Text 1: "We have learned how to create economic freedom, but we have not yet mastered how to ensure economic justice.We are the wealthiest generation in human history, but are we the wisest? And what will happen now that everyone else in the world wants to be just like us, with our three televisions, two cars, and a personal monthly energy bill greater than the annual income per capita of some poor countries?"

Response 1: I completely agree with this statement and I really liked that the author distinguished with what Americans have. I liked that it bluntly said that we have economic freedom but now economic justice because I think it's completely true. Companies are firing Americans so that they can outsource and take their factories overseas where someone would work for far less than in the United States. I think people are too obsessed with material objects and they don't think twice about someone else. Greed and selfishness has consumed us. This brings me back to "The Story of Stuff" because a valid point made was "we do not have value if we do not own stuff." In our society we are judged by what we have and what we wear but no one ever judges us by who we are or what we do or what our values and morals are. There are people in third world countries who have much better values and morals yet they have far less that what we have. Do we need all the material objects we have? Probably not. But do we want them? The answer is always yes.

Text 2: "When we believe that the world makes us, that it determines what we can and cannot do, then we see ourselves as small and weak. But when we understand that we make the world - individually and together - then we become formidable and strong."

Response 2: This just reminds me that we have the power to define things and we control what we do. However, we do blame society and blame everyone else except ourselves. We point fingers to make ourselves feel better. But it doesn't last long. The feeling of satisfaction lasts far longer when we make a change, a difference. Even the smallest thing could make a difference either now or in the long run. We as individuals want to be our own person and fight for the right to show ourselves as who we are. But what's the point when we go along doing what society does instead of making a change?

Text 1: "But I believe that the most valuable asset that congregations and other faith-based organizations can leverage is faith. The core of this faith is the belief that there is great love at work in the universe that seeks justice, mercy, peace, and joy. Our various faith traditions and practices teach us how to stay open to that love, tap into it, align ourselves with it, and be empowered by it."

Response 1: I think faith is important for so many reasons, one being that it supports what we think and why we think it. It gives people something to believe in. I think society is so evil at this point in time that people look for something that is good and they find it in their faith and belief that God can still serve justice and peace. With the heinous crimes occurring it makes it hard to believe that love still exists, but I think a strong faith keeps the love alive in you. It doesn't have to be God that sends mercy, peace, and joy, but it can be those who go out in search of them to make it better for others.

Text 2: "One, there are enough resources in Boston to solve Boston's problems. Two, if we all got to know each other, this would be a different city."

Response 2: This reminds me of a quote from a previous reading where the world's riches 20% consumes 75% of the world's resources and the world's poorest consuming less than 2%. There are enough resources in the world for everyone to be able to survive yet millions around the world are starving daily. It's the same in Boston. There are enough resources to solve Boston's problems but the resources are not being used efficiently enough, therefore a lot of it goes to waste. However, the quote was true in saying many things can change by working together. There's only so much that can be done individually, yet together as a whole a huge change can be made.

The Story of Stuff:
I was extremely surprised by the stats used in the video. I never knew that 40% of the waterways in the US have become undrinkable. That makes me wonder about the states in the midwest and south that are more likely to experience a drought. If 40% of the waterways are undrinkable, then how do people in those areas get water? I was also surprised by the fact that 80% of the planet's forests are gone. 80% is a huge number and with that much of forest being gone, very little is left. Trees are vital for the ecosystem and help to filter out the carbon dioxide in the air. It would help reduce the carbon in the air if they were more trees, even if it was a small percentage. I never would have expected it to be 80% gone because there are countries that value their environment and countries where there are many trees prevalent. I was most startled by breast milk having the most toxins. I knew that what we consume would be transferred on to our babies but I never thought about it being through breast milk. I always thought it would be the purest thing that a baby could consume. But this video has made me realize that even breast milk is harmful.

