1. a. What is the source of the story/information? That is, where you read about it: media source + date published + headline title
Center for American Progress February 8, 2010 “A New Sheriff Cleans Up Federal Lands”
b. Who is telling the story?
Tom Kenworthy who is a journalist for Center for American Progress
2. What appears to be the issue(s)?
The handling of oil and gas leases by head of the Department of Interior Ken Salazar.
3. What appears to be the cause(s) of the conflict?
Ken Salazar has been doing most things the opposite of the way that the previous administration did them and the oil and gas industry doesn’t like this.
4. a. Who all is involved in the conflict (stakeholders/parties)? Why are they involved? (this may touch on #4c)
Ken Salazar- He is the head of the Department of Interior and has the most control over federal land management decisions. He is involved because his staff and himself are the primary people that can make it legal to have a gas or oil operation in the United States.
Gas and Oil Industry:
They are involved because they are having to work a lot harder to get leases for oil and gas.
b.What does each “side” want? (how each side wants the conflict resolved--their position).
Ken Salazar: He wants his agencies to make the development of renewable energy a priority.
He wants to ensure that federal land management decisions respond effectively to climate change.
He wants to clean up the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service.
Gas and Oil Industry:
They want scientists with expertise in natural and oil development to dictate where energy development should occur which they say would result in more leases being approved.
c.What are each “side’s” underlying concerns or needs (their interests)--if it is not stated, then give your best guess.
Ken Salazar: To promote sustainable actions that will help combat climate change through his management of federal land.
Gas and Oil Industry:
Want to keep their livelihood provided by their employment in the gas and oil industry.
5. a. How is the conflict being handled? (e.g. litigation, parties talking to each other, a vote….)
Salazar is receiving many industry criticisms. But Salazar, to his credit, has not backed away under industry criticisms, calling them “poison and deceptive.” Oil and gas interests, he said, “do not own the nation’s public lands; taxpayers do.”
b. Where (at what stage) are they in that process?
Salazar is trying to do the three things described in fourb and other actions despite industry criticism.
6. Why did you pick this conflict to write about? (Why does this particular conflict interest you?).
I don’t know if I agree with his decisions about the salmon issues but I am very glad he
is instructing his agencies to make the development of renewable energy a priority and he wants to clean up the scandal-plagued Minerals Management Service. His other goals sound like good goals too.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Metal plating industry under fire for dumping PFCs in sewers
1. A) What is the source of the story/information? That is, where you read about it: media source + date published + headline title
Chicago Tribune Published: Monday, Feb. 1, 2010
“Metal plating industry under fire for dumping PFCs in sewers”
b)By Michael Hawthorne, a Journalist from the Chicago Tribune
2. What appears to be the issue(s)?
PFC contamination has been found in various areas. PFCs wash unfiltered through sewage treatment plants into lakes and streams. The chemicals don't break down in the environment, and traces are showing up in the blood of people and wildlife around the globe. They are so resilient that it takes years for the chemicals to be excreted from the human body.
3.What appears to be the cause(s) of the conflict?
Metal platers have been granted by President Bush to be allowed to continue using PFCs without regulations and the EPA wants them to have to follow regulations now.
4.
a. Who all is involved in the conflict (stakeholders/parties)? Why are they involved?
• EPA
They want to see where the PFCs are accumulating and then want alternatives (ex switching to a PFC-free solution that also prevents chromium from bubbling out of its plating vats) to be adopted immediately where the PFCs are accumulating.
They say the solutions are already here because at least one of the nation's largest metal platers already has switched to a solution that is significantly less toxic.
Career staff at the EPA are urging the Obama administration to crack down on the use of PFCs by the metal plating industry, which coats chrome automotive bumpers, wheels and other parts.
• metal plating industry
Industry representatives contend they need time to test PFC-free chemicals, though. They don’t want to have new regulation passed until they feel they have had a chance to make sure that the new alternatives won’t cause other problems.
b.What does each “side” want? (how each side wants the conflict resolved--their position).
• EPA
Want the Obama administration to crack down on the use of PFCs by the metal plating industry or give them permission to do it.
• metal plating industry
Want things to be done in a cost-effective manner instead of timed manner. They say they don’t want to introduce something new and then be liable for cleaning it up if it turns out to be too toxic.
c.What are each “side’s” underlying concerns or needs (their interests)--if it is not stated, then give your best guess.
• EPA
Protect the public health by making sure that PFCs and hexavalent chromium are taken out of the metal plating industry and substituted with other less toxic developed alternatives.
• metal plating industry
They want to stay unregulated so that they can have freedom of choice in the materials that are used to make the products of their company. They want to make the most profit possible in the way that they consider to be the safest. Unless they have already stopped using the chemicals, they don’t want to be forced to stop using the chemicals unless it is going to make the business more profitable.
6. Why did you pick this conflict to write about? (Why does this particular conflict interest you?).
I am interested in how much power the EPA really has and how they use their power.
Chicago Tribune Published: Monday, Feb. 1, 2010
“Metal plating industry under fire for dumping PFCs in sewers”
b)By Michael Hawthorne, a Journalist from the Chicago Tribune
2. What appears to be the issue(s)?
PFC contamination has been found in various areas. PFCs wash unfiltered through sewage treatment plants into lakes and streams. The chemicals don't break down in the environment, and traces are showing up in the blood of people and wildlife around the globe. They are so resilient that it takes years for the chemicals to be excreted from the human body.
3.What appears to be the cause(s) of the conflict?
Metal platers have been granted by President Bush to be allowed to continue using PFCs without regulations and the EPA wants them to have to follow regulations now.
