A Breath of Fresh Air for Chicago

As you may or may not know, Chicago has one of the highest asthma rates in the country. According to  the Respiratory Health Association of Metropolitan Chicago, "The asthma hospitalization rate in Chicago is nearly double the national". Two of the main contributors to this problem, as well as a a multitude of environmental problems, would be the Fisk coal plant, located in Chicago's Pilsen neighborhood, and the Crawford coal plant, located in Chicago's Little Village. According to this Chicago Tribune article, "The aging power plants that loom over Chicago's Little Village and Pilsen neighborhoods are by far the city's largest industrial sources of climate change pollution," as "no other polluter comes close to the 4.2 million metric tons of heat-trapping carbon dioxide churned into the atmosphere by the two coal plants in 2010."

http://sierraclub.typepad.com/scrapbook/2011/02/hundreds-turn-out-to-support-clean-power-in-chicago.html

http://www.flickr.com/photos/greenpeaceusa09/6941656169/

But there is good news! Last week, an agreement was signed by Midwest Generation, the Clean Power Coalition, and the City of Chicago, to shut down the Fisk coal plant in 2012, and the Crawford coal plant by 2014. This is a great achievement of the city of Chicago, and activists who have been working to shut down the plants that have polluted our city for more than 100 years. Greenpeace, an international non-governmental organization (INGO) that works to expose and improve environmental issues across the globe, has been a large part of the campaign to shut down the Fisk and Crawford plants. This article discusses the role Greenpeace has had throughout this process, and celebrates the success of the organization, and the City's efforts to finally shut the plants down. According to the article, "Pollution from Fisk and Crawford causes 42 premature deaths, 66 heart attacks and 720 asthma attacks each year." I found these numbers shocking, and as one community member effected by the pollution says in this video, "if somebody kills 40 people a year, you would automatically assume [he or she] would go to jail at least. But, the coal factories still haven't been held accountable. "


Now...time to look at the Greenpeace article critically. In American Studies, we are constantly developing our ability to read texts as constructions, and identify underlying messages media may present. One thing I found fascinating about the Greenpeace article was the series of quotes at the bottom from different individuals who have played a roll in the process of shutting down the plants. One quote that I found to be particularly interesting, was the last quote on the page:

"'Chicagoans can breathe easier thanks to Mayor Emanuel's leadership in closing these old, polluting coal plants, ' said Jack Darin, Director of the Sierra Club, Illinois Chapter.   'Mayor Emanuel knows that moving Chicago from coal to clean energy works for all of us, and we applaud him for his efforts to bring cleaner air to Pilsen, Little Village, and all of Chicago.'"

This quote is interesting because it presents Mayor Rahm Emanuel as the hero and leader of this success. However,  in the third paragraph, the article states that:

http://action.sierraclub.org/site/MessageViewer?
em_id=231986.0&dlv_id=200501

"For over ten years, thousands of Chicago residents have called on government officials and Midwest Generation to shut down the Fisk and Crawford plants. Community organizations in Pilsen and Little Village joined with environmental, health, faith, and labor groups to form the Clean Power Coalition, launching a groundbreaking grassroots campaign to make Chicago a coal-free city. In the last year, thirty-five aldermen and Mayor Rahm Emanuel took on the cause."

Rahm Emanuel has only been a part of this campaign for the past year, even though activists and community members have been fighting the coal plants for over ten years.



Do you think Rahm Emanuel is genuinely concerned with about the effects of the coal plants in Chicago, or was this just a way for him to improve his public image? What are your thoughts on the new agreement to shut down the coal plants? How are the coal plants and the agreement an example of the role government and business play in our communities?

Target Audience

I recently commented on Mr. O'Connor's post, "The Help?", and began to address issue surrounding the fact that African Americans, and minorities rarely win Oscars. However, another issue that I wanted to address (and I decided to do it on here, because my comment on the post is already way too long) is the role that women play in the Academy Awards. Mr. O'Connor quoted the LA Times in his post when stating that "77% of Academy members are male." Some people addressed this surprising statistic in their comments, and I want to add my two cents on how I feel about women's misrepresentation within the committee.

