Meta-Post 2.0

Here we are again at the end of another semester and at the beginning of another meta-post. Since last semester, I think my blog posts have improved, but one major improvement that I will elaborate on is the content of my posts. Over the course of first semester, my blog posts were written on topics that I had to search for. This semester, I found that my blog posts had more to do with happenings in my life or they pertained to something I was genuinely interested in. The majority of my blog posts also pertained to topics we had discussed in class, which is different from the usually random topics I blogged about last semester. This goes along with my feeling that blogging is no longer something I sit down to do as an assignment on Sunday night. I am much more likely to write a blog post when I feel the urge to type out my thoughts on a certain matter.

One of my favorite blog posts from fourth quarter is 'Same Crime, Different Punishments'. I was excited when I watched Colbert's interview because The New Jim Crow and Michelle Alexander had been the basis for many in-class discussions on race and racism. I was also able to connect the piece of media I found on Colbertnation.com to the self audit we did in class. I think this was the first time I connected an outside media source to a physical handout from class.

This, in my opinion, shows how I've improved in my ability to find connections between the world outside of school and our class. Now, I am able to relate most of what I view on TV or read in a newspaper or magazine to something we discussed in class, which helps me understand the outside media much better.

Minority Majority

A few days ago, the Census Bureau announced that non-whites now make up 50.4% of America's birthrate. In other words, white Americans are no longer the majority. So what does this mean for the US? According to Bloomberg Businessweek, "the trend is likely to have a far-reaching impact on the country's political alignment, the nature of its workforce and on its economic future."

Minorities have been known to follow the Democratic Party. According to Zoltan Hajnal and Taeku Lee of Princeton University, "in recent contests Democrats have garnered about 90 percent of the black vote, two thirds of the Latino vote, and a clear majority of the Asian American vote." So now that the majority of America consists of the minorities, the Democratic Party has a much stronger future than the Republican Party, unless the Republicans start now to make themselves more appealing to people besides white Americans.

An increase in non-whites also changes the "nature" of the American workforce, which directly relates to America's "economic future" because these minority children will be the ones making the money for the older white generations during their retirement. This means that the older white generation will have to rely more on the growth of Hispanics, African Americans, Asian Americans, etc. for a secure future rather than their white descendants.

2011 was the first time in the history of America that the minority birthrate outnumbered the white majority birthrate, which was much earlier than anyone had predicted. What does this mean for the future of the United States? "[Immigration] is at the root of how we became the country we are today, and more importantly, it's our destiny," Marcelo Suarez-Orozco, a professor at NYU, says to Neal Cohen of NPR. Is America en route to becoming a true "melting pot"?  

Marriage: Reason for Expanding Education Gap?

I just read an article from The New York Times called 'Education Gap Grows Between Rich and Poor, Studies Say' expecting to write a blog post on social class, but instead I am finding myself more interested in the idea the article expresses of marriage being a primary reason the gap keeps expanding.

Marriage has to do with the increasing education gap in two ways. The first is "the tendency of educated people to marry other educated people" (NYT). The studies in this article show that wealthier people are more educated than poor people; therefore to say educated people marry other educated people is to say that wealthy people marry other wealthy people, thus containing wealth in a small circle (for more on that idea, check out a previous blog post I wrote called 'The Circle of the Wealthy'). Poor people now have no way of breaking into the circle because they aren't part of that crowd.

The second connection between marriage, or lack of marriage, and the increasing education gap is the fact that lower income families "are now more likely than ever to be headed by a single parent" (NYT). The state of the single parent could be divorce or no marriage in the first place, but it all basically means the same thing. Single-parent households bring in less money than households with married parents. Consequently, single-parent households have less money to spend on education for their children, which adds to the gap.

So my question is this: how are single-parent households, where their status may or may not be their choice, expected to compare to households with a combination of two incomes?  

Same Crime, Different Punishments

After watching Stephen Colbert interview Michelle Alexander (a civil rights lawyer and author of The New Jim Crow), I am struck by what she says towards the end of the segment:

"Treat people of color as human beings worthy of dignity and respect and the same chances of life as people growing up in middle class, white neighborhoods who make the same kinds of mistakes but aren't asked to pay for the rest of their lives." 

This reminds me of the "self audit" we were asked to take in class a little while ago. One of the questions on the sheet asked us to either agree or disagree with the statement that if we were to get in trouble with the law, we would be sure that the police would let us off easy.

I agreed with the statement because I think that tends to happen a lot in the society we live in. The "people of color" that Alexander is talking about are typically given very harsh punishments— mainly time in prison— for minor, nonviolent crimes. The same crimes that are committed in societies such as the North Shore rarely result in harsh punishment, but rather a stern warning or a slap on the wrist.

The fact of the matter is that this is just not fair. Both groups of people are equally human, which means that we are both liable to make mistakes. One mistake for them means a reason for them to be discriminated against in the workforce or in society for the rest of their lives. One mistake for us means a quick sweep under the carpet. What does it say about the progression of America if there is still discrimination and a huge separation between race groups?

Donating to the Label

Connecting White Noise to my Junior Theme topic -- philanthropy -- has been a challenge, but today I came across something really interesting.

