The FIFA World Cup, along with the Olympic Games, is one of the few truly global entertainment events, with the largest worldwide viewing audience for a sporting event and over 200 countries from every populated continent competing to qualify every four years.

The planning, structure, and production of the month-long tournament have both positive and negative economic effects on productivity, tourism, media exposure, job creation, and public spending, among other issues. What is not often highlighted in discussions on the World Cup is the immense cultural value attributed to the event, both as a unifying tradition and as a chance to showcase distinct national identities on the global stage with less focus on political, economic, and social imbalances.

Final estimates on the total spent by South Africa to host the 2010 World Cup ranged between $3.94 billion and $4.6 billion (Cohen). Only 309,000 foreigners attended (less than 70% of early projections), and the predicted 0.3% to 0.5% increase in the country’s gross domestic product failed to materialize. FIFA came under harsh criticism for announcing record profits of $631 million in 2010 and $4.19 billion over the course of the four-year financial cycle associated with the event, a 59% increase over the 2006 World Cup, and their perceived disregard for native citizens and enterprises led to accusations of exploitation (“FIFA Reports,” Bolsmann). Tickets were priced at unaffordable levels in comparison to the country’s average income of $3 a day and were initially sold online, despite the fact that less than 10% of the population had internet access at the time. FIFA monopolized merchandise sales and services around the stadia, and even the tournament’s official mascot, Zakumi, was mass-produced in Shanghai.

In light of these underwhelming economic results, how can South Africa’s decision to host be justified? Were the international exposure and boost in national morale worth the immense costs? Sporting events at this level often fail to meet financial expectations (the Olympics have been similarly critiqued for leaving host countries with staggering debt), so clearly there are other factors driving the desire to play host. When South Africa was selected to host the 2010 World Cup, it was a momentous occasion. President Jacob Zuma summed it up nicely: “For four weeks…South Africa will be the center of the world…The eyes of billions of television viewers, millions of international visitors and the cream of the world’s sporting media will be focused on the southern tip of Africa. We don’t aim to disappoint” (“2010 FIFA World Cup”). It was an opportunity to defy expectations (such as speculation that the country was not fit to host in the first place), and to overcome the last remnants of international scorn remaining from apartheid. If nothing else, these issues of national identity complicate assigning the tournament a single objective value.

As Brazil gears up to host the 2014 World Cup, critics have already begun to condemn the excessive economic costs: early reports estimate around $13 billion, over three times what South Africa spent. But what are the unacknowledged benefits that will continue to accrue long after the last match has ended? Brazil is quickly emerging as one of the most powerful developing markets in the world, and chances are that when all is said and done the impact will be much greater than economic costs and profits.

Sources:

• “2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa.” SouthAfrica.info. South African Government, n.d. Web. 2 Feb. 2012.
• Bolsmann, Chris. “Is the World Cup Bad for South Africa?” Harvard Business Review. Harvard Business School Publishing, 10 Jun. 2010. Web. 3 Feb. 2012.
• Cohen, Mike. “The World Cup: No Winner in South Africa.” Bloomberg Businessweek. Bloomberg, 1 Apr. 2010. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.
• “FIFA Reports $631-m Profit on 2010 World Cup.” Jamaica Observer. Jamaica Observer, 5 Mar. 2011. Web. 5 Feb. 2012.

Note: This is partly in response to Hanna Woodburn’s blog “Why I might no longer be a vegetarian”

As I write this, at 9:30pm on a Monday night, I am happily consuming a Philly Cheese Steak, complete with what seems like a pound of meat and masses of processed American cheese. Before you question my strange eating habits I will explain why this piece of information is significant: I have decided that from February 22nd, Ash Wednesday, I will give up meat for Lent.  

I’ve always been one to slightly scoff at vegetarian diets, mostly because I really like food, which to me has always included meat.  I only occasionally cook meat at home at the moment because of its expense and the inconvenience of cooking single servings, but I was raised in a meat-friendly home, and will not blink at consuming chicken, beef, pork, duck, rabbit, veal, venison, wild boar, or camel (it tasted a bit like salami). Sure, I have vegetarian friends, and am informed enough to have heard and watched grotesque stories about mass-produced meat, often injected with hormones, fillers, and the like, but eating questionable Mc-meat every once in a while has never phased me too much.

