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.

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.

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.

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.