Response To Class Video 11/9/11

The class video on "mobilizing to save civilization" provided shocking information, but it wasn't much information that I had not heard before. However, Lester Brown showed a different perspective than I had really received before. We all hear about how the icecaps are melting and how climate is going to change. I think deep down somewhere we all know that if we do not do something soon our Earth is not going to be able to sustain us. From how we use our resources to the effects consumer products have on the environment, we are not good to our one and only planet, but this is no new information. What I found so interesting about the video was how Lester Brown got specific with how the ice caps melting was going to effect absolutely everyone. I know when I saw the Day After Tomorrow I was relieved that at least half of the planet was not covered in ice after the big storm was over. However, Lester points out how the damage we are doing to our planet effects us all. I know I pointed out one day in a group discussion that the main problem we have is getting everyone in the right state of mind to save our planet. Lester mentioned the same idea. In order for the planet to be saved everyone must share the blame and everyone must work together for change to occur. Then, Lester talked about China and how it would be effected. I could not believe how the woman on "Dialogue," the English show he went on, was only worried about whether China or the U.S. should be held most responsible for where we are now. Does it really matter? Some people are more worried about politics than actually saving the planet and that is where the true problem really lies.

Lastly, I thought it was shocking how Lester said change for the worst could happen so soon and we must act now to truly have the chance of saving our planet. Not only do I now know how it would ever be possible to get everyone to work together to save the planet, but I really do not know how we can achieve this today! I pray things change soon and more videos like Lester's touch people and get them in a state of mind to save our planet.

Think Big for Revolution

After just reading the Preamble of the article I was all for it! I believe in what the Occupy Wall-Street protestors are for, if they have worked hard to get to where they are today. Yes some people in this country are lazy and do not want to work hard, but I do not believe that is the majority. I believe that people go to college, work hard, and still cannot find jobs. The American dream is getting harder and harder to achieve and something needs to be done.

As for progress, I believe that our country should be more focused on the well-being of all. Money seems to be the main focus, not the well-being of the citizens. Large corporations often treat their employees so unfairly. However, I do not believe everything can literally be equally shared. Their are classes in society and some people will always have better paying jobs. However, no one person deserves to have it all, or to take things from others.

Democracy is a big factor in making America great. I don't want someone telling me everything to do and I am proud to have a say. However, even if people were allowed to have a say in all levels of national life, there would be people that would not go out and have their say. Yes that would be the fault of them, but how does everything get run for everyone unless everyone cooperates? Plus, how do we keep track of how every corporation is affecting every single person?

If we regulate the economy based on how goods are actually produced, goods would probably be even harder for people to acquire. Yes, things are sold for too cheaply, but many people all ready have trouble making ends meet. How can we afford to make things more expensive?

Subsidiarity sounds good written down, but how do we make this come about, especially when we start talking global? It sounds to me like they want world peace. I do too, but it's not likely.

It amazes me that we are so hard on our environment when it is the only one we have! I do think we should cut back, but if "renewable resources are used at rates that allow natural replenishment and recovery" once again this means the globe would have to come together and at certain times people might have to deal without goods in the way they are used to receiving them.

As for equity, if we spread the wealth around we have to get certain people to agree to a little less, which is unlikely since many of those at the top have proven they will treat those on the bottom terribly. We must work together!

In a perfect world everyone would have a job they liked, but there are only so many jobs out there. It is hard to guarantee that everyone have a job when no one knows what natural disasters will occur, or what the population will be. Plus wages would have to be high to give everyone ample time to do other activities they need. This once again would take away from someone else, which could afford it, but probably wouldn't want to give it.

If people help govern corporations doesn't that ruin the point of being your own boss. How much can the people govern? Plus, will the people get greedy?

I do believe we could definitely spend our funds much wiser. I see nothing wrong with better advertising either, but does that mean that everything we consume must have a real meaning? What matters to me might not matter to someone else.