4.
a. Who all is involved in the conflict (stakeholders/parties)? Why are they involved?
• EPA
They want to see where the PFCs are accumulating and then want alternatives (ex switching to a PFC-free solution that also prevents chromium from bubbling out of its plating vats) to be adopted immediately where the PFCs are accumulating.
They say the solutions are already here because at least one of the nation's largest metal platers already has switched to a solution that is significantly less toxic.
Career staff at the EPA are urging the Obama administration to crack down on the use of PFCs by the metal plating industry, which coats chrome automotive bumpers, wheels and other parts.
• metal plating industry
Industry representatives contend they need time to test PFC-free chemicals, though. They don’t want to have new regulation passed until they feel they have had a chance to make sure that the new alternatives won’t cause other problems.
b.What does each “side” want? (how each side wants the conflict resolved--their position).
• EPA
Want the Obama administration to crack down on the use of PFCs by the metal plating industry or give them permission to do it.
• metal plating industry
Want things to be done in a cost-effective manner instead of timed manner. They say they don’t want to introduce something new and then be liable for cleaning it up if it turns out to be too toxic.
c.What are each “side’s” underlying concerns or needs (their interests)--if it is not stated, then give your best guess.
• EPA
Protect the public health by making sure that PFCs and hexavalent chromium are taken out of the metal plating industry and substituted with other less toxic developed alternatives.
• metal plating industry
They want to stay unregulated so that they can have freedom of choice in the materials that are used to make the products of their company. They want to make the most profit possible in the way that they consider to be the safest. Unless they have already stopped using the chemicals, they don’t want to be forced to stop using the chemicals unless it is going to make the business more profitable.
6. Why did you pick this conflict to write about? (Why does this particular conflict interest you?).
I am interested in how much power the EPA really has and how they use their power.
Steady flow of conflicting views marks Delta debate in Davis
1. a. What is the source of the story/information? That is, where you read about it: media source + date published + headline title
“Steady flow of conflicting views marks Delta debate in Davis”
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010 from the Sacramento Bee
b. Who is telling the story?
(is it a journalist for that media source? Is it a public service announcement? Is it a story/propaganda from one of the stakeholders?)
By Matt Weiser journalist for the Sacramento Bee
2. What appears to be the issue(s)?
People disagree on much water can be diverted from the Delta and still maintain Delta smelt and two species of salmon in the Delta at a capacity so that they can reproduce at their natural rate.
3. What appears to be the cause(s) of the conflict?
Many people don’t like the current water rules and so a 15-member panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences must analyze federal rules protecting imperiled fish, including Delta smelt and two species of salmon. The environment of the public meetings is hostile because everyone has different interests and it is very hard or impossible to fully satisfy everyone’s interest in this problem; so the panel probably has to determine the interests that are the most important and start satisfying those first. Everyone is fighting to be the most important or to make the parties that are the most important right now less important.
4. a. Who all is involved in the conflict (stakeholders/parties)? Why are they involved? (this may touch on #4c)
• federal science panel
To determine whether the federal rules are adequate or inadequate
If they are inadequate how should they be changed?
Why are they involved? They have been appointed to do this
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California
They don't like current rules because they focus largely on reducing Delta water diversions.
Why are they involved? They people in their districts want the same amount of water or more water and if they don’t get it from the Delta they will have to figure out somewhere else to get it from that will probably be more costly.
• Other water agencies
They want less fall freshwater flows to the ocean.
This would increase Delta Water exports.
Why are they involved? They people in their districts want the same amount of water or more water and if they don’t get it from the Delta they will have to figure out somewhere else to get it from that will probably be more costly.
• fisheries biologist
Diversions should be avoided because they are the primary threat to the survival of the fish.
Water diversions can cause problems for water agencies that the water agencies classify as “stressors" , including invasive species and poor water quality.
Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct. They probably either like to fish, eat fish or do both too.
• other scientists
They support the view of the fisheries biologists
The decline in Delta fish began in about 2001. Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct. Scientists fear it marks a collapse of the whole ecosystem that may ultimately affect human health.
• Wildlife agencies
They ordered fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
This has the side effect of reducing Delta water exports.
Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct.
• Farmers
Why are they involved? If they don’t get water from the Delta they will probably have to get it in another way that will be more money or too expensive.
b.What does each “side” want? (how each side wants the conflict resolved--their position).
• federal science panel
Want to make their two reports
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California and other water agencies
They want rules to be changed to have less fall freshwater flows to the ocean.
This would increase Delta Water exports
• fisheries biologist
They want the federal science panel to realize that fish protections reduced water exports from the Delta about 10 percent last year, according to state and federal water officials. The drought caused cuts twice as large.
They don’t want the current laws about how much water the fish receive to be changed.
The amount of water we expect to export from the system has to be reduced.
• other scientists
They want to reduce the amount of water we export from the system.
They don’t want the current laws to be changed.
• Wildlife agencies
They want fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
• Farmers
They only want the water they don’t need for the crops to be used for creating the fish habitat.
c.What are each “side’s” underlying concerns or needs (their interests)--if it is not stated, then give your best guess.
• federal science panel
They want to do their job successfully and want to receive approval from the people that pay them.
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California and other water agencies
They want to get the amount of water that they need for their agencies in the cheapest way possible.
To receive approval from the people that use the water provided by their agency.
• fisheries biologist
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
• other scientists
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
• Wildlife agencies
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
They want fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
• Farmers
They want to be able to keep their livelihood and their profession as farmers while making a decent amount of money and not changing the way they farm or what they farm. They want to not have to stop farming because they don’t have enough water.
