|
[08 Feb 2007|05:21pm] |
Japan
Japanese attitudes and customs towards pregnancy and childbirth are very different than many other “modern, Westernized” countries. While the Japanese are beginning to rely more heavily on technology in prenatal care and childbirth, they retain many traditional attitudes which other nations, like the United States, have seem to lost over time. The first major difference is that Japan has national healthcare, and so every pregnant woman is able to be cared for regardless of whether or not she cannot afford private prenatal care. The United States, in contrast, does not have national health care and it is up to the individual woman to decide what prenatal care, if any, she will have. Pregnant women in Japan are advised to have a healthy diet, but the medical community there rarely prescribes prenatal vitamins. They also discourage exercise, and are more likely to recommend napping once a day. Pregnant women also receive a boshi-techo, or “mother-child handbook,” in which they are supposed to document to record prenatal visits and their doctor’s findings. Japan’s religious institutions are also involved in pregnancy. At Japan’s many temples and shrines, one can buy good luck charms. Japan also has many unique folk beliefs and practices regarding pregnancy and childbirth. For example, it is believed that the first sign of pregnancy is not being able to tolerate the smell of rice cooking. Another interesting traditional belief is that pregnant women are not supposed to eat animals without spines (like squid) during the first few weeks of pregnancy, or else their baby will be born without a spine.
Now, for the actual birth! Again very unlike the United States, painkillers are rarely used in Japanese childbearing. This goes back to the traditional idea that enduring the pain of childbirth will make you a stronger, better mother. This may also be the reason why Japanese mothers-to-be rely more on advice from female relatives and friends when preparing for childbirth. In countries (again, like the U.S.) which most often use painkillers during childbirth, women are more likely to turn to books and doctor’s for consultation, as other women’s experiences were dulled by the medication. However, despite the traditional attitudes about enduring pain, most modern Japanese women give birth in hospitals.
Lastly, in contrast to countries like the United States, women in Japan are not expected to go it alone or with only their husband for the first few months after giving birth. Typically, Japanese women (and if possible, their husbands) move in with their mothers (or mother-in-laws) for a few months. The Japanese also never caught on to the “modern” idea of bottle-feeding, and are a largely breast-feeding culture.
Peru
Peru is another country which has a fascinating approach to pregnancy and childbirth. The first thing which I found as unique to their culture is their attitude towards the sanctity of pregnancy. A strongly Catholic culture, Peruvians are usually vehemently opposed to contraception and abortion.
There isn’t as much “professional” prenatal care in Peru as in Japan or the United States, although this has changed greatly in recent decades. Peruvian women typically resort to folk practices and beliefs in preparation for childbirth. There are dozens of folk traditions regarding pregnancy in Peru; beliefs which claim everything from how to prevent a miscarriage to predicting a child’s sex. Traditional and herbal medicines are also heavily relied on; women may take everything from chicken broth with a little lemon when they have morning sickness to a corn and salt concoction for after they give birth.
Women, regarding as weak in traditional Peruvian culture, are typically bedridden for the first forty days after childbirth. A new mother is typically pampered for that period of time, and her only responsibility is to feed her child.
The Orkney Islands (Scotland)
Because I don’t often think of Scotland as having an especially unique and exotic culture, I was surprised to learn about some of the traditional practices regarding childbirth and pregnancy on the Orkney Islands (north of Scotland). Despite the stoically Catholic religious beliefs of the people there, they still have many rich traditions rooted in their pagan heritage. They, like Japan, are a largely superstitious culture, although most of their beliefs regarding childbirth are linked to fears about supernatural intervention with the mother and child. Unlike most cultures, pregnancies are supposed to be kept secret for as long as possible. It is believed that this will protect the child from evil spirits. Expectant mothers are also supposed to place a Bible and knife under their bed, and to move those objects under the baby’s crib once they are born. Some of their superstitious beliefs, however, do not revolve around fear of the supernatural. For example, it is believed that if a rainbow appears on the Orkney Islands, a baby boy will be born.