As I stated in my comment, "media and producers are always targeting a specific audience, and they want their material to appeal to the demographic who is most likely to buy. Judging from the statistics of previous Oscar winners, one would infer that the target demographic here would be white males." I accidentally said "previous Oscar winners" but I was referring the makeup of the academy. Anywho, the point is, that if the majority of the people "judging" (that could be a whole different blog post) movies are white males, one would assume that the film industry is directed toward and dominated by white males. After all, the academy is supposed to represent the entire industry. On their website the academy states that "they are the men and women who transport audiences to galaxies far away and to worlds long ago and who create the previously unimagined for the big screen. They are the entertainment industry's preeminent filmmakers. They are Academy members."

Are the only people capable of "transporting audiences into galaxies far away" white males? Or could this be a reasonable representation of the entire industry?

Maybe films are just intended for white males. If white males are the ones who go to the movies most, this could make sense, right? TV shows target a specific audience, which is why TV Tokenism exists--producers want their viewers to be able to relate to their show. However, according to this article on indiewire.com, "Women and men go to the movies in equal numbers. In 2010 women bought 50% of the tickets and men bought 50% of the tickets." So, if women are putting just as much money into this industry, and are just as large of an audience, why are they so underrepresented in the academy and why are so many films directed towards white males? The article even states that "This number is very important" because "Hollywood lives and breathes on the narrative that young men drive the box office."

I know I have been asking a lot of questions, and even rambling a bit, but I really do not understand why some parts of our society still follow norms that do not even apply today. If women are just as equal of an audience as men, then shouldn't there be an equal number of movies with female leads as movies with male leads? This also relates to what I was saying in my comment in Mr. Connor's post --we rarely read books in school written by people other than white males. When we read books written by people of different races, they seem to always follow that TV Tokenism idea that "minorities must face minority issues".

Books I have Read at New Trier

But we also rarely read books with a strong female protagonists! And females make up half of the school! The only book I read last year with a female being the main character was Pride and Prejudice, and quite frankly I hated it. I acknowledge the fact that it is very well written, and I appreciate Jane Austen's work, but I do not think Elizabeth is a great role model. Quite frankly, I think she is a brat who just complains, and doesn't even stick to her own beliefs that she does not need a man to make her happy.  What stereotypes are we continuing to drive by only reading literature in which minorities must overcome some struggle and women are portrayed as weak or unimportant? (Frederick Douglass' wife was hardly mentioned in his narrative, even though she was crucial to his success in escaping from slavery. Did Into the Wild even mention women or any kind of minority for more than a few pages? In The Crucible, Abigail and Mary were both untrustworthy, somewhat manipulative or scared characters; Elizabeth was a cold character; and the one strong female leader within the community--Rebecca Nurse--was killed.)

TV shows seem to have a target audience-- hence the Tokenism. The Academy Awards seem to have a target audience-- hence the lack of minorities winning awards. But does our very own school have a target audience?

I'm sorry this post appears to be somewhat of a rant, but I truly do not understand how we can make comments about the way our society runs,  and try to look critically at the biases of media and large corporations or organizations without ever addressing the biases within our own school? If you took the time to read this or my comment on the main blog, I would love to hear your opinions on this topic. Do you think our school has a "target audience"?

TV Tokenism

 What is TV Tokenism?

For the past few days in class, we have been learning about TV Tokenism, which is the idea and thesis that TV shows target a certain demographic (almost always white people) of viewers in order to make money. To appeal to this demographic, the main characters of the show generally have similar qualities to those being targeted as the main viewers. Since, this target audience is almost always white, appealing to minorities is practically an afterthought. TV show producers  attempt to compensate for the lack of characters coming from minority groups by simply adding a "token" minority character or two. In TV dramas, the "token" minority, often play a prestigious or companion-like role, but he or she does not have much screen time, and he or she generally does not have a very fleshed out subplot. The main character, however is almost always white, and is the center of the story-line, receiving the most screen time, and the most complex or conflicted subplot. 

Criminal Minds is an American-made TV drama that follows the investigations of an FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, and focuses primarily on the criminal. It airs on CBS on Wednesdays at 9:00 pm. The show is currently on its seventh season, and it follows a set "formula", like we talked about in class. In this "formula", almost every episode follows a basic plot, in which the team receives a case about a killer, then they investigate the killer, trying to determine why and how he/she does what he/she does, then the team finds the killer, or the killer gets away, and they go back home. A storyline revolving around some of the characters is intertwined throughout the episodes, but it is generally pretty easy to change and replace characters on the show. Repeats of the show are currently being aired on A&E Network and ION Television.

The above image supports the TV Tokenism thesis, because the white males are clearly the center of attention. The main character at the very front (Gideon), and the two main characters behind him (left-Hotch, right- Reid) are white. Throughout the show, the viewer learns the most information about the personal lives of these three white characters.

