Michael Clayton

Michael Clayton is a powerful movie that digs to the core of major corporations and unveils the ethics used in establishing their billion dollar empires. One corporation that the movie focuses on is an environmental "friendly" business called UNorth. UNorth has done everything in their power to cover up a monumental mistake with there product. Simply put, their product is environmentally unfriendly and has the capability to make living organism (including humans) deathly ill. This unsettling issue has the potential to crush the corporation and bankrupt everyone involved. Ultimately this scenario leads to the reality of the movie. That reality being the unethical views that these corporations practice to insure their product. One such practice in Michael Clayton is to murder anyone who has information detrimental to the company and who is willing to present that information to the public. This is a very intimidating and real situation as UNorth could care less about the person they are murdering, especially considering he (Arthur Edens) has worked with them for many years. It is just until recently that Arthur has grown disgusted with UNorth and plans to bring down the corporation through the courts. One of my favorites scenes in the movie is when Arthur is explaining to Michael about the corruption he has surrounded himself with. Arthur describes himself as being covered in an embryonic fluid, being drenched in afterbirth and says, "I realized Michael, that I had emerged not from the doors of Kenner, Bach, and Ledeen, not through the portals of our vast and powerful law firm, but from the asshole of an organism whose sole function is to excrete the... the-the-the poison, the ammo, the defoliant necessary for other, larger, more powerful organisms to destroy the miracle of humanity."This is a moment in the movie of pure honesty. Arthur has spent a majority of his life working as a lawyer to protect the investments of these toxic corporations but now he sees himself only as a pawn and a byproduct of their unethical practices. Just like the shit they sell, he has done and become exactly what they wanted him to. This is why Arthur realizes he can no longer be Shiva The God of Death. Arthur has a conscience and wants to help preserve the innocence of the world. This opportunity to fix some of the problems he has created is his chance to rectify some of these tragedies throughout the years.

This brings me to my next point. Arthur's last name, Edens, is a very unique name for this movie. It brings up ideas of the Garden of Eden and the purity of human existence before corruption and temptation. Arthur's name gives him a legitimate reason to be seen as a savior in the movie because he represents a time when there was purity and innocence. His intellect also makes him an out-of-this-world character. He is made to be this all knowing lawyer who never losses. This gives him credibility in using his knowledge to bring down UNorth. Thus establishing a purer environment and preventing the spread of environmental corruption. Perhaps Arthur thinks if he can halt these environmental unfriendly corporations, he can protect what is left of the innocence of the world, such as people like Anna. Ultimately restoring some of that natural wilderness which Cronon refers to; not the wilderness constructed by mankind.

All in all I enjoyed Michael Clayton for the attention it calls to these unethical corporations and their impact on community and environment. The first time I saw this movie I did not have the same type of reaction as I do now. Through studying topics such as environmental injustice and toxic discourse, I can truly appreciate the red flags Michael Clayton raises on both environmental and ethical issues.

Fast Food Nation

After leaving Eric Schlosser's lecture on Monday, I could only feel disgust for the route our nation has taken in it's efforts for conformity and cheapness. Eric's lecture was nothing more then pure honesty and none bias. His concepts were shaped solely by his research of the fast food industry. He was not told what to write or think; he only acted on what he saw. This idea is one that has stuck with me throughout the speech.

When Eric first began to speak he told us how he had little interest in doing a piece on the fast food industry. It was through research of fast food company that he became so angered and upset with the way our nation is headed. The fact that places like McDonald's strive for a slogan "One Taste Worldwide" is disgusting to me as well. It's sad that low income families have little chance to escape this taste. What is even sadder is that these families are subjecting their children to illness such as salmonella and obesity because of the cheap food they are eating. But these families do not have much choice, If you have cheap prices then you have a cheap product. Something which does not bother McDonald's, Wendy's, KFC, etc.

That brings me to my next point. The slaughterhouses and poultry plants which provide meat to these fast food industries are a stain on the United States. Instead of having farms across the U.S. breeding natural cattle, we are processing genetically enhanced cattle which are crammed into unsanitary living quarters. Also these cattle are being slaughtered and their meats are getting blended together. When it comes down to it your eating 1000 different cattle but it only takes one with a sickness to make your child or grandmother very ill. Eric compared this to having multiple sex partners and trying not to get a disease. Yeah, that put it into perspective for everyone in the auditorium. The same can be said about the chickens who are being tortured and forced to sleep in the smallest space imaginable. Not to mention they are sleeping in their feces and probably have not moved for their entire lives. This is what we are subjecting these animals to. Is it really worth a unhealthy meal?

This is animal cruelty on the highest level and we just turn our heads and ignore it. For what? A three dollar meal which has the potential to give us extreme illness and turn us into an obese nation. Something needs to be done about the food we eat asap. We need to support local organic farms, get involved with community events that celebrate this logical way to eat. Stop conforming to the blood sucking executives who could care less about your health. The idea of cheapness is nice but when it is destroying the future of your nation then it must be rectified. People should care who they are giving their money to, the same way a organization should care about its customers.

Cronon V Thoreau

My first impression of Cronon’s views on Thoreau and wilderness were similar to the first time I came across Thoreau myself. To many people Thoreau’s views can be seen as somewhat delusional but to some they can seem awe-inspiring. The concept that mankind can find their true self in nature by giving up everything is quite a claim. A claim that Cronon disagrees with by simply explaining that nature cannot be a place where mankind resides for if we reside in wilderness then we our contradicting the definition of wilderness.

One of Cronon’s arguments that stood out to me was when he described American settler’s driving Indians out of their homelands to create an uninhabited wilderness for us. Cronon explains, “there is nothing natural about the concept of wilderness. It is entirely a creation of the culture that holds it dear, a product of the very history it seeks to deny.” (79). I agree with Cronon in this aspect. If wilderness is something that we have created through our redefining of a landmass then how can it be a place untouched by mankind? If our culture has created something, regardless of what it may be, then our creation cannot be a pure as something which Thoreau describes. This is one of Cronon’s big arguments and he gives strong reasoning to support his claim.

Overall, Cronon and Thoreau are at opposite poles when it comes to the concept of wilderness. Cronon bashes Thoreau’s theory but he does it respectfully. He supplies reasonable evidence and does some good persuading throughout the piece. If someone were to read this article after being baffled by Thoreau then I feel there would be a strong will to accept Cronon’s view because of the complex and extreme measures Thoreau takes to prove his point. It is easier for people to believe something which that can grasp and really understand; similar to many of the arguments which Cronon makes. Thoreau is really going against the grain because not many people have put themselves into the type of situation which he has been in. What Cronon does in this piece is take a very complex idea and attack it with strong evidence. Something which Cronon and I believe Thoreau lacks.