I agreed with the point in the video: "If you don't buy or own a lot of stuff, you don't have value." In society now, everyone watches what you own when they judge you and determine whether you can fit in with them. It has become all about what material possessions you have and you're cast out if you aren't up to spend with the latest products. The appeal of the products can be blamed for this. The advancement in technology has caused people to want to get the new thing because it's cool and they want to experience the change it has on the world. It's a smart way to get business, on the part of the producer, but a stupid decision on part of the consumer. However, consumers can't be blamed completely because of the ads and media that make these products so appealing. Shopping also takes up our time and is viewed as a wonderful pastime (as how I see it, even though I end up wasting my money), but it only benefits producers which doesn't do consumers any good because they already have millions of dollars. If the money was going to a fair trade entrepreneur I would say that would be a better way to spend money because at least a poor artisan can buy food for their family another day. They have a way to survive.

The Story of Change:
I didn't really see much in this video besides the stats. I never would have expected such a high percentage of Americans want better laws for the environment and energy when they waste so much. I think the best way to help the environment is not to rely on laws, but to rely on yourself to the do the right thing and save what you can when you can. I was amazed to see "83% of Americans want clean energy laws" when they themselves are probably wasting energy. It just seems to me like they're hypocrites. However, this is my own assumption and I'm not speaking from facts when I say they're hypocrites.

I did like the equation for change that was shown.
Big idea + WE + ACTION = Change
Yes it does and will take a long time to achieve change but at least its a start. According to the stats, a lot of people already want change, now all they have to do is come together. I don't think they need to do so physically but they can do it in the sense that they change their daily lives to save energy. Together, that would help greatly.

Text #1: "I have never been afraid to fail, and in fact I suggested to the president of Ashoka that they should start recognizing people for their failures and not their accomplishments. It shows the true caliber of people when they fail and come back. I have tried and failed many times, but I have never failed to try."

Response #1: I thought this was, in a sense, motivational. The basic meaning is never give up and it's something heard throughout one's life, but I think it's probably one of the truest statements. Bretos is proof that failure can lead to success if you continue doing what you think is right. At some point, those who are against what you think is right will eventually "see the light." There's no harm in trying, which is why I don't see why someone won't continue to strive and try to get what they want if they are able to do so. In the end, after all the failures, Bretos was able to get better housing for the elderly so they don't have to live in nursing home where they're uncomfortable. With Mia, you're allowed to live in your own home, which is amazing because how much freedom do you really have in a nursing home? You can't do what you would in your own home. I would say Bretos is letting them live their life until the end instead of ending it prematurely by placing them in a nursing home.

Text #2: "The public also mistrusts corporate America. The good news about this has been an increased motivation on the part of corporations to engage with social service organizations and show their commitment toward the communities in which they operate."

Response #2: I agree completely with the first sentence, especially after this recession. The public has no reason to trust corporate America when the goal of businesses is to maximize their profit, sometimes in the most unethical way. If companies, who rake in all the money, are only interested in stuffing their pockets and not helping the public, then who will? The gap between the rich and poor is continually increasing, and the is a less chance of the public being able to adequately help themselves. In the article, it said, "Five people had died, and eleven more had continued to living in the building, which had been totally destroyed, because they had no place to go. When I arrived there, I saw things that put me to shame. I saw rat-infested apartments, rotten food, and people lying on beds of feces, surrounded by worms." A horrible condition to live in, yet these people had no choice because they had no where to go. We often see corporate executives living in nice houses and conditions, but here are people, who are definitely not the first, to be forced to live in rubble. My question to corporate America is, do you not care?

Mia has gained enough attention from media outlets to catch the attention of corporate America, because of which they are now putting their money to use - helping those who need it the most. Although the companies are getting attention for themselves and are showing that they are ethical, at least they are trying to do good and help their communities.

Text #1: Monsenor Romero: "Whose pastor am I? Of a people that suffers or a people that oppresses? Which side will I defend? Do I defend the powerful or advocate for the oppressed? My mission is not to defend the powerful but the oppressed, and here I am."

