Blog Post #9 (Due Sunday 29 April 11:59 PM): 'Do you see why I am worried?'

'Clearer?  Did Robin say this article ("Has critique run out of steam?") was Latour being CLEARER?  Get real.  What about Heidegger, Serres, Wittgenstein, Whitehead and all those other dudes I've never read?...'

Be cool, as Jules tells us in Pulp fiction; nobody will get hurt.  You don't need to know Heidegger (but if you do, you can use him.)  The argument is clear without the references.

Ethics.  Protection.  Care.  

Remember this, from our syllabus?


We all know that the carbon-cycle geophysicists at East Anglia University suppressed the data questioning global warming. Well, no they didn't really—but because of the stories circulating in

popular media, a lot of people are sure they did. Questions of how findings are presented, written, circulated and used, are matters of ethics. So are the issues of who pays for scientific work and who profits from it. So are issues of what gets built and used. No science or technology (or any human activity) is 'innocent.'

Well, nothing IS innocent, but that doesn't mean that all beliefs and all actions that follow from them are equivalent.  Not at all.  Nor does it follow that we can't really know or decide.

So near the end of our work, it's good to return to the Big Question of why any of this matters--through the lens of Latour's article.  

Basically, Latour (and Ben and Robin) are worried about how critical work might create a sort of cynical hipsterism in which we decide that it doesn't matter if you 'believe in reality,' because there's no solid reality to believe in.  'Whatever....'  We're also worried that smart political manipulators (like Frank Luntz, the primary architect of the New Right strategy—more central than Grover Norquist, sneakier than Carl Rove) can USE 'critique' to undercut all rational, scientific issues they don't like.  (Note how he does it in The Wall Street journal, p. 226.)

--> Explain it to Mom (or somebody like her who matters to you).  (1) Find a small section of Latour's article—a sentence, a paragraph, a recurring idea, but something that's coherent and tight enough that you can work with it.  (2) Translate it into English.  This is the 'Mom' part. You aren't really writing to Mom, because it's a blog post for all to see, but think about what some specific, normal, ordinary, smart-but-not-science-studies-oriented person would need to get this concept in consciousness / culture / science / philosophy (if your Mom is a philosopher, think of somebody else), and explain it.  Work like Bruno—using Coke cans, gegenstand, C-Span, George W, Heidegger, Twin Towers Truthers—whatever you need to make it make sense. (3) Apply it to a real problem.  Welcome to use our work or yours.  A Poster Project point.  Any of our readings or cases.  Anything you just found (Elissa just sent me an article about a class action lawsuit against Nutella.  Apparently it's not health food, and apparently you can sue if you believed the ads and fattened your kids up on hazelnut chocolate.  'Who knew?'  Precisely the point: what do we know and how?....).  

In sum: extend and clarify the position Latour offers on 'critique' and its problems.  'Do you see why I'm worried?'

Trans Interviews!

Hey All :)
So here are the interviews that we (the Ghosts) did for our poster project...enjoy!

1. Do you consider yourself transgender, transsexual, both, or neither? What does this mean to you?

I consider myself a trans man, but honestly sometimes I forget that I am trans because I feel like I was born a male just a little different from cisgendered males…Until it comes to certain more personal things then I am kind of forced to remember that I am a little different.

 I guess, neither. I consider myself male. I've met many people that enjoy having a stereotype or label but I don't. I'm just me. I'm male. I rarely think about my past or growing up as female.

I consider myself genderqueer.  For me, this identity resides under the "trans" umbrella.  There are many ways of being trans and queer.  Some come with surgical and hormonal body changes, others are signified by fashion and visual presentation choices.  I believe that both gender identity and sex are multiple.  If no two individuals have the same DNA or life experience, the binary is shown to be a social construction.

2. When did you start to identify with the gender you currently identify with?

2007 Fulltime.

I started taking T on December 29th 2007. People would ask me when I wanted them to start referring to me as male...I just told them when I tell you. When my voice starts to change...physical changes start to happen. I didn't want to confuse people if I still looked like a girl, sounded like a girl if my friends started referring to me as a he. I was more worried about other people and their comfort level than my own. After 7-9 months of being on T, a situation happened at work...my friends came in to work to visit me...they had already started to refer me as he...however my co workers had not...we were having a conversation and before you knew it my friends were saying he and my co workers were saying she...I have never been more confused in my life. Lol, neither were they. No one knew who they were talking about and that's when I realized I needed everyone to start the change with me. That's the day I decided to move forward. I had a conversation with Management and they started saying he and it slowly trickled down to my coworkers and before you knew it, there were no "she's" to describe me, only "he's". Of course it took a few months and when they would accidently slip up I would just give them a look and they'd apologize...I wouldn't get mad. I felt bad for making them possibly feel bad or embarrassing them.

About twelve years ago, I began to perform in drag.  Being a drag queen, coupled with writing academically on gender studies, provided me with a constructive outlet from which to explore and define my identity.

3. Is having a sex change something that you want to have done/have done? Is it important to you?

I would like to have chest surgery as soon as possible but unfortunately sexual reassignment surgery is not covered by insurance and it is expensive. It is very important to me to have chest surgery in order for me to feel more comfortable in my body. I don’t know how I feel about having bottom surgery. For one it is very expensive and the results are horrible.

I mentioned above about T...I had a full hysterectomy in January of 2011. That was my first and only major surgery I have ever had. I want more surgeries in the future. I would at the very very least like the top surgery. Bottom surgeries...only if I have enough money and everything "works" normal. If it doesn't, then I'll just have to work with what I have...but DEFINITELY having top surgery in the future.

I have thought about surgery, but have not come to the decision that it is necessary for my emotional and intellectual survival.  I have made the decision that I do not want to take hormones.  If it ever became financially possible for me, I would probably elect to have surgery.  Whether one identifies as trans or not, a person always has parts of their body that they would like to alter.  My idea of an esthetically pleasing body (for myself) would include top surgery.  However, I was lucky to be born as I am and can get by with a more 'androgynous' body type.

4. How do you relate to the GLBT community? Are you part of any sort of groups or organizations?

I don’t feel like I relate to the GLBT community as much as I did when I identified as a lesbian. Mostly I think it is because a lot of people in the community don’t actually know what being trans is all about and honestly I receive more negativity from inside the GLBT community than I do outside of it. I perform as a drag king at the Townhouse in St. Paul. I also do traveling Gender Show and Tell shows at various colleges speaking about myself and how I came to be a performer.

I am not a part of any organization. I do go to Pride every year but that's really it.

