Equality for All! (Some more than others)

In Paul Krugman's piece "Confronting Inequality", he addresses various concepts and ideas about social inequality. He uses statistics and charts, as well as historical evidence to back his claims, which are largely that conservative economics, have, if nothing else, increased the incidence of social/economic inequality in the U.S. He also made the point, that if the U.S is truly supposed to be a land of equal opportunity, with a high degree of social inequality, then economic safety nets, and "better" economic equality are a must. 

I agree for the most part with Krugman's assessments. In fact, I happen to have written a similar piece that goes farther into detail on a point he made about unions. What I discovered while writing that piece was that conservative policies tend to be deceptive, painting themselves as natural, helpful policies, while having nefarious implications that they neglect to mention. My focus was that "Right-to-work" laws, which claim to protect workers from the "dangers" of unions, actually indirectly hurt unions and open avenues for abuse by employers. 

One of Krugman's points really struck home for me: social equality is rooted in economic equality. Although many would like to believe otherwise, the world we live in does convey an unfair advantage to those born into wealth, and "equal opportunity" doesn't hold up very well in a society where education is all but required, but prohibitively expensive for most. There was a time when America was the world leader in social equality, yet Krugman points out in his writing that we have lapsed several places behind. Is it any surprise that the countries with the most progressive economic policies? Common sense tells us no. Yet America rests on its laurels, sits on its high-horse, and preaches about the sanctity of their freedom to all who will listen. Freedom is all well and good, but without the financial means to support yourself, and rise in social status and better careers, this amount to nothing more than the freedom to be poor.To make matter worse, nepotism, and the almost cult-like following of "networking" have made finding and getting good jobs less about your technical skills, and more about social skills, which, although it has it's benefits I'll admit, monopolizes the best positions to those who rub shoulders with the successful and wealthy, i.e the successful and wealthy.

To conclude, Krugman, unsurprisingly as a Nobel-prize winning economist, makes many good points about inequality in the U.S, that I tend to agree with. Lessening economic inequality is key to lessening social inequality, which history shows us, tends to be a good thing.

Born an Alien: A response to Trump's plan to end birthright citizenship

Alright full disclosure: my parents were illegal immigrant's. Currently they have all thankfully managed to acquire legally acquire full citizenship through amnesty, but their means of entrance into this country was less than legitimate. With the consideration that I may be a "bit" biased with regards to this matter, I find myself needing to articulate my thoughts on just how absurd this proposition is. It appears that Mr. Trump has not studied U.S history, or at least has forgotten any part of it that wasn't the U.S being a "winner". Here's a refresher course for him, and anyone else who has not taken a class recently: Birth-right citizenship is an important pillar of American society. When I say American, I don't just mean the U.S, I mean it in continental terms. For the most part, every country on the American continent, north and south, have birthright citizenship. It came about as a necessity when the countries were freed from their colonial ties, as the only thing that could tie the newly minted nation together. There were people of all kinds within the new country, so Old-World ideas of nationality did not apply. No longer were you an Italian, or an Englishman; If you were born in America, you were an American.  To consider abolishing birth-right citizenship, would be to destroy one of the foundations of American society. Not only that, but the connection between birth-right citizenship and the establishment of slavery in the 14th amendment, make this a legal nightmare for the constitution revering far-right that Trump tends to pander to. Trump's messages reek of hypocrisy. In a nation built by immigrants, how can you reject more immigrants? How can you criticize Bernie Sanders for "turning this country into Denmark", when you yourself are attempting to follow in the footsteps of the anti-immigrant Denmark, and other more conservative European countries? Underneath the cover of "law and order" Trump, and other anti-immigration conservatives hide a prejudice against a certain type of immigrant, a type that doesn't "belong" at least in their view. I hate to generalize conservatives like this, because "some, I assume, are good people" but with Trump being the front runner in the Republican polls, it is unsettling to consider how many people in this country consider me a parasite, an invader into their ideally racially-homogeneous paradise, simply because I had the gall to break the law and....be born here? The elephant in the room is how Trump plans to stop illegal immigration, because that wall, if it ever does get built, is stopping nobody. Trump seriously thinks he's going to "negotiate" with America's second largest trade partner, and the second largest North American state, into paying for a useless 2100-miles wall. He also apparently thinks that, by making Legal migration harder to achieve, that illegal immigration will go down. Here's a newsflash: the only reason so many come here illegally is because it is already so hard to get here legally. We demand that our closest neighbor acquire visas to cross the border, while they do not require the same of us, nor us of some countries overseas. Frankly it is an insult, and Visa requirements are remnant of a more racially-oriented age. So no, Trump, your plan will not work; your wall will not stop anybody; Mexico will not pay for it; people will still come here illegally, especially if you raise the price of legal migration; and ending birth-right citizenship is such an affront to the American tradition, that one can only hope that you are never given the opportunity to even propose such a change. To end birthright citizenship would mean people like me would never have a chance to contribute to this country. What am I to you Trump? Am I a Freshman in college, studying to become a Mechanical Engineer, and hopefully get a nice job, live a nice life, etc. Or, maybe because my parents came here illegally, from a place you do not hold in high-regard (which is beautiful by the way, please never visit, you might decide to build golf courses there), maybe I am most likely a "rapist" or maybe I sell drugs, commit violent crimes. Who knows.