The money and finance section seems against the big company. How is it fair to shift finance from institutions that are large if they deserve it? Markets are competitive, and that is what they are for. I only think the big companies should be regulated based on fairness. If they treat their employees unfair, regulation should take place.

Overall, I agree with the article and the points it shows. However, like world peace, these things will have to be done in baby steps and might not need to encompass everything. The article gives the people power in nearly everything. If people without power gain that much power who is to say that won't end up creating a bigger problem?

Honors Prompt 6

Rachel Akin
Honors Prompt 6
There is a fine line on how much the government should be involved in our lives. Nobody wants someone telling them everything they need to, but we all need a little guidance because without laws things would run without any common order. With this being said, I believe it is good for the government to say that those with food stamps cannot spend them on fast food.
I realize that as an American we are entitled to freedom and one of those freedoms should be to choose whatever we want to eat. I also realize there is a law allowing people to use food stamps at fast food, but laws change. Those on food stamps should be those who really need help acquiring food. Fast food is unhealthy. If people on food stamps only live near fast food, then the government should help them find a way to get nearer to healthy foods. As Americans we expect our government to help us. The government is not helping anyone by saying food stamps can buy fast food.
Those on food stamps do not have money for high medical bills, but eating fast food could result in numerous medical bills. Being obese puts one at risk for high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, respiratory problems, and emotional distress. The big counterargument for allowing food stamps to buy fast food is that some people only live near fast food. Well, if all they eat is fast food, they will become unhealthy and they will have more medical bills. Even if they do not become obese and see the negative effects of obesity, fast food does not satisfy the body’s requirements to stay healthy and illnesses are bound to set in. It is not fair for the government to allow this to happen. I think the government should worry more about the health of its citizens than whether or not it is unfair to take away a person’s right to eat whatever they want. Sure fast food can be tasty sometimes, but it is not good to eat all the time, or even very often.

Honors Prompt 5
Rachel Akin

Meeting of The Minds

I. Jesus Christ
A. When walked the earth, endured harsh punishment, but worked for the best of all.
B. Never forgot the importance of compassion.
II. Nelson Mandela
A. Fought poverty and inequality.
B. Led negotiations resulting in a multiracial democracy.
III. Mahatma Ghandi
A. Led India to independence and inspired movements for freedom and civil rights
B. Believed in civil disobedience, which was a philosophy of nonviolence.
IV. Abraham Lincoln
A. Born in a small cabin, but eventually became the President of the U.S.
B. Responsible for freeing the slaves.
V. Mother Teresa
A. Known internationally for being a humanitarian
B. Also advocate for the rights of the poor and helpless.
C. Reached out to India and other countries with Missionaries of Charity, which she founded
VI. Helen Keller
A. Overcame being deaf and blind
B. Outspoken in her opposition of war
C. Campaigned for womens' suffrage, workers' rights, and more.
VII. Ellen Johnson Sirleaf
A. First and still only elected female head of state of Africa
B. Awarded Nobel Peace Prize along with 2 other women
C. Recognized for non-violent struggle for women's safety and rights.


For my "Super Dinner" I picked the above 7 people for their dedication to equal rights. Instead of picking an exact place and what to serve by myself, I would try to start off right with my guests and get their opinions first. I would ask what each one of them would prefer to eat and try to have a little bit of all of it at my dinner. In order for us all to work together we would need to experience each other's cultures. Lastly, I would have the dinner at the place most central to everyone. I would want to start things off as fair as possible for everyone because that is what compromises consist of. In order to work towards peace amongst different countries, much compromise would need to take place!

Honors Prompt Wal-Mart

Rachel Akin

Honors Prompt -Wal-Mart

Honestly, I go to Wal-Mart every week. I know it is such a bad place to go, but it is convenient and as of now it is the only place I can really afford. After watching the documentary on it, though, I wish I would have never started going there. The truths behind the convenient Wal-Mart shocked me. Wal-Mart is worse than I could have even imagined.

