6 Companies Run Your Whole Life, "Made In America" Blames You For Buying In

Meet the Usry family. They are the subjects of a new investigative series on ABC News, and they were set up to fail. 

The series is called "Made In America" and it questions the integrity of the spending habits of individual consumers. It purports to answer the question, "Is it possible for an All-American family to live with only all-American products?"

Good question.

But the folks over at CommonDreams.org are asking a better question - "Will ABC News' "Made In America" Series Avoid Their Boss, Disney?" 


Why is that a better question? We're glad you asked. You see, it all goes back to the discussion of independent media in the U. S. (see our post asking "Who IS Running The Show?"). There are 6 major media corporations which basically own every media outlet in the U. S. - the television networks, the publishing houses, the newspapers, the magazines, the radio stations ... pretty much every source of information (never mind gadgetry) that is easily accessible to you and me. One of those 6 corporations is Disney, which also happens to own ABC. So is this new show (a) taking an objective, in-depth look at American consumer spending habits or (b) distracting us from examining the spending habits of major corporations like Disney by encouraging us instead to point fingers at individual consumers?


Look at it this way:


Would you like to keep more of your consumer dollars in the U. S. economy? Heck yeah. So would we. You and I live here. We're trying to run businesses or earn paychecks or educate kids or write blogs or whatever it is we're doing, and we're trying to do it here, where we live and work and pay taxes and spend our money. We'd like to see some of that money return to us and our communities in the form of local customers, services, goods, programs, etc. 


Would major corporations like Disney like to keep more of its outgoing cash flow in the U. S. economy? Heck yea...oh, wait, it's cheaper to manufacture goods overseas? Heck no. Quick - look over there!


Disney is a business, a for-profit corporation, and there is one guiding concept to making a profit - spend as little as you can to make as much money as you can. So if Disney and other corporations can make a bigger profit by using foreign manufacturing and labor, you can bet your bottom dollar they will - regardless of how it affects the individual American consumer.


So it's all well and good for ABC to ask individual families to see what happens when they try to stick to only U. S. manufactured goods. Then if (and when) a family falls off the American-made wagon, we can all be so busy blaming them for the death of the American dream that we won't bother to look in Disney's direction.


But it's the major corporations - like Disney - who actually decide where those goods are manufactured. If we really want to try to keep more of our money local, they are the ones we'll have to convince.

Read more »

Feast or Famine - Part 1: Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution

UPDATE (5/25/11): Season 2 of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution will return to ABC at the end of May. CLICK HERE to see all related posts.


So far on this blog we've dealt with heavy topics like the death of independent media, institutionalized racism in the criminal justice system, and Charlie Sheen. Today I want to take a look at a topic that is slightly more accessible to most of us ... food. Yummy, delicious, slurp it down, gobble it up, eat your heart out food.


Of course, when we say "eat your heart out," we in the U. S. sometimes approach the term just a bit too literally. We are blessed to live in a nation of plenty, but our society seems to approach food with an almost literal "feast or famine" mindset. 1 out of every 8 Americans now rely upon some form of assistance (food bank or "soup kitchen") in order to have enough food to eat. If you're doing the math, that's over 37 million people - 14 million of whom are children.  Yet at the same time, our nation has the highest rate of obesity in the entire world. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 75 million adults (roughly 30%) and an average of 19% of male children and 16% of female children in the U. S. are morbidly obese.


Indeed, the CDC now considers obesity to be a major epidemic and one of the top ten costliest medical conditions we face as a nation:

Over the past decade, obesity has become recognized as a national health threat and a major public health challenge. In 2007--2008, based on measured weights and heights (1), approximately 72.5 million adults in the United States were obese (CDC, unpublished data, 2010). Obese adults are at increased risk for many serious health conditions, including coronary heart disease, hypertension, stroke, type 2 diabetes, certain types of cancer, and premature death (2,3). Adult obesity also is associated with reduced quality of life, social stigmatization, and discrimination (2,3). From 1987 to 2001, diseases associated with obesity accounted for 27% of the increases in U.S. medical costs (4). For 2006, medical costs associated with obesity were estimated at as much as $147 billion (2008 dollars); among all payers, obese persons had estimated medical costs that were $1,429 higher than persons of normal weight (5). 

