I have a love-hate relationship with blogging. Being able to share my personal views in such a public way without having to be personally involved with the reader is very appealing. Although sometimes it is hard to think of the right way to organize my thoughts, it is really interesting to think about the people that blog professionally. Their job is to have their finger on trends and to know what people want to read about. They are entertainers, writers, and celebrities all at once. My experience writing this blog in particular has opened my eyes how the internet can be used as a public journal, and that other people had the same thoughts I did pertaining to certain topics. On the downside, I didn't feel knowledgable enough to blog on a regular basis. With all of the research that I'm sure goes in to each blog, having a popular blog takes a lot of effort. I enjoyed being a "blogger" for a month, and I will certainly start following blogs that interest me.
The bloggers I chose to follow were all concerned with civil rights and equality. In casual, everyday life, our society believes that certain types of inequality are acceptable. "The Inequality Map" by David Brooks is the list of what types of social inequality are acceptable and which ones are not. His humorous approach to the subject conveys an unattachment to the subject, although the use of sarcasm makes the reader not feel guilty if they practice a certain type of social inequality. This is similar to my last post asking "Is social inequality addictive?" This post by Daniel Dorling talks about the ironic want for utopia while we, as Americans, live in a constant state of inequality. We are desensitized to the inequality around us. Paul Krugman, author of "We are the 99.9%", also writes about not taking steps toward equality. The rich 0.1% seem to be exempt from the current recession because the government seems to think that their jobs are too important to have their salaries cut. All of these posts relate to each other. The authors all felt the need to announce to the public that inequality of any kind is not acceptable, but the issue is ignored. The truth we face is that total social equality is not possible, but there are many steps that we are able to take in that direction. Think twice before you judge, because we're all just people trying to make it through the day. Everyone deserves that much respect.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Friday, December 2, 2011
Fourth Post
Inequality is all around us; in our schools and workplaces, on television and covers of magazines. If we are not careful, we may wake up to find that inequality is in our homes as well. But is true equality even possible? Communism and Socialism have proven to be unsuccessful, the United State's capitalist government has made a point to make sure that no one is on the same level. The human race is slowly falling into a black hole of unhappiness. So much time and energy is wasted on climbing the social ladder, that there is not any left to spend on the things that really matter. Divorce and suicide rates have sky rocketed in the last ten years. How can we expect to fix the economy if our home lives are broken beyond repair? There is balance in everything, and if we can remember to take the time to spend with our loved ones, work will fall into place because your priorities are in their proper order. Distractions from the media will only hinder us more, and cause more unhappiness than we can bear. Let us not squander the precious time that we have be given and spend time with our families.
Is social inequality addictive? ... by Daniel Dorling
http://policypress.wordpress.com/2010/04/16/is-social-inequality-addictive/
Daniel Dorling asserts that we, as humans, crave inequality- that it is, in fact, addictive. Explaining that the most unequal countries may be among the most rich, but that other countries are set up much differently. Those other countries are home to people who live longer, consume and pollute less, experience less crime, trust each other more, stay with families more often, invent more things, eat less meat, take less drugs, drink less and so on. His portrayal of these "rich, equitable" countries make the United States sounds like a sort of villain compared to these utopias. An anecdote is placed at the introduction of the blog in order to give the reader something to connect the author's point to. How is inequality as addictive as smoking? Dorling's use of humor such as "Even the trains run on time more often!" is an example of those utopias again. The concluding paragraph asks several rhetorical questions mostly having to do with America's intelligence level. Each rhetorical device persuades the reader to think about how desensitized to inequality they are personally.
The author's tone throughout is somewhat degrading on one's own country. The tone gets lighter as the author describes places that are not the United States or the United Kingdom (the countries with the most inequality). His purpose in writing this blog is to make his readers aware that social inequality is not normal, we are just so used to it that we don't bat an eyelash when we see these inequalities not being stood up for. The audience is meant to be for a young reader, teen-aged to mid-20's. The author's syntax and word choice is slightly more conversational, which reads well to younger non-professionals. Dorley wants to help his readers stop overlooking inequality.