However, the personal life of the "token" minority, (in this case, Shemar Moore's character, Derek Morgan) receives very little attention. I have not seen every episode, but I know a lot about the personal lives and moral conflicts of the three main white male characters, as this information is essential to the story line of the show.  However, I know nothing about the personal life of Derek Morgan. So, I called one of my friends who has seen every episode, and she said that only one episode in the entire seven seasons has addressed Morgan's personal life and background. While the character apparently has a very intense history, the subplot surrounding him was never really extended beyond that single episode. The "token" minority is also very light skinned, and while he is not necessarily in a "prestigious" position, Morgan is the character who is known to be very tough, and can always get the job done.

One additional thing that struck me about this image is the fact that the female characters are so disregarded. The female characters are even further behind in the "lineup" than the "token" minority, and their faces can hardly be seen. I am not sure if a female character can be classified as a "token" minority, but the more that I think about it, the more I realize how much less screen time the females receive. At least in the first couple of seasons, there is not much of a subplot surrounding any of them, and Elle (the brown haired woman), even leaves the show halfway through the second season. Just as the "formula" we discussed would predict, she is easily replaced by a similar looking, also Spanish speaking, brunette.

1000 Corporate Logos, 10 Plant Species

http://blog.witness.org/2012/02/trust-arizona-asking-our-
leaders-to-lead-on-climate-justice/

Yesterday, I came across a video about an 11-year old Navajo girl named Jamie Lynn Butler. Jamie and her family live on a reservation in the desert in Northern Arizona. There, they have been faced with the challenge of getting water, because the resources on which they used to rely for water, are now all dried up due to global warming and climate change. Jamie has taken action to fight climate change, and has written President Obama multiple letters. She even received a response, urging her to continue to help other people, and the environment.

The part about the video that struck me most, however, was when Jamie said, "My favorite thing in life that all kids should have is a creek or a lake, and a forest, and lots of pets. That's what I hope every kid can have."

As this statement began to resonate in my mind, I tried to imagine an eleven year old in my area saying something like this. I think it is fair to say that an eleven year old with a mission to stop climate change, and an only wish for all kids to have water, trees, and pets is hard to come by on the North Shore.

After all, according environmental educator Bronwyn Mitchell, "The average child [in the U.S.] can identify a thousand corporate logos - and fewer than 10 trees." In class the last couple of days, we have been talking about how large corporations and media powers target specific groups of people, and instill certain messages into people's minds to get them to buy, use, or remember their products. It is amazing to look at the differences between what a girl like Jamie values, and what the average consumerist child values.

This abc article takes a look at a study by T. Bettina Cornwell and Anna R. McAlister. "The study, which involved 38 Australian preschool children ages 3 to nearly 5 years old, found that while the children were not yet able to read, they often knew exactly which logo corresponded with which brand." The fact that even very young kids are able to associate ideas with corporations and their logos, and make connections between the business and why one would use specific products, is astounding.

http://jnbake01.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/the-wonderful-world-of-disney-and-consumption

Some people think that children being this tuned in to media and consumption-based ways of thinking, as well as growing up with their lives oriented around electronics and indoor activities can attribute to a problem dubbed "nature deficit disorder". Some people believe that "the symptoms of NDD, which include attention problems, obesity, anxiety, and depression," are direct results from kids being unknowledgeable about the natural world, and spending less time outside. Others, however believe that kids growing up with technology today simply learn in different ways. Tony Streit, the director of the YouthLearn Initiative Education Development Center, says here, that "Effective technology learning experiences help young people to become smart, healthy consumers as well as innovative producers of media content."

So what do you think? Is technology and high exposure to media harming or helping our youth? Are serious problems in our society today linked to the lack of education and familiarity with nature?

Why I Hate Straws

http://barsupplies.com/fat-straws-bag-of-500-p-1554.html

I have always hated straws. Well...when I was young, I did enjoy the super long bendy straws at Ed Debevic's. But other than that, I've pretty much always been against them because I find them to be utterly wasteful, as they serve virtually no practical purpose and just end up in landfills.

Think about McDonald's for a moment. The McDonald's website says here that there are over 33,000 McDonald's restaurants worldwide. Now if each of these restaurants uses say...five straws an hour (which is a very conservative estimate), then 165,000 straws are used worldwide each hour in McDonald's restaurants alone. This yields 3,960,000 straws every day, which would amount to 1,445,400,000 straws in a single year!