5. a. How is the conflict being handled? (e.g. litigation, parties talking to each other, a vote….)
b. Where (at what stage) are they in that process?
a) The panel will decide (after hearing the testimonies at the public meetings) what the new law should be in two reports – one in March and a second 18 months later .
b)The federal science panel has held their third day of public meetings.
6. Why did you pick this conflict to write about? (Why does this particular conflict interest you?).
I want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species. I wish people would focus on how to make alternative uses of water more conventional and how to make people pay more for having really inefficient uses of like having lawns in the front and back yards of people in places where they barely get any rain all year like some places in Southern CA.
“Steady flow of conflicting views marks Delta debate in Davis”
Published: Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2010 from the Sacramento Bee
b. Who is telling the story?
(is it a journalist for that media source? Is it a public service announcement? Is it a story/propaganda from one of the stakeholders?)
By Matt Weiser journalist for the Sacramento Bee
2. What appears to be the issue(s)?
People disagree on much water can be diverted from the Delta and still maintain Delta smelt and two species of salmon in the Delta at a capacity so that they can reproduce at their natural rate.
3. What appears to be the cause(s) of the conflict?
Many people don’t like the current water rules and so a 15-member panel appointed by the National Academy of Sciences must analyze federal rules protecting imperiled fish, including Delta smelt and two species of salmon. The environment of the public meetings is hostile because everyone has different interests and it is very hard or impossible to fully satisfy everyone’s interest in this problem; so the panel probably has to determine the interests that are the most important and start satisfying those first. Everyone is fighting to be the most important or to make the parties that are the most important right now less important.
4. a. Who all is involved in the conflict (stakeholders/parties)? Why are they involved? (this may touch on #4c)
• federal science panel
To determine whether the federal rules are adequate or inadequate
If they are inadequate how should they be changed?
Why are they involved? They have been appointed to do this
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California
They don't like current rules because they focus largely on reducing Delta water diversions.
Why are they involved? They people in their districts want the same amount of water or more water and if they don’t get it from the Delta they will have to figure out somewhere else to get it from that will probably be more costly.
• Other water agencies
They want less fall freshwater flows to the ocean.
This would increase Delta Water exports.
Why are they involved? They people in their districts want the same amount of water or more water and if they don’t get it from the Delta they will have to figure out somewhere else to get it from that will probably be more costly.
• fisheries biologist
Diversions should be avoided because they are the primary threat to the survival of the fish.
Water diversions can cause problems for water agencies that the water agencies classify as “stressors" , including invasive species and poor water quality.
Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct. They probably either like to fish, eat fish or do both too.
• other scientists
They support the view of the fisheries biologists
The decline in Delta fish began in about 2001. Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct. Scientists fear it marks a collapse of the whole ecosystem that may ultimately affect human health.
• Wildlife agencies
They ordered fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
This has the side effect of reducing Delta water exports.
Why are they involved? They don’t want the fish to become endangered or extinct.
• Farmers
Why are they involved? If they don’t get water from the Delta they will probably have to get it in another way that will be more money or too expensive.
b.What does each “side” want? (how each side wants the conflict resolved--their position).
• federal science panel
Want to make their two reports
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California and other water agencies
They want rules to be changed to have less fall freshwater flows to the ocean.
This would increase Delta Water exports
• fisheries biologist
They want the federal science panel to realize that fish protections reduced water exports from the Delta about 10 percent last year, according to state and federal water officials. The drought caused cuts twice as large.
They don’t want the current laws about how much water the fish receive to be changed.
The amount of water we expect to export from the system has to be reduced.
• other scientists
They want to reduce the amount of water we export from the system.
They don’t want the current laws to be changed.
• Wildlife agencies
They want fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
• Farmers
They only want the water they don’t need for the crops to be used for creating the fish habitat.
c.What are each “side’s” underlying concerns or needs (their interests)--if it is not stated, then give your best guess.
• federal science panel
They want to do their job successfully and want to receive approval from the people that pay them.
• Water agencies in the San Joaquin Valley and Southern California and other water agencies
They want to get the amount of water that they need for their agencies in the cheapest way possible.
To receive approval from the people that use the water provided by their agency.
• fisheries biologist
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
• other scientists
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
• Wildlife agencies
They want the fish to become and stay healthy.
They want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species.
They want fall outflows increased to improve fish habitat.
• Farmers
They want to be able to keep their livelihood and their profession as farmers while making a decent amount of money and not changing the way they farm or what they farm. They want to not have to stop farming because they don’t have enough water.
5. a. How is the conflict being handled? (e.g. litigation, parties talking to each other, a vote….)
b. Where (at what stage) are they in that process?
a) The panel will decide (after hearing the testimonies at the public meetings) what the new law should be in two reports – one in March and a second 18 months later .
b)The federal science panel has held their third day of public meetings.
6. Why did you pick this conflict to write about? (Why does this particular conflict interest you?).
I want to get all the species of fish as healthy as the political system will give them power to and preferably to reproduce at a level that will prevent them from being listed as a threatened or endangered species. I wish people would focus on how to make alternative uses of water more conventional and how to make people pay more for having really inefficient uses of like having lawns in the front and back yards of people in places where they barely get any rain all year like some places in Southern CA.