Daniel Dorling asserts that we, as humans, crave inequality- that it is, in fact, addictive. Explaining that the most unequal countries may be among the most rich, but that other countries are set up much differently. Those other countries are home to people who live longer, consume and pollute less, experience less crime, trust each other more, stay with families more often, invent more things, eat less meat, take less drugs, drink less and so on. His portrayal of these "rich, equitable" countries make the United States sounds like a sort of villain compared to these utopias. An anecdote is placed at the introduction of the blog in order to give the reader something to connect the author's point to. How is inequality as addictive as smoking? Dorling's use of humor such as "Even the trains run on time more often!" is an example of those utopias again. The concluding paragraph asks several rhetorical questions mostly having to do with America's intelligence level. Each rhetorical device persuades the reader to think about how desensitized to inequality they are personally.
The author's tone throughout is somewhat degrading on one's own country. The tone gets lighter as the author describes places that are not the United States or the United Kingdom (the countries with the most inequality). His purpose in writing this blog is to make his readers aware that social inequality is not normal, we are just so used to it that we don't bat an eyelash when we see these inequalities not being stood up for. The audience is meant to be for a young reader, teen-aged to mid-20's. The author's syntax and word choice is slightly more conversational, which reads well to younger non-professionals. Dorley wants to help his readers stop overlooking inequality.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Third Post
Unfortunately, because I am not in the working class as of yet, I do no have to worry about paying taxes other than fishing out a few extra dimes when I'm paying for Starbucks. Although this doesn't affect me directly, my everyday life as an average teenager is shaped by the decisions of people around me who have a tighter grip on society. These are the elites, the most influential politically, socially, and economically. On the social ladder, these people are at the top. Because of their success and wealth, they are more important to the government than someone of my middle-class upbringing. What do they do that makes their contributions to society more meaningful than mine? Why do they get more tax breaks? The liberal people of America want to bridge the gap between social classes, but that kind of equality can't exist in this society. Americans thrive on the competition to be a step higher than the other, and we glamorize celebrities for doing what, going to parties and getting million dollar pay checks? So much time is wasted on what isn't really important. If we as a people spent less time blaming others for our problems instead of solving them ourselves, our lives might be a little bit brighter because we are investing energy into something worthwhile.
We Are the 99.9%
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/opinion/we-are-the-99-9.html?scp=17&sq=inequality&st=cse
Paul Krugman writes about how the differences between the poor and middle class are the first to be pointed out, but the real issue lies between the middle and elite upper class. Why are tax cuts helping the already-rich 0.1% when the middle class faces bankruptcy and the recession without the help of tax breaks? Executive pay has skyrocketed, and even poorly performing C.E.O.'s are still paid lavishly. Many of those in the middle class argue what that 0.1% is really contributing to the economy. Apparently the elite "create jobs" for the lower classes. In actuality, the elite upper class don't do much to contribute to the economy other than invest in stocks. Krugman argues that the 0.1 percent shouldn't be hated, but they should ignore the business about being "job creators" and take a stand against tax breaks.
Krugman's use of rhetorical devices makes his argument that the elite upper class is given too much credit for the economy more powerful. His purpose is to inform the American public -mostly middle class- that they shouldn't hate the top 0.1%, they just shouldn't be given so much credit for the state of the economy. Krugman separates the opposing groups and uses logos by using statistics in order to hold the reader's attention. Those who are within the middle class looking up at the elite see that they have more tax breaks, but question whether they deserve them. Krugman serves his opinion that "bad economics" is the enemy. He separates his readers by mentioning Republicans and Democrats, and how each part would react to the issue at hand. The ideal market should give back to people however much they put into the market. However the elites are given special treatment because their contributions to the economy is greater than the average 9-to-5 worker.
Paul Krugman writes about how the differences between the poor and middle class are the first to be pointed out, but the real issue lies between the middle and elite upper class. Why are tax cuts helping the already-rich 0.1% when the middle class faces bankruptcy and the recession without the help of tax breaks? Executive pay has skyrocketed, and even poorly performing C.E.O.'s are still paid lavishly. Many of those in the middle class argue what that 0.1% is really contributing to the economy. Apparently the elite "create jobs" for the lower classes. In actuality, the elite upper class don't do much to contribute to the economy other than invest in stocks. Krugman argues that the 0.1 percent shouldn't be hated, but they should ignore the business about being "job creators" and take a stand against tax breaks.