Orkadians traditionally rely on the older women in the community as midwifes instead of using doctors and hospitals, although this practice is diminishing. Childbirth on the Orkney Islands, as with other countries, is cause for a huge celebration. Fathers traditionally wet their new baby’s head and then get drunk on whiskey with the other men in the community, two rituals which are supposed to bring the child luck. Babies are also baptized as soon as possible, as in the past anabaptized babies could not be buried on consecrated ground. Boys are also baptized before girls, and it is believed that a girl baptized before a boy will grow a beard. There are also several feasts for the new baby.
|
|
|
[01 Nov 2006|12:26pm] |
America and the War on Global Warming
Christine McKnelly
English 1010
There is no doubt that the United States is the most powerful nation on Earth. We are able to wield power not only through our foreign policy, but through our economic system, military might, and media. Does our unique country always do the right thing? Do our government and economic systems sometimes lead to something bad? I believe that they have, and that the fight against global warming is a shining example of America's potential for destructive influence. In trying to understand exactly how America has found itself on this path against environmental progress, I read three articles: an editorial published in the "Atlantic" magazine by Gregg Easterbrook titled "Some Convenient Truths," a report summary published by Environmental Science and Technology, conducted by eight researchers and summarized by Paul D. Thacker called "Climate Change and American Exceptionalism," and lastly, Ian Hoffman's Oakland Tribune story titled "Opponents: Global Warming Legislation Will Hurt Economy." Gregg Easterbrook's piece examines his reasoning behind America's mostly shabby attempts to curb global warming, coming to the conclusion that we as a nation have been too pessimistic but that we need to have faith that change will come. Hoffman's article discusses the reasons many people oppose California's recent, monumental greenhouse gas legislation. He quotes many business leaders opposed to such restrictions, leading me to conclude that many Americans put immediate economic growth and free enterprise over the environment. Lastly, Thacker’s report indicates that Americans are less likely to prioritize the environment and global warming than the citizens of other developed countries, and that we also house a larger body of global warming skeptics. Easterbrook's attack on American pessimism and his own optimistic attitude, Hoffman's presentation that many American businesses and our very economic system are the main resistors to change, and Thacker’s summarization of American attitudes verses the rest of the developed world’s have all made me certain that the United States' economic and government system have negatively impacted the fight against global warming.
While Easterbrook, Hoffman, and Thacker all discuss Americans and their attitudes towards global warming, they each contrast, showing the diversity of American opinion. Easterbrook firmly believes that Americans are too pessimistic on all sides of the spectrum, even the environmentalists. He observes that "a paralyzing negativism dominates global-warming politics. Environmentalists depict climate change as nearly unstoppable; skeptics speak of the problem as either imaginary (the “greatest hoax ever perpetrated,” in the words of Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate’s environment committee) or ruinously expensive to address." He then argues that we should impose some very mild regulations on greenhouse gases, similar to past environmental measures which he says have been cheap and effective, and then let the market invent some cleaner energy. This epitomizes the American sentiment that free enterprise fixes everything. Easterbrook lays a special part of the blame on politicians, both Republicans and Democrats, for putting the ideas of climate change and policy in negative terms. He argues that Democrats tend to make global warming look unsolvable, and that Republicans fail to acknowledge past changes to environmental policy which have worked. According to Easterbrook, if American politicians would only frame climate change and energy policy in more positive terms, they would be more capable of motivating businesses and citizens to make individual changes to combat global warming.
Hoffman’s article continues many of Easterbrook’s ideas, but includes more facts and highlights the perspectives of businesspeople. Hoffman’s article is a rundown of the opinions of opponents to California’s recent legislation aimed at curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Like Easterbrook, he points out in his article that “the potential economic costs of controlling greenhouse-gas emissions no longer is unifying U.S. corporations in opposition to laws to address global warming,” indicating that perhaps the market was already driving business towards greener energy. He contrasts to Easterbrook, however, by quoting several economists who are predicting huge economic costs for California, and the loud resistance leaders of many businesses and groups in favor of free enterprise.