Meat counter at Darts Farm, UK

So why have I decided to adopt a mostly vegetarian lifestyle for at least 40-days?  That question is not something I can answer concisely, but I will try and explain my thought process as much as possible. Perhaps surprisingly, it was not because I was suddenly exposed to the terrible conditions food is sometimes created in – I watched Jamie Oliver’s “Food Revolution” regularly in 2011 and, while being slightly put-off by his discussion of meat fillers in ground beef, did not rush to stop eating burgers then.  Overall, the meat I eat is not the so-called “bad stuff” anyway. I typically order meat when I am out, which is much more often at good quality restaurants than fast food establishments. And I don’t passionately believe that one person ceasing their meat intake will change a multi-billion dollar industry supported by millions of Americans. My decision to give up meat for Lent is more about me as an individual than the industry as a whole, and I will admit, is partly an exercise in self-discipline. After all, everyone takes some pride out of saying you were able to stick to a significant lifestyle change for 40-days.

After reading about the experiences of Kenji Lopez-Alt, a blogger on the popular “Serious Eats” blog who adopted a vegan lifestyle for a four weeks, I was inspired to try it myself, and eliminating just meat rather than meat, eggs, and dairy, seems easy in comparison.  Having to adapt to not eating meat out of convenience, for example when I need a quick meal for lunch at work, will force me to try new recipes, and order a vegetarian option at restaurants when often I would not, due to the logic that I’d rather spend $20 on a quality meat-based dish than a vegetable-based one.  Lopez-Alt’s final summary of the experienced emphasized how much meat or non-meat eating can be more a mental block than anything, that is, that one could enjoy a completely vegan meal regularly without even realizing it is vegan. I believe this experiment will also make me more aware of the type of meat I am putting into my body – something Hanna mentioned in her blog when stating she places a “a high value on the ability to know not only where my food comes from, but how it is prepared.”

I appreciate good quality meat, and sometimes I have not realized how lucky I am to have been raised partly on a British diet of hyper-local produce – I literally walk by the fields where vegetables are grown before going into our local farm shop in the UK.  It is my hope that eliminating all meat for a period of time will encourage me to think about where my food comes from more, and as a bonus will be good for my health as well.  I don’t plan on staying vegetarian forever (and am already planning an excursion to Rays Hell Burger as my first post-Lent meal), but adopting a more healthily and less convenience-based diet for a few weeks can’t be a bad thing.

All images my own.

The latest Rasmussen report finds that only five percent of “Likely U.S. Voters” rate the job Congress is doing as good or excellent. When Mike Huckabee went on Fox and Friends last month he noted that this number puts Congress, “just barely above a pedophile.” My initial reaction to this remark was, “Aw, snap!” However, it soon hit home that this statement described the branch of government that writes the laws determining the future of our country. “Aw, snap,” doesn’t quite articulate the weight of this situation.

A quick recap on the state of the union: the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United vs. Federal Elections Commission that the the First Amendment prohibits government from placing limits on spending for political purposes by corporations and unions. In other words, money is a form of speech, and therefore cannot be limited. This decision has led to unprecedented amounts of money flowing into political campaigns. In order for a candidate to stay competitive, they must raise enormous amounts of money. For instance, according to Planet Money, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went to almost 400 fundraisers in just one year. Candidates need lots of money and lobbyists can help them get it — all the lobbyists ask of the politicians is that they consider the interests of their clients. Perfectly harmless, right?

Well, many Americans feel there’s too much money in politics. Many feel our elected representatives work for special interests, like corporations and unions, rather than for their constituents. From the Tea Party to Occupy Wall Street, there’s a collective feeling that our democracy is broken and the people who can fix it simply won’t.

I feel like we’ve wandered into a bad movie. There’s a meteor hurling towards Earth and we, the people, are just watching helplessly as it plummets toward us. It’s an Armageddon scenario. What we need is a motley crew of misfits and rebels, a group of citizens just crazy enough to go to the heart of the meteor that is political corruption and destroy it before impact.

Well, ladies and gentlemen, meet our team:

Jimmy Williams – The former lobbyist for National Association of Relators, one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, is publicly criticizing the congressional lobbying process. He thinks the problem is the amount of money politicians have to raise in order to run a campaign, and he wants to see a Constitutional amendment to make it legal to ban money from politics. On NPR’s Planet Money podcast, Williams expressed that while knowing that this all seems crazy, “there’s never been a better time in memory to try something this big.”