I am the "Q" in the LGBTQ community.  There are still some people/groups in our communities that do not respect queer identified people.  They believe that there are only two types of people: gay or straight/ male or female.  When a person situates themselves outside of these boundaries, sometimes others feel threatened or confused.  

5. Have you experienced any sorts of discrimination in housing/employment/in general or do you feel pretty accepted in your community?

For the most part I feel pretty accepted in my community. There is a big trans population here in Minneapolis/St. Paul so I think that helps.

I feel accepted as much as I think I could be. Not everyone knows and I keep it that way. Especially at work and in my neighborhood. I'm not sure what they would do and I'm not about to find out. I suppose you could say I'm "stealth". I have just recently changed my name and sex on my driver’s license so that helps tremendously. Still waiting for my birth certificate so I can legally change it at work. Everyone who does know are very supportive and ask me questions if they have any...I have always welcomed any questions they might have, even if it could possibly be offensive or embarrassing. It's the only way they learn...it's preventing ignorance. I want questions asked.

Every day is a learning and teaching day.  I think that it is very important to fight for social justice and gender equality at every moment- even if it means explaining for the 100th time what being ' a genderqueer boi' means to me.  At times, in the past, I faced discrimination from individuals in the gay and lesbian community- and on a rare occasion from other 'trans' identifies people.  (Mostly the assimilationists.)

6. Do you feel accepted/supported by your friends and family in regards to your current lifestyle?

I feel accepted and supported by my friends. My family is a different story but perhaps one day they will come around.

Friends, yes. Family, kinda, they support me but still have trouble with the pronouns. I don't push the subject. I don't get mad. Cripes, I don't even look at them or react to the "she" when it comes to my family. Why? I guess I just think they've known me for my whole life and 27 of those years I was a girl...I cut them slack. They do know how important it is to me so they do try. They try so hard. The majority of the time they just say my name and not a pronoun. Hey, whatever works!
On a side note, it's not a lifestyle. It's not really even a choice. This would have been the last thing I would have ever chose for myself or my worst enemy...it sucks to be this way. I would give anything to be "normal". Sometimes I do feel like a freak, that there's something wrong with me, I think why would anyone ever love me or be with me? I'm not what I see in the mirror, I'm not what I feel on the inside...how can you explain such things? Why would anyone ever choose to be this way? Whenever a conversation would arise on this topic of lifestyle and choice of being gay, lesbian, bi or trans I always ask them...what's your favorite color, least favorite? What foods do you love/hate? Why do you feel that way? What makes you straight? They answer, then I ask them WHY do YOU FEEL that WAY??? They get confused. What makes you love the color blue and hate orange??? Idk, they say. I tell them that's exactly how I feel...that's how boys feel who like boys...they just feel that way. There's no explanation. It makes you who you are supposed to be. I believe and so does my mom, that you're born this way. Just like anything else...some love spinach, others hate it. Some like rap music, some hate it....just like everything.

YES.  I am lucky to have found a very supportive group colleagues and friends.

7. Looking back at your past relationships, do you find yourself attracted to a particular gender over others? Have you ever been attracted to/dated others in the trans community?

Well before I started transitioning I identified as a lesbian so I only dated women. After I started transitioning I realized that I was queer and that I liked a person for a person not because of their gender. So yes I am attracted to and I have dated other people in the trans community.

I have always been attracted to girls...in school I made myself say I like a boy so no one think otherwise. Kids are cruel. I didn't need more things to be teased about. I have always been drawn to male bodies. Not that I wanted to be "with" them, but more I want to "be" them. I want to have their body. I have never dated or been attracted to anyone being trans. It's only been straight or bi women. I love girls. 

I find myself sexually attracted to liberal social ideologies (or rather, to those who possess these thoughts.)  I do not see the body- out of social context, so i have never just dated someone based on how they look or what their genitalia may or may not be.  :)

Trans Additions

Trans Poster Project Additions

Since not everyone was able to watch the news stories in class today here are the links, they address a lot of the issues and multifaceted subject.

Here is the link to the Good Morning America news story about Jenna the Miss Universe Canada.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/347175/abc-good-morning-america-transgender-miss-universe-back-in-competition

This is the "Pregnant Man" Thomas Beatie's most current interview from NBC news describing the family's normal life.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/pregnant-man-s-family-life-is-normal/6ofmgwz

GMO's, a reaction to new knowlege...

My previous opinion of GMO's was one formulated out of passivity from knowledge of other topics, mainly economics and agriculture. In fact I had never heard of the acronym GMO or had even given a second thought why some could have unforeseeable dangers. The new thought that was then implanted into my head was that dangers of consuming and even producing these GMO's could appear in the long run. These dangers are unpredictable at this point but they would most likely manifest in being harmful to our health or our was of living.

Considering this Poster in conjunction with my previous thoughts may not change my mind on GMO's as a concept but it introduces to me how they could be implemented. On one hand we have a great leap forward in using GMO's to solve one of the world's problems. Potrykus has developed rice that produces beta-carotene, which is a necessary nutrient to prevent blindness. On the other hand the question remains: do we really need the new GMO to solve this problem when this problem had not existed before the 'green revolution'? Shiva is making this claim. It turns out there are many pitfalls to this genetically modified rice. But to avoid using golden rice and still solve the problem would require yet another revolution back to traditional meals. This is the problem.

I agree with Triforce on this one to a point. India's problem of childhood blindness caused by a lack of beta-carotene in the diet can be best solved by reverting to the traditional diet. The real crime lies with the struggle for technological advancement. Scientists who are only trying to do good, like Potrykus, are being hindered by activists like Shiva here. While it is, arguably, best for the people of India to revert back to their old, traditional diet, it is significantly less feasible for them to do so.

What's in your serving size?

As a person who pays  thorough attention to everything on food labels, what caught my attention about the 7 Deadlies' poster presentation was when they talked about how much Golden Rice a person must eat in order to gain the benefits from the vitamin A within the rice. Therefore we must look at food labels, serving size and vitamins as inscriptions devices and circulating reference.

Why are these inscription devices? Because it is how we are taught to make sense of food around us. It is the way we are given information about food products in order to ensure that people know, or at least are given the ability to find out, what is in their food.

Ingo Potrykus makes the case that by developing Golden Rice, millions of people's lives will be saved from vitamin A deficiency. What he fails to recognize with his claim is the serving size. Probably the most important piece of the puzzle. I cannot deny that this man is trying to do good by people, however he is also trying to sell a product, and not only that but he is keeping important details out of his claim.

