The Omnivore's Dilemma response (1-31)

I wasn't sure what to expect when I started reading Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma. Upon the first few pages0, I was amazed at the amount of information given and it was yet another reality check in relation to where a person's food comes from. Before I started the first chapter, I was intrigued how much I was reminded of Schlosser's lecture: "Move over to Meat, though, and the chain grows longer and less comprehensible: the label doesn't mention that the rib-eye steak came from a steer born in South Dakota and fattened in a Kansas feedlot on grain grown in Iowa" (Pollan 17). It really makes me question where food comes from. I suppose it should have been more obvious that the process was so calculated out considering his never ending list of food and products that have corn in them and basically calling the human race corn people.

Another aspect that I found was interesting was that despite how we as a society are so dependent on corn, Pollan suggests that it is just as dependent on us as well: "Corn is the hero of its own story, and though we humans played a crucial supporting role in its rise to world domination, it would be wrong to suggest we have been calling the shots or acting always in our own best interest. Indeed, there is every reason to believe that corn has succeeded in domesticating us." I like this way of thought because it offers a unlimited possibility in regard to a food's potential.

In regard to the rest of the book, I'm anxious to find out how/what Pollan will say about other foods and how they interact with society.

Michael Clayton response

I enjoyed this film. It was obvious how the idea of toxic discourse was going to play into the plot: the overall effects of the agrochemicals and their role throughout. I'm reminded of numerous readings that involve land destruction and their effects on people as well as Schlosser's lecture and how he states how messy the fast food industry is, and how once you're presented with the closer reality of it all, it's at that point where things become more and more difficult. The idea of greed and money and their effects ties nicely into toxic discourse as a whole, and the movie proves this. The movie's conclusion deals with money and shows Michael waiting for Karen. He confronts her, then demands $10 million for his silence. Granted, I silently cheered when Michael did what he did, but Gilroy seems to hit on a point on how these little things contribute into a larger scale and with that said, the grand scheme of things eventually unwinds as well, creating more problems. Even before the movie's ending, there's the instance in the office where Michael gets the $80,000 bonus for his debt, however, there's a point of confidentiality, preventing him from hurting the firm. There constantly seems to be this secrecy. It's hidden and because it's not presented offers an idea of wonderment.