News Analysis

“India Food Security Bill Could Be Stalled” – by Prasanta Sahu and Romit Guha

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203922804578080082774594820.html

Paper’s Bias: I’ve gathered information from this article from the online Wall Street Journal. This organization aims to provide their readers with the on goings of the economy. With this, the paper’s bias remains towards the side of the government stating that the government doesn’t have enough money to start the food security bill until the next fiscal year (starting in April 2013) because of the present deficit.

Author’s Bias: Though these two authors, Sahu and Guha, are part of this corporation, there is a statement from another source, which states “[The government] use it [the introduction of the bill] as it’s carrot before the 2014 elections.” By mentioning this, it shows that the authors are more towards the side of the people who are food insecure as they agree with the statement about the government trying to use the food security bill to capture the votes of those belonging to the poor sectors of society.

Purpose: The purpose of this article is clearly an informative piece of news as the authors don’t try to persuade their readers to go against the government’s plan, only they merely state the reasons, directly, as to why the government has taken the decision to stall the food security bill until the next fiscal year.

Argument: The argument found in this article is though the government has decided to take on the responsibility of subsidizing “grains to more than 60% of India’s 1.2 billion people, with special provisions for pregnant women, destitute children, and others” it needs to make sure it has enough money to be able to do this without causing harm to the whole country. The government believes that it will need “745.52 billion rupees” to subsidize food for the poor during this fiscal year, and it does not have enough money, and for this reason it is pushing back the introduction of the bill until next year.

Importance of Food Security in Different Countries

     For developed countries like the United States and the United Kingdom, food insecurity holds a different meaning from countries like India and Pakistan where the literacy rates are much lower than the literacy rates in the US and UK. Due to the economic meltdown, many people in the developed countries have lost their jobs and are unable to have the luxuries they did before. However, there are many food shelters these people can go to to have meals 5 times a week. The recent video we watched in class stated that people in the United States view food insecurity in two different ways: the first being that the diet that people have either isn't big enough or the quality of the food isn't good, and the second is that people don't know where the next meal will come from. However, the difference between the causes of food insecurity in developing countries such as Pakistan and India is due to a lack of education. People come from big families where the parents are uneducated, causing them to work in a minimum wage job. The money they make isn't enough to sustain a family of seven or eight. For this reason, their children are unable to go to school and are unable to have enough food in their bellies. There aren't many places available in the rural areas of developing countries where poor people can have access to free food like the food shelters in the US.

"A Further Attack on PDS" by Madhura Swaminathan

* NOTE: PDS stands for public distribution system

Bias: THe autheor seems to take the side of the public distribution system along with the people who are food insecure and goes against the government stating its corruption.

Purpose: Though the author provides many statistical evidence, she is trying to persuade her readers of the government's corruption and "disinterest" in food insecurity and is also trying to persuade her readers to view food insecurity as a major problem.

Argument: Her argument states that the separation of low income families into below poverty line (BPL) and above poverty line (APL), the government only providing a set amount of grains for the poorest families, and increasing the prices of grains will increase the problem of food insecurity. THe only solution is by allowing the food economy and the public distribution system (PDS) to be guided by those in need of food and those who are poor.

"Fighting for Food Security in India" by Biraj Swain

Bias: Talking about food insecurity throughout his article, the author clearly take the side of those whoa re food insecure, however, doesn't try to put those who aren't in favor of those who are food insecure like the author of "A Further Attack on PDS."

Purpose: Though he supports finding a solution to food insecurity he doesn't try to put any side down unlike the other author. He tires to be equal regarding both sides, the government and those in favor of eliminating food insecurity, stating what the government has done, what the problems are, and other people's say regarding the possible solutions.

Argument: His argument states that though the government is working towards reducing food insecurity, there are other things such as equal rights on land to both men and women farmers, a better way of calculating how much food people need, media going above reviews about diet book and more on the food insecurity issue, and realizing that the global climate affects the poor as well.

Evidence and Discrepancies between "A Further Attack on PDS" and "Fighting for Food Security in India"

1. Both authors stated that India was hiding huge amounts of grains.

2. However, Swaminathan stated that it was 45.5 million tonnes that was hidden while Swain stated that it was 60 million tonnes.

3. The second article stated the supreme court took action against the government stating the need to consider food insecurity.

4. The first article stated that India tried to sell grains to foreigners - however, didn't say where this information came from.