Active Listening Assignment
The first time I tried active listening it was difficult for me. I practiced active listening with my mom and dad over the phone. They were on speaker phone and I was on my cell phone. When I was talking with them, I had a hard time figuring out what was the appropriate number of questions to ask to empathize but not antagonize. Practicing active listening on my mom was difficult because I found it hard to empathize for the same reason state din the previous sentence with a slight difference. She was talking too fast for me to be able to understand why the thing that she was talking about really mattered. This made it harder to figure out the pertinent points to restate and I probably restated too much. This probably wouldn’t have created a problem for the average person but I was born with and have developed (from being exposed to environmental toxins and toxins from my mother not by abusing drugs and alcohol) a brain that processes information more slowly than the average person (a processing speed deficiency). For example, my brain is processing new information at forty miles per hour while the average person’s brain is processing information at fifty miles per hour. In addition, I felt like they weren’t giving me enough information to really practice active listening and it seemed like they didn’t want me to ask more questions. I probably should have asked more questions to figure out if the impression that they didn’t want me to ask more questions was correct. In this interaction, I became much more interested in what they were saying than I usually am. I didn’t ask a lot of questions to try to avoid antagonizing but I felt like this action cause me to assume more. I found out at the end of the conversation that they were leaving to go somewhere within the next hour and I assumed this meant that they didn’t want me to ask more questions but I probably should have asked them that directly.
I practiced active listening with my mom and dad for the second time and it was less difficult than the first time. They were on speaker phone and I was on my cell phone. This time I was in a sad and disappointed mood so I found it hard to ask the appropriate number of questions because it was taking a lot of effort to empathize with them, match their vocal qualities and not sound like the negative mood I was in. Even though I didn’t really ask any questions I feel like I got a very good description of what they had been doing lately. I could have restated more but I didn’t feel like I needed too because we were basically just talking about superficial stuff that we had done over the weekend. I responded with phrases such as “Oh that sounds fun. Did you take any pictures?”
I practiced active listening for the third time and it wasn’t difficult but it wasn’t easy. They were on speaker phone and I was on my cell phone. I had an easier time figuring out the appropriate number of questions to ask but I found it hard to reciprocate the right emotion at the right time in certain situations. When topics were familiar, like my brother finding a third person to live with, I found it very possible to empathize and reciprocate the right emotion at the right time. When topics were unfamiliar, like a CD that I am not familiar with that my dad got from a friend, I found it hard to ask questions plus reciprocate the right emotion at the right time. I could have restated things a little bit more but it seems like reciprocating the right emotion at the right time and saying phrases such as the one in the previous paragraph are forms of acknowledgment that can accomplish most of the same things if the conversation doesn’t involve serious topics.
When I told my parents about the assignment they said that they felt more heard but we both agreed that they could have felt more heard if there had been more free time in our schedules. They felt like I wanted to talk more than I usually do in our relationship. They said it felt good to them, they enjoyed it and they would like it if I get more assignments like this. They would prefer this communication to continue.
I noticed that I was really thinking about what they were saying to be able to ask more questions whereas usually I just let them talk until I feel like they are done talking and then I talk for a little bit and then the conversation ends. I think the use of active listening resulted in the other person changing how they listened to me a little bit but not in a significant way like I thought it would. I noticed that the relationship (even though it was over the phone felt less distant and more relaxed. Active listening got easier the more I practiced. I felt like I understood the person a little better but not a lot better because I have known my parents for so long and because our schedules were conflicting. I learned that I have more fun when I am actively listening to my parents than when I am not actively listening to my parents. In addition, I learned that active listening doesn’t work as well if people are talking fast because it makes it hard to have time to restate what they are saying; it makes it harder to realize the pertinent points and restate them and can encourage people to make assumptions.
I practiced active listening with my mom and dad for the second time and it was less difficult than the first time. They were on speaker phone and I was on my cell phone. This time I was in a sad and disappointed mood so I found it hard to ask the appropriate number of questions because it was taking a lot of effort to empathize with them, match their vocal qualities and not sound like the negative mood I was in. Even though I didn’t really ask any questions I feel like I got a very good description of what they had been doing lately. I could have restated more but I didn’t feel like I needed too because we were basically just talking about superficial stuff that we had done over the weekend. I responded with phrases such as “Oh that sounds fun. Did you take any pictures?”
I practiced active listening for the third time and it wasn’t difficult but it wasn’t easy. They were on speaker phone and I was on my cell phone. I had an easier time figuring out the appropriate number of questions to ask but I found it hard to reciprocate the right emotion at the right time in certain situations. When topics were familiar, like my brother finding a third person to live with, I found it very possible to empathize and reciprocate the right emotion at the right time. When topics were unfamiliar, like a CD that I am not familiar with that my dad got from a friend, I found it hard to ask questions plus reciprocate the right emotion at the right time. I could have restated things a little bit more but it seems like reciprocating the right emotion at the right time and saying phrases such as the one in the previous paragraph are forms of acknowledgment that can accomplish most of the same things if the conversation doesn’t involve serious topics.
When I told my parents about the assignment they said that they felt more heard but we both agreed that they could have felt more heard if there had been more free time in our schedules. They felt like I wanted to talk more than I usually do in our relationship. They said it felt good to them, they enjoyed it and they would like it if I get more assignments like this. They would prefer this communication to continue.
I noticed that I was really thinking about what they were saying to be able to ask more questions whereas usually I just let them talk until I feel like they are done talking and then I talk for a little bit and then the conversation ends. I think the use of active listening resulted in the other person changing how they listened to me a little bit but not in a significant way like I thought it would. I noticed that the relationship (even though it was over the phone felt less distant and more relaxed. Active listening got easier the more I practiced. I felt like I understood the person a little better but not a lot better because I have known my parents for so long and because our schedules were conflicting. I learned that I have more fun when I am actively listening to my parents than when I am not actively listening to my parents. In addition, I learned that active listening doesn’t work as well if people are talking fast because it makes it hard to have time to restate what they are saying; it makes it harder to realize the pertinent points and restate them and can encourage people to make assumptions.
asdascv
Stephanie Mott
NAS 332
Environmentalism and Economic Justice
2/23/10
A major part of the definition of subalternality is people being in economic marginality (34). “While subalternity denotes a general relationship of structured inequality resulting in a relationship of domination and subordination, the specific economic circumstances and relations may vary” (34).