Krugman's use of rhetorical devices makes his argument that the elite upper class is given too much credit for the economy more powerful. His purpose is to inform the American public -mostly middle class- that they shouldn't hate the top 0.1%, they just shouldn't be given so much credit for the state of the economy. Krugman separates the opposing groups and uses logos by using statistics in order to hold the reader's attention. Those who are within the middle class looking up at the elite see that they have more tax breaks, but question whether they deserve them. Krugman serves his opinion that "bad economics" is the enemy. He separates his readers by mentioning Republicans and Democrats, and how each part would react to the issue at hand. The ideal market should give back to people however much they put into the market. However the elites are given special treatment because their contributions to the economy is greater than the average 9-to-5 worker.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Second Post
A Reader's Response to "The Inequality Map"
Brooks begins his blog about how foreigners think that American customs are strange and confusing, which got me thinking: who comes up with these "customs"? On what terms is inequality defined? I believe it has everything to do with the media. People spend so much time following what celebrities, who are just people, and their lives instead of improving the life they already have. Destructive forces are working against human interaction. Virtual reality, a pathetic substitute for real life, is one of the most successful industries in the United States. What the public doesn't realize that they are not contributing to society, but changing humanity. Evolution of society is essential to life, that much is true, but part of the human experience is to build relationships with one another. When we let other factors get in the way, like our facebook page, or pride, we give away the right to real, lasting friendships.
Brooks begins his blog about how foreigners think that American customs are strange and confusing, which got me thinking: who comes up with these "customs"? On what terms is inequality defined? I believe it has everything to do with the media. People spend so much time following what celebrities, who are just people, and their lives instead of improving the life they already have. Destructive forces are working against human interaction. Virtual reality, a pathetic substitute for real life, is one of the most successful industries in the United States. What the public doesn't realize that they are not contributing to society, but changing humanity. Evolution of society is essential to life, that much is true, but part of the human experience is to build relationships with one another. When we let other factors get in the way, like our facebook page, or pride, we give away the right to real, lasting friendships.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The Inequality Map
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/11/opinion/the-inequality-map.html?_r=1&ref=davidbrooks
David Brooks takes the time to explain to foreign tourists what kinds of inequality are socially acceptable. His main points are that academics, fitness and sports, income, technology inequalities are all acceptable. It is alright to think that one person is better than another if they have a higher degree of education, or that someone is smarter simply because they are tech-savvy. Even at the airports, frequent fliers have separate check-in lines and boarding procedures. Unacceptable inequalities include ancestral, morality, religious, cultural, and status inequality amongst high school teachers. College professors, however, thrive on competing with other departments in nearby schools. Brooks also jokes that Americans judge what kind of beer a person drinks, or whether they buy gourmet cupcakes. Overall, David Brooks cleverly leads his readers to believe that any kind of equality is acceptable.
The Inequality Map organizes thoughts about what types of things are susceptible to competition. The purpose is to make fun of what Americans have decided is "socially acceptable". Brooks organizes what is acceptable and not by alternating the topics. This keeps the reader's mind busy and provides a pattern for the piece. Also, the order that the topic are listed go from less controversial, to very controversial in the middle, back to normal categories. Brooks adds that ethnic inequality being determined as unacceptable is "one of culture's highest achievements", bringing a sense of seriousness to an otherwise satirical article. His jabbing remarks at "obese frequent buyers who consume a lot of Twinkies" is derogatory and references fitness inequality as previously stated as socially acceptable. The Inequality Map is directed towards the average middle-class average American citizen. The casual, informative language creates a feeling of informality and is probably not meant for foreign tourists.
David Brooks takes the time to explain to foreign tourists what kinds of inequality are socially acceptable. His main points are that academics, fitness and sports, income, technology inequalities are all acceptable. It is alright to think that one person is better than another if they have a higher degree of education, or that someone is smarter simply because they are tech-savvy. Even at the airports, frequent fliers have separate check-in lines and boarding procedures. Unacceptable inequalities include ancestral, morality, religious, cultural, and status inequality amongst high school teachers. College professors, however, thrive on competing with other departments in nearby schools. Brooks also jokes that Americans judge what kind of beer a person drinks, or whether they buy gourmet cupcakes. Overall, David Brooks cleverly leads his readers to believe that any kind of equality is acceptable.