The unobvious obviousness of lighting the outdoors

Most people take street lights for granted, however, they are actually a weird thing, if you think about it: putting lights outside? Obviously, there must have been a HUGE problem with accidents at night if people decided it would be worth the money to install lights on entire outdoor areas/roadways.

Unwritten rules

Here a student is depicted as using headphones, no big deal right? However, the area that he is in is a common, off to the side walled off area at COD. While these areas are unmonitored, they are unusually quiet. The suggestion being that there is a powerful, cultural/social suggestion to be quiet in these areas.

YOUR HEALTH OR YOUR GRADES, PICK ONE.

College, glorified by the media as the place where students work hard and party harder. However, an often forgotten aspect of college is the human need for sleep. Often students with the all-to-common stressful schedules are forced to sacrifice sleep in order to prepare for class the next day. The photos show the conflicting viewpoints of prioritizing grades, and prioritizing one's health, both of which are common opinions at school. In the end however,  there must be a balance of the two.

Safety Standards

Historical accidents have culminated in to the situation depicted in the pictures. Telephones, fire extinguishers, and other safety equipment are abundant on campus, leaving many feeling safe, and serving as a bright red reminder of the tragic historical events leading to their installation.

Direction Confusion at COD

COD has, in my opinion, a very simple, easy to learn building layout, especially for a building of its size. That being said, everywhere you look, there are signs helping you to your destination. These signs are a bit excessive in my opinion, but their presence hints at a depressing conclusion: COD students and faculty have trouble remembering where they are, and how to get there. The building is two straight lines people! Do we need signs every 10 feet? Honestly.

Paragraph I wrote from the perspective of a college student(go figure)

The American Dream, for a while, I thought I had achieved it. A nice job, a good car, saving up for a downpayment on a decent sized house. I was even setting up a retirement account. Then the business nose-dived. Now, I’m on unemployment, struggling to get back on my feet. Job searching has become my full-time job. I know there are opportunities out there, software is a booming industry, I just have to keep looking.

Does watching TV make you smarter?

            After having read three articles, including this one about the connection between the watching of television, and it's correlation with intelligence, or lack thereof, I find myself agreeing with the former premise. TV shows have gotten almost excessively complex nowadays, and they explore much more varied, and deeper subjects, in more detail than ever before. Many stereotypes exist about TV today, and I believe these to be remnants of the early days of TV. With any new format of expression, there are growing pains to be had. With the advent of video people simply recorded plays from a static viewpoint, until they discovered what was truly possible; the first webpages were blocks of text, etc, etc. 

          

          TV at first, was treated like an extension of radio, something to play in the background, be light-hearted, simple even. It has evolved, to become as cinematic as a movie while also as involved and descriptive as a novel. TV is a flexible format. Long, epic stories are told over several seasons, whereas as short 1-2 season run may suffice for a comedy or concept show. Directors are just now experiencing a sort of "TV Renaissance", with various off-the-wall shows being written and filmed, from the fantasy epic that is "Game of Thrones" to the deep,dark human dramas like "Breaking Bad","House of Cards", and "Mad Men". It has become the perfect medium for stories that are just too long to tell in a movie.

           While many literary elitists will never consider the possibility that anything not written 100+ years ago could have any significance, I believe these shows, and the TV format in general, are an exciting development for literature. Opening up new possibilities for stories to be thought up and told.I believe that if we can become smarter as readers, then, when writers pour similar efforts into the story telling of their TV shows, we are capable of learning just as much from TV as from books.I believe that at the heart of literature, it is the stories that matter most. We read to learn from others, from the heroine of the novel, as well as the writer that thought her up. These stories, are platform agnostic; we can learn the same thing, and become the better for it, be it by oral tradition, novel, or exciting TV action-drama. As long as the story is good, everything else is preference.