“Questions of scale are crucial in identifying the various economic conditions that shape the physical environment, struggles, and identities” (35). “In this period of growing internationalization, we are all increasingly vulnerable to the aftershocks of decisions and events made in distant places” (Massey 1994) (35). “People and locales become displaced or thrown into poverty for reasons far beyond their individual control, such as investment patterns, political events, and decisions on the part of global financing” (35). “Uneven development refers to the spatial expression of capital’s patterns of investment and disinvestment which produce international, regional, and local sociospatial inequality” (35). “The results of disinvestment, or capital flight, include the loss of industry and jobs, increased levels of underemployment and unemployment, and growing poverty” (35). “Disinvestment may occur for a variety of reasons, such as militant unions, the existence of cheaper labor elsewhere, or a climate not considered sufficiently conducive to capital accumulation” (35).
In two case studies where places had large “capital investment” they were confronted with a host of new environmental problems, rapidly expanding infrastructure needs, and new sets of social relations (35). A case study ?in a place? where there was large “withdrawal of capital” the experience of disinvestment as described on pg 35 occurred (36).
“Moreover, specific forms of uneven development are associated with particular social relations (such as those found in colonialism) in which one place directly benefits from the resources of another, often leading to stunted or disarticulated economies” ( 36). Colonialism and contemporary uneven development help account for the immigration of Mexican workers to California ( 36). Mexican workers have been leaving a place of limited economic opportunity for a site of rich capital investment for decades ( 36).
“Place is as important as one’s skills and economic position in determining if and how one’s basic needs are met, and the degree of social and political power accompanying one’s economic status ( 36).
NAS 332
Environmentalism and Economic Justice
2/23/10
A major part of the definition of subalternality is people being in economic marginality (34). “While subalternity denotes a general relationship of structured inequality resulting in a relationship of domination and subordination, the specific economic circumstances and relations may vary” (34).
“Questions of scale are crucial in identifying the various economic conditions that shape the physical environment, struggles, and identities” (35). “In this period of growing internationalization, we are all increasingly vulnerable to the aftershocks of decisions and events made in distant places” (Massey 1994) (35). “People and locales become displaced or thrown into poverty for reasons far beyond their individual control, such as investment patterns, political events, and decisions on the part of global financing” (35). “Uneven development refers to the spatial expression of capital’s patterns of investment and disinvestment which produce international, regional, and local sociospatial inequality” (35). “The results of disinvestment, or capital flight, include the loss of industry and jobs, increased levels of underemployment and unemployment, and growing poverty” (35). “Disinvestment may occur for a variety of reasons, such as militant unions, the existence of cheaper labor elsewhere, or a climate not considered sufficiently conducive to capital accumulation” (35).
In two case studies where places had large “capital investment” they were confronted with a host of new environmental problems, rapidly expanding infrastructure needs, and new sets of social relations (35). A case study ?in a place? where there was large “withdrawal of capital” the experience of disinvestment as described on pg 35 occurred (36).
“Moreover, specific forms of uneven development are associated with particular social relations (such as those found in colonialism) in which one place directly benefits from the resources of another, often leading to stunted or disarticulated economies” ( 36). Colonialism and contemporary uneven development help account for the immigration of Mexican workers to California ( 36). Mexican workers have been leaving a place of limited economic opportunity for a site of rich capital investment for decades ( 36).
“Place is as important as one’s skills and economic position in determining if and how one’s basic needs are met, and the degree of social and political power accompanying one’s economic status ( 36).
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
concerning violence 2
Stephanie Mott
NAS 332 Environmental Justice
2/1/10
Concerning Violence by Franz Fanon response paper
In the book, The Wretched of the Earth, Franz Fanon discusses the negative effects of colonialism in a thought provoking way while intertwining imperialism in the discussion too. Although Franz Fanon heavily focuses on colonialism, the imperialism that is intertwined can make the ideas that he writes about can apply today to places where the majority of people would say active colonization is not occurring. In addition, it seems like some of the ideas he writes about are related to basic human nature or the mentality that people have developed from living a society where they are frequently exposed to mainstream media.
When the previous settlers, the others, arrive to explore and examine the country that was colonized they are the most likely to be treated with discourtesy (Fanon 77). This usually happens because the “ex-native” thinks that the previous settler already has an opinion and agenda that is not going to be changed even if the “ex-native” receives the settler in a positive way; this makes the “ex-native” feel frustrated and unmotivated to act in a positive way (Fanon 77). I agree with this but I think that the term “ex-native” can be expanded to include anyone that has an idea that hasn’t been seen before, has been done before and failed or is not talked about within the mainstream culture. The next paragraph is going to describe a situation that would be an example of how the term “ex-native” could be expanded.
The Friends of the Dunes organization have a nature center that they are renovating it by adding an additional floor to the house. This requires deconstructing the first floor. There is an opportunity to put a heat pump system into this center because it is already being renovated in a way that is going to require the place where the heat pump system would be placed to be reconstructed. It may be possible to get a grant that would pay for the whole system or 80% of the system. However, since there is not easily accessible explicit information on how to do this like there is with solar energy, the Friends of the Dunes organization gives the person that isn’t a member of the organization, the other, an attitude of discourtesy when the others discuss the logistics of the project with the organization. In addition, the impression is given that even if the others found a cost effective way to install the heat pump system two things would happen. The report would already be written and it would say that the heat pump system is not a feasible option at this time. In addition, the Friends of the Dunes organization would say that the heat pump system is too expensive and the others would be treated with indifference and mild hostility.