5. Both the authors agreed that there should be a better way of dealing with the public distribution system, Swaminathan stating that there shouldn't be a divide between APL and BPL, while Swain stated that there should be a "stronger, transparent monitoring" system.

6. Article one stated that 47% children between the ages of 0 and 4 are malnourished and 48.5% of adults were malnourished between the years of 1993 and 1994.

7. It also stated that for BPL families, rice and wheat prices increased by 68%. For people APL, the rice prices increased 29%.

Food Security and Poverty - Personal Perspective

1. Who is affected?

People who suffer from poverty are those who are unable to have a proper home, have access to proper clothing or enough money to spend without having to lose access to other resources. People who suffer from poverty are those who have suffered from the financial meltdown or are uneducated and have to survive on a minimum wage job with very little benefits from those jobs.

2. How many are affected?

I believe that about 3.5 billion people suffer from poverty and food insecurity out of the 7 billion people in the world today.

3. Is this a major problem?

I believe that this is a major problem in the world beacuse it causes a divide in society. It creates an unbalance in the way poor people can do this which leads to overpopulation. The mentality poor people have is: More children equals more money. For this reason, many poor people come from a family of 5 or 6 children. The parents are unable to pay for the education of the five or six children causing the children to be uneducated. These children, when they grow up, will also contain that same mentality of the parents and the cycle continues.

4. What are some solutions?

The main reason why poverty occurs, in my opinion, is because people are unable to find access to a good educational system. I believe that the first step to decreasing poverty and increasing the idea of food security is by allowing people a free education. This is something that governments in the third world countries should aim towards.

Mr. Krishnan - a CNN Hero

What is the purpose of this video?	What are the claims being made?
The purpose of this video was for CNN to show their audience the kinds of people who do good in the world. It is also to teach people to give back to those who need help. Here, CNN is trying to show their audience that doing a little bit for people can go a long way.	I believe that there are two claims that are being made in this video. One claim is clearly stated by Krishnan at the end of the video, which states that “life is about giving back.” The second message is less obvious. The video states that it doesn’t matter where you come from – what background you belong in, or what country you are from – helping others is just that, helping and sharing your little “wealth” (not necessarily money) to those who are less fortunate.
Do you agree/disagree with the contention of this video? Why?	Is this video factual or telling a story? In what way?
I agree with this video because the second message reminds people to give back. There are many a times when all of us state that we will go out and help the needy but end up getting too preoccupied with our own lives to see that there are others out there who need help. This video shows us that if a man can give up a major job to help the poor, then there is no reason why we can’t take an hour from our day to help those in need.	This video was aimed towards telling a story. This video hit the heart instead of stating facts and figures. This video showed a moral at the end and made it’s audience question and speculate on their own lives. For this reason, those this video was true, told a story and allowed people to look deep into their own hearts.

"Why We Like What We Like"

Central Argument: The things we like and the things we dislike are influenced more by the things around us – our environment – rather than the way we feel and “who we are as a person.”

Essay:

We have new trends bombarding our daily lives with advertisements, with magazines commercials, and with movies that show everything we want but don’t have. We are also human beings and all we want to do is be part of the crowd, and not be socially outlasted by society. For that matter, being a social outcast is our biggest nightmare, whether we admit it or not. Everything around makes us want to be or have what society is presenting to us. This is evident with the way fashion has changed and with the way we have found the need for different types of electronic gadgets.

The fashion pattern in history seems to repeat itself every 20 years. I remember going through my mom’s old photos only to find that things were pretty much similar to what she wore when she was in college, when I was in middle school. There were a lot of solid colors, lot of flared jeans, a lot of scarves, and so on. Now, 5 years after that, the style has changed to short dresses, tight shirts, a lot of patterns, choosy jeans and so on. There has been a major shift in the way people dress up every few years. At Woodstock especially we notice, the fashion trends and changes among students quickly. One year you see people wearing bell bottoms and a plain t-shirt and sweat shirt and the a few years later you find people wearing animal prints, and patterns, and choosy jeans, and so on. People like the things that influence society because they don’t want to be classified as outcasts of society. They want to be part of the in crowd, and that is what most humans thrive and live for.