I definitely am on the director’s side when it comes to Wal-Mart. There is no way I would side with that corporation. I now cannot stand how normal and convenient it is to go there. I learned in Sociology recently that the manifest function of Wal-Mart is to be this convenient superstore, but this documentary shed light on the many latent functions Wal-Mart has.

Part of living in America is having the opportunity to be an entrepreneur. Anyone should be able to start from the bottom and then work their way to the top. With this being said, that means that there is much competition in America. It is so bothersome that we now have this superpower that runs people out of business who have been in business for years. Yes it is fine to have competition and yes people are always going to work at being the best, but at the same time monopolies are not allowed.

I agree with the documentary in that Wal-Mart needs to be regulated, especially when they have gotten to where they are with so many lies and with so little fairness. The worst part of Wal-Mart is that it is a corporation based on such terrible principles, yet its CEO can speak about it like it is such a great place. Wal-Mart is only interested in making money. I was appalled at how it treats its employees. Wal-Mart is such a wealthy company, yet they do not care to cheat others out of money and to continuously step on other people and businesses.

The truth about Wal-Mart is hidden behind so many lies, falsely cheery commercials, and people that only care about their money. I do not know how the CEO of Wal-Mart can sleep at night. Wal-Mart needs to be regulated and stopped. Their employees should not have to deal with the treatment they do. Americans needs to know what their convenient superstore really is. Just because it is convenient definitely does not mean it is right. As Americans we need to do our best to shop at places that do their best for the planet, and for their employees. Wal-Mart does not fit in this category.

Honors Prompt 4 Rachel Akin

Rachel Akin

Honors Prompt 4

After reading the article titled Easy on the Wallet or Easy on the Earth: A Case About Ethics in Sourcing, I do not believe that the student intern Carly LeBlanc should quit her internship and drop the class. Carly obviously has knowledge of how workers are treated unfairly in other countries. When thinking about buying cheap shirts from China she is bothered, especially since she saw for herself harsh working conditions in a Bulgarian clothing factory. She also has some desire to promote eco-friendly shirts. Since she already has this kind of knowledge should use this opportunity to reach out to others, to spread her knowledge, and to get others to see how important it is to notice where their clothes are coming from and what they are made of.

I believe that she should ask for an extension on her assignment. Yes, CEO’s are supposed to do what is best for their company and to quickly get products to consumers in order to make as much money as possible, but a small extension could allow Carly to do much research. This might enable her to find eco-friendly, fair trade shirts that are slightly cheaper. If she can order shirts that provide the best of both worlds than why should she not order them? When customers are notified that the company they are buying from tried to do the best thing for the environment, this makes more consumers interested in buying their product and gains the company respect. If the CEO wants what is best for the company, than he or she would grant Carly an extension.

I definitely think that Carly should order from a fair trade company. Fair trade companies provide their workers with proper working conditions. Since Carly has the knowledge she does she should get the company she is working for to promote purchasing fair trade, which will make the company look good. Consumers like buying from companies that promote good things.

Nowadays, more and more people are trying to go “green.” This is why it would be easy to assume the Chinese company does not treat its workers fairly. Most of the time when you can purchase something from a company at a price outrageously cheaper than another company, this means bad news for the workers, even though it is easier on the consumer to purchase the cheaper product. However, it is never good to assume and one should always research before just making assumptions. Still, Carly should purchase from a fair trade company just to be safe. Carly’s entire goal is to get the company started on the right foot, so what could be better than making the company provide good products that are also good for the environment?

Honors Prompt 2 Rachel Akin

Rachel Akin

Honors Prompt 2

At one point someone invented an idea involving the sustainability of our planet. Every time someone tries to implement a new invention for making our planet more sustainable, they are being innovative. I believe being inventive and being innovative go hand in hand. Without being inventive new ideas can never be formed and growth can never occur, but without being innovative the new inventions cannot be put into practice. With this being said I do not see how it is possible to put a greater value on invention or innovation. Invention is needed for innovation to occur, and innovation is needed to apply invention.

