food... any questions?

Is food a keyword today? Perhaps a better question would be, when has food not been key in any way, shape, or form? From bears to bugs to Bill Clinton, many of the motives for our daily activities are centered on obtaining the means for survival, namely, sustenance. Yet as we’ve evolved from simplistic hunter-gatherer roles to supermarket customers, we’ve in turn created various philosophies regarding food and its role in our lives and subsequently redefined it on numerous levels.

Before delving into the historical and ideological events surrounding food, it is important to note the organization of this post. A large part of this essay will be focused on simply stating the obvious, since philosophy can often ignore the more subtle simplicities of a concept. I believe that the fact that there is so much confusion and speculation about something as simple as food justifies this take on the subject.

Though perhaps food’s place in our lives has been increasingly overshadowed by technological, social, political, and economic advances and changes, none of the events or inventions humans have influenced or created would have been possible without its constant presence. Cities and towns first became possible after agricultural techniques were born in the Fertile Crescent in 10,000 B.C.; today, many of the ways in which our society operates would not be possible without large-scale food production or food processing plants. Food quality standards today are also at a record high, as books such as Upton Sinclair’s, The Jungle, led to public awareness and policy changes regarding health and cleanliness regulations within food processing. As food security within developed nations became increasingly stable, the number of more superficial philosophies surrounding food increased. In some cases, philosophies are a result of Gina Mallet’s observation that, “Once necessity is satisfied, we eat for pleasure;” others, however are redefinitions of necessity itself.

Interestingly, history is riddled with various food-related ideologies. Perhaps the most influential philosophy on the American eating perspective was the one that arrived on Plymouth Rock: Puritanism. The Puritans were not concerned with food as a medium for pleasure and enjoyment, rather, they argued against it. Food was eaten only so that one could continue living and working. Later, ideologists such as Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham pushed early vegetarianism and simple eating (i.e. food without flavor) as a means of preventing impure thoughts and masturbation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Diet). This “food-as-fuel” mentality persisted through the development of the American nation into the 20th century, when the rise of ethnic classes, new food safety regulations, and European influences culminated to produce a philosophy whose proponents are referred to as “foodies.” Foodies generally support organic or sustainable food production methods, as well as keeping food in a local context (this has in turn created a foodie denomination known as the Locavore Movement). This platform, however, though it may be perpetuated by many of America’s educated and wealthy, is merely one against many other philosophies not concerned with palatability.

The reasoning behind the adoption of food philosophies varies; some are spurred by ethical or religious reasons while others are due to health concerns or, more frequently, “health” concerns. Fad diets, such as the South Beach Diet or the Atkins diet are generally concerned with weight loss or weight management (which is often seen as inversely proportional to an overall level of health). This type of food faddism views food more as a wild animal in need of taming than a source of nourishment and comfort. Such philosophies generally ignore concerns regarding food production or quality (including taste) and instead pay homage to our Puritain roots of eating only what is “best” for you.

Harvey Kellogg would be proud.

The increase in popularity of such diets has also resulted in a food product explosion. As these items are not actually food in a holistic sense, the term foodstuffs was coined as a blanket descriptor for such goods. Many of these products are processed to the point where most natural ingredients are eliminated; this resulted in the practice of food product enhancement, or, the addition of vital nutrients “back” into the food. Some of these goods, such as nutrition bars, protein enhanced water, and calcium chews are so far removed from actual food that they are instead referred to as nutrition supplements, meal replacements, or even food alternatives. The fact that modern-day consumers are searching for “alternatives” to food exhibits the real value placed on the things we eat (interestingly, most diet and low-calorie foods are more expensive on a cent-per-calorie basis than the majority of unprocessed foods). Americans on average spend less than ten percent of their income on food, as opposed to Europeans who spend about thirty percent (Indonesians in 2006 spent 49.9 percent); the cost of food in the United States also (on average) fails to reflect the environmental, social, and political costs associated with various food-related processes. There is still an overarching mentality of having what we want to eat when we want it and for cheap. We continue to take the staff of life and place its value below that of cosmetics, concerts, cars, and other consumer objects (most of which we could easily live without) for the sake of reserving capital.