Russell Simmons – The co-founder of Def Jam and founder of Phat Farm, the hip-hop mogul has been extremely vocal about overhauling the campaign finance system. He has introduced a Constitutional amendment that all elections for President and members of the Congress be publicly financed.

Lawrence Lessig –  The director of the Edmond J. Safra Foundation Center for Ethics at Harvard University and a professor at Harvard Law School wants to limit independent expenditures, which he says, “dominat[e] the political process.” He has publicly criticized the revolving door phenomenon in which legislators and staffers leave office, become lobbyists, and work the legislative process.

Stephen Colbert – The real-life satirist and in-character right-wing political pundit has raised over $1 million with his Super PAC and drawn attention to the loopholes and inherent conflicts of interest in campaign finance. The fundraising amount was announced on his website with a press release saying, “We raised [the money] on my show and used it to materially influence the elections – in full accordance with the law. It’s the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, if they had founded corporations instead of just a country”

So there you have it: a former lobbyist, a hip hop entrepreneur, a law professor, and a fake news pundit. Clearly, the issue of campaign finance and lobbying reform are not marginal issues – citizens from all areas of society are concerned and engaged. These are just a few of the many who, realizing the stakes, have said, “I’ve got a plan. And it just may be crazy enough to work!”

images courtesy of Francisco Diez and veo_

Nowadays it is almost common to see young children, even infants, with some sort of gadget in their hands. Additionally, they are exposed to media that is not physically in their hands: television, music, billboards … etc.

With the ubiquity of technology, the discussion of this media exposure impacts development is an equally common discussion topic. Now I don’t know about you, but back in the day, when I was a child, I did not have a tablet to play with while my mom and dad ate a quiet meal.  Like every generation inclined to believe of their life on Earth, we too think that these are exceptional times.

However, while I am not denying the particular abundance of media in our lives today, it is interesting to find out that a “technophobia” of sorts has occurred and reoccurred since the late 19th century. (This, I recently learned thanks to a book co-edited by Georgetown University’s very own Dr. Sandra Calvert.) So, while I did not play with a tablet when I was a child, the discussion of television exposure and its detriments was equally popular as the tablet and baby discussion is today.

In fact, when the radio became popular in average American households, concerned citizens were up in arms about the high dose of “media” exposure their children received. If you ever indulge in your childhood nostalgia like I do and listen to “Fibber McGee & Molly” or “Our Miss Brooks” you may be surprised. These radio shows from early- to mid- 20th century provided hours of innocent entertainment; the content is hardly graphic, violent, or sexual in nature. And, moving forward to discuss the invention of television with shows such as “Leave it to Beaver,” again, we find innocent entertainment lacking anything but vulgarity.

In The Handbook of Children, Media and Development, Wartella and Rob discuss the history of media technologies. I was shocked to read about anti-media activism against media content in the 1920s! What, if anything, did those parents find “over-stimulating” in the radio and television programming of the time?!!  Parents and educators were concerned that radio content in the 1920s or television content of the 1930s media leads children awry–to philander about! The older generation at the time who did not grow up with radio or television, respectively, in their households were aghast at the new generation of parents who exposed their children listen to shows like Fibber McGee & Molly or Leave it to Beaver!

Despite its exponentially increasing presence in our 21st century existence, we have yet to hear any scientifically based final verdict on whether or not media is generally good or bad for child development.  

As Sandra Calvert says in lecture constantly, the only foolproof generalization regarding technology presence in child development is that it certainly is consequential for development from birth.  Based on her book, this conclusion holds true even when technology & media content is in the background of a child’s home life. It almost seems like we will never arrive at a black or white statement on whether media is good or bad. In fact, I suggest that we never seek such conclusions.  “All good” or “all bad” statements on media exposure are drastic stances.  So while life today is turning into all media, perhaps we should reap utilize its benefits on a selective basis… and stay gray!

Again, there is no denying the fact that technology presence is at an all time high–and perhaps only increasing from here on out. That being said, the rise of any new technology, be it the gramophone, radio broadcasts, telephone, and television, always presents apprehension on the side of older non-native generation, and excitement for the native-generation of that advancement. Let us remind ourselves that resistance to new technological advancement entering our daily lives is a reoccurring discussion.

Many have written about the show, particularly Jad since his being named a MacArthur Fellow last year, and how it is different from everything else on the air (or in the ether), but The Atlantic recently wrote about how RadioLab’s excellence goes beyond their creative science stories. Think about blogging just three years ago. Blogs used to look a lot like how Drudge still looks today. They were, for the most part, amateurish writers making amateurish arguments on amateurish websites; or maybe just posting a bunch of links to other sites. There was nothing grand about them. They were pariahs of writing.