Especially considering sustainability, there are many inventive and innovative changes I could make in my life. Until looking more into sustainability, I did not realize how much I could do in my life to go “green.” I am a person that believes every little bit counts, so ideally I would make a full contribution by improving all areas of my life that need to be improved. I know personally I have been a big paper and water waster. I also have never recycled because my previous home never had recycling bins and I saw few around my previous school. The car I currently drive is also a gas guzzler and it would not only save me money, but would be better on the environment if I had a fuel efficient car.

I would definitely start by focusing on wasting less paper, water, and fuel and by being more conscientious of how much I recycle. Inventions have already been made in these areas, but I would come up with more to fit my lifestyle when any of my initial innovations did not work out. I have recently reduced the amount of waste I cause by using the same water bottle from day to day. This also helps me resist wasting water itself because I do not just throw water away at the end of the day and buy a new water bottle the next day. I would also like to have recycling bins at my house. I try to utilize them at USI any chance I get! In the past I wasted much water by letting the faucet just run. Now, I shower quickly, wash my face and brush my teeth quickly, do not let the water run too long while doing dishes, and try to minimize the loads of laundry I do. As for wasting less paper, I try to write as much on each piece of paper as I can and print as few papers as I can.

I know that I have already begun to focus on the areas previously discussed and there are constraints I have already encountered. For example, I waste a lot of fuel by driving the vehicle I do, but I live off campus and work across town, so I cannot walk. Plus, I cannot afford a new car. Fuel efficient cars help the environment, but they are not affordable for many people. Second, I try to recycle as much as I can, but those I live with do not have recycle bins and I would not know where to take the bins if I used them. I believe more information needs to be provided about recycling and it needs to be more widespread. The world has not embraced it yet. I see recycle bins more and more, but still not in nearly enough places. Even on campus I cannot always find a recycle bin when I need one. Third, many are not conscious of the amount of paper they use. For example, at USI I know the students print papers for school all the time when they all have a way to access computer and submit papers electronically. In anatomy we have presentations involving hundreds of slides. Most students I know print the slides. I, on the other hand, just take notes on the computer. However, I have to print many papers in other classes leaving me with no choice but to go against what I know would be better for the sustainability of the planet.

Honors 101 Prompt 1

Rachel Akin

Honors 101 Prompt 1

14 September 2011

Though I had heard about the heated debate surrounding Globalization, I had never thought much about it prior to reading the article “Globalization Debates.” I now realize that globalization is a lot like sustainability because both want to achieve great goals, but the problem lies in how to achieve these goals. With this being said, I do not believe that it is possible for globalization to be implemented presently.

The quote by Kofi Annan states that in order to properly have globalization the global market must have values and practices that “reflect global social needs.” Like sustainability, globalization can only occur if the entire planet agrees to make certain changes. I do not believe this is possible. In The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard tries to draw in the reader by discussing what some people on this earth do to each other to better themselves. We take land from each other, we harm each other’s natural resources, we seem to care more about monetary values than moral values, etc. Most importantly, we have wars over things like oil, and who gets to what resources first. With these things being said, how do we expect to get the entire globe to agree on certain “values and practices?”

In addition, it would only take one society to cause major problems that we do not currently have. Jared Diamond says, “Any society in turmoil today, no matter how remote…can cause trouble for prosperous societies on other continents…” Even if we could get a majority of the globe to decide on certain issues, it would be impossible for the whole world to agree on everything about everything! That does not even sound logical. I also have this problem with sustainability. Yes I think sustainability is important and obviously I want to save the planet, but the people on this planet are the ones who have to save it. People, corporations, countries, etc. will always have bad eggs in them that will place their personal benefit before the benefit of the globe as a whole.

The problem with both globalization and sustainability is not the ideas themselves; the problem is making these ideas become reality. Nothing could be better than having everyone unite to take care of our planet. In order to do this, though, our moral values must match. We need to save ourselves from ourselves. We are the problem.