The under-appreciation of food in developed countries in turn affects global food security, as highly populated poorer nations struggle with rising costs of staple goods. A good example of security suffering under the whims of the wealthy is the ethanol fuel movement, which sacrifices land that could be used for food production for the sake of producing an alternative fuel. Agricultural and food subsidies are often also put in place to try and convince farmers to grow certain crops, but such foods are often not nutritionally rich. This in turn has contributed to Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) research to try and create higher-yield crops or foods with (again) nutritional enhancements. In spite of all the research and aid surrounding the current food crisis, global food security remains a high-level concern for all nations.

Let’s again ask the question: why ought food be a keyword today?

Perhaps all the previously discussed issues can be neatly tied together Jeremy Iggers, an author for the magazine Philosophy Now:

“Food as a topic for philosophical investigation may be especially timely today… Today, food and eating occupy a role in our culture that only a few decades ago was occupied by sex: food has been eroticized and problematized and made the source of enourmous anxiety… a generation or two ago, our (Western) individual identity was much more defined by our social roles and relationships – hence the emphasis on sex; today our identities are much more strongly linked to what we consume.”

What is important in discussing food is to think outside of the realm of personal economy and interest and begin to explore the greater financial, environmental, social, and political costs surrounding food. We need to start caring about the thing that allows us to exist on this planet, and we need to stop being blinded by superficial ideologies so that we can begin to understand the real issue at hand.

Food is key because food is food; regardless of the discussions, the confusion, the ideas, fears, and pleasures, it is what it is and there is nothing else.

something to think about

...

So. I know we're supposed to state our first impressions of the class and then dive into what worked for us and what didn't, but I feel almost bad stating my first impressions as they don't reflect my current thoughts regarding this course. I'm going to try to tie everything up nicely by going back to my original theme of explanation through lists.

Reasons why I was enthused about this class:
1. I was excited to take an English class to mix up my courses a bit; I rarely write simply for the sake of writing.
2. I wanted to get my UWP requirement out of the way so that I wouldn't have to take it during the regular school year.

Reasons why I was less than enthused about this class:
1. My counselor had told me that I could "not under any circumstances test out of the class," and I needed it as a requirement for graduation (I don't usually go into required classes feeling juiced about the subject matter).
2. I didn't like the original idea about blogging; it seemed quite unfamiliar to me and I couldn't figure out how it could effectively be incorporated into a writing course.
3. I like structure and direction most of the time.
4. Um, it's summer, duh.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that my initial impressions of this course were quite mixed; I also had this weird connotation regarding blogs due to my few experiences reading others' posts outside of this class. I remembered back to freshman year of college when some of my friends had Livejournal pages and would write things about "how Josh hasn't called me, and I don't know what to do because I saw him at that party last weekend with Andrea and I can't tell if he likes me and I'm so stressed out and I have a paper due in five hours and I just don't have any time to do it and my mom is mad at me and blah blah blabbity blah..."

This, of course, is an exaggeration which is in no way representative of all blogs (or bloggers), but it shows how I felt about the medium of writing in this class; I didn't want to be associated with the noise of personal analysis so often stumbled upon online.

Then something changed.

I don't know what it was exactly, but something happened that made me begin to truly enjoy blogging, at least in an academic sense. It may have been that this class allowed us to read the writing of our peers, something I have never had the opportunity to do outside of editing groups. Or perhaps it was that we were writing according to prompts, and not just vomiting internal monologues into cyberspace. Whatever it was, it greatly influenced the way I ultimately felt about this class.

And the way I still feel about this class.

I don't know if everyone had as recondite an experience as I believe I did; I think that the lack of structure and direction was, for some, scary and oppressive. I'll admit that I too like some sort of framework most of the time. But ultimately I think the fluidity of the course and the flexibility of Chris regarding subject matter resulted in more profound and meaningful discussions, which in turn lead to more thoughtful and expressive posts.

I think I'm actually going to keep my blog post UWP 101. I don't quite know what I'll use it for, but I hope that others may keep theirs as well so that we can continue to read each others' work and provide a forum for feedback. Wouldn't it be hilarious and wonderful if someday we were able to read each others' dissertations or articles or books before they were officially published?

I think so.

back to the backpack

Arlen's post regarding mobility demonstrates the variety of connotations that can be associated with a single word. In his post, he describes his first thoughts regarding "mobility;" he saw the word as being more related to geographical movement as opposed to financial mobility or physical impediments towards being fully mobile. He adeptly supported his point by describing his backpack in great detail, and offering examples of why it allows him increased mobility in his life.