Thacker’s article summarizes a study which reports that while American public sentiment related to global warming is quite similar to those of other developed countries, Americans are significantly less likely to prioritize global warming over other issues and that America houses a larger number of global warming skeptics. He also suggests that the U.S. system of government is more adversarial than those of other developed nations, and that because European-style governments “favor compromise and have embraced the idea of precaution,” they have been able to attack global warming in ways that the U.S. has not. Thacker’s article, published on the academic magazine Environmental Science and Technology’s website, appeals to logic by focusing on statistics and quotes from established researchers, scientists and teachers.
Each article cites a different group as the main reason the fight against global warming has been slow to progress in the United States. Easterbrook blames pessimists, Hoffman mentions business leaders, and Thacker points to the government. Though Easterbrook’s argument that if we just put on a smile and place our faith in the free market is unique, I find it too idealistic and naive. I believe that while there is a lot of pessimism in the global warming debate, much of it is completely warranted. There are many times that I, coming from an environmentalists' perspective, have trouble seeing humans climb out of and repair the destruction they have inflicted on our planet. I also have a lot of doubt in the free market. If America were completely heading in the right direction through the market, there would be no environmentalists still complaining. The thing is, there have been many technological steps in the right direction, but there have not been enough. I strongly believe that if American industry is to truly make the jump from pollution to green energy, there need to be some government controls and incentives to push businesses along.
Easterbrook’s attitude, which is also held by many Americans, that we can fix global warming without many or any government restrictions, is a foolish and dangerous notion. The free market is one of the major reasons why we have so many environmental problems in the first place, and why we still pollute unnecessarily even though we have cleaner technologies. Money may make the world go round, but it has also made the world much more hazardous. Some of Easterbrook's credibility is also lost due to the fact that he was an open global warming skeptic until 2006. It is difficult to follow someone's advice when, until recently, they doubted there was even a problem. However, two things that Easterbrook points out which I agree with are that “technology can move across borders with considerable speed,” which means that even if other heavily polluting nations such as China and India don’t immediately follow our lead, they will adopt our technological changes eventually to try and compete; and that the problem of climate change is similar to air pollution problems we have faced and conquered before, and that with the right motivation we can triumph over this evil as well.
Hoffman’s article is more objective than Easterbrook’s, with the opinions of supporters and opponents of California’s greenhouse gas legislation both being presented, while focusing on the opponents. The quotes Hoffman used displayed the concerns of these opponents, most of them along the lines that the legislation “takes the American economy and puts a huge damper on it” and that the legislation will be too costly. The attitude many of these businesspeople have alarms me. Sure, restrictions may cause a decline in prosperity, but the forced reductions will create economic growth through the demand for cleaner energy. Also, Hoffman indicated that the market is already moving towards environmental responsibility and that many businesses, including some of the largest corporations are supportive of such restrictions. If a government cap on emissions would really be so catastrophic to businesses, then influential institutions such as Wal-Mart and PG&E would not be in favor of restrictive government energy policies.
Thacker brings a new argument to the subject, that it is not necessarily the America’s citizenry that is holding back global warming progress, but the government. The study summarized finds that although only 21% of Americans think global warming is the number one most important environmental issue, 93% of Americans do think that it is a problem on some level. This is very strange, considering the few government controls in the U.S. versus those of other developed countries. I agree that our government, favoring a “winner-takes-all” approach to policy over a “win-win” policy, has been detrimental to the global warming debate. If we were more willing to take precautions over risks, and more willing to compromise than win at any cost, America would more likely be leading the way to environmental responsibility instead of slumping behind.
The American attitudes presented in these three articles have convinced me that our economic and government systems have held back our progress against global climate change. America’s faith in and support of the free market has been the most detrimental to this cause. Easterbrook and some of the people quoted in Hoffman’s article argue that even though the free market is largely responsible for our current climate change situation, it is equipped to get us out, but I thoroughly disagree. This attitude is idealistic and unrealistic. Even if some companies voluntarily switch to environmental responsibility, not all of them will be either willing and/or able. Capitalism is about taking risks, so the question is, should we be willing to risk not only our children’s, but our entire planet’s existence as we know it for the sake of economic expansion? The answer is no. America must enact laws which prevent business from leading the world to environmental catastrophe, and Americans must demand with their wallets that companies comply with these laws.