I understand that some people are getting drinks for young kids to bring in the car, and some people may have recently had their wisdom teeth removed, and some people do not even have hands at all. If you are one of those people, by all means, use a straw. But, there are millions of fast food restaurants worldwide, and millions more restaurants and homes that regularly use straws for absolutely no reason.

Some people argue that glasses are not cleaned thoroughly, and a straw will help prevent getting germs. However, if the glass is dirty, the germs will be in the drink no matter what. Besides, nobody would ever use a straw to drink wine or alcohol. What makes those glasses any cleaner? This abc article even mentions a study that suggest computer keyboards can "ha[ve] levels of germs five times higher than [those] found on the toilet seat." So, if you are worried about getting diseased, you should not only use straws when from drinking from glasses in restaurants, but you should also probably wear gloves when typing on your computer, or touching money.



Not only are straws pointless, but they are incredibly harmful to our environment. According to this article, plastic makes up 20-25% of landfills, and takes thousands of years to decompose. Plastic is also oil based, and we all know that oil is a limited resource, and not something to be wasted.

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_58030.shtml

Once straws are disposed of, they will most likely end up in the ocean or in a landfill. While straws will never completely biodegrade, they can eventually decompose. This process, however, can be even more detrimental to the environment, and directly harm humans. This article talks about how plastics break down, and informs the reader that the only real way for this to happen is through a process called "photodegradation". The article states that "when UV rays strike plastic, they break the bonds holding the long molecular chain together. Over time, this can turn a big piece of plastic into lots of little pieces." However, these extremely little pieces of plastic "are toxic chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA) and PS oligomer." These chemicals are ingested by animals, some of which humans then eat. When water and animals are being poisoned, entire ecosystems can be disrupted, and this contaminated water can even end up on beaches, where humans are directly exposed to the toxins they have created.

So what can people to do help solve these problems? Start picking up their own drinks. If everyone stopped carelessly using straws, then huge amounts of plastic can be prevented from ending up in our oceans and in landfills.

Shirts v. iPads

In the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire on March 25, 1911, the upper floors of a factory that produced blouses caught on fire. Since the fire escapes and stairways were locked by the owners of the factory, the workers were unable to escape, and 146 women, ages 14-48, died in the fire. When reading about people knowingly jumping to their deaths, because they knew they were going to die anyway, I could not help but thinking about recent suicides of factory workers in a Foxconn factory in Chengdu, China.   Foxconn Technology   is one of Apple's main manufacturers. The factory in Chengdu is currently producing iPads. According to a New York Times article, "Over the [past] two years, at least 18 other Foxconn workers attempted suicide or fell from buildings in manners that suggested suicide attempts." These workers knew they were going to die, but they thought  their only choice is to be kill themselves or be slowly killed by the factories the corporations that control every aspect of their life. 

Yesterday in American Studies, we read and listened to the poem "Shirt" by Robert Pinsky. In this poem, the writer is thinking about where his shirt came from, and what manufacturing and laboring went into its production. Pinsky addresses the abuse and exploitation of the factory workers who produced his shirt. He compares the labor behind the production of his shirt to the cruel and devastating events of Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in March 1911. The part of the poem that struck me most was the part about people jumping out of the blazing building.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/triangle/trianglevictims2.html

The witness in a building across the street

Who watched how a young man helped a girl to step

Up to the windowsill, then held her out

Away from the masonry wall and let her drop.

And then another. As if he were helping them up

To enter a streetcar, and not eternity.

A third before he dropped her put her arms
Around his neck and kissed him. Then he held

Her into space, and dropped her. Almost at once

He stepped up to the sill himself, his jacket flared 

And fluttered from his shirt as he came down, 

Air fluttered up the legs of his gray trousers--

In the article, Lai Xiaodong, a former worker in the plant  remembers that, "Shifts  ran 24 hours a day, and the factory was always bright. At any moment, there were thousands of workers standing on assembly lines or sitting in backless chairs, crouching next to large machinery, or jogging between loading bays. Some workers’ legs swelled so much they waddled."

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-05-27/tech/29964714_1_foxconn-suicide-nets

These working conditions are as awful and unjust as the the conditions that workers in Triangle Shirtwaist Factory faced. So when will these horrors and inhumane labor practices stop? Is it possible to have fair labor laws enforced universally, or will giant corporations simply move production somewhere else if labor becomes less profitable?