I really appreciated Arlen's post because I felt that we didn't talk about the most simplistic geographical movement in our class discussion; rather, we focused on diligently analyzing the word to mean something deeper than just movement. I think that this can sometimes be a downside to analysis, as we often try to look beyond the superficial implications in discussing a word. But by using the example of his backpack, Arlen demonstrates the importance of mobility on a more basic level, thus giving new light to its importance.

Arlen's backpack also showed how he is able to be mobile yet have access to various things he may or may not need throughout the day. His particular backpack has four pockets which get progressively smaller towards the front of the pack. He carries everything from his gym clothes to his cell phone charger to deodorant to an umbrella. I think that we sometimes take backpacks and bags for granted, as they really do allow us greater freedom in our mobility, especially when it comes to situations for which we might otherwise have been unprepared.

One of the main reasons I liked this post, however, is because I, like Arlen, carry my life around in my bag. I have a huge green purse that my fiancé has taken to calling "Rachel's bag-and-a-half" because it is, well, huge. And to be quite honest, that's why I like it. It can hold (and has been holding) my laptop, a notebook, my Dreamweaver manual, scissors, tape, glue, my cell phone, my pen/pencil case, my internship journal, photos for my internship journal, a box of giant mints from Holland, thank-you cards, chapstick, my camera, my camera charger, deodorant, chocolate, band-aids, two packs of gum, and sunscreen. Not to mention anything else I happen to need on a particular day.

I've been teased for having such a huge bag; I think the fact that I am not a very big person serves to emphasize the bag's magnitude. But, whenever someone needs band-aids or gum, they're quick to appreciate me and my bag.

Arlen's final words beautifully sum up his post: "I am free to go mobile any time I want to." I feel as though these words would be a great catch phrase for Jansport or another backpack company... "Free To Go Mobile." Because in the end, that's what you are.

You are free.

het plassen in Holland

This is a bathroom.

No, really.

I guess it would be accurate to say that I kind of have a thing for bathrooms. I find them to be one of the more interesting rooms in buildings and homes, and I usually make a point of visiting the facilities in new places (if for no reason other than curiosity). I've seen my fair share of the beautiful and the weird; from William Randolph Hearst's bathroom trimmed with gold-leafed tiles, to the waterfall urinal at the Madonna Inn (one of the more risqué visits as it was in the men's bathroom), to the bathroom of the Bundestag in Berlin, Germany, that boasted ten-foot tall tangerine stall doors, to the bathroom of a Freiburg restaurant with 6-foot high ceilings and an equally statuesque condom vending machine. I have probably seen enough random bathrooms to write a coffee-table book, albeit a more uniquely flavored compilation than usual living-room literature.

This bathroom, however, was one of the more interesting pit stops on my journey through Europe last summer; I took this picture during a layover in the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol while I was waiting to board a plane for Frankfurt. This image continues to fascinate me when I revisit the photos from my trip.

I remember the whole experience of taking this photo because I almost ran into the faux windmill tower; I had been trying to text message my parents that I had made it to Amsterdam and was waiting to board my next plane. The tower stood in the middle of the floor next to a mural of a seascape, complete with white slatted fence and plastic grass. It seemed to scream, "In case you forgot, you're still in Holland!" I found the whole scene to be somewhat comical, as if it was putting a theme-park spin on, well, an airport*. Looking at this picture now, it seems impossible to me to think of it being anywhere but the Netherlands.

But what if it were someplace else? What would we think of it then? Would it have been so recognizable to me as a Holland seascape with a windmill if it had been in, say, Humptulips, Washington? And if we're going to start designing bathrooms to represent countries, what would an American bathroom look like?

I can think of how, perhaps, a bathroom located in New York or San Francisco might be designed. It could have a miniature Golden Gate Bridge or Chrysler building inside, or perhaps display a backlit mural of the cityscape at dusk. Idaho could have potato-shaped porta-potties, while New Orleans' would paint theirs in green, purple, and yellow. But how would one design a bathroom that would simply exude an "American" feeling? And is it weird to try and construct something to display such a concept?

I keep thinking of many discussions we've had over the past weeks which I feel relate quite well to these bathroom design ideas. I feel as though I am automatically stereotyping certain areas by trying to ascribe particular aesthetics to bathrooms, though I'm not doing so intentionally or maliciously. There are just so many different flavors of American states, towns, and people that I don't know how to roll them into a single, yet all-encompassing lavatory. I both love and dislike this about America; it makes me think back to our discussion on "whiteness" and the lack of a culture associated with American caucasians. I don't know that I want there to be a single bathroom for Americans, but I do wish that I personally felt more of a cultural connection to my country.

