As I was sitting at a table in Kerbey Lane around 1:30 or so on Saturday night (or perhaps more accurately Sunday morning), I wondered what had drawn me there.  Certainly it had to do a lot with the fact that it’s open around the clock, but is that the only reason it’s frequented by hundreds of college students at all hours of the night?  I came to the obvious conclusion that I was mainly there for some delicious queso; however, almost as important was the restaurant’s comfortable environment.  Kerbey is always full of energy, yet paradoxically provides a place to relax at the same time.  It has a cozy diner feel, but has enough rooms, nooks, and booths to seem somewhat private if one is looking for conversation.  I then realized just how important the atmosphere and setup of a restaurant is, and thought back to our class discussion on the matter.  Kerbey Lane is a restaurant that invites you in for a long visit, but in a society driven by convenience many eateries fail to do the same.  For instance, I for some reason feel obligated to eat quickly and then leave if I’m eating at any of the Asian restaurants on the drag.  I decided to consider why this might be, and the answers came almost as fast as their food.  The service is speedy, the lighting is fairly bright, and the tables are positioned close together.  Though these restaurants feel nothing like a cafeteria, these particular aspects of the establishments do to some degree seem oddly familiar.  Perhaps this is what subconsciously compels me to get in and out in a timely manner.  Restaurant environment affects customers more than they can imagine.  Unless the features are striking though, such as a fountain at an expensive Italian place, or a playscape at a McDonalds, one doesn’t necessarily associate certain surroundings with the restaurants he or she frequents, but I think the atmosphere influences people in countless unseen ways.

I’ve always been a lover of food.  On family vacations I perhaps most look forward to the fine dining, as a student any superfluous spending is done at coffee shops or restaurants, and during holidays the festivities are almost as much about the meals as family.  Well, the last statement might be a slight exaggeration, but this doesn’t suggest I enjoy food any less.  This being the case, I’ve actually been watching the Food Network for years.  The topic of celebrity chefs is therefore one I’m quite familiar with.  Long before our class discussions I’ve known about the somewhat manic nature of Paula Deen, Rachael Ray’s signature one word response to any tasty morsel she pops in her mouth, and the phrase, “Allez cuisine!”, spoken before the beginning of each Iron Chef battle, but they have pointed out some significant nuances I’d never taken notice of.  For example, I’d never realized the seemingly gender-specific roles the chefs have been assigned.  When one looks closely at the shows given to each gender, the parts the chefs play could be construed as sexist.  Women tend to be set in the kitchen, while men are placed in any number of other places.  The set a woman chef generally works at in designed to look like a kitchen at a home, or is indeed her own kitchen.  The women seek a primarily female audience, particularly housewives, to teach simple and delicious meals to, in order for them to please their families.  Men on the other hand are seen in cooking “arenas”, food “workshops”, or in other countries.  The male chef’s job is to explore, learn, and compete.  Men travel the world and battle each other in food preparation, but very little in the way of cooking process of the food is expressed.  Thus, while the men bolster their masculinity through battle, the women stay at home to care for them when they get back.  Personally I don’t think the Food Network is attempting to perpetuate stereotypes, but rather it is simply providing shows that cater to different audiences; however, one could probably make a strong case is opposition to my view.

Humor is perhaps the least appropriate method of argumentation I can think of in regard to our current topics.  Needless to say I didn’t exactly feel giddy after watching Thin, nor did I feel the need to crack a joke while reading various posts on pro-ana sites.  Humor is missing in this topic for good reason though.  It can play an important role in breaking the ice while making a presentation or a speech, but it is definitely a type of argumentation best reserved for certain situations.  A lame or offensive joke can immediately ruin a person’s credibility, as the use of humor in the arena of eating disorders would certainly mare the ethos of any source.  Humor is best, and most effectively used in arguments involving less serious subject matter.  One won’t necessarily fail using a funny line or two while addressing an audience on a meaningful issue, but when doing so a person puts him or herself on thin ice.  On false step could cost a person the respect or attention of the listener.  Offensive material puts a person’s focus on those one or two lines, and he or she will often hear little else the presenter, whether an author or speaker, has to say.  One of the areas humor is best left to in my opinion is television, and specifically commercials.  Within 15-30 seconds a commercial has to memorably persuade a person he or she absolutely cannot survive without the said product or service.  Humor can sometimes overshadow the product, but it is an essential tool nonetheless.  It is a type of argumentation that can swiftly make an impact and stick in a person’s mind forever, so it is perfect for the small amount of time given.  One commercial I saw recently about digital cable made great use of this technique.  It combined star power and name recognition with humor to create an unforgettable argument–for some reason I need to switch to digital cable…