This is extremely bothersome for me because he knows that people will believe him because although the inscription device, serving size, is always available to the public,  it is very rarely used as a gauge of how much a person eats. Someone may eat or drink more or less of any given product without a glance at how much a healthy amount is or how many nutrients (vitamins, minerals, calories, fats, sugar, sodium, etc.) are in any given product. For example, most bottles of juice are served in a 15-16oz bottle when only 8 oz is a serving size. The food label only gives the amount per serving, meaning that it is double what the label says for an entire bottle. Yet most people will drink the entire bottle without realizing only half should have been consumed. Though we are focusing on Golden Rice not having enough nutrients in one serving as opposed to getting too many nutrients from another product, Potrykus makes his claim without needing to point out anything that has to do with the amount of vitamin A in just one serving size.

Yes, Golden Rice may contain more vitamin A than white rice, but as Emily stated in class, a person must eat five whole servings to get the same amount of vitamin A that is in 5 or 6 carrots. The ratio of food is completely unbalanced. Not only that, but it is also uncertain that the vitamin A will be absorbed from such a substance because human bodies do not simply absorb any vitamin that you take in (as dietary supplements often want you to think). Instead a person must consume other nutrients, in this case certain fats and proteins, in order to take in such vitamins. Disturbingly, many people with the vitamin A deficiency in India do not have access to such nutrients and are not being helped to the extent they need.

Ingo Patrykus is not the only person making claims like these, but food companies do this all the time. Like cookies that say they have added calcium, well a person probably shouldn't be getting calcium from cookies and even if there is added amounts, that doesn't mean it's going to be absorbed.

Back tracking just slightly, the names given to vitamins and minerals are inscriptions that are used for people to understand in order to make sense of food and nutrients they need in order to maintain a healthy and balanced diet. These inscriptions hold a lot of power because they are what we rely on to survive and so claims reference these inscriptions and so they get circulated and they hold meaning. The products are bought and consumed with the notion that they will get the nutrients that these products claim.

I would say that Ingo Patrkus' claims are dangerous to the public because it doesn't tell the whole story and it doesn't necessarily fix what is wrong in the first place. He is making people believe that it is as simple as changing the type of rice they eat. However there is Vandana Shiva's side that if the people of India had access to their old traditional diet, vitamin A deficiency amongst the population would not be a problem. She understands that it is not as simple as providing one type of rice that has a little more vitamin A than the type they already have. There needs to be a distinction between potential advantages of providing a product such as Golden Rice, and making it clear that it is not going to solve the entire problem. Rather that is will aid in the process of potentially getting more vitamin A within the diet.

I found the comparison of amount of rice to carrots to be very striking to me. Even on the best of days the proposed gmo solution would not be as good as simply having the farmers grow the crops they grew for generations. I write simply, but the issue is anything but simple. While it would not be particularly difficult for India to properly feed all of the people in the country through agriculture, it would be extremely difficult to overcome the influence of those few who would lose in such a situation. I have nothing against gmos , esspecialy after I had a perfect example of some of the delicious foods they are present in. But in this situation they are a less efficient bandaid to a much larger problem. I really do think that in the situation of malnutrition we have to take a step back and look at the underlying structures that contribute to if not cause the problems. In the situation we were presented it would seem that using golden rice would simply further the loss of traditional crops and just shift the malnutrition to the next vitamin that would be displaced by the mass production of select crops. I find it interesting how much the whole discussion of fixing malnutrition is framed in the language and techniques of globalization and how little mainstream solutions are offered that would break from this framework.

The other issue that came to mind in all three cases was money. I mentioned this in class but I just really want to write about it again. In all three cases there are strong financial interests that are at the heart of the problem. In all three cases the discussion the issues will eventually return to a rather calculated discussion of costs. How much would restoring more traditional crops to India cost the multinational agri companies there and the people in Europe and US facing higher costs? How much would increased regulations and pollution taxes slow economic growth? How much would American businesses lose if they were forced to disclose the presence of gmos to the mob? Some form of these question I can confidently say has been in play durring the larger discussions of these issues, and the mere fact that they are being so seriously considered in a dry mathematical, cartesian sense in my opinion gives the pro money side a huge advantage.

Some more good old GMO's

Of the three presentations presented, the one of GMO’s caught my attention the most (like many of my peers in the class it seems). Growing up in a family where science comes first and there is nothing more reassuring, exciting, and absolute than good old fact and advances in technology, this is a topic I have heard a lot about. The fact that so many of the things we use daily are genetically modified can be scary, but can be positive all the while. So much in life has been altered and advanced through technology to better the quality of life for so many people that I think people who are completely skeptical about GMO’s should keep an open mind to the different opportunities. My best friend from highschool’s father worked for a bio-agricultural engineering company working with corn and other crops (much like the people who helped to develop Monsanto, but not that exact brand) and through being around him and hearing about the work he is involved in, I can’t help but to see an ultimately positive direction that the world is headed in with the help of GMO’s.

One thing that I think is necessary for the growing GMO field is public awareness. This is needed through both the education on the consumer’s end and the labeling and promoting through the individual company’s end. Labels are needed in supermarkets and on the fields alike, and companies should make it easier for the consumer to look up with information they need to know via the internet or another available resource.

The topic of synthetic insulin, or human insulin, used for diabetics as an alternative to pork or beef insulin, is an example of a beneficial GMO to the human race. (http://www.livestrong.com/article/231364-the-pros-cons-of-the-use-of-gmo-insulin/) This is of great interest to me, and with out advances like this one, the low cost and faster growing rate would not be available to offer all that is possible to those affected by diabetes. The downside is, like in almost any medical procedure of course, a negative reaction to the synthetic material. The huge pros of this invention has far outweighed the risks though, and new finds like this one will continue to emerge as GMOs continue to be produced. 

Genetically Modified Humans?

I was particularly interested in the “Get to know GMOs” presentation. Knowledge is important, especially when it helps you make decisions that are part of everyday life.  Should I spend more for the non-GMO cookie at Trader Joes? Or just go with the Double Stuffed OREO (or even the new Triple stuffed variety)?  While no one will deny that it is a personal choice if the stigmatized GMOs are present in your diet, I agree with the 7 Deadlies that more balanced, and less consumer-oriented, information needs to be presented to the public.  When reading the Omnivore’s Dilemma, I was struck with how people shape their identities with what they consume.  Being a vegetarian, vegan or meat eater somehow completely defines your values.  So why not be defined by being more natural and GMO-free?