Eat your heart out indeed.

So what could be behind this feast or famine, all or nothing approach to food we seem to have adopted as a nation? Probably the same kind of large-scale, insidious manipulation that lies behind any subconscious, institutionalized way of thinking; someone, somewhere, is getting something major out of it. In this case, that something is probably boatloads of cash. I'm talking about people you and I will never meet who are making the kind of money you and I will never see. And they're making it off of us. The question is who? Who would actively (if subtly and insidiously) promote this institutionalized, victual feast or famine mindset? Could it be the multi-billion dollar fast food industry? The multi-billion dollar processed food industry? Hmmm... More on that in a future post.


First, we're going to take a look at just how deeply ingrained our food notions really are (and how early in life we are programmed to start making those choices), and internationally renowned chef Jamie Oliver is going to help us. Oliver is a British chef whose approach to using fresh, unprocessed ingredients literally revolutionized the English school cafeteria system. Following his success in England, Oliver decided to take on the American school lunch industry in his reality show Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution, for which he won both an Emmy and a TED prize. Season 1 is posted below, and believe me it's worth every click.


How much resistance would you expect a world renowned chef to meet when he comes into a town in the heart of the U.S. with the message, "Hey, what if we feed our kids less processed chemicals and fat, and more fresh, healthy food?"


See for yourself.

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution - Episode 1

Part 1

 

Part 2

  

Part 3

Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 2

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 3

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

 Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 4

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 5

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution Episode 6

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Read more »

Chris Brown Calls Shenanigans, Might Actually Have A Point

Here at INSTITUTIONALIZED we believe that our society tends to filter information through layers of systematic, below-the-radar, even unintentional prejudice, including institutionalized racism. Nor do we hold ourselves apart from such behavior; on the contrary. Our point here is that these prejudices are so ingrained in our socialized world view that most of us don't even recognize them as prejudice.

Case in point: The post that launched INSTITUTIONALIZED - our discussion of the whole Charlie Sheen meltdown. Do we think the guy's crazy with a capital Z? You bet your Adonis DNA we do. But we questioned the degree to which immediate medical intervention was really necessary. We were speaking from the perspective of his audience, but we nevertheless failed to point out that Sheen has a fairly nasty history with domestic violence, including but not limited to "accidentally" shooting his then fiancee actress Kelly Preston in the arm (after which she subsequently ended their engagement. Yup, sounds like an accident to me).

While we were focusing on making the point that Sheen is not a threat to his audience, who but self-admitted abuser Chris Brown should point out our own unintentional hypocrisy? At the same time our society continues to condemn him at every opportunity for battering Rhianna (and rightfully so), Sheen has reportedly begun touring with a one-man-show netting him $7 million a month. He is currently adding more dates, since tickets for the original tour sold out in 18 minutes. 18 minutes you guys.

Brown addressed his aggravation with society's apparent willingness to embrace Sheen's violence while condemning his own after an interview on Good Morning America. Rather than getting an interview designed to promote his album (the only reason most performers agree to participate in such interviews at all) the interviewer focused in large part on Brown's past domestic violence charges. 

After the interview Brown reportedly threw a nice little hissy fit and then tweeted the following:

"I'm so over people bringing this past shit up!!! Yet we praise Charlie sheen and other celebs for their bullshit!"

(He apparently caught enough flak for that comment that he later deleted it.)

Now don't get me wrong, if anyone has the right to be annoyed with the constant media attention over the beating it's Rhianna, and she seems to be handling it just fine, so Brown can stick a sock in it as far as that goes. But he's not wrong about the interplay of racism and criminal justice issues. 