I must admit, it’s been a little difficult to relate on a personal level to our latest topics of dieting and eating disorders.  What can I say?  I’m a skinny, active kid with a fast metabolism, and more importantly I’m male.  Now, I realize some men go on diets and can face eating disorders as well, but in my experience women are far more commonly involved in these issues.  I have witnessed the effects of such things on the people around me, and all of them have been female.  It is an unfortunate social stigma that women feel they have to be “Hollywood” thin, which is only exacerbated by the prevalence of diet fads in the media.  Skinny Bitch is one such example of a fad diet guide that infiltrated the media and managed to become a best-seller.  As the title loudly proclaims, it is clearly another diet guide aimed solely at women.  The documentary Thin, which is about the gruesome realities of eating disorders, is again focused on recovering women.  I’m not saying some men don’t struggle with these horrible diseases, but one doesn’t often hear of these clinics catering to men.  However, I have been close with some of the girls fighting these diseases around me, so I can sympathize, even though empathy is out of the question.Though I’ve seen friends combat eating disorders, I’d never seen anything like what the documentary brought to light.  I watched them talk cattily behind other girls’ backs, discuss how they need to eat less, and attempt to reject food in all ways possible, and couldn’t help but wonder how on earth people fall into these patterns of behavior.  Are all the fad diets we’ve been discussing partially to blame?  Is it caused primarily through “Hollywood” expectations?  In any case, one can truly see that society needs to make a lot of changes in this regard. It’s difficult to see a specific proposal made, as discussed in Chapter 11 of Everything’s an Argument, in either the book or the documentary, but one can draw ideas of what they might be.  One deceptive proposal that can be drawn from Skinny Bitch is that women should stop eating meat, because the animals are treated poorly and it will help them lose weight.  What is disguised as a diet book is basically a guide for turning someone into a vegan.  The documentary Thin is primarily meant to be informative, but in a larger sense it is arguing that society should pay closer attention to the seriousness of eating disorders, and the role popular culture has played in its development, as many women suffer from these diseases.  One of the main ways it makes this proposal is “painting a picture [...] in memorable ways”, as described on page 335.  The film forces the problem into your mind through disturbing visual imagery, like that of the hole in the girl’s stomach, or the appearance of the girls’ backs during weigh-ins.  The problem’s significance is made perfectly clear through the bleakness in every one of the girls’ eyes.

It might be a stretch to refer to the issue with obesity in the United States as an epidemic, as this term suggests suggests something contagious and uncontainable, but perhaps using language this strong is the only way to grab Americans’ attention.  As I talked about in my paper dealing with the documentary Super Size Me, Americans have become somewhat immune to information presented in normal fashion, and thus a more and more radical way of doing so has become necessary.  This is why I feel the amount of criticism MeMe Roth receives from certain groups is undeserved; she is simply seeking to open peoples’ eyes to a serious issue that is being seemingly ignored by the majority of Americans.  She relies heaviest on causal arguments to communicate her point, as is the nature of this subject (Chapter 10 of Everything’s an Argument, which deals directly with causal arguments, has a segment on this exact issue).  MeMe seeks to point out the many causes of the single effect–a majority of Americans are overweight, a large number are obese and the percentage is increasing every year.  It is a complex argument by the fact that it is extremely difficult to determine all the causes of obesity.  There are known factors such as fat and calorie intake, but one also has to take into account more complicated possible factors such as parenting, friends, exercise, etc.  In all the interviews I have watched with MeMe she presents many of the possible causes of growing obesity, and then supports them with statistical evidence in a clear and eloquent manner.  Obviously many of the causes can be debated, such as overweight parents producing overweight children, but always makes sure to provide some persuasive backing for her causal arguments.  What is truly disturbing are not all the numbers she provides, but the number of people who blatantly refuse to even acknowledge at them.  Looking at the youtube.com comments about her interviews truly discloses the amount of Americans in denial.  It is the people who fire back offensive comments without any real backing, not MeMe.  Yes, she can come across as harsh and rather unrelenting, but this should not detract from most of her valid arguments.  Many Americans need to drop their defensive stances and realize that their health is in jeopardy.