The Inequality Map organizes thoughts about what types of things are susceptible to competition. The purpose is to make fun of what Americans have decided is "socially acceptable". Brooks organizes what is acceptable and not by alternating the topics. This keeps the reader's mind busy and provides a pattern for the piece. Also, the order that the topic are listed go from less controversial, to very controversial in the middle, back to normal categories. Brooks adds that ethnic inequality being determined as unacceptable is "one of culture's highest achievements", bringing a sense of seriousness to an otherwise satirical article. His jabbing remarks at "obese frequent buyers who consume a lot of Twinkies" is derogatory and references fitness inequality as previously stated as socially acceptable. The Inequality Map is directed towards the average middle-class average American citizen. The casual, informative language creates a feeling of informality and is probably not meant for foreign tourists.
Friday, November 11, 2011
First post
If you haven't noticed, this year has gone by in a blur. We live in a place where we have the rest of the world at our fingertips at all times. Advancements in technology have indeed come a long way, but this step forward has made our face-to-face interacting with our fellow human beings fall behind in this race of life. The social aspect of life has changed from handshakes and going out for lunch to friend requests and chat rooms. How many times do we catch ourselves saying something online that we would never say in real life? As humans we look for the fastest, most painless way to get from point A to B, which is detrimental to our mental health. We need human interaction, but instead we replace it with too much time staring at a screen. It's like eating vanilla ice cream every day. You can put on any kind of topping you want, and get the newest and most expensive sprinkles, but you're still not getting what you really need from that ice cream. If we can remember to take time to remember the real people in our lives and not spend so much time in a permanent sense of haste, then we can become a healthier, happier person.
"Our Science Fictions"
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein27-2009feb27,0,6816863.column
Joel Stein makes the point that no one actually likes science, but it seems that only conservatives are "blamed for hating science". In fact, liberals feel the same way. They actually happen to have a greater interest in science according to Stein. Most of the conservatives' beliefs are based on staying true to Bible teachings, for example, evolution, global warming, and stem cell research. Opposing views have divided Americans since the creation of the liberal, conservative, and independent parties. It turns our that they have more in common than they may think. Stein references fads such as "vitamin-water" and the want for "eternal bliss". He makes the point that neither side wants to face their personal philosophies in case they are wrong and the other side is right and that both sides agree to disagree.
Stein works in many effective rhetoric devices to relay his message to the reader. He begins with a bold generalization and eases the reader into the topic by conversing with them about the pains of high school, relating to them on a personal level. Humor is incorporated in staccato spurts which give the blog an upbeat feel. Universally likable, Stein addresses both liberal and conservative appetites while keeping his personal view in the background, which is that everyone is making to big a deal out of simple differences in opinion. Mentions of aliens near the end prove that Stein wants to keep the blog light hearted and casual. His sarcasm is appropriate for his readers, who are probably the average-joe who reads his favorite bloggers while drinking coffee on a Sunday morning. His use of diction aids his intentions to approach his own conclusion without being harsh. The tone is conversational, as a friendly blogger should be. Stein connects to his reader and makes them comfortable simply reading what would otherwise be a controversial topic.
Joel Stein makes the point that no one actually likes science, but it seems that only conservatives are "blamed for hating science". In fact, liberals feel the same way. They actually happen to have a greater interest in science according to Stein. Most of the conservatives' beliefs are based on staying true to Bible teachings, for example, evolution, global warming, and stem cell research. Opposing views have divided Americans since the creation of the liberal, conservative, and independent parties. It turns our that they have more in common than they may think. Stein references fads such as "vitamin-water" and the want for "eternal bliss". He makes the point that neither side wants to face their personal philosophies in case they are wrong and the other side is right and that both sides agree to disagree.
Stein works in many effective rhetoric devices to relay his message to the reader. He begins with a bold generalization and eases the reader into the topic by conversing with them about the pains of high school, relating to them on a personal level. Humor is incorporated in staccato spurts which give the blog an upbeat feel. Universally likable, Stein addresses both liberal and conservative appetites while keeping his personal view in the background, which is that everyone is making to big a deal out of simple differences in opinion. Mentions of aliens near the end prove that Stein wants to keep the blog light hearted and casual. His sarcasm is appropriate for his readers, who are probably the average-joe who reads his favorite bloggers while drinking coffee on a Sunday morning. His use of diction aids his intentions to approach his own conclusion without being harsh. The tone is conversational, as a friendly blogger should be. Stein connects to his reader and makes them comfortable simply reading what would otherwise be a controversial topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)