Today, that kind of blogging still exists; but increasingly we are seeing blogs like The Verge, Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Lab, and (at the risk of being shameless) this one. The people who write blogs like these are not always “experts” or “authorities” on the subjects they write, some of them are students, some are journalists, but mostly we are all just curious individuals sharing our curiosities with the world. We may rely on experts to help us interpret or shed a theoretical background on something, but authoritative opinion is neither taken for granted nor the focus of our stories. The same is true of podcasts like RadioLab.

Jad and Robert take their listeners on a journey through the cloudy, mysterious worlds of whatever stories they tell. Whether it is neuroscience, botany, astrophysics, or mathematics. They do not always tell the whole story, but they tell a story. How else could someone with no interest or experience in lucid dreaming learn that it is a way of eliminating recurring nightmares? In that particular story, they did it with the assistance of experts, but also through a kind of dialogic process of discovery; they want to get at the root of not just the answer, but the research question itself. Other shows might have interviewed the scientist, asked a few questions about the experiment, and reported an answer over the course of maximum two-and-a-half minutes. RadioLab did it in about 17.
The Atlantic recently called this the “RadioLab Effect.” In the near future we should “expect less pretension to authority, greater understanding of one’s nodeness, but greater respect for the production culture of the pre-web era.” We do not have to be experts, or defer to them, in order to understand something complicated. We just have to have a story, and a strong sense of curiosity. Experts, after all, were not born that way. No one will understand lucid dreaming better than experts after listening to RadioLab, but we can have a converstaion about it with someone. Who knows, maybe it’ll inspire one of us normies to become experts.

Is there a podcast or blog you think is especially poigniant? Let us know in the comments.

Are you a technology vegetarian or a digital carnivore?

In order to find out, I decided to keep track of my digital diet for a week. Compared to estimates by Clay Johnson, author of The Information Diet, who suggests that we spend upward of 11 hours each day in consumption of technology (tweets, texts, emails, you name it) I would have to say that my intake wasn’t too caloric. However, I did notice some offenders, such as regular checks of my phone, which could be curbed to good effect.

Besides exposing a manual ‘tic’, the diet diary also illuminated a more fundamental concept behind my technology use and, I would assume, others people’s uses, too. Much like food consumption, digital consumption fills a need for us and while some may call it information, communication, or boredom-busting, much of it can be boiled down to the concept of presence.

A study at the University of Maryland recently asked participants to abstain from any media consumption including social networking, phone use and television for a day (The New York Times is one organization that conducted a similar unplug challenge) and the results were illuminating. Fasting participants reported feelings of isolation, unhappiness and even distress – essentially, they reported the negative impacts of a lack of presence.

What this implies for our technological world is that whether desired or required, much of our work and interaction has migrated onto digital platforms. What it means for us, personally, is that we now have a multitude of platforms for the channeling of our presence and, much like the dizzying array of cornflakes in the isles of our supermarkets, we now have more choices and responsibility to take.

Current cognitive studies suggest that while we are capable of rapidly shifting our attention, we cannot truly multitask. Therefore, our line-up of technology alongside our daily activities can either, potentially make us more agile or, simply distract us (just like my techno-tic) and interfere with our capability of having a sustained presence in any one place at once.

Notably, studies also suggest that people experience difficulty with speaking when their hands are restrained (and gesticulation is limited) and similarly, digital dieters experience a loss of voice (or presence) when their devices are removed. It is interesting to note the degree to which we are connected electronically whereby even a day of rupture can cause personal catastrophe. Perhaps, in thinking about our presence, it might be useful to consider the notion of our own digital diets and how a healthy consumption might be achieved.

Health Tip: If you have concerns about your digital weight, you can measure yourself here.

My vegetarian decisions made when I was in high school were informed by long drives across the Nebraska plains, where the only punctuation for the endless rows of cornfields were feedlots. I simply felt that I couldn’t support such an industry. Slowly, these deplorable conditions became the vogue subject of many a book and film, and I have come to realize that the choices that I began advocating for so long ago – better living conditions, fewer antibiotics, et cetera were finally being realized on a large scale. Therefore, as someone who believed that the evolution of the animal-based agricultural system should undergo this reformation, I should support the industry that practices humane husbandry.  Likewise, as reported in Good, there is an environmental argument for eating some meat as opposed to none at all.