Fanon gives more descriptions of the perspective that the nationalist leaders and people that are under control of nationalist leaders have of the others and reporters and the behavior that tends to result from these views. The report tends to not be written from an objective point of view and tends to make it seem that the “ex-natives” are not doing well since the colonial power departed (Fanon 77). Regularly reporters grumble that they feel a much more negative than positive atmosphere, are not given proper working conditions and are being constantly treated with indifference or hostility; this is not by accident and can sometimes be intentional (Fanon 77). The nationalist leaders know that international opinion is formed solely by the Western press (Fanon 77). Now, when a journalist from the West asks us questions, it is seldom in order to help us (Fanon 77).
This can happen in many types of conflicts even if they aren’t related to social or environmental justice. For example, I saw a documentary about a person who was a high school cheerleader coach and there was an accusation placed by a cheerleader on the squad (who was disciplined by the coach for having test notes written on her leg that she tried to cover by her shorts) and the cheerleaders parents against the high school cheerleading coach. The cheerleader coach was interviewed by an official who was interviewing the school officials also to help determine whether she needed to be fired. When the cheerleading coach first started being interviewed she was very hostile and indifferent. The interviewer noticed this and asked her why she was acting this way. She said that she felt like she was being badly received by him and being forced to interveiwed under bad conditions. One of these was because the interviewer was solely chosen by the school officials and she had no input.
In the Algerian war, for example, even the most liberal (state the facts from the natives pt of view) of the French reporters never ceased to use ambiguous (capable of being understood in more than one way) words when describing our struggle” (Fanon 77).
When we blamed them for not reporting from the natives perspective, “they replied in all good faith that they were being objective (Fanon 77). For the native, objectivity is always directed against him”/ used to describe the native in a negative way. In the examples above this seems to have happened too. The high school cheerleading coach said that she experienced this with the school officials and with the interviewer. The high school cheerleading coach said that her actions weren’t fully described and described the cheerleading coach in a negative way.
I think that ambiguous language can be used to prevent people from becoming involved in something in addition to making it easier to use a preplanned agenda to make a decision. I think that both of these statements could apply to The Friends of the Dunes example above. For example, if they just decline because it is “too expensive” this can make it very hard to determine how to solve this problem. It could be too expensive for many reasons. Two possible reasons are that they don’t have the money to pay for the system or they don’t have the money to pay for increased property taxes or some other type of tax. Another reason is that they don’t have the money to pay the architect to make a new plan that will include the drawing of the heat pump system. If it is hard to determine how to solve the problem then it much easier to use a preplanned agenda because it is usually much quicker to use a preplanned agenda than to figure out how to solve a problem that needs additional questions to be answered.
We may in the same way come to understand the new tone which” overwhelmed “international diplomacy at the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1960 (Fanon 77). The representatives of the colonial countries were aggressive and violent, and carried things to extremes, but the colonial peoples did not find that they exaggerated (Fanon 77). The radicalism of the African spokesmen brought the abcess to a head and showed up the inadmissible (unacceptable) nature of the veto and the dialogue between the great powers, and above all the tiny role reserved for the Third World (Fanon 78).
k
NAS 332 Environmental Justice
2/1/10
Concerning Violence by Franz Fanon response paper
In the book, The Wretched of the Earth, Franz Fanon discusses the negative effects of colonialism in a thought provoking way while intertwining imperialism in the discussion too. Although Franz Fanon heavily focuses on colonialism, the imperialism that is intertwined can make the ideas that he writes about can apply today to places where the majority of people would say active colonization is not occurring. In addition, it seems like some of the ideas he writes about are related to basic human nature or the mentality that people have developed from living a society where they are frequently exposed to mainstream media.
When the previous settlers, the others, arrive to explore and examine the country that was colonized they are the most likely to be treated with discourtesy (Fanon 77). This usually happens because the “ex-native” thinks that the previous settler already has an opinion and agenda that is not going to be changed even if the “ex-native” receives the settler in a positive way; this makes the “ex-native” feel frustrated and unmotivated to act in a positive way (Fanon 77). I agree with this but I think that the term “ex-native” can be expanded to include anyone that has an idea that hasn’t been seen before, has been done before and failed or is not talked about within the mainstream culture. The next paragraph is going to describe a situation that would be an example of how the term “ex-native” could be expanded.
The Friends of the Dunes organization have a nature center that they are renovating it by adding an additional floor to the house. This requires deconstructing the first floor. There is an opportunity to put a heat pump system into this center because it is already being renovated in a way that is going to require the place where the heat pump system would be placed to be reconstructed. It may be possible to get a grant that would pay for the whole system or 80% of the system. However, since there is not easily accessible explicit information on how to do this like there is with solar energy, the Friends of the Dunes organization gives the person that isn’t a member of the organization, the other, an attitude of discourtesy when the others discuss the logistics of the project with the organization. In addition, the impression is given that even if the others found a cost effective way to install the heat pump system two things would happen. The report would already be written and it would say that the heat pump system is not a feasible option at this time. In addition, the Friends of the Dunes organization would say that the heat pump system is too expensive and the others would be treated with indifference and mild hostility.