As we’ve pressed on through the various novels, articles, and visual sources of this class, I’ve become more and more disheartened.  What can I actually eat, while taking both the moral and ethical concerns of food into account?  It seems that the real problem stems from the current state of the farm bill, an issue that is for the most part out of the control of the average citizen.  Many of the sources we have read or watched are quick to point out the concerns of industrialized and processed food; however, most fail to point out any realistic solution, if they provide any attempt at one at all.  More than any other source Animal, Vegetable, Miracle has me convinced that I can do something about improving the way I eat.  Now, the question I’ve asked myself countless times while reading this book, and again reiterated in the form of a class discussion question last period was, “How plausible is living the kind of lifestyle the Kingsolvers do for the average citizen?”  Though a viable option for the my future, as a college student it is an absolutely impossible feat to accomplish in the here and now.  The best I can do at present is to carefully monitor the amount of processed foods I intake, and try to eat the freshest fruits and vegetables I can.  However, I do believe the average citizen can substitute at least a portion of his or her diet with home-grown, or fresh, organic produce.  Through definitions by example of what it means to eat towards a healthier lifestyle, the book has shown me that I can actively pursue a partially home-grown diet when I acquire a place of my own.  When Camille, a girl writing in a voice almost any college student can relate to, shares her recipes she provides a strong argument of definition by example.  They sound both doable and delicious, which strongly help to convince me that I can eventually make some important dietary changes, and that the switch will be utterly rewarding.

Corn as we know it today is a hard, inedible crop destined for a single end–processing.  Without this step it is utterly useless as a foodstuff, or as anything else but toxic cow feed for that matter.  ”King Corn” makes not only this argument, but more specifically that the current overproduction of industrialized corn is slowly destroying the environment and the creatures that inhabit it.  As a documentary, the entire argument of the movie is based upon facts.  One could contend that only one side of it is shown, but even then one would have to concede that it is difficult to misrepresent visual evidence when there are clearly no actors or visual tricks used in the picture.  Perhaps some of the most compelling arguments in the documentary were made with the combination of data and pathos.  Personally, the most memorable, as well as the most disturbing point in the movie, was the visit to a Colorado feed lot.  The viewer sees the disgusting, cramped conditions the cows are forced to endure, of which industrialized corn is the evil mastermind, and can’t help but to feel some sort of sympathy.  Along with the various shots of the animals in this dreadful situation, facts behind the lots are offered to the viewer that would make any human squirm uncomfortably.  First, the audience learns that the corn is what makes these lots possible.  Because the subsidized corn is so unbelievably inexpensive, farmers can feed many more cows than they would usually be able to, and therefore cram more onto their lots.  Then, one learns that what the cattle eat hardly constitutes as food at all.  The corn that the cattle consume every day slowly kills them.  As research, and credible sources tell the audience this, they must unwillingly accept the truth behind this cruel treatment.  Not only is the corn unhealthy for the cattle, but it indirectly harms the environment as well.  The waste these giant lots produce is equivalent to, or can even exceed that produced by a city of 1.7 million people.  This mind blowing statistic violently shakes the audience, and only further helps them to tune into a reality we are often oblivious of.

Claim: The basic claim Pollan makes in chapter nine is that the word organic has become meaningless.  ”The organic label may conjure an image of a simpler agriculture, but its very existence is an industrial artifact” (137).  Though the word “organic” may carry with it a certain connotation, in all actuality organic farming is now an extremely industrialized process.  Qualifier: He does seem to limit the scope of his argument a little later in the chapter.  ”So is an industrial organic food chain finally a contradiction in terms?  It’s hard to escape the conclusion that it is.  Of course it is possible to live with contradictions, at least for a time, and sometimes it is necessary or worthwhile.” (183).  Thus, his claim does not entail everything within the organic industry, as it does exist with some contradictions, but as he stated earlier, organic food is probably healthier and generally tastes better.Grounds: “The inspiration for organic was to find a way to feed ourselves more in keeping with the logic of nature, to build a food system that looked more like an ecosystem that would draw its fertility and energy from the sun [...] As in so many other realms, nature’s logic has proven no match for the logic of capitalism” (183-184).  Our society has failed to uphold the basic meaning of organic, and therefore the word is meaningless. Warrants: “Compared to conventional chickens, I was told, these organic birds have it pretty good” (172).  Through this specific, sarcastic statement, Pollan makes the more general warrant that organic farming should be operated differently than conventional, but unfortunately is not.Backing: “Seldom if ever stepped upon, the chicken-house lawn is scrupulously maintained nevertheless, to honor an ideal nobody wants to admit has now become something of a joke, an empty pastoral conceit” (173).  This backs the idea that the chickens are not treated specially, and thus some of the differences between conventional and organic farming are subtle to say the least.Evidence: “They get a few more square inches of living space per bird (though it was hard to see how they could be packed together much more tightly), and because there are no hormones or anti-biotics in their feed to accelerate growth, they get to live a few days longer” (172).  As he traveled to Petluma Poultry as well as conventional farms himself, this statement provides evidence that the treatment of the chickens hardly varied at all.  In many ways the organic label is entirely meaningless, but this sort of “special” treatment allows them to say otherwise.Rebuttal: “Better for what?  If the answer is ‘for my health’ the answer, again, is probably–but not automatically” (177).  Pollan goes on to say that it would be very difficult to scientifically prove organic food was healthier than that conventionally produced.  Though there have been some studies done praising the health benefits of eating organic food, one cannot assume healthiness based on a label.  Many foods certified as “organic” have still been heavily processed or have traveled long distances, losing much of their nutritional value.  