For me this decision isn’t as simple as just weighing the costs and benefits of the different options. Last summer I spent a week at my in-law’s ranch in Montana. As a pescataerian’s first trip to a cattle ranch I wasn’t sure what to expect, but I fell in love with the land. The days were long, lazy, and time was calculated by estimations of when the fish were most likely to be biting. Mornings, afternoons, and evenings were spent on the lake. I did my part to control the aquatic population by catching a prized trout, but more importantly to me, I learned how to do the dirty business afterward of bleeding, gutting, and filleting the fish. For me, as a non-meat eater, I have placed a high value on the ability to know not only where my food comes from, but how it is prepared – to understand how it comes from animal to grocery store shrink-wrapped specimen. Blogger and rural woman extraordinaire, Ashley English, writes about her desire to hunt and learn how to prepare meat after her return from vegetarianism. I’m not there yet, and highly doubt I will ever be, as ground beef browning turns my stomach, but the concept is one with which I can relate.

The tentativeness with which I approach this decision is likely born out of a hesitation to be associated with those so-called “flexitarians.” As a potentially former vegetarian I used to deride these “meatless Monday” eaters as individuals who are carnivores but intentionally consume less meat than their American peers, which is as much a health decision as an environmental one. Likewise, I’ve written previously about the concept of naming (in OWS in particular) and I think that this correlates. For, while I don’t know that I can rightfully claim the classification of vegetarian anymore, I am hesitant to describe myself as anything else. I like the feeling associated with a voluntary self-identification that is contrary to that embraced by the majority of our culture. However, I no longer feel legitimate. So, I find myself somewhere in the middle. I’m a bad vegetarian and a worse meat-eater. As much as I like things to be neatly defined, the significance isn’t the labels at this point. It’s the choice. Continued advocacy for food production standards that are better for consumers, animals, and the environment and supporting these producers with my purchasing power. I may not be a vegetarian, but I might be a better consumer as a result.

All images my own.

On the evening of January 24th, 2012, as millions of Americans were glued to their television screens watching President Obama’s third State of the Union, another topic was on the mind of citizens in the Middle East: the one-year anniversary of January 25th, 2011, recognized by many as the start of the still-ongoing “Arab Spring”.

In his State of the Union address, although Obama mentioned the turmoil in the Middle East, his main focus was progress made at home in the past year, and his proposed initiatives to boost the U.S. economy in 2012.  Especially in an election year which will be dominated by talk of jobs and recession, it is understandable that Obama wouldn’t focus on the goings-on in far away parts of the world.  However, in a year that has been dominated by international news, Obama could do well by comparing the U.S. to other countries, and in emphasizing his foreign policy achievements even more.  We shouldn’t forget that one of Obama’s biggest primary fights with Hillary Clinton was over his lack of foreign policy experience, however, with the help of now Secretary of State Clinton, he has achieved a great deal overseas.

Obama has had no trouble touting his achievements in hunting down and conducting a raid to kill 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden, but in the past 3 years he has severely diminished al-Qaeda’s overall power, also eliminating several other top leaders of the group.  I believe Obama would benefit by not only reminding us of his accomplishments, but also giving Americans a reality-check on situations in other parts of the world.  The United States was not the only place hit by a recession in 2008, indeed those events are often referred to as the “Global Financial Crisis”, and countries such as Greece are still struggling, with global leaders only this week struggling to find a solution to the growing European debt crisis. Although many in America are still feeling the effects of the recession, at least the economy here is recovering and jobs are being added, albeit more slowly than those who are out of work would like.

Affairs in the U.S. may have been less-than-stellar over the past year, but when compared to protests in the Middle East, debt crises’ in Europe, and earthquakes in Japan, one cannot help but think we have been pretty lucky.  Citizens of Egypt and Libya have taken steps towards democracy, but they still have a long way to go before they will be satisfied by their conditions, as demonstrated by the renewal of protests in Egypt in November 2011.  Countries such as Syria and Bahrain are still under the power of dictators, and brutal crackdowns against protests in those countries has resulted in the loss of countless lives.  Obama’s State of the Union may not have been overly exciting, but that shouldn’t be treated as a bad thing.  In a year that will go down in history as tumultuous across all continents, Obama and America have not done too badly for themselves, a fact which Americans should be reminded of every once in a while.

Image from Radar Communication on Flikr, licensed under Creative Commons