When it comes to gadgets, Apple products out ride every other company in the world. Apple is the biggest household name on the block and is the one who has made everyone change from PCs to Macs. 1990’s and the early 2000s consisted of mainly Windows products, as Apple was unsuccessful in winning over the ever-growing gadget seeking nation. After the MacBook came out, the change in demand of products were huge. Many started shifting from Windows to Macs. After a few people started with this, the majority of the technology population started buying Apple products. Apple became extremely famous after this. They came up with the iPhone, the iPod, the iTouch, the iPad, and so on. But why do people really buy these products? Because they are durable and reliable or because they are the in thing right now? I think that it’s because it’s the in thing. When my father bought his Mac, he bought it because it was of strong quality. That computer lasted him 10 years. When he bought me a Mac, the only thing that I though of was the way it looked and how everyone was going on about it being the best. I didn’t even consider my dad’s experience with it before buying the product. He just bought it for me, and I felt part of something – maybe the Apple revolution.

We focus too much on being accepted by everyone that we forget some times that we let them choose the way we become. But the reason why we like what we like is because we care about what others think of us.

Week 4 - Prompt 3: "Please Read This Article, Thank You"

Central Argument: Linton Weeks takes many different opinions from mannerists and etiquette mavens, and eventually concludes to the idea that people have forgotten how to express polite phrases such as “thank you” and “please” because society has started to expect everything casual – causal conversation, casual dressing sense, and casual behavior. But Weeks also goes to state that the reason why people have stopped using such phrases is because there has been a shift in ways of communicating where no one expects such “formalities.”

Essay:

            When we walk around the hallways at school during the class changes, we always hear the phrases, “Get out of the way” or “Why are you standing in the way, MOVE.” It is true that I am one of those people who yells these few phrases out every once in a while. Though this could be utter frustration from having to run to English class to earn a stamp for being on time, it is still out of place to scream such things on the top of our lungs. People are probably as frustrated as though who say this, but don’t seem to do anything about it. They take their own opinions and keep it within themselves. They know that it is out of place to say such things. For this reason, we can say that these people have manners, and know that rude behavior should not be accepted in any circumstances. I agree with Week’s concept that polite phrases are fading out in today’s world for these reasons: many feel too comfortable around their friends, allowing them to act any way they want; as we forget to appreciate those that take care of us on a daily basis; and as we are too used to receiving gifts and gadgets that we forget the meaning of love and happiness.

            Last week before my major mock AP Chemistry exam, one of my not-so-close friends, came up to me and demanded that I give her my calculator. There I was, sitting, trying to get my head wrapped around the concept of quantum numbers with the help of my trusty calculator, and this not-so-good friend of mine approaches me and demands that I give her something that is helping ME succeed. I looked at her appalled, to see only a blank face returning my appalled one. She expected me to give her MY calculator without her asking politely. I have always believed in common courtesy and being polite to those when possible, though I may not always follow it myself. But I was baffled to see this person, stand in front of me, asking me for something that was mine, without having the courtesy of even saying “please.” I thought that she had enough decency to do that much, but clearly, she didn’t. I looked at her and told her that I was busy preparing for the same test she was trying to take. I got up from where I was sitting, turned around to face her, and told her “If you had a bit of manners, I would have slightly considered giving you MY calculator,” and then stormed off. I understand that it wasn’t the best way to handle the situation, but I think that it is our duty as civil, kind, compassionate human beings that we were “made” to be, to follow through and be those people, even though times have changed. Just because society as become more corrupt, doesn’t mean the human race has to be.

            On Tuesday, during homeroom, my English teacher, also one of the advisors for the 11^th grade, approached the whole class and put us in our places; and I commend him for that. Though not all his points were fair, I feel that his message as a whole was spot on. To summarize his speech, he stated that the 11^th grade at Woodstock School didn’t have the decency to respect their elders and those who helped them when they needed it the most. People at Woodstock have everything that is luxurious. We have flat screen TVs in dorms while other boarding school students don’t have the luxury of watching TV, we have a menu filled with variety (even though we don’t believe so) while students in other boarding schools don’t have the luxury of choosing their menu, and we have teachers and dorm parents who care about our well being and our success (even though we don’t think so) while other students from boarding school don’t have the luxury of people who truly and genuinely care about their students. We are so used to these luxuries and these people who are always there to help us that we forget that to appreciate them. As we forget to appreciate them, we stop trying to be polite to them. We treat them as any other “objects” (no offensive to anyone) and forget to respect them. We forget to say “thank you” and “please” and “we appreciate everything that you do for us.” For this reason, we have turned into the brats of the 21^st century. We don’t know how to show people that we genuinely care about everything they have done for us, because we expect everything to be handed to us on a silver platter.