What worries me is that this stigma will continue unnecessarily, and eventually public opinion could change how genetic modification in science is conducted.  The more strong feelings there are against GMOs the more science is limited in solving the problems they set out to accomplish.  GMO technology is actually making some headway in treating genetic diseases in humans, called gene therapy.  In gene therapy, a gene is inserted into the genome of a human by using our current knowledge of viruses, essentially creating a Genetically Modified Human.  (The idea is kind of similar to an organ transplant; only you insert genes instead of an entire organ).  Sure there are many kinks that need to be dealt with in the meantime, but in the next decade or two, this could be a recommended procedure for those with genetic diseases such as DMD or PKU.  I think that there is a definite possibility that how GMOs are represented in the media, and therefore perceived by the public, could have an effect on how people view this future of treatment.  If people have such a strong reaction to the concept of a modified tomato being on their lunch sandwich, how do you think they will respond to the suggestion of changing their very cells? 

              As a scientist, I value the “keep the science separate to everything else” idea. However, I also know that without intervention, this won’t happen, which is why I really liked the poster presented by the 7 Deadlies. Whenever I hear about GMOs outside of the laboratory, it is almost always presented negatively.  I think that we should all hear the other side of GMOs, and if they still feel negatively, then it’s their choice.  I just think that this technology should be given a chance in the public especially in case of future medical implications, and not reduced to manipulate consumers with anti-GMO sentiments.  In the future, results of such consumer bias could have incredible health implications instead of just monetary ones.

All for GMO's when they save my sisters life

although this has already been expressed numerous times in other blog posts, I would first like to say that all the groups executed their poster presentations very well. I am intrigued to learn more about each of the three topics discussed. The poster projects from Thursday and the pictures recapping the topics really set the bar high for the upcoming groups (including mine, 4 wabbits). The poster and presentation that really caught my eye surrounded around the topic of Genetically modified organisms (GMO). I have never put much thought into this topic I just tend to think of anything genetically modified in a negative light. One specific portion of the presentation that intrigued me was  regarding “Pharm-Animals”, the usage of genetically modified animals mainly pigs to produce insulin for Diabetics. Pharm-Animals instantly got me thinking of my twenty-five year old sister who has battled Diabetes nearly her entire life (she was diagnosed at 4. Without a fully functioning pancreas she is unable to produce enough insulin for her body to control her blood sugar. Needless to say, Insulin has always been a huge part of my life as it has taken over full shelves in my  fridge, has been injected into my sister’s body on a regular basis and I have been taught how and where to inject it if necessary(Unfortunately I have had to). Never once have I taken time to research into where it can come from. When I think about GMO I instantly think only about genetically modified foods which still freaks me out because in reality we really still do not completely know what these “Franken foods” truly do to our bodies.  This poster presentation however got me thinking that not all aspects of the GMO technology can be categorized and painted with bad connotations. 

GMOs and Awareness

In the day of the poster presentations I really enjoyed the one say know to GMOs. The other two were really good too. Genetically engineered foods first entered the marketplace in 1994 in the form of a tomato known as the Flavr Savr. Since then, the prevalence of GMOs, short for Genetically Modified Organisms, has grown significantly. For instance, it has been estimated by the Grocery Manufacturers of America that 75% of all processed foods in the US contain a GM ingredient. People have different perceptions when it comes to GMOs. Biotechnologists advertise and support genetically modified crops because they believe that the plants have enhanced resistance to pests, disease, herbicides and drought, and thus GMOs could lessen world hunger by producing higher yields. While the benefits of GMOs sound great and helpful to the society, it is necessary to be weary of them as we do not have evidence that they are safe in the long haul for both human consumption and their effects on the environment.?

GM foods or GMOs are two terms used to refer to crop plants that are created for human or animal use that have had genes artificially inserted into their DNA. The latest molecular biology techniques are used to modify plants in the laboratory to enhance traits such as resistance to herbicides or to improve its nutritional content.  Genetic engineering can create plants with the desired trait very rapidly and with high accuracy. A gene responsible for a specific trait can be taken from one plant or even non-plant organisms such as bacteria and transferred into another plant to modify its nature. An example for that is transferring the Bacillus thuringiensis gene to corn to enhance the corns ability to produce its own pesticides against insects.

DNA recombinant technology is one of the techniques used in GMOs. The technique is adding the DNA of one organism to the genome of another. The gene added is called transgene and it gets inserted into a chromosome, and then passes to the progeny as a new component of the genome. There is a need to monitor and verify the presence and amount of GMOs in agricultural crops and in products derived thereof. In addition, it is important to know whether the GMO detected is authorized. Therefore, a reliable detection method is needed. DNA detection using PCR or protein detection by immunological assays like Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) are the most common methods used. Prerequisites for the development of immunological detection methods are the availability of high affinity antibodies directed against the protein to be detected and an active expression of the newly introduced gene in the tissue to be analyzed. It is important to know that genetic modifications do not always result in the production of a new protein and the protein expression levels are not always sufficient for detection purposes. In addition, the new protein may be produced only in certain parts of the organism or its level varies in different tissues or during different phases of the physiological development.  Currently, real-time PCR can be considered the most powerful tool for the detection and quantification of GMOs. The accuracy of the PCR method rely on the type of GMO, food matrix, and processing involved, and the analysis of samples containing low concentrations of GMOs may show a great error.

Currently, the majority of food we consume is genetically modified if it’s not labelled as organic. For example, potatoes produced by Monsanto, one of the big corporations, have their cells injected with anthrax type bacteria. This makes potatoes produce their own pesticide, resulting in the death of any insects that try to eat it. This is what we are consuming too, so how will it affect us in the long term?  Unfortunately, the answer to this question is still widely unknown.

Weighing the advantages and disadvantages of the biotechnology techniques to modify our food, we find that the harm outweighs the benefits. The damage that genetically modified food can cause does not just stop at the plant. The Monsanto brand of pesticide, Roundup, is one of the most toxic pesticide/herbicides on the market. Those plants that have been heavily sprayed with toxic chemicals can withstand anything. Therefore, weeds are now becoming immune and spread without control, which results in large areas of land becoming unusable. Additionally,  the chemical makes its way to the rivers and lakes through watering.

Since genetically modified foods contain proteins that were never introduced to the human body, food intolerance and allergies have increased significantly due to GMOs. This issue ( allergy) was a significant one took my attention since I came to United State, that a lot of people living on allergy medication. Some or let me say not usual number taking it on a daily basis. You gonna say how you know that? I will tell that I used to work in a gas station and some of my morning customer used to buy Claritin  and other allergy medications on a daily basis!!! So since the allergy in the world we living in got beyond the cross line that it is not seasonal any more, that implied it has a strong correlation to what we eat....to GMOs.

GMOs, Climate Change and Identity

What I found most interesting in doing this poster presentation and viewing the other poster presentations this past week was analyzing the idea of "identity" and it's place in all of these subjects.