I absolutely adore Whole Foods Market, so it’s quite a shame the prices usually steer me towards cheaper alternatives; however, I was lucky enough to have my sister come through town this weekend on business.  After a run around Town Lake she offered to treat me to dinner, and so I decided to continue with the healthy trend (as well as the fact that I knew I had an assignment due this week).  I have been there on many occasions, so I already knew I was attracted to the store, but I had never truly contemplated why.  I realized that almost everything from the store I chose to put in my body would be healthy, but there had to be more subliminal forces at work.  First, I noticed the not so subtle word choice used on signs.  Whether for entire areas of the store, or just for individual items, the descriptions are never as simplistic as “Potatoes” or “Deli Section”.  At Whole Foods the signs read “Organic Rustic Potatoes” and “Natural Meat and Poultry,” and they aren’t just “Chicken Nuggets”; they feel the need to specify their wholesomeness by adding “Breast” to the title.  I’m sure I buy into this technique though.  Diction is terrifically important in argument, whether it is simply informative, as the signs are, or persuasive, as in a debate.  Through other information on their well crafted signs and other descriptive plaques, they establish ethos in the consumers’ eyes.  By certifying where fruits and vegetables are from, as well as especially identifying local produce, the store gains credibility, as customers view how the company is seeking to support local growers, help the environment, and add uniqueness (as well as justification for high prices) to a nondescript piece of fruit.  Another detail I noticed as I walked with my sister towards the “Prepared Foods” section was organization in the store, and in particular organization by association, a powerful argumentative strategy.  By placing mushrooms in the midst of moss and logs, the store knows one will not be able to separate the two.  One will see the two together and think how fresh, organic, and natural the mushrooms must be.  By placing wine next to certain cheeses, the store appeals to consumers’ knowledge that the two blend together beautifully, and how decadent they are as a pair.  The company of course hopes the consumer will feel obligated to buy both as a consequence.  At this point in browsing I was distracted from my task at hand by the food laying in clear view, and felt compelled to grab a box by the pound meal to enjoy with my sister.

When reading through the first few chapters of “Everything’s an Argument,” one small detail stuck out in my mind more vividly than any one particular mode of argumentation developed by the authors.  At the end of each section, which is generally devoted to a single tactic to be employed within arguments, the authors immediately advise against the overuse of each such strategy.  Two tactics that can be carelessly implemented are humor and emotional appeals.  Both are meant to be used in moderation, and even then only in very specific situations.  In the brilliant stand-up by Jim Gaffigan, in his argument against Hot Pockets, he relies almost solely on humor.  In this particular venue, this is to be expected however.  He is a comedian, and therefore he loses no credibility by cracking jokes throughout his argument on this less than serious topic.  Food is an area where humor is likely to be employed with little caution, as most people do not hold especially strong beliefs about it (although more and more people seem interested in such areas concerning it as animal treatment).  A presidential candidate in a debate is an entirely different story.  Humor may be used sparingly to break the tension between candidates, but if a candidate attempts to use too much he will overshadow serious issues, and thus lose ethos in the eyes of his supporters.  Emotional appeals must also be treated with the utmost care.  I refer once again to presidential candidates in a debate.  If a candidate is to quickly relate an important issue to a personal experience, it can really draw in viewers emotionally; however, if they frequent such a tactic that audience begins to feel quite like a gigantic puppet, as talked about in the book.  An informed viewer does not like being pulled around by their heartstrings.  The topic of this blog applies well both literally and figuratively to food as well.  Food is both meant to be eaten in moderation, and tactics of argumentation surrounding it should be as well.