Fanon gives more descriptions of the perspective that the nationalist leaders and people that are under control of nationalist leaders have of the others and reporters and the behavior that tends to result from these views. The report tends to not be written from an objective point of view and tends to make it seem that the “ex-natives” are not doing well since the colonial power departed (Fanon 77). Regularly reporters grumble that they feel a much more negative than positive atmosphere, are not given proper working conditions and are being constantly treated with indifference or hostility; this is not by accident and can sometimes be intentional (Fanon 77). The nationalist leaders know that international opinion is formed solely by the Western press (Fanon 77). Now, when a journalist from the West asks us questions, it is seldom in order to help us (Fanon 77).
This can happen in many types of conflicts even if they aren’t related to social or environmental justice. For example, I saw a documentary about a person who was a high school cheerleader coach and there was an accusation placed by a cheerleader on the squad (who was disciplined by the coach for having test notes written on her leg that she tried to cover by her shorts) and the cheerleaders parents against the high school cheerleading coach. The cheerleader coach was interviewed by an official who was interviewing the school officials also to help determine whether she needed to be fired. When the cheerleading coach first started being interviewed she was very hostile and indifferent. The interviewer noticed this and asked her why she was acting this way. She said that she felt like she was being badly received by him and being forced to interveiwed under bad conditions. One of these was because the interviewer was solely chosen by the school officials and she had no input.
In the Algerian war, for example, even the most liberal (state the facts from the natives pt of view) of the French reporters never ceased to use ambiguous (capable of being understood in more than one way) words when describing our struggle” (Fanon 77).
When we blamed them for not reporting from the natives perspective, “they replied in all good faith that they were being objective (Fanon 77). For the native, objectivity is always directed against him”/ used to describe the native in a negative way. In the examples above this seems to have happened too. The high school cheerleading coach said that she experienced this with the school officials and with the interviewer. The high school cheerleading coach said that her actions weren’t fully described and described the cheerleading coach in a negative way.
I think that ambiguous language can be used to prevent people from becoming involved in something in addition to making it easier to use a preplanned agenda to make a decision. I think that both of these statements could apply to The Friends of the Dunes example above. For example, if they just decline because it is “too expensive” this can make it very hard to determine how to solve this problem. It could be too expensive for many reasons. Two possible reasons are that they don’t have the money to pay for the system or they don’t have the money to pay for increased property taxes or some other type of tax. Another reason is that they don’t have the money to pay the architect to make a new plan that will include the drawing of the heat pump system. If it is hard to determine how to solve the problem then it much easier to use a preplanned agenda because it is usually much quicker to use a preplanned agenda than to figure out how to solve a problem that needs additional questions to be answered.
We may in the same way come to understand the new tone which” overwhelmed “international diplomacy at the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1960 (Fanon 77). The representatives of the colonial countries were aggressive and violent, and carried things to extremes, but the colonial peoples did not find that they exaggerated (Fanon 77). The radicalism of the African spokesmen brought the abcess to a head and showed up the inadmissible (unacceptable) nature of the veto and the dialogue between the great powers, and above all the tiny role reserved for the Third World (Fanon 78).
k
Concerning Violence
Stephanie Mott
NAS 332 Environmental Justice
2/1/10
Concerning Violence by Franz Fanon response paper
Discourtesy is first and foremost a manner to be used in dealings with the others, with the former colonists who come to observe and to investigate (Fanon 77). The “ex-native” too often gets the impression that these reports are already written (Fanon 77). I agree with this but I think that the term “ex-native” can be expanded to include anyone that has an idea that hasn’t been seen before, has been done before and failed or is not talked about within the mainstream culture. This is a situation that would be an example of how the term “ex-native” could be expanded. The Friends of the Dunes organization is adding an additional floor to the house. This requires deconstructing the first floor. There is an opportunity to put a heat pump system into a house that is already being constructed in a way that is going to require the place where the heat pump system would be placed to be reconstructed. It may be possible to get a grant that would pay for the whole system or 80% of the system. However, since there is not easily accessible explicit information on how to do this like there is with solar, The Friends of the Dunes organization gives the person that isn’t a member of the organization the impression that even if they found a cost effective way to install the heat pump system the report would already be written; The Friends of the Dunes organization would say that the heat pump system is too expensive and be treated with indifference and mild hostility.
I feel this way about the United States political scene sometimes.
The report intends to verify the evidence; everything’s going badly since we left (Fanon 77). Frequently reporters complain of being badly received, of being forced to work under bad conditions and of being fenced round by indifference or hostility: all this is quite normal (Fanon 77). The nationalist leaders know that international opinion is formed solely by the Western press (Fanon 77). Now, when a journalist from the West asks us questions, it is seldom in order to help us (Fanon 77).
This can happen in many types of conflicts even if they aren’t related to social or environmental justice. For example, I saw a documentary about a person who was a high school cheerleader coach and there was an accusation placed by a cheerleader on the squad (who was disciplined by the coach for having test notes written on her leg that she tried to cover by her shorts) and the cheerleaders parents against the high school cheerleading coach. The cheerleader coach was interviewed by an official who was interviewing the school officials also to help determine whether she needed to be fired. When the cheerleading coach first started being interviewed she was very hostile and indifferent. The interviewer noticed this and asked her why she was acting this way. She said that she felt like she was being badly received by him and being forced to interveiwed under bad conditions. One of these was because the interviewer was solely chosen by the school officials and she had no input.
In the Algerian war, for example, even the most liberal (state the facts from the natives pt of view) of the French reporters never ceased to use ambiguous (capable of being understood in more than one way) words when describing our struggle” (Fanon 77).