One of the recurring themes in the book is the importance of a label. DeLillo often touches on the fact that everything we buy and everything we use is of a certain brand, and humans are drawn to specific brands that they tend to stay with for a long time. At the grocery store, there can be hundreds of the same product each with a different name. So this calls to question the idea of buying a label, or a name, instead of buying an actual product.

I find that this idea is very prevalent in the philanthropic world as well. Families or individuals often tie themselves to a certain foundation or charitable nonprofit and that organization is the one that gets all their money. It's all, in my opinion, a control issue. People, especially in this era, want to be able to control where their wealth goes and control how it is spent.

Foundations and charitable nonprofits often play upon this control issue. They sell their organizations to people the same way a brand of cereal would be sold -- through commercials and through ads in magazines or newspapers. As Babette says on page 252 about a sunscreen product, "It is all a corporate tie-in. The sunscreen, the marketing, the fear, the disease. You can't live one without the other."

Let's compare sunscreen to a foundation that, for example, aids homeless or sick animals. A sunscreen company advertises the fear of getting sunburned which has been proven to sometimes lead to skin cancer. When you use their sunscreen, you won't get a sunburn and therefore are less likely to get skin cancer. In addition to the absence of a sunburn, this sunscreen will also give you a shimmer so you look great in the sun. This company, through marketing, has sold a fear of a disease. You end up loving this product so much that you continue to buy it whenever you run out. The foundation that helps animals advertises sick puppies and kittens in pictures you find in magazines and commercials you see on TV. You feel sad. You call the number on the screen and donate $10. They send you a personalized -- or what appears to be personalized -- letter saying thank you along with a magnet that you put on your fridge. Now you donate a little more every month.


These companies and these foundations sell you a label. And that's not so bad...until you start buying and donating solely based upon loyalty. But when does this happen? At what point do you start buying from a company or donating to an organization because of it's name and not because of the cause?

The Circle of the Wealthy

Wealthy university

While doing research for my Junior Theme, I came across a Slate article called 'The 2010 Slate 60'.  The Slate 60 is a list of the 60 most generous philanthropists in the United States. When I think philanthropy, I think donation or service that benefits those who are having trouble in the world. I don't think money that goes into universities to, let's say, build a brand new dorm building.

If you read the article, you'll see that "big givers overwhelmingly chose causes close to their homes or their hearts, often local organizations or their alma maters." The article goes on to say that in 2010, "33 different universities or other educational establishments" were donated to. Now, maybe it's just me, but I think that money could be put to better use rather than keeping it all in the circle of the wealthy. For example, instead of giving money to an Ivy League school so that the library can be named after you, try donating to an inner city school that doesn't even have a library. According to dosomething.org, "three-quarters of the nation's schools (almost 60,000) report needing repairs, renovations, or modernization in order to reach good condition."

High school in need of repair

I recognize the phrase, "or other educational establishments," but honestly, that probably means the high-end private or public school their kids are attending. Maybe I'm being too harsh, but I really don't see the purpose of giving money to a university so that their $10 million library can become a $15 million library. It just seems like there are so many other institutions that could benefit a lot more from that extra $5 million.

A Different Kind of Government Spending

In a comment on my previous post (see below), Mr. Bolos asked two very interesting questions: "What would be the results if private charity was replaced by a government tax that gave to people in need? Would 'charity' end up in the hands of a very different group of people in need?" This gave me something interesting to think about, because I haven't ever really thought of government involvement in charity work.

I did some research on the topic and found an article from The Washington Times, and although it was written in April 2010, I think it still applies. After giving a nationwide poll, the author of the article concluded the following:

"Voluntary charity is a solid American virtue, but the conditions of who is helped, when and how should not be dictated by government. If government provides food for a family...it should come from existing government funds, not from an increase in taxes."

This brings up a few things. First of all, it emphasizes the strong American ideal of giving charity. Benefits have been around for a long time. Officials would hold balls during wartime to raise money for supplies. It's even a religious value in many religions. Second of all, it speaks to the issue surrounding the decider of who will be helped and how. The example the poll uses is a poor neighbor who needs food, and most Americans said it was the government's job to provide the neighbor with food if no one else is stepping up and helping them. However, this money cannot be money brought in by taxes. This is interesting to me, because the way I understand this is that the Americans are making the decisions of who gets to receive the charity, but it's the government that has to pay.

There are two feasible ways to go if the government gave charity. It could tax Americans, whether it be in the form of an increase in a current tax or the creation of a new "charity" tax. If this were to happen, it would be reasonable to donate to the cause that the majority of Americans deem most worthy. Another way to go would be to use government funds, but then it should be the government deciding where the money would go because it would be their money being used.

This is getting to be a pretty long post, but I would just like to quickly address the second question. If there was no private charity and instead it was the government who donated, the money would indeed end up in a very different group of people. A great amount of our private donations are sent out to different countries like Africa, India, and Mexico. If the government was in charge of giving out donations, the charity would probably only go to Americans. But is that a bad thing? We spend so much time engrossed in movements like Kony 2012, and we fail to see the poverty and the famine that are right before our eyes.