But perhaps one of the things that makes the United States a wonderful place is that we can't all fit into one bathroom (literally and figuratively). To some, we are a melting pot; to others, we are a salad bowl. Yet regardless of the differing views of America, it is undeniable that we are incredibly lucky to be exposed to such a variety of cultures, languages, foods, and ways of life; such experiences can only serve to enrich our lives and make us more aware and accepting of others.

Who knows what bathrooms lie around the corner?

*Side note: the Amsterdam Airport Schiphol is the Netherlands' main airport, and includes multiple wi-fi hot spots, a family section for quiet naps and play time, as well as an art museum and a three-star restaurant. It also features a scaled model of the airport made entirely out of Legos. It is the Disneyland of the European airlines.

to walk, or not to walk...

In Amy's post, "Start Walking, it is Good for You," Aimee discusses the merits of walking versus driving. Among the many benefits she lists are saving money, burning calories, and helping the environment. Moreover, walking (according to her blog) is actually a mood booster in that it allows us direct interaction with nature and places of beauty, thereby creating a more aesthetically pleasurable traveling experience than one would have sitting in a car. Aimee did, however, note that she was not preaching that everyone dump their cars and began walking everywhere, but do so "whenever possible and in the right weather." What could be so hard about that?

Interestingly, Carol's comment on Aimee's post seemed to focus on the above question. Carol acknowledged that it would be greatly beneficial to people to walk everywhere, and did not decry the positive implications listed in the post; she did, however, state her opinion that walking as a mode of transportation has become "quite unpractical in the U.S." She noted that with the combination of weather and distance in Davis, it is often undesirable to walk to school, stores, or friends' houses, especially because such areas are often located outside of close proximity. Therefore, while walking may be a healthful and ecologically supportive means of transport, it simply cannot uphold the busy American lifestyle of today.

Both Aimee and Carol bring up valid points regarding walking's place in our nation. Yet why is it that we seem to understand that walking is good on multiple levels, yet refuse to accept it as a practical form of mobility?

I visited the city of Brentwood last year while working on a farmstead project near Discovery Bay. Barbara, the woman leading the project, drove us through the city to reach the agricultural tract we were discussing how to farm. She explained that one of the reasons she was excited to begin the project was because Brentwood had grown from ten thousand residents to forty thousand over the past decade, and she expected to reap the benefits of the population growth in her profits.

I remember staring out of the window amazed at the number of cars, housing developments, strip malls, and gas stations we passed. For a city which had only recently become a suburban metropolis, it was one of the most inefficiently developed areas I had ever visited. Brentwood, not having a fixed development plan in the initial stages of growth, had immense potential to incorporate a public transportation system, bicycle paths, and mixed use zoning to increase the amount of foot traffic and pedestrian friendly spaces. Instead, it took advantage of the fact that most residents were quite comfortable with using their own cars as opposed to buses, trams, or even bicycles, and neglected to create a town condusive to walking (my apologies if you are from Brentwood and you disagree with me; I'd love to hear your perspective as to the organization of the city). In this case, it is definitely unpractical to walk as the city's arrangement increases the time and personal energy spent traveling, and public transportation does not permeate all areas.

This example of urban sprawl relates to Carol's view because it shows how we seem to have accepted that cars are simply the necessary way to get around town in America. But to embrace Aimee's mindset, I feel we need to shift our focus away from the most widely accepted means of travel. Perhaps walking is not always practical in America, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be or that it won't become more practical than driving in the future.

(By the way: walking and public transportation, to me, go hand in hand. If you embrace one, the other will follow.)

Until we are able to use walking as our default mode of transport, we should simply do as Aimee suggests: walk where you can when you can, and reap the health, environmental, and financial benefits.

girls from mars

This is a photograph of women steelworkers during WWII. I found this photograph to be fascinating as it is quite difficult to tell that these are women due to the extreme coverage of their gas masks. It is also hard to discern any sort of facial expression under the masks, so it would be a stretch to say what emotions they may have been feeling at the time this was taken.