            My parents are those who buy their children almost anything they want. They aren’t those parents who give children iPods or Mac Books when they get good grades or when they stay out of trouble; they are the ones who will try to do anything to meet their children’s demand and keep them happy. I have noticed this trend in my entire family. All my aunts and uncles treat their children the way my parents treat my sister and I – they try to meet every demand. Though I’m not always the most appreciative child, I always make the effort to say thank you to my parents when they get me gifts and when they do nice things for me. When I’m at school and my parents get me a parcel, I always make sure I write an email, even if it is a few words, to appreciate them remembering me and sending me a gift. I can’t say the same for my cousins though. They seem to expect everything from their parents as they are too used to getting almost everything they want. They get cranky and annoyed when their parents don’t get them what they want, when they want it. Because we always expect things from people, we forget the meaning, the innocence, of receiving gifts and the joy we feel will while opening the wrapper. That is all lost when we expect to always get gifts, and this why we forget to express our appreciativeness.

            I don’t believe that there is any society shift change in the world that can possibly explain and allow people behaving rudely to one another. However, there may be an explanation, though it might not be the most pleasant of circumstances. We are too used to things – both of people doing things for us and trying to help us out in any way they can and of people making us feel joyful by giving us gifts. People are too used to the relationships they have with others that they forget to thank them in the end, and instead act as though they own the person. Someone needs to bring these people, including me some times, that the world doesn’t revolve around them. 

Week 2- Prompt 1: "Of Marriage and Single Life"

Central Argument: There is a certain point where one should get married; this is after one's youth when they've gone out and "done" things, and when one can take their responsibilities of marriage and transfer it as a positive objective.

During my winter break, my mother told me a story about how my grandparents had asked her to stop working before she got married to my father. During the proposal and the engagement between my mother and my father, my mother was working as a single woman in a company called ICIMOD, an NGO that helps build roads in rural areas across Nepal. My mother had completed her Bachelors degree in English Language and Literature, and made her way to working in an NGO. She was a pretty well off Nepali woman during that time period. She had gotten many proposals from well-reputed families, but she refused each one of those offers. Though her parents believed that getting married off to a well-reputed family would make her life, she believed differently; she believed that her life would be made if she stood on her own two feet. She then met my dad, who came from an extremely well known family. His father, my grandfather, was the governor of Rastra Bank in Nepal, and believed that his daughter-in-law didn't need to work to sustain herself as she would be part of such a family. My mother felt offended with this statement made to her and stated that she didn't care if she didn't marry my father. She had no emotional attachments to him during that time, and believed that her single life was the time where she would "make a difference in the world" and contribute to society as much as she can. Sir Frances Bacon, like my mother, believed that there was a certain point when people should get married. This point is when they've used their youth to go out and "do" things and when they believe that their married life responsibilities will allow them to contribute positively to society. I agree with Bacon, as Juno from Juno shows us the sacrifice she made to become a better citizen of society, and as both Obama and his wife, Michelle, show us the balance between raising children and leading a country can contribute positively to society.

Juno MacGuff from the movie Juno is the sacrificial character when she gives up her child to a couple, so that she can excel in school, go and further her education, and contribute her ideas to society in a positive manner. Juno becomes impregnated by best friend and long time admirer. Whilst discovering her pregnancy, she considers giving up the child for adoption but then later decides to bring the child into the world and give him/her for adoption. She finds a well off family and decides on a closed adoption. She grows close the the couple who she decides to entrust her child to. Whilst growing close to the couple, she slowly starts realizing that their marriage is falling apart. She does everything she can to try and stop the couple from breaking up, partly because she doesn't want her child to go through this kind of lifestyle. But goes out and tries to stop a failing marriage. She tries to bring a family close together and then she goes out and tries to create a family of her own. She tries to build relationships with those important to her. She sacrifices the life she could have with her child so that she would be able to give her child a better life than one she would provide. She goes out and tells her baby's father, and her long time friend, how she feels about him. She shows him how much she cares about him and starts creating a "family" of her own. She gives her life with the child up, so that she can further her education, becoming a better student, a better citizen, and a better person for her child's world by studying and furthering her knowledge.

