

Ch. 2 and 3 of "Sweet Charity" by Janet Poppendieck

Women, minorities, children, and the elderly are the most likely demographics to use food programs because of their higher proportions among people in poverty. The current way of labeling people as poor or below the poverty line has become obsolete because of the many rising costs and a lower portion of total income being spent on food. People who food programs do so for many reasons. Many had recently become unemployed, were unemployed long term, or were currently working, but just couldn't earn enough to provide a nutritionally adequate diet. Food pantries were originally set up to help workers after factories closed. Food stamps were an attempt to close the gaps in income and food needs. Public assistance is another source of aid for those under the poverty level. All of these programs have their flaws. Many people convert their food stamps into money (by buying something with food stamps and returning it for cash). Many of the people in need of assistance are ineligible or don't receive it from food pantries or public assistance. Some of those that do receive the assistance get an inadequate amount. Food is an expense more easily modified than others and many people are more concerned with problems that they consider a higher priority. However, in the end, everyone needs food.

For most people, food has always been available, and they assume it always will be available. A lot of people are used to going straight to the kitchen for something to eat when they are hungry, or quickly stopping by a fast food restaurant or convenience store without giving it a second thought. Can you imagine being hungry and knowing that there is no food in the kitchen and you don't have the money to go buy any? I wrestled in high school, so there were periods of time where I would eat very little in order to make weight. Being hungry is extremely uncomfortable, but at least I always had the option of going to get something to eat if I really needed to. It doesn't matter how tough someone is, everyone needs food. What would you have for breakfast, lunch, and dinner on a budget of $1.19 for each meal?

3.14159265...

The McDonaldization of Society from VISIONS OF SOCIETY: The Bureaucratization of Society

Americans' desire for rationality has shaped modern day dining, entertainment, shopping, and other things into their current day forms. A society striving for rationality puts an emphasis on efficiency, predictability, calculability, substitution of nonhuman for human technology, and control over uncertainty. This article focuses on irrational consequences that result from striving for a rationalized world; in other words, the 'irrationality of rationality'.

Fast food restaurants, TV dinners, packaged tours, RV camp grounds, and assembly lines are unprecedentedly popular. They have allowed an optimization of eating, vacationing, and production, offering the convenience and consistency valued by so many Americans today. However, everything is becoming quantified and dehumanized in the process of rationalizing society. Students are rated by their GPA, rather than the quality of student they are. McDonalds advertises how many burgers they have sold instead of the quality of their burgers, and their signature burger is called the 'Big Mac' instead of the 'Good Mac'. Ritzer warns against the acceleration of disadvantageous byproducts of rationalization unless we start exercising greater control over the process.

Ritzer puts too much of an emphasis on the negative results of rationalization. I know that is the point he is trying to make, but he uses some examples that make it difficult to think about the negative affects because you can't help thinking about the advantages. He should make a point to agree that rationalization has its advantages and point out one that is well known or can be easily observed. That would make it seem like he's trying to raise awareness about the negative effects, where as he currently comes off as against rationalization all together.

??Questions??
Do the negative effects of irrationality outweigh the benefits to you personally? (would you be willing to sacrifice the drive through and get up to go into the restaurant every time?)

Do you like the GPA system and do you consider it an accurate way to compare yourself to other students, or is it just a number missing way to many factors that help determine the quality of a student?