One of the reasons that I was drawn to this picture was because of a video I watched in my CRD 161 class. This class discussed the historical progressions of people, work, and technology between the industrial revolution and the current day. During our discussion of WWII and its effect on work opportunities, we watched an old advertisement promoting women working in mines, shipyards, steel works, and other factory conditions. The way in which they encouraged women to move out of the household and into the workforce was by playing a clip of a woman performing a domestic chore followed by a clip of a women performing an act with similar movement in the factory. The idea was "if you can do this at home, you can do this for us!" For example, the video might show a clip of a woman using an apple peeler before showing her working on a lathe.

The gas masks were preceeded by women giving themselves facial masks and then placing a cloth over their face. They were smiling throughout the clip until the cloth covered their mouths. Likewise, the women in the next segment, were also smiling upon the removal of their gas masks. Yet the women in this picture were wearing these masks because they were cleaning around the tops of the blast furnaces, a hot and dangerous job. These masks are also oxygen masks rather than gas masks, since there often was a lack of breathable oxygen towards the tops of the furnaces. Did women sincerely believe the ads promoting such occupations? Did they believe it would be like having a facial in a factory?

I find it hard to accept that women would so blindly listen to such advertisements. Yet, I have to wonder what these women were feeling about their position; perhaps it was fatigue, perhaps it was frustration at balancing the household while working in such a labor-intensive job, perhaps it was happiness at being able to work in a job previously reserved for men. I'd like to think that, no matter how these women were feeling on this particular day, they had a constant sense of pride for doing what they believed was right and necessary to help their husbands, brothers, sons, and their country.

spam e-mail poetry

(This is not an official post.)

I keep getting spam e-mails for sexual pleasure enhancement products, scholarships, and travel promotions with my name in the subject line. This is somewhat disturbing to me, but the creepiness it somewhat outweighed by the randomness of the body of text located below the advertisements. For example, here is a block of text from a dating website ad:

For water. Outside, all round the walls of this into lucia's
face. This is an awful house, aunt he got? No, i guess not.
i think it's his cough. Ended. Next day we spent in preparations
for departure. Noises of the kitchen, the high, shrill note
of phoebe's deduction was, not that jane talbot bore wide
enough for a couple of boats to go through you? It wouldbe
awkward, said emily. Well, if came out of the stall he grasped
her roughly by has adela no companions of her own age? None
but her closer against him. Her head rested on his murder!^
she looked defiantly at miss marple and about herselfnot
of herselfi don't mean that, oct. 1799. Dear jackson within
a few days of each disappearing dogs. All that is finished!
and the but now... He shrugged his shoulders in humorous
which seemed to betoken the desire to lose no royal for
shame, maiden! Said the queen wouldst to the reader better
than a description. A high he said to himself, as he lay
awake that nighti

It makes no sense, though that is a common theme with these e-mails. Yet I've actually grown to look forward to receiving them just to see what weird e-mail poetry will be included.

Maybe this is what the monkeys wrote before they finally made it to Shakespeare.

dance dance observation

Sometimes differences are most interesting and complex when they are explored within a single context. It is possible to notice things that you would not otherwise see if you were simply looking at the context itself.

Yesterday marked the second day of the summer session's beginning Salsa class at Barbara's Dancing Tonight Studio. I originally signed up for the class so that I could learn about technique and keep up with my roommate, a more experienced dancer. It seemed like a good way to learn to dance as I could practice with multiple partners in an educational setting.

The class begins with men and women dancing separately, each learning their own parts of the dance and repeating them over and over. Our instructor, Korie, waits until she feels we're all relatively comfortable before adding music and forming us into couples. The women then rotate between the men during the course of the song so that each person gets sufficient practice with different partners.

For anyone unfamiliar with salsa dancing, the general idea regarding who orchestrates the dance is, well, somewhat sexist: the man leads the woman to dance in certain ways and the woman follows. This somewhat simplistic rule, however, is easier said than danced. The reason why it is important to dance with many partners is because many partners interpret this rule differently in practice. This particular class has very prescribed basic steps and turns, so there are only so many different moves a couple can make. It may not be clear at this point where the differences occur, so allow me to elaborate (and please keep in mind that I am not in any way trying to place myself in a more advanced dancing category than others in the class, I am simply observing):

Partner #1: My first dance partner seemed terrified that he was going to step on my feet, and kept his eyes glued to the floor. He also seemed as though he was thinking really hard about his next move, as each transition was slightly exaggerated.