Response #1: I heard this quote in the beginning of the movie by a man who was quoting Monsenor Romero. From what I saw in the movie, Monsenor Romero was in a sense, the "people's man" after Rutillo was assassinated. Rutillo was also the "people's man." Many who were interviewed in the video spoke of Rutillo as being different from other priests and actually liberating them. Before, the church was all about the wealthy, but here was Rutillo and later on Romero who made the church for the poor. They gave those who thought they had no chance, almost an uprising. I say uprising because the poor were taught gospels and what's in the Bible. The military, however, would punish anyone they saw with a Bible. I thought it was noble for peasants to continue carrying around Bibles and even to organize their own army to stand up for their freedom against the government.

I found this movie kind of gory and gruesome, but not as gory as The Walking Dead. Of course, the scenes and gory images in The Walking Dead is all makeup and graphics, whereas the movie showed actual photos of dead civilians and what the military did to them. This civil war in El Salvador reminds me of Afghanistan (I think it is Afghanistan) where the military is killing and torturing their own civilians. My question to them is, why? Why are you killing peasants who just want to attend church and sing gospels? Is it because they want more freedom than what's allowed? Because they want to be caught up in 'freedom to practice a religion' as the US has? Where in the Bible or anywhere else does it say that the government, who is run by the clergy, is allowed to killed others? This makes the clergy hypocrites because they say they follow the Bible so much, yet here they are taking the life of another.

Text #2: "We are the ones who put you where you are. We can get rid of you anytime we want. And if it is necessary, we will eliminate..."

Response #2: As said by the military to civilians. I found this twisted. The government's supposed to protect it's citizens but here they are killing them. What's even worst is the military leaves the corpses out in the street for people to see. Imagine what it must be like for children to see this. Every corner they turn is a bloodied, dead body probably with organs and guts on the ground. I know I'd be sick to my stomach and scarred for life if I were to see such graphic imagines in front of me. And I don't mean pictures. I mean the actual bodies, like the children in El Salvador see.

Monsenor Romero did what El Salvador desperately needed. He gave them more than a priest who guides them in prayer. He guided them and taught them, which gave them hope in a brighter future. However, the war and the stench of death looming over them wasn't much of freedom.

In relation to fair trades: Monsenor Romero gave his followers hope, like artisans in third world countries are getting from fair trades. It's almost like a new beginning, which I think is the start of everything - having the chance to leave a horrid past behind for a brighter future.

I have to admit that I wasn't too excited to watch this movie but now I am glad I watched it.

I always knew the gap between the rich and poor was large and continuing to increase. However, when I saw the actual stats for it, I was amazed. Of the world's poorest 20%, the only consume 1.5% of resources. Even I thought they might consume more. Never did I imagine that such a large number of people would consume so little. It makes me start to appreciate what I have even more.

"A wage of $1 [per day], common in factories producing for US corporations, provides less than 25% of the minimum needs of a family of five." The fact that products are sold far more than what they're worth or what it took to produce them is extremely unfair, not only to consumers but also to workers. The middleman between consumers and workers make more of a profit than the actual people who take their time to create these objects. They work for way less than someone in the US when they deserve more than what some Americans earn. Consumers have finally realized this and now, according to the booklet, seek alternatives for these workers so they don't have to live such unfortunate lives. I think that's amazing about fair trades. Consumers are requesting specific fair trade products as substitutes for something else to help these people, definitely making it a social justice movement and global commerce. It's a great way to build a business and a way for parents to take care of their children, which I find far more admirable and respectable than parents who ship their children off to fend for themselves. I'm going to digress a bit here: I don't understand how parents could just abandon their children. It makes me wonder if parents ever think about their kids once they disown them. Do they really think that abandoning them would do them more good rather than harm? These are little children who need guidance and would be better off struggling with their parents than alone out in a world with rapists, pedophiles, and others who would cause them great harm.

After reading some of the stories in the booklet, I realized that women benefit more than men in fair trades. Maybe because in these societies women can't go out and do the jobs there because they're for men? I'm not sure about that. However, I think the women involved in the fair trade organization are using their time to benefit themselves and gives others what they created. They're developing their skills while at the same time making a living for themselves and doing what they enjoy. These are societies where women probably have to rely on men to bring in the income or go out on their own to do so. With fair trades, they can now feel independent and confident that they'll be able to raise their families.