According to criminal law professionals at the University of Dayton:

• African Americans are arrested an average of 2.5 times more often than Whites in general, 3.5 times more often for violence or drug related charges, and 6 times more often for serious felony charges.
• African Americans are more likely to be sentenced to prison and less likely to be given probation than Whites.
• African Americans are sentenced to prison at a rate 6 times higher than that of Whites.
• Prison sentences average one year longer for African Americans than for their White counterparts convicted of similar crimes.
• African Americans are 5 times more likely to be sentenced to death row than their White counterparts.

Wouldn't it be so simple to explain the disparity by believing that African Americans are just inherently worse, meaner, more violent people than Whites? That way everything would be someone else's fault, we wouldn't have to pay attention to what's going on in the system, or examine our own beliefs, or ask how and why a nation supposedly founded on personal freedoms is systematically punishing its own citizens for being born the wrong color?

Yes it would be easier, simpler, safer ... and the epitome of institutionalized racism. 

Mr. Brown, you have a point. Now put your shirt back on.

Read more »

Who IS Running The Show?

I don't much care whether you think that popular media is too conservative or too liberal or right where it needs to be, because everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it's wrong. But the broohaha over the funding of public radio has me thinking that we need to get some definitions clear, and we should probably start with the word "public."

Taxpayer dollars go to support National Public Radio because it is PUBLIC. That is what public means. Public = taxpayer owned/supported. That's as opposed to private, which means "owned and operated by an individual or private corporation." Therefore, PUBLIC radio is, by definition, taxpayer supported. We don't have to like it, but we should at least get the definition straight.  The real question, though, is why should Americans support public media at all? 

THE DEATH OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA 

Which leads us down the rabbit hole of wondering how much of the media in the U. S. is public, and how much is owned by private interests? The easiest way I know to answer that question is to explore the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Most of us know it through its connection with National Public Radio (NPR) and the Public Broadcasting System (PBS). Don't let the world "corporation" mislead you, this is a public corporation, meaning that our taxes support it.

And don't let THAT fool you into thinking that you're paying for all of NPR and PBS's programming - they receive only about 10% of their funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Currently the House of Representatives seems to think that 10% is too much and would like to slash it drastically, so there's that whole debate going on. But it's best we remember that the majority of these programs' funding comes from individual donors, which is why they don't have commercials for toothpaste but do have those pesky telethons several times a year. So basically, they operate by providing programming that members of the public like well enough to call in and shell out some dough to keep it on the air.

So that takes care of NPR and PBS.

But really, how much of your news comes from NPR and PBS? And what about the rest of the networks - NBC, ABC, CBS, FOX, CNN, books, magazines, newspapers? Private. All private. So if you don't like what NPR and PBS have to say, don't call in and give them your donation, and that's how you have a voice in their programming. If you don't like what pretty much everyone else has to say - too bad. It's not your station.

So whose is it? That's the bad news. According to the Media Reform Information Center, in 1983 approximately 50 different stations owned the remainder of the media in the U. S. So 50 different corporations can't possibly all be in each others pockets, right? But they merged, and bought each other out, and engaged in hostile takeovers of each other, and as of 2004 virtually all the rest of the media in the United States was owned by exactly 5 companies. CBS has since joined in the fun, leaving us currently with 6, count them, 6 possible sources for our information. 

So unless you listen to NPR or PBS or search out independent media via the internet, you get virtually ALL of your news, radio, print, and programming from a total of 6 companies: Time Warner, Disney, NewsCorp owned by Rupert Murdoch, Viacom, General Electric, and CBS. And if you think those six companies would rather fight each other and compete for your advertising dollars that just share total monopolization of the entire media market, think again. They are not the government or the Public Broadcasting Corporation, you did not vote for them and you do not get a say in what they produce. They are in business for one reason and one reason only - the almighty dollar. So if sensationalized or skewed news gets more viewers (hence, more advertising dollars), then sensationalized and skewed it shall be.