Partner #2: This dance partner danced a little heavily, that is, each movement was very forced and enunciated.

Partner #3: This guy, Scott, is blind, and dances really well. He holds you slightly more away from himself, however, as I think he is also concerned about stepping on toes.

Partner #4: Partner number four would be the "high-five guy" in any group of friends; he moves his head side to side while we're dancing and always says things like, "Awesome," or "All right!" or "Heck yes, watch us go."

Partner #5: Partner number five kept saying "Mmmmmm." We'd be dancing and then out of nowhere would come an "Mmmmm," and then an "Mmm-hmm." It always caught me slightly off-guard.

Partner #6: This guy was a foot and a half taller than I was, and we had turning issues. The man is supposed to lift the woman's hand when he is about to turn her, but he was holding my hand so high in the air already that I couldn't tell when he wanted me to actually turn.

Partner #7: He would be an excellent dancer if he would simply follow the tempo of the music.

It's interesting to be in this kind of a situation because everyone is learning and thinking about different things while they're dancing, and sometimes their thoughts manifest themselves in physical ways. I think that dancing has been a really good learning experience for me regarding the mind-body connection, and how subtle differences in thinking can create larger differences in physical approaches to movement.

It's odd, too, in this kind of a situation, because the woman is not supposed to correct the man if he makes an error. Even if he cannot keep the beat and is starting on the wrong foot and keeps turning without warning, it is our fault (technically speaking) if he steps on our toes or if we're not sure what we're supposed to do next and get lost. All we can do in this situation is sit back and observe the differences.

Mmmmmm.

baby X

(This post is not an official post, it is merely to point out a couple of things that are interesting/contextual.)

This is the T-shirt I saw the other day.

This is the story that Danielle and I brought up today in class; it's an entertaining and thought-provoking read if anyone's interested in a ten minute study break.

diaspora at a Third Place

In community and regional development, we refer to cafes, parks, and other communal meeting places as "Third Places." A First Place is the home, a Second Place is a workplace, but Third Places constitute the areas where people meet to spend time with one another for reasons of practicality or, more often, pleasure.

Mishka's is such a Third Place, as people convene to purchase coffee or food and then disperse to tables by themselves or with others, or simply back through the door out into the world. I take a seat at one of the last remaining tables near the pastry case and proceed to observe those standing in line:

Business Man
Bohemians
New Mother's Club
Wailing Babies
Students
Man Who Smells of Curry
Bored Girl
Artsy-looking Girl
Tall Guy With Laptop
Woman Who I See Every Time I Come Here
...

There is a fascinating sense of urgency in the line; most of those waiting choose to spend their idle time casting their eyes furtively over the occupied tables. The expressions range from hopeful to disappointed, to ambivalent, as the seating opportunities are rapidly assessed. Most are so concerned with finding a table that they fail to respond to the much-repeated "Hi," of the cashier. She appears to not be a person, but merely an obstacle they must overcome before moving into the study-surface battlefield.

Why on earth would you wait to take out your wallet at the last minute? Does it come as a surprise that you do actually need to pay for your coffee?

One of the Bohemians has walked by my table four times, and I can't understand why as she only holds a plate with a slice of carrot cake. The girl sitting next to me seems to notice this too, and I wonder if we are both wondering why the Bohemian keeps passing us by. I decide she is looking for the bathroom key and move my attention to the Girl in the Flowered Dress sitting across the room.

The Girl in the Flowered Dress looks up each time the door opens. She appears to be studying, but I don't see how she can get anything done with all of her looking up. I don't think she is waiting for anyone as she is sitting at a table with another person and there is no empty seat nearby, but her eyes seem to drill into each newcomer with a fierce curiosity. Oh, now she's looking at me, oops.

The Tall Man with the Laptop is looking at me, too. I notice he is the only person in the cafe wearing close-toed shoes.

This appears to be a unique area of Diaspora as most of the people who converge at Mishka's remain stationary before they disperse. The line is the most fluid entity in the room, and as the tables remain filled, more and more people leave the line and move out of my field of vision. What is fascinating to me are the people I remember leaving who I see come back inside after a while. The girl sitting next to me actually whips out a pair of roller blades and takes off for fifteen minutes, leaving her books on the table and prompting looks of longing from incoming students.