Our government, as Thacker points out, also bears some of the blame for our energy policy. Like our economy, our government is highly competitive and in many cases, the winner takes all. This can be seen very well with the current Republican Bush administration, which currently controls the Legislative and Executive branches of government. This administration is very supportive of free enterprise and is very opposed to government intervention in business. Because of this, the government, despite American citizens believing that global warming is a problem and their willingness to support hikes in energy prices, has little interest in creating widespread regulations for environmental protection. Also, as Easterbrook points out, since most politicians seem unable to address global warming in an optimistic way, the government is unable to energize either American citizenry or business to enthusiastically solve the problem.
After reading these articles, I have come to the conclusion that our government and economic systems are the primary reason why the United States is ineffectively combating global warming when we are capable of surpassing every other nation’s progress. I believe that we must reform certain elements of our primarily capitalist economic structure and encourage our government to become more compromising and regulatory of the pollution which contributes to climate change. The problem of air pollution is one we have battled before, and one we have triumphed over. Wake up, America, and take on the challenge.
Works Cited
Easterbrook, Gregg. “Some Convenient Truths.” The Atlantic Monthly Volume 298, No. 2 (2006) 29-31 <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200609/global-warming> Accessed 15 October 2006.
Thacker, Paul D. “Climate Change and American Exceptionalism.” Environmental Science & Technology Online 22 Feb (2006) <http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2006/feb/policy/pt_exceptionalism.html> Accessed 15 October 2006.
Hoffman, Ian. “Opponents: Global Warming Legislation Will Hurt Economy.” The Oakland Tribune 5 April (2006) Available online from <http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20060405/ai_n16142184>
Accessed 15 October 2006.
|
|
|
[31 Oct 2006|07:55pm] |
Intro/synthesis essay
There is no doubt that the United States is the most influential nation on Earth. We are able to weild power not only through our foreign policy, but through our economic system, military might, and media. But do our unique influential powers always work for good? Has our power led to any negative ends? I believe that it has, and that the fight against global warming is a shining example of America's potential for destructive influence. In trying to understand exactly how America has found itself on this path against environmental progress, I read three articles: an editorial published in the "Atlantic" magazine by Gregg Easterbrook titled "Some Convenient Truths," a report summary published by Environmental Science and Technology (ES&T) and conducted by eight researchers called "American Exceptionalism? Similarities and Differences in National Attitudes Towards Energy Policy and Global Warming," and lastly, Ian Hoffman's Oakland Tribune story titled "Opponents: Global Warming Legilsation Will Hurt Economy." Gregg Easterbrook's piece examines his reasoning behind America's mostly shabby attempts to curb global warming, coming to the conclusion that we as a nation have been too pessimistic and apathetic to create change. The ES&T's report indicates that Americans are less likely to prioritize the environment and global warming than the citizens of other developed countries, and that we also house a larger body of global warming sceptics. Lastly, Hoffman's article discusses the reasons many people oppose California's recent, monumental greenhouse gas legislation. He quotes many business leaders opposed to such restrictions, leading me to conclude that many Americans put immediate economic growth and free enterprise over the environment. Easterbrook's attack on American pessimism and complacency, Hoffman's presentation that many American businesses and our very economic system are the main resistors to change, and the ES&T's summarization of American attitudes verses the rest of the developed wrold's have all made me certain that our unique goverment and culture have had an adverse effect on the global warming debate and the world's attempts at solving the problem.
|
|
|
[01 Oct 2006|08:09pm] |
|
|
|
[01 Oct 2006|12:44am] |
|
|
|
[21 Sep 2006|06:47pm] |
Schwarzenegger and the War on Global Warming
Christine McKnelly
English 1010
Global warming is one of the biggest issues on the minds of Americans today. Al Gore recently made a movie about how scary it is, car companies are currently working on making more fuel-efficient vehicles to help curb it, and California recently passed unprecedented legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to see if governments can stop it. Many people are giving the most credit on this bill's passing to Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's iconic and controversial Republican governor. But is much of this praise all deserved?