My presentation focused on "climate change denial" and, as a "liberal" I think that climate change deniers are just stupid- or at least I did. Now I think they're just kind of willfully ignorant, but for an important purpose: by embracing a belief they associate themselves with a label which in turn gives them access to the community that label represents... and the security that then comes with that. That's why the "rhetoric" and "psychology" bit of my group's project was so interesting to me. Facts can say one thing... society and the people in it can say something entirely, radically different.

The other two presentations also dealt with identity to some extent: the "Just Say Know to GMOs" group without directly saying "this is about identity" presented facts (and cookies) that were meant to combat a growing group of people who are opposed to GMOs mainly because it's the "hip liberal" thing to do right now. Granted, there are many (many) reasons to avoid GMOs but one of them is not "because it's cool."

We all have seeing devices in which we view the world: companies that have a lot of money (the big conservative oil giants, Monsanto, tobacco companies) all put a lot of effort (see: $$$$$$$) into making sure that our seeing devices are really glasses that they control. On the other hand, there's a "hip" community that also tries to change the perspective of our seeing devices and although liberal organizations typically don't have as much money as their opposers (not saying they don't have a lot, just saying they don't have AS MUCH) they do have help from big players like Hollywood (every cool character ever is a liberal).
What I'm trying to say here is that we all have different views on the world and we're all subject to having those views swayed by people that have ulterior motives. We all have a human need to identify with groups, to associate ourselves with other human beings (or our existence is pretty pointless, hello nihilism). And this is how identity plays into almost anything we could imagine. I even find myself disagreeing with someone or something just because I think that the "group" that I "identify" with would probably also oppose said thing... even though I might not even know a lot about whatever I'm opposing. I'm not saying I walk around screaming about how unfair our capital bourgeois society is, but I'm saying that I catch myself, just like I'm sure a lot of other people do, denying or upholding something that I don't really know anything about- just so I can have an affirmed place in "my" "sub"-society.

I look forward to seeing the rest of the poster presentations and being able to poke around and see how "identity" influences the presentations, my (our) peers, and our society.

The rhetoric of climate change denial

The presentation on climate change was one that their rhetoric really struck me as a bit controversial. I would not call myself a "climate change denier", but there are just a lot more questions that I have to climate change that Green Peace and Heartland don't directly discuss. I feel like I am in the middle on this issue because I know both sides are right on some points and wrong on others, but regardless, they are both extreme. It is pretty evident that with this presentation, the group (NADS?) were against the denial of global climate change. One part that really stuck me was the part on the psychology behind climate change denial. They talk about how we "screen out" the information that we don't want to believe and how we want to talk about pleasant things. I don't know how much I fully believe this. I have heard more and more about our generation being more concerned about current issues, and wanting to talk about it and make a difference in the world. One example is HERE, I'll let you look around the website a bit, but one of their links I particularly liked was THIS ONE. I think that yes, there is a lot more information available, like the NADS talked about, but I don't think that it is leading to climate change denial and escape, I think it is leading to more conversation about the issue, whether for or against. I think that just because people are talking about how climate change doesn't exist, doesn't mean they are trying to deny the "facts". They are not just denying climate change because it is convenient, maybe they actually have valid points. That is what bothered me a bit with this section. Just because  they don't agree, doesn't mean they don't have any truth to what they may be saying.

Another point with the rhetoric that bothered me a bit was the section on "crazies" denying climate change. The last point on there talks about deciding who is right and not being to extreme about anything. I think this is a really big paradox because isn't the presentation a bit extreme? I mean, it is completely denying the other side of the story, and presenting it with a "climate change is happening" seeing device. Calling people that don't necessarily believe in climate change "crazy" to me is very extreme, and also very offensive to a lot of people. Also, the images with the scale totally tipped one way and talking about State of Fear as State of Whatever to me shows a bit of extreme views, and makes me question whether this group really looked at both sides before putting together the extreme views. I think it is a paradox because they talk about not being extreme on views, but the presentation itself was very extreme, and that left me a bit confused.

Now I don't want it to seem that I am all negative on this presentation. I think it does present the views very clearly, but some of the information I didn't exactly agree with. The rhetoric was very, very important, and also very well done, but I was held back by the extremity of it, and some ideas that I didn't particularly agree on.

Labels and Learning

The poster presentations went far beyond what I expected and turned out to be a great cap to the semesters work and stimulated a great discussion. I am really looking forward to more of the same this coming week. The three posters presented both had a large focus on the players behind the science, and who and what sides were being represented (as did the previous background reports). The supporters of science have often drawn controversy regarding their public relations. The recent debate regarding GMO labeling is an excellent example of the poor public relations biotech companies like Monsanto and Cargill exhibit. GMOs used in food production are controversial for reasons we all know. The prevalence of this science means that the public is going to be exposed to it. People have the right to know what they are consuming and putting in their bodies. The biotech companies possess a monopoly over the food industry and make the opaque qualities of their business practices acceptable.

Some of the fears associated with GMOs almost seem like a correlation between fears associated with the companies that produce this frankenfood. Biotech companies are often thought of as uncontrollable or mysterious. Not much is known about them, their business practices, or even the real ingredients in their food. Stigmas that the companies possess are projected onto the GMOs in their food. People become worried and apprehensive of these organisms. Companies like Monsanto who threaten to sue entire states like Vermont over mandating required labeling of GMO products is likely to scare people away from the idea of GMOs. In reality, people need to be educated and informed of the presence of GMOs in society. Being on the ground breaking edge of science, people will need to realize that GMOs still have a long way to come. Like with pesticides in the past, it is likely that GMOs will be shown to have some negative effects. This is yet another reason why GMO labeling is necessary. Personally, I believe that GMOs requiring labels is actually advantageous in the battle for GMO acceptance.

The recent trend of organic is familiar to most of us. Many people, however, do not know the actual definition of what organic actually is. Recently there has been more information and clarity on what organic consists of. The same process could be applied to GMFs. Educating people on GMOs is the first and most necessary step. 

Poster (Re)presentations

Descartes had an invisible hand of his own. I think it's always important to look what is left out/not discussed/addressed by an idea/ideology/world view etc. That's where the invisible currents lie that will sweep you off your feet.