I wonder where she's gone.

a plea on behalf of the studious and caffeinated

(This is the third post for Week #2)

As my last post was quite lengthy (apologies and thanks to those of you who took the time to read it), this will be a very simple post on a very simple argument:

I am sitting at Brewed Awakening in Berkeley as I type this post. I sometimes come here when I am in the Bay Area so that I can read or study and enjoy a really good cup of coffee. The cafe is quite open, airy, and comfortable, and I have never had trouble finding a table even though it is a popular place. If it were crowded, however, I could go to Yali’s, Free Speech, the International House cafe, Au Cocoulet, Cafe Strada, Cafe, Milano, or Poulet. Not only could I make it to any of those other cafes, I could do it, walking, within twenty minutes in any direction. Which leads me to my argument:

Davis needs more independent cafes.

I usually study at Mishka’s in Davis, since I like the coffee, the atmosphere, and the fact that it is privately owned. Seating, however, is another story. I have walked to Mishka’s countless times only to find it full to capacity, with only a few tables boasting “the rule” still empty. Though this occurrence is frequent, I keep coming back, simply because it is one of the few places in Davis where students can grab a cup of coffee and study.

Yes, I will acknowledge the fact that there are other cafes in Davis, but I find they are all lacking in one way or another:

Starbucks – Starbucks is often cramped, and has tiny round tables not useful for studying (at least, not for me as I usually have at least a book, a notebook, and a computer)

Peet’s – What kind of a cafe closes at 9:00pm? This is only the downtown Peet’s; if I recall correctly, the Marketplace Peet’s closes at 7:00pm.

Crepeville – You can only study here during certain periods of the day as the owners are concerned about table turnover and will ask you to leave if you have been occupying a table for a while but haven’t purchased more food.

Le Chamois – I just have trouble studying here, I don’t even know why.

Borders – You must pay to use the internet.

3rd and U – Televisions are counterproductive to studying. Especially when they are playing the Food Network.

It seems to me that the ratio between student population and good cafes is undesirable in Davis. We need to promote the opening of new, independent cafes in Davis, and give them the opportunity to thrive. We ought to create rent-controlled zones for such businesses to protect them from greedy property owners (let’s have a moment of silence for Cafe Roma and Espresso Roma). And we as students ought to make an effort to support such business to show city officials what we appreciate in our town.

If you build an independent coffee shop with free internet, square tables, and delicious pastries, students will come.

Consumption Rewritten

(This post is belated due to reasons explained in the comments section of Paperless Writing. It is the second post for Week #2)


It would be obvious to state that types, methods, and amounts of consumption have changed drastically within the past 200 years. Many widely owned commodities such as cars, phones, televisions, calculators, even contact lenses* were only marketed during the twentieth century. Yet, the actually necessity of many items we “need” is questionable; certainly our predecessors managed to survive without many of the technological, medical and commercial aids of our time (including tube yogurt and TiVo). Why, then, are current markets flooded with thousands of “necessary” items? Simply stated, our modes of consumption have shifted from satisfying our needs for survival to satisfying our needs to be happy.

I found that our “group therapy” session on Wednesday actually discussed some of the issues surrounding this phenomenon, a few of which are due to our country’s mindset of “living to work.” Many people in high-powered, executive positions work long hours and make good money, but for what exactly? It is estimated that a family of four can subsist in California (a state with one of the highest costs of living) for around $35,600; this amount supposedly includes rent or mortgage payments, food, clothes, potential medical costs, and utilities. There is not much left for skateboards, Barbie dolls, or power drills, but it is enough to keep those in the family happy and healthy. Yet some families in the United States make above 250,000 annually, and work increasingly long hours to do so. Although this is well above the amount needed for survival, it would appear that some Americans have grown increasingly accustomed to more frivolous lifestyles that would be impossible without a steady cash flow (or, rather, a steady cash flood); it is therefore deemed “necessary” that they continue to work hard to ensure the support of what is unnecessary.

There was a children’s cassette tape series (not to date myself) called “The Adventures of Christina Valentine” which states my point quite humorously and elegantly. Christina Valentine, the protagonist, lives in a large, new, yellow house with her mother and father. Her grandfather lives next door in an old, shingled two-story dwelling with a slightly sagging roof. Over dinner one night, her grandfather asks her father why he feels he needs to live in such a large house:

Dad: Well, Pops, I work hard! I deserve a big house.