In an anonymous editorial published in the September 2nd edition of The Oregonian, the author defends and gives praise to California’s greenhouse gas bill and to Arnold Schwarzenegger, who turned away from his party’s typical position on this issue and signed the bill. The author argues that this type of legislation is necessary to reduce global warming and will encourage the federal government and other nations do more about it. He also feels that this bill is a necessary experiment that will help answer many questions in the debate about government intervention and its relation to global warming. He then reiterates the view that the economy will not drop and that businesses will not leave the state over this one inconvenience. However, while the author makes several excellent arguments in favor of California’s controversial greenhouse gas legislation, he pays too much homage to California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose other personal and political actions can be dismissed anti-environmentalist.
Many of the author’s points are consistent with my beliefs. I am in agreement with the author that it is fantastic how California is trying to lead the world towards greener energy and environmental sustainability, and that it is also wonderful that a Republican like Arnold Schwarzenegger broke ranks with his party’s traditional stance to sign this monumental bill. I also concur that even if California’s experiment fails, we will have answered many questions in the debate over government involvement in business practices. We will know whether or not this type of legislation is too severe and the payoffs too puny, and only make businesses migrate to an area where strict environmental polices don’t exist. I also agree with the author that it is necessary for the United States, our little planet’s greatest polluter and most influential nation, to pave the way for other industrialized nations to seek earth-friendly efficiency. The author lays out both sides of the story very well, and defends his side sufficiently.
However, the author gives too much credit to California’s notorious Governator. At the beginning of the article, he calls him “the leader of the free world.” At the end of the article, after energetically praising the bill, he gives thanks and refers to him as “President Schwarzenegger” instead of “Governor Schwarzenegger.” To me, both of these statements imply that the author feels Schwarzenegger is single-handedly crusading for the environment and anyone who cares about global warming would certainly vote for him as a United States president. He tries to appeal to the emotions of the article's readers with his enthusiasm, but he fails to bring forward any facts to back him up. If there are any other reasons for Schwarzenegger to be given such praise, the author neglects to mention them.
In my view, a politician’s decision on one issue does not make them a “leader of the free world” or someone worthy of presidential nomination. And, even if one’s record on the environment were the sole deciding matter in receiving these titles, the author fails to cite the rest of Schwarzenegger’s environmental track record, or even the governor’s own personal steps to curb global warming. In fact, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s overall attitude towards environmental matters and green house gas emissions is quite unappealing to most tree-huggers. For example, had the author mentioned that California’s governor owns seven Hummers (the environmentalists’ arch nemesis) and is in fact the man responsible for making the American public think that the 10 MPG military vehicles are the new super-minivan, I’m sure he would have looked a extremely foolish in his implications that Schwarzenegger is some sort of amazing, Earth-loving “leader of the free world.” Again, the author's attempt to appeal to the reader's emotions falls short because he neglects to appeal to their logic.
The author published this article in the Oregon paper, The Oregonian, and it was aimed at Oregon’s liberal majority. He appeals to them through his unwavering support of pro-environmental legislation, but he fumbles when he mentions Schwarzenegger as the sole hero in this act. I’m sure that many of his liberal readers noticed this peculiar choice of who to worship, just as I did. Had the author toned down his praise and only dished out what was appropriate, or at least mentioned some other Earth crusaders, his article would have been more credible.