The posters got me thinking about how GMO's are 'technologies of the body' because of their interaction and blending abilities in producing 'truth effects' on the level of bodies (Balsamo, Technologies of the Gendered Body). We don't know what the all the effects are but we know they are working on many different levels and change many things with the body. I am using an extension of the notion of the 'techno-bodies' (Balsamo) and Foucault's 'biopower' (History of Sexuality Vol. 1) to enter in conversation with Latour, Descartes and other stuff we've read over the semester. Latour calls these 'techno-bodies', hybrids (We Have Never Been Modern). He gets rid of the focus on the body and focuses how the material body is completely intwined with the collective of nonhuman objects such as technology and also intwined with the mind. GMO's are not only 'technologies of the body' but technologies of the collective mind, body, environment etc. Foucault's 'biopower' is all about how humans have taken biological features of a species (he's particularly talking about humans) and making it into an object of a political strategy to achieve some sort of power. Foucault gets us somewhere but Balsamo talks about how if you investigate the interactions between material bodies and new technologies, one will uncover the workings of ideologies-in-progress. We've talked about the ideologies working through GMO's. An interaction between bodies and technologies that is interesting is mass production-->industrialism-->capitalism and underlying all of those interactions is the Cartesian world view (we can take an object, standardize it, normalize it, ascribe a number to it, and mass produce it).

I did not know this before the poster presentations but you can actually test if some organism has been genetically modified because it will have a marker on it and that the gene that has been selected and literally spliced in the genome stays there. So in a funny (Cartesian?) sense when we eat golden rice we are eating dandelions. I loved the biology diagram on the Just Say Know To GMO poster where you can see in strict Cartesian, molecularization, fashion how GMO's are made. Biology diagrams are probably my favorite diagrams. They work on me like no other description. Everything just makes sense after seeing them (seeing the whole assembly line of manufacture).  So where am I going with this? I think everything makes a whole lot more sense when one can see how this Latourian notion of the entire collective of nonhuman agents orchestrates and has agency over our world. The nonhuman agents have voices, social histories, and are socialized. My apologies to the Lorax, or maybe a cheers? But the trees now have voices, and do not need you here. (I hope you read that like you were reading Dr. Seuss) Of course this is not true, we need our Lorax's and our ELF's (right...? maybe not) but recall how Pollan and Latour give voices to their respective nonhuman objects that they talk about.

Stuck in the middle

Our presentation on GMOs last Thursday went a lot better than I had expected. Through doing this project I have learned a ton about genetically modified organisms and the science, politics and rhetoric that surround it. Although to everyone who was viewing the presentations on Thursday I probably appear to be adamantly pro-GMO 100%, this is not quite the case. Despite the fallacies I find within the negative semantics regarding the phrase "Genetically Modified Organism," my beef with GMOs is not the science of them, but rather the pockets that fund them. Monsanto. Monsanto is an evil company, and as my dad would say "run by the greedy globalists who want to control our lives." They are a bunch of control freak pigs, who, if we as a society are not careful, could gain full control of our most important commodity. Food. The science of genetically modified organisms, the aspect of GMOs that I enjoy learning about, could not even be learned about in a lab without violating a multitude of their patents. Genetically modified organisms NEED to be labeled, not because I personally believe that, without a doubt, they are necessarily "bad' for you, however, having knowledge about what is in our food is essential. It is a seeing device into the workings of the company, they should be required to have full disclosure of what they put in their products.

A company like Monsanto, the giant, all controlling hand of the food industry, is reliant on one thing for its power. Consumers. Despite the massive and out of control degree of power that these companies appear to have, as consumers of their product, we have the power to pull the rug out from underneath them. While this sounds very idealist and somewhat revolutionary, it is completely true. Consumers determine the profits of a business, and by refusing to buy their products and spreading the word about the negative things they do as a company, a shift in their regard to human health and the environment would be essential. Currently, there are "Destroy Monsanto" movements in the works, and that movement would be infinitely more important and useful to society than all the "occupy" movements that still elicited huge turnouts of supporters. This shift in attitude of society is key to change the current paradigm that Monsanto has toward its consumers, that we are merely puppets here to consume their products and put money in their pockets.

You had me at GMO

The first day of poster projects were tough to watch because I realized “these are going to be tough to follow!” However, one group’s poster project really stood out to me and that was the project on GMO’s and knowing about them more.  More specifically, what stood out to me about this project was when they discussed “Pharm Animals” and the creation of insulin through GMO production within animals. This is where 90% of the world’s create insulin comes from and as Robin stated “the hands, feet, and lives of millions of diabetics depend on it”. This was incredible because, as a supporter of GMO, I failed to realize this impact and usage from GMOs.

GMOs seem to be firmly on one side of the created food production paradigm, and, unfairly, hunger and starvation appear on the other. (I am not sure if this is the actual paradigm or if this is the paradigm I have created in my head, through habitus, that secures my ideas of what I view as right). It seems that you are either supporter of GMOs, in all applications, or completely against them. Those who are against them view them as The Man, the source of all of the world’s woes and wrong doings. They have caused countries to lose culture, reduce access to traditional foods, weaker farmers around the globe, all while shoving unknowns into our bodies. However, GMOs have become a function of the times. The world’s growing population cannot be ignored when thinking about GMO and their products. They have provided a strong form of food production for many places throughout the world, provide environmental positives and pollution reduction, and help humans with many diseases, i.e. insulin.

It seems that it is GMO vs. non-GMO/Organic/Back-to-Nature/anti-science (I am not saying these are all true) but it seems that those occupy one paradigm vs. the other. However, these paradigms exist at the same time, albeit in different cultures and locations. The US appears to be the main support of the GMO paradigm with the EU and Europe firmly afraid and against. The poster project did a good job at introducing the concept of people’s fears of the unknown and thus the negative reactions associated with that. This, I feel, is incredibly true because it gets to the heart of people’s lack of science knowledge and the rhetoric surrounding issues like GMO. Most people cannot ignore GMOs because they have eaten them at least once in their life, whether they know it or not. 

Blog Post #8 (Due Sunday 22 April 11:59 PM): OK, now what?—responses to the Poster Projects

I could have kept talking about our posters and the ideas around them all afternoon on Thursday (but then, we all know what a nerd I am….).  Good ideas there, and every one of the three, use and extend the ideas we've been developing since January.  Let's carry it on.

Look back at your notes from the Poster Presentations (if you need a reminder, you can find the raw, candid, unedited pics I took on Moodle, right at the top 'Poster Pictures').  Select an image, piece of text, idea, event (cookie-eating, re-acquainted with Juice Boxes),  GMO-as-terrorist-threat, branding and so on. Then use a science-studies concept (like 'seeing devices, 'semantic contagion,'  identity-formations, images as self-objects,  paradigms (and their 'incommensurabilities'), public relations, and so on to extend and fine-tune the ideas in YOUR direction.  You can agree and go, 'yes, and….' You can echo Cedric Daniels (more politely) and say 'this  ….  is bull shit' (but you'll need to say how and why—in detail).  You aren't necessarily taking on the group or their ideas (you can), but finding a good concept to play with on your own.  Carry on the discussion—in as interestingly dense linkings as you can get.  Make something new out of what our colleagues gave us.