When we blamed them for not reporting from the natives perspective, “they replied in all good faith that they were being objective (Fanon 77). For the native, objectivity is always directed against him”/ used to describe the native in a negative way. In the examples above this seems to have happened too. The high school cheerleading coach said that she experienced this with the school officials and with the interviewer. The high school cheerleading coach said that her actions weren’t fully described and described the cheerleading coach in a negative way.
I think that ambiguous language can be used to prevent people from becoming involved in something in addition to making it easier to use a preplanned agenda to make a decision. I think that both of these statements could apply to The Friends of the Dunes example above. For example, if they just decline because it is “too expensive” this can make it very hard to determine how to solve this problem. It could be too expensive for many reasons. Two possible reasons are that they don’t have the money to pay for the system or they don’t have the money to pay for increased property taxes or some other type of tax. Another reason is that they don’t have the money to pay the architect to make a new plan that will include the drawing of the heat pump system. If it is hard to determine how to solve the problem then it much easier to use a preplanned agenda because it is usually much quicker to use a preplanned agenda than to figure out how to solve a problem that needs additional questions to be answered.
We may in the same way come to understand the new tone which” overwhelmed “international diplomacy at the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1960 (Fanon 77). The representatives of the colonial countries were aggressive and violent, and carried things to extremes, but the colonial peoples did not find that they exaggerated (Fanon 77). The radicalism of the African spokesmen brought the abcess to a head and showed up the inadmissible (unacceptable) nature of the veto and the dialogue between the great powers, and above all the tiny role reserved for the Third World (Fanon 78).
k
NAS 332 Environmental Justice
2/1/10
Concerning Violence by Franz Fanon response paper
Discourtesy is first and foremost a manner to be used in dealings with the others, with the former colonists who come to observe and to investigate (Fanon 77). The “ex-native” too often gets the impression that these reports are already written (Fanon 77). I agree with this but I think that the term “ex-native” can be expanded to include anyone that has an idea that hasn’t been seen before, has been done before and failed or is not talked about within the mainstream culture. This is a situation that would be an example of how the term “ex-native” could be expanded. The Friends of the Dunes organization is adding an additional floor to the house. This requires deconstructing the first floor. There is an opportunity to put a heat pump system into a house that is already being constructed in a way that is going to require the place where the heat pump system would be placed to be reconstructed. It may be possible to get a grant that would pay for the whole system or 80% of the system. However, since there is not easily accessible explicit information on how to do this like there is with solar, The Friends of the Dunes organization gives the person that isn’t a member of the organization the impression that even if they found a cost effective way to install the heat pump system the report would already be written; The Friends of the Dunes organization would say that the heat pump system is too expensive and be treated with indifference and mild hostility.
I feel this way about the United States political scene sometimes.
The report intends to verify the evidence; everything’s going badly since we left (Fanon 77). Frequently reporters complain of being badly received, of being forced to work under bad conditions and of being fenced round by indifference or hostility: all this is quite normal (Fanon 77). The nationalist leaders know that international opinion is formed solely by the Western press (Fanon 77). Now, when a journalist from the West asks us questions, it is seldom in order to help us (Fanon 77).
This can happen in many types of conflicts even if they aren’t related to social or environmental justice. For example, I saw a documentary about a person who was a high school cheerleader coach and there was an accusation placed by a cheerleader on the squad (who was disciplined by the coach for having test notes written on her leg that she tried to cover by her shorts) and the cheerleaders parents against the high school cheerleading coach. The cheerleader coach was interviewed by an official who was interviewing the school officials also to help determine whether she needed to be fired. When the cheerleading coach first started being interviewed she was very hostile and indifferent. The interviewer noticed this and asked her why she was acting this way. She said that she felt like she was being badly received by him and being forced to interveiwed under bad conditions. One of these was because the interviewer was solely chosen by the school officials and she had no input.
In the Algerian war, for example, even the most liberal (state the facts from the natives pt of view) of the French reporters never ceased to use ambiguous (capable of being understood in more than one way) words when describing our struggle” (Fanon 77).
When we blamed them for not reporting from the natives perspective, “they replied in all good faith that they were being objective (Fanon 77). For the native, objectivity is always directed against him”/ used to describe the native in a negative way. In the examples above this seems to have happened too. The high school cheerleading coach said that she experienced this with the school officials and with the interviewer. The high school cheerleading coach said that her actions weren’t fully described and described the cheerleading coach in a negative way.
I think that ambiguous language can be used to prevent people from becoming involved in something in addition to making it easier to use a preplanned agenda to make a decision. I think that both of these statements could apply to The Friends of the Dunes example above. For example, if they just decline because it is “too expensive” this can make it very hard to determine how to solve this problem. It could be too expensive for many reasons. Two possible reasons are that they don’t have the money to pay for the system or they don’t have the money to pay for increased property taxes or some other type of tax. Another reason is that they don’t have the money to pay the architect to make a new plan that will include the drawing of the heat pump system. If it is hard to determine how to solve the problem then it much easier to use a preplanned agenda because it is usually much quicker to use a preplanned agenda than to figure out how to solve a problem that needs additional questions to be answered.
We may in the same way come to understand the new tone which” overwhelmed “international diplomacy at the United Nations General Assembly in September, 1960 (Fanon 77). The representatives of the colonial countries were aggressive and violent, and carried things to extremes, but the colonial peoples did not find that they exaggerated (Fanon 77). The radicalism of the African spokesmen brought the abcess to a head and showed up the inadmissible (unacceptable) nature of the veto and the dialogue between the great powers, and above all the tiny role reserved for the Third World (Fanon 78).
k
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)