In conclusion, this editorial displays and argues in favor the environmentalist point of view on California’s greenhouse gas reductions bill very well. His reasons are well-argued, and he appeals to the liberal readers of The Oregonian with his support. However, the author’s admiration for Arnold Schwarzenegger’s role in the bill’s passing is excessive and uncalled-for, because he ignored the governor’s other environment-related actions, which would have painted him much less green.
|
|
|
[13 Sep 2006|09:27am] |
Some dready hippie chick
About 50 miles from Steamboat Springs, Colorado
Around the 1st of July, 2006
Rainbow Gathering Joke
“Hippie Sex”
Informant Data:
The person who told me this joke was a twenty-something hippie girl who worked for the “Popcorner” kitchen at the North American National Rainbow Gathering of 2006 (about fifty miles from Steamboat Springs). Her only apparent hobbies were experimenting with popcorn flavors, building fires and kitchens/bar counters out of dead wood, camping, twisting her dreadlocks, watching fire-dancing and live musical performances, and having a dislike for authority. She had been to many Rainbow Gatherings before and served as an informant for people unfamiliar with the Rainbow Family and their community.
Contextual Data:
She told me this joke while we built a fire-pit. We were laying stones into the pit and this was one of the more memorable jokes we exchanged. She heard this joke from someone else at the Rainbow Gathering, a few years earlier. Jokes are very commonly told at Rainbow Gatherings, especially if they involve hippies (the most prominent group represented at the Rainbow Gathering) or are “dirty,” preferably both.
Text:
“Have you seen hippies have sex? It’s in tents. (intense)”
Christine McKnelly
745 S 500 E #1
SLC, Utah 84102
SLCC
Intro to Folklore
Semester 1, 2006
|
|
|
[12 Sep 2006|08:09pm] |
Christine McKnelly
September 12th, 2006
English 1010
In “California Leads on Global Warming,” published in the September 2nd issue of The Oregonian, the author glorifies Arnold Schwarzenegger’s unprecedented compromise with Democratic and environmentalist leaders on a monumental green house gas-reductions bill. The author is obviously enthused by the bill and is eagerly anticipating the results of what he calls a “grand experiment.” However, the author’s over-the-top praise for Schwarzenegger is unwarranted, because an analysis his other political beliefs and even other environment-related actions are excluded from the article.
In the article, the author calls Arnold Schwarzenegger the “leader of the free world” and “President,” rather than “governor” (or one of the less formal, insulting titles), which he is. The author suggests that because Schwarzenegger has signed this sole environmental bill, he is an amazing hero who is single-handedly changing the world. Well, I won’t argue that it is great that he has signed the bill and that it will make a significant impact on the politics of global warming, but the governor just isn’t that great.
First off, a politician is never worthy of election just because of their record on one issue. If the author were to analyze Arnold’s record on every other bill or political issue, he might not have received such praise.
Not only is Schwarzenegger unfit to be called Mr. President, he is undeserving of being called an environmentalist! Not only does the man own a fleet (count: seven) of Hummers (the tree-hugger’s arch nemeses), but he is in fact responsible for convincing Americans that the gas-guzzlers are the new minivan. The first owner of a Hummer made for civilian use was none other than the Governator himself, because he insisted that AM General build him one in the early 90’s. Since then, GM has become their distributor and about 30,000 are sold each year. Were the Governator truly environmentalist, we see him behind the wheel of a Toyota Hybrid, not an H2. The author’s assumption that Arnold is now “leader of the free world” because he signed one pro-environment bill is preposterous, because the governor has made no changes to his lavish personal life to curb global warming.
In conclusion, even if Schwarzenegger were a great environmentalist, the author makes it sound like he is the only Californian to have pushed for such green legislation. If Schwarzenegger deserves the credit he was given, then there should have also been a section devoted to John Muir, Ralph Waldo Emerson,
|
|
|
[28 Apr 2006|07:08pm] |
I totally halfassed this coloring job. Ugh. Whatever. I semi-based it on Nadia, because of her ridiculous hat!
|
|
|
[10 Apr 2006|11:04am] |
|
|
|
[06 Apr 2006|03:51pm] |
This took so friggin long to make. Drawing with a mouse sucks.
|
|
|
[30 Mar 2006|04:43am] |
|
|
|
[30 Oct 2005|11:45am] |
Putting this around my school, in retaliation to certain homophobic, hateful acts:
( oh ho ho! )
(Not a real picture, took the myspace pictures of guilty boys and put them on porno bodies)
|
|
|
[12 Oct 2005|05:14pm] |
|
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
pissin_blood's journal