I'm currently focused on the 'public science' acted out on the cover of Time, in which our fear for the children (and the future) is placed in opposition to 'protestors' (note: not scientists, political theorists, agricultural activists or environmentalists) in yet another case of Ben's hated 'both sides of the issue' journalism.  A crisis.  A conflict.  Sides being taken.  Science Wars (Duh!).   Yikes!, there's a field day here—theory and material.

Go for it. Make sure that we all find ourselves clearer on our common topics and ideas, and seeing things in the Poster Projects that we may have missed, and looking forward to next week with new ideas and questions.

Greenpeace vs. Heartland

MEDIA PROPAGANDA

What is propaganda?

    Merriam-Webster defines propaganda as: “ideas, facts, or allegations, spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.” Also when given the powers of the media, and its ability to reach the masses. Put an entity in power and there is a very real probability that the facts the media are delivering to the masses will be skewed. A quote attributed to Winston Churchill represents this postulate well, “history is written by the victors.” The evidence of this can be seen for as long as time was recorded. With communication of any type there will be misrepresentations being spread all the time, intentional or not, it is simply a fact of being human.

    To the targeted public, effective propaganda tells you what you want to hear, shows you what you want to see, as a beginning. Following that can be any type of messages either. Take the Hardees’ commercial from the recent Superbowl game, a still of which is shown on the right. Hardees’ took a beautiful girl put her in the backseat, gave her a burger and told her to be sexy. Kate made her audience want to go out and get a burger. Here they showed us what we wanted to see, Kate Upton in all her sexy, burger eating glory, after that: go out and buy a burger. So a few questions for your reading pleasure. Do you think anything is wrong with this picture? No? Good, who wouldn’t want to watch Kate Upton pig out on a wet delicious burger? Ogaddam would agree with us, they would say humans are hardwired into liking this. Do you kinda want a burger right now? I do. Do you then think it is odd that you want that burger? Probably not. Why? This is what propaganda does, it excites you and the ideas it is inserting into your mind become common place.

    Propaganda doesn’t necessarily put the largest life-changing ideas into our heads, it can, but mostly propaganda manifests itself mostly in advertising and marketing. Hopefully in the future though, if it is not doomed to be repeated for generations, we can all learn to distinguish where the Kate Upton viewing pleasure ends and where the message to buy burgers begins. If this can happen propaganda will still be there but it won’t turn the masses into a hive-mind doing the bidding of whatever the overlord wants (ahem North Korea).

    The concept of North Korea brings another way to look at propaganda. We’ve introduced you to what its is like to be subjected to propaganda with our friend Kate, and the almost hive-mindedness that can ensue. But what happens to the observer to the implementation of propaganda? To answer this just think about the people of North Korea. How terrible are their living conditions? Are they living under an oppressive regime? And yet if you had an opportunity to ask a citizen of North Korea their opinion of the government, what would they say? Are they happy with their life? Judging by the recent death of Kim Jong Il and the people’s reactions in the country I would say that they loved their government. This is a government that was apart of President Bush’s Axis of Evil. Clearly the people must be brain-washed right? Well, yes up to a point. Government sponsored propaganda is behind this phenomenon. This evidence shows that propaganda is a powerful tool.

Propaganda throughout history

    Propaganda is about as old as media and the written language. According to Wikipedia, Brendan
D. Nagle’s The Ancient World: Readings in Social and Cultural History gives evidence that most historians view the Behistun Inscription, an inscription detailing the rise of Darius I dating back to before 500 b.c.e., as an early form of propaganda. Cracked.com asserts that the Great Pyramid of Giza was built by Pharaho Khufu to compensate for his own failures as a leader. Propaganda is media meant to influence people towards a cause of belief. It is also as old as media. It has been used for many social and political movements, including war.

    Military propaganda is probably the most famous and infamous. It is also most likely what people immediately associate with propaganda. World War II is probably the best example for most of effective propaganda. Nazi Germany used films to influence the values and opinions of its residents. Joseph Goebbels held the title of Minister of Propaganda. Leni Reifenstahl’s films during this era are well known, such as Triumph of the Will. However, propaganda was used on both sides.

The Eternal Jew is an interesting study in that it is a title for propaganda used to promote a good cause and an evil one. The image of the right is that of the 1940 German film (obviously the evil cause). The film depicted Jews as uncivilized and less than human. The same title was also the title of a 1934 British film meant to show the historical suffering of Jewish people.

                Of course, propaganda was used by both sides, the Axis and the Allies. As depicted in the book and film Flags of Our Fathers, the photo “Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima” was used by the United States to promote its war effort and to rally citizens to buy war bonds, even though it was actually the second flag raised.

Social movements today are also often propaganda. Public Service Announcements are an example of this. Another great and divisive example of this that has recently made headlines is the film Kony 2012 by Invisible Children. The film was made in order to promote the organization’s stop Kony movement. Considering the purpose of the film is to help Invisible Children’s movement and to, really, hurt Joseph Kony, the film is propaganda.

   

Propaganda in other countries (and how we view it)

    Without making any broad claims, propaganda in other countries is generally viewed more skeptically by American viewers. Notably, North Korea is able to rally support from its people because it restricts media coverage, particularly of anti-government ideas, such as a poor military  and previous food shortages. We often mock this because we think it is obviously misleading and ridiculous. The television show 30 Rock mocked the propaganda with Margaret Cho’s impersonation of Kim Jong-il. Perhaps because propaganda is often used to promote a feeling of superiority in its viewer, we are not as positively influenced by foreign propaganda and look at it objectively or even cynically.

Propaganda in the US (and how we view it)

    Propaganda is used to promote social change. Anti-smoking campaigns, such as the CDC, are propaganda meant to counteracts smoking advertisements, another form of propaganda. In truth, there is very little difference between advertising and propaganda. The purpose is to “sell” a concept to the audience. As alluded to earlier, we often like to believe as individuals that we are above being influenced by media messages or advertisements, but that is not very true. While the more educated members of our society may have a more dissecting eye, clearly propaganda is still effective. It is why bumper stickers exist. We want to repeat popular phrases like, “Support our troops,” to show our allegiances and recruit others to our side. We root for people in the Olympics simply for sharing a common country of origin. If we consider propaganda as messages with the purpose of trying to influence others to our ideas and beliefs based on rhetoric and what we consider truth, then our debates in class are meant to spread propaganda. We may call it discourse, but when we have an agenda to win and make our case, not willing to  relent to the other side, it is clearly propaganda. We are more willing to accept images and ideas meant to support our own beliefs or satisfy our egos than those unrelated or opposing us. It often doesn’t matter who is “right” or if the other side is valid. One needn’t look much farther than Fox News to see examples of this.