And don't think they're not THRILLED to see this debate over whether the Public Broadcasting Corporation should continue to be supported by tax dollars. It is a win-win situation as far as they are concerned. Either we continue to bicker over whether we should support 10% or less of the independent, public media in the U. S., or we decide we should stop supporting independent, public media altogether. Either way, they continue controlling the vast majority of the market and we're all too busy pointing fingers at each other and our own government to look at who is really, literally, running the show.

Read more »

Humble As Charlie Sheen

I was at a small party yesterday when one of those awkward silences fell, and, because I am a red-blooded American, I said the only thing I could think of that was certain to reinvigorate the room.

"So, how 'bout that Charlie Sheen?" It worked.

If you have somehow missed the unbelievably entertaining rants actor Charlie Sheen has treated us all to in the past week, what can I say. Catch up.


Now, I would be lying like a dog if I said I hadn't joined in the fontrum, the schadenfreude, the joy at the wrongness of it all. Charlie is having a meltdown, and he's doing it on national, nay - global, television.


And yet, could there be a method to his delightfully public madness? I submit, for your consideration, the following evidence:

• He may have lost a sitcom which he apparently hated as much as the rest of us did, but Sheen has gained over 2 million followers and very, very large endorsement contract on Twitter.
• He has signed a contract for his own show (please God, please let it be a talk show) on Mark Cuban's HD Net channel.
• His name is in the mouth of every meta-show, every network, every studio in and out of Hollywood. Sure, it's followed by expletives, but if it's true that the only bad publicity is no publicity, then on some level the man really is winning.

Did he plan all of this? It seems unlikely, but no more unlikely than anything Sheen has said or done lately. 


But more to the point, what is it about Sheen's outrageous behavior that has captured the interest of, well, practically everyone? Anyone who has spent time with a person diagnosed with bipolar personality disorder (a.k.a. manic depression) will recognize Sheen's grandiose diatribes as par for the course during a manic phase. Delusions, paranoia, a general break from reality and insistence that he is the only one who knows what's really going on are far from unusual.


But what is so intriguing, so inviting, so entertaining is the unique situation Sheen is in due to his celebrity status, which has only increased during his wild episodes. Sheen has the resources and the outlet to literally say anything he thinks, to do anything he wants. And who among us can honestly say we have never wished we could do the same?


It is notoriously difficult to get a person in the middle of a manic episode to take medication, and for good reason. Mania feels good. It is exhilarating. It draws attention, as Sheen could clearly attest. Perhaps most importantly, mania is often characterized by a rise in both creativity and fearless self-expression. Indeed, many scholars have theorized a link between bipolar disorder and the expression of creative genius. Sheen may be in good company here. Without the creativity and bravado of people who suffered from bipolar disorder, we would arguably be deprived of masters like Edgar Allen Poe, Earnest Hemingway, and Vincent Van Gogh. 


That's not necessarily to say that Sheen is a genius. He seems to be rather on the other end of the spectrum for now. But he is far from alone in reacting to the bipolar diagnosis with disdain and mistrust, saying "And then what? What's the cure? Medicine? Make me like them?" Many people taking mood-stabilizing medications express similar frustration. Medication may calm them, but it also dampens their creativity, their expressiveness, their sense of uniqueness. In order to be accepted, society demands that they tone down erratic behavior, increase their concern about how they are perceived by others, and generally pull it together enough to go with the flow. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to ask ourselves, are we medicating them to improve their quality of life, or our own? Do we want them to act more "normal" because it is in their best interest, or because they are making us uncomfortable?


And when it comes right down to it, who are we to insist that Sheen, or anyone else, change to meet our expectations of who and what they should be? Of course we must intervene when people represent a threat to themselves or others. But Sheen is no threat to us. You and I are just an audience. When it comes down to it, we don't really know what's going on behind the curtain. What we do know is that he is outrageous, provocative, controversial, and highly entertaining. And really, what more can we ask of a pop culture icon?

UPDATE: Why Chris Brown's panties are all in a wad over Sheengate

Read more »