Grandpa: Well, why do you work so hard?

Dad: I have to work hard, Pops, I’ve gotta pay for this lovely house.

Grandpa: Well, then why do you have such a big house?

Dad: I told you, I work hard, I deserve it!

Grandpa: Well, then...

You get the picture.


We’re caught in this weird push and pull between what we really need and what we think we need, and producers have latched onto our inability to distinguish between the two. Now mops are being replaced with Swifer sweepers with disposable wipes (for added convenience and cleanliness), minivans now come with TWO televisions to distract children (and most are also no longer “mini”), and pre-destroyed jeans are leaping off the shelves at $170 a pair (or in some cases, per leg). It is possible to rationalize why we would need each of these things:

“I’m worried about my mop retaining germs and bacteria, so I want something I can throw away after it’s been used.”

“My kids are hyperactive and I could use some peace and quiet in the car, but one of them likes to watch Barney and the other likes Dragonball Z. I need two televisions to keep them happy and myself sane.”

“I like, want to fit in with everyone, and like, these jeans are totally hot right now, and I mean, well, I could get a different pair and destroy them myself, but, well, like, how lame would that be? AND, they like, wouldn’t have the label or anything.”

But how badly do we need these things when you break it all down? Didn’t many of our parents’ parents use mops? Obviously our parents survived that archaic (and oh-so-dangerous) cleaning method. And what did people do before there were televisions in the car? Maybe they read books or, dare I say it, talked to each other. Car televisions are almost as trivial as $170 labels (since that is actually what you are paying for) when it comes to survival.

As our basic needs for food, shelter, and company are now easily met, it makes sense that we would begin to search for new needs in order to continue to better our lives. And it is a basic human instinct to seek out things that make us happy or comfortable to the greatest possible extent. Unfortunately, in this era of consumption, it can be difficult for a person to realize when their needs have been fulfilled; instead, we keep buying and consuming goods we think we need in the search for total satisfaction.

Thank goodness SoBe will begin bottling willpower soon.

*Fun Fact: Leonardo da Vinci, among his many achievements, is also credited as being the original inventor of the contact lens.

Consumption rewritten

consumption, consumption, what's your function?

It would be obvious to state that types, methods, and amounts of consumption have changed drastically within the past 200 years. Many widely owned commodities such as cars, phones, televisions, calculators, even contact lenses* were only marketed during the twentieth century. Yet, the actually necessity of many items we “need” is questionable; certainly our predecessors managed to survive without many of the technological, medical and commercial aids of our time (including tube yogurt and TiVo). Why, then, are current markets flooded with thousands of “necessary” items? Simply stated, our modes of consumption have shifted from satisfying our needs for survival to satisfying our needs to be happy.

Perhaps this shift became most prevalent when consumption became increasingly intertwined with consumerism, that is, the “doctrine validating abundance and prosperity” (B., G., & M., 58). This idea of consumerism promotes the message that material consumption is positively associated with wealth, thus, spending more shows (or gives the impression) that one has more to spend. Material consumption may also serve to exhibit the values of the consumer. Associations and organizations have been created to uphold the interests of consumers to ensure that they remain content and "informed" regarding their opportunities for consumption. Consumption in this sense, and especially in capitalist nations such as the United States, is viewed more as a right than a privilege and continues to validate purchases in the minds of consumers.

Although there are positive connotations to the "right to consume," some believe that consumption may be a right we abuse; the negative side of consumerism sees consumption as indulgent of "self-interests and vulgar materialism" (B., G., & M., 58). Not only is consumption synonymous for "decay," "devouring," "depletion," and "destruction," but it is the culprit in a slew of newly recognized mental and social illnesses. Consumer goods, food, alcohol, and sex are among the over-consumed entities found hard to resist; interestingly, they are also four things usually associated with feelings of pleasure or happiness. As our basic needs for food, shelter, and company are now easily met, it makes sense that we would begin to search for new needs in order to continue to better our lives. And it is a basic human instinct to seek out things that make us happy or comfortable to the greatest possible extent. Unfortunately, in this era of consumption, it can be difficult for a person to realize when their needs have been fulfilled; instead, we keep buying and consuming goods we think we need in the search for total satisfaction.

Thank goodness SoBe will begin bottling willpower soon.

*Fun Fact: Leonardo da Vinci, among his many achievements, is also credited as being the original inventor of the contact lens.