The military and the entertainment industry

With traditional venues for recruitment such as “Uncle Sam Wants You” posters and recruitment tables staffed by friendly military personnel, but failing to deliver, the military has been moving towards a campaign that is heavily integrated with the entertainment industry. Whenever there has been an unpopular war, recruitment numbers fall drastically. In an effort to turn that around the military initiates a campaign to recover those numbers, and the entertainment industry can be a very effective tool.

The military and music videos

Popular music videos, such as Katy Perry’s “Part of Me”, display pro-military propaganda.  This video glorifies military service by glamorizing war- showing only positive imagery of camaraderie, the accomplishment of physical strength training, and the sheer delight of dancing with the American flag in the backdrop (a reasonable activity of serving your country). There is no mention of death, destruction, pain, loneliness, degradation, or the development of mental disorders that are products of military service. The video plays off of ideas of ‘strength’ and ‘courage’ already associated with earlier pro-military campaigns, as well as positive associations of female empowerment.  Critics such as Naomi Wolf have asked the general public to boycott the pop singer.#

Other music videos, such as Rihana’s “Hard”, show false rewards associated with service. The video challenges ideas of manhood, “Go Hard or Go Home” and presents highly sexualized imagery as reward for military service. It portrays military life as a party, focusing on sex, fashion, alcohol, and games (and of course dancing). Its purpose is to persuade the audience to live the ‘good life’ of the military, no matter how unrealistic it may be.





The military and the movie industry

Military themes have been woven into film for nearly as long as we can remember.  However, a distinction should be drawn between films that contain militaristic themes and films that contain these themes in addition to receiving strong financial support.  The promise of financial support can strongly influence the direction taken in a film.  An early and rather noteworthy example of this is found in the film “Top Gun”.  As stated in a Washington Post article titled “25 Years Later, How ‘Top Gun’ Made America Love War” the film, which was made in collaboration with the Pentagon, was created in a post-Vietnam era in which many Americans expressed doubts about the military.  At this time, the military greatly wished to resuscitate its image.  Following this blockbuster hit, enlistment spikes and polls showed rising confidence.  It is reported that during the production of the movie the “Pentagon worked hand-in-hand with with the filmmakers, reportedly charging Paramount Pictures just $1.8 million for the use of its warplanes and aircraft carriers. [In exchange for this financial support] the filmmakers were required to submit their script to Pentagon brass for meticulous line edits aimed at casting the military in the most positive light.”#  While some may not find cause for concern in this sponsorship of film, others may argue that it leads to an entertainment culture in which the only films made are those that contain pro-military and pro-war messages.  

More recently, two films have taken this collaborative relationship with the military a step further and have received full sponsorship.#  “X Men: First Class”, which was touted at the time of its release as the “Army’s first sponsorship deal with a Hollywood film”#, was intertwined with a series of military recruitment advertisements that seemed to support a belief that “you too can be a superhero if you simply join the military!”.  Sure, it is unlikely that a viewer of these advertisements will wholeheartedly believe that s/he will acquire superhuman powers simply by joining the armed forces; however this repeated emphasis on the theme of invincibility fails to address the true dangers that soldiers face.  These advertisements and associated films paint military service as an adventure, a place of camaraderie, and as an arena in which to showcase what you are truly worth.  A second, more recent film titled “Act of Valor” has taken this full sponsorship even a step further.  The film, which many view as a “full-length piece of propaganda” was financed entirely by the military and starred real-life SEALs.  Even to the casual observer it is blatantly obvious that this film is intended to raise moral and general public sentiment as it related to the armed forces.  

The military and video games

The line between military and entertainment (a collaboration creatively termed militainment by some sources) is further blurred when one enters the realm of video games.  War-themed simulations have been used in military training for quite some time; however games have more recently been used in recruitment efforts.  In 2002, the military developed a game titled “America’s Army” that can be viewed as the “first well-known overt use of computer gaming for political aims”.#  According to one source, “Chris Chambers, the former deputy director of development for America's Army, admits it is a recruitment tool, and Chris Morris of CNN/Money states that "the Army readily admits [America's Army] is a propaganda device."The game, considered by the U.S. Army to be a "cost-effective recruitment tool," aims to become part of youth culture's "consideration set" as confirmed by Army Deputy Chief of Personnel Timothy Maude in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.”#  From the “America’s Army” site, players are able to directly link to the “Go Army” recruitment site.  

Concern has been expressed over this blending of war and entertainment.  In a video game context, if one fails a mission and dies s/he can simply reload and try again.  Sadly, in a real-life situation, death is not something that can be evaded with the simple press of a button.  What raises even greater concern is the fact that these games are targeted at a rather young and impressionable demographic.  In an article by LiveScience, executive producer of the game, Masha Berry, explains “We wanted kids to be able to start playing at 13...If they haven't thought about the Army by the time they get to 17, it's probably not something they'll do.”#

Why this matters

    Propaganda is often viewed as advertising and entertainment by much of the general public.  However, on some occasions, it can be a dangerous tool instituted by those with power. It is important for individuals to be aware of the ways in which they may be influenced by propaganda, especially considering how it has come to permeate music, movies, and video games.  Propaganda has persisted through time, present during every era, and today is no exception. Whether it be the campaign against the Jews during the second great war or the oppression of citizens in present day North Korea, propaganda can be used for nefarious purposes. In today’s entertainment industry propaganda, at the hands of those who possess money and power, is overriding creative freedom. Military propaganda is used in an attempt to create an image of adventure, group camaraderie and strength.  Military service is being portrayed as a way to escape from the troubles of a mundane life and live a life like those that are depicted in film, music, and video games.  Seldom is the dangerous and deadly side of service depicted.  Individuals have a right to know both the positive and negative aspects of any issue.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/katy-perrys-part-of-me-vide-boycott-marine-propaganda-naomi-wolf_n_1387684.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/25-years-later-remembering-how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings-about-war/2011/08/15/gIQAU6qJgJ_story.html
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/12791/forgetting_the_past_one_military_movie_at_a_time/
http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/pentagon_propaganda_xmen/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army#Controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Army#Controversy
http://www.livescience.com/10022-military-video-games.html