On the other hand, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama, furthers Bacon's argument about marriage responsibility bringing out the positive contributions to society. We all know the power couple, Barack and Michelle Obama, as household names all over the world. We know how much influence and strength they have all over the world. They seem to balance their lives out the best way they can. The couple has two children, whom they have to raise in a positive manner. This is their responsibility as a married couple. They reciprocate this responsibility whilst governing a nation. They have to be able to groom the country, teach them what is right and what is wrong, guide them in decision making, and try to make them the best people, and the best nation, they can possibly be. They use the techniques they use to raise their kids to govern the nation. They take the responsibilities of married life and contribute positively to society.

The day and age we live in today, people are not too worried about marriage and agree mostly with the idea that one's youth is to go out and "do" things, but there are still places in the world where marriage is looked at as a sacred ritual which every person should "get to experience." But I believe that there is a right time to get married, this time is when things have been achieved, and when your experiences and responsibilities in married life, make you a better person of society.

Prompt #4 - "Why Good Advertising Works (Even When You Think It Doesn't)"

Prompt 4: “Why Good Advertising Works (Even When You Think It Doesn’t) by Nigel Hollis.

Central Argument:

            Hollis states that a good advertisement engages an audience and implants memories that affect their behavior, influences their actions in a subtle way, and leaves impressions, which allow the audience to see the product in a positive light.

Essay:

            Mid-way my first semester of junior year, I entered my best friend’s room and I witnessed horror. I saw my friend and her roommate, along with five other people, sitting on one bed, playing a game called “Tetris Battle” on Facebook. They had paused their games to have a conversation with me that lasted thirty seconds, and then went back to playing. Offended, I walked out of the room and went to my own where my roommate was playing the game. She did the same thing to me; it was only later I realized that the game only allowed you to pause for thirty seconds. Still, it was a bit rude. When I went to school, I saw EVERYONE playing it. In classes, during break, lunch, and before going to bed. I was appalled. I would always hear people praising “Tetris Battle”; they would tell me the joys of winning the battles, about looking forward to gaining more energy, and about how addicting it was. I thought it was all nonsense when I first heard of it. I was disinterested and I made a vow to myself saying that I will never play that game. But that didn’t happen, and the result, I’m addicting like those seven girls playing “Tetris Battle” on one bed. My friends had left an impression on me; they had made me believe that the game was truly utopia. They had advertised the game to me, and I had fallen for it. With my little experience, I believe that Hollis is correct in saying that good advertisements leave an impression and create memories, which make you want to relive that moment. Good advertisements have humor that create memories and ads with celebrities leave an impression.

            Many Americans look forward to the Super Bowl, not only for the football matches, but also for the hilarious TV commercials that air during the tournament. The Super Bowl is a time for families to bond, get together, and watch games – that seems more like a pastime than Baseball for Americans. The Super Bowl commercials are present to enhance the feeling of togetherness among family members. They marketing companies take advantage of that and create commercials, which are funny to make things more memorable. The companies know that funny ideas, comments, actions, and so on stick to people more than anything else, and therefore, they try and use humor to get people to buy their product. Watching the commercials with family and having a good laugh, makes people remember the advertisement better. When they come across something that triggers that memory, people will want to go and buy to product in order to relive that certain moment.

            We know we’re not perfect and that’s what makes us humans. That is why we have role models, those we can look up to and those we can try to be like. Marketing companies tap our insecurities and make sure that they include celebrities we look up to, celebrities who are famous. This makes their advertisements successful. They use the idea of ethos in their commercials. I recently watched a commercial that promoted Pepsi. The advertisement had Elton John commenting on people’s talents. The message basically stated that Elton John drinks Pepsi, and so should you. Though it’s a logical fallacy, the audience doesn’t really look and analyze it closely, instead, they are mesmerized by the advertisement and want to go out and buy Pepsi because Elton John drinks Pepsi. The advertisement leaves an impression and wants you to feel like you need to go out and buy that product because it is the “in” thing to do.

            There are some commercials out there where we know what they are trying to do. They just straightforwardly convey their message. The audience normally feels taken aback by this and doesn’t want to go out and buy the product, just because they blatantly promoted it. The human mind works in weird ways, and even though more subtle commercials are doing the same thing, we see it in a different light. Commercials like this are trying to make memories for us which reminds us of the good times and makes us want to buy the product; it also leaves impressions by adding role models into their commercials. Commercials were we feel like we can relate more to are those, which are more successful. They are the ones that get the better results and the greater profit.