Everyone Deserves a Good Home

The suburban sprawl outside Washington D.C. boasts of some of the wealthiest counties in the nation. People with bank accounts padded by good government jobs, a technological career, or development enjoy cushy lives. In contrast, Washington D.C. struggles with its high poverty and crime rates and bad public education. With the exception of people who live in richer communities such as Georgetown, residents and business owners are in no place to sufficiently support many services required of the city.

This is the situation that authors of Introduction to Sociology seemed to be referencing as they talked about suburban wealth causing inner-city decay.
If I were a member of the Washington D.C. City Council, I would concentrate on building a community that can support better schools and make for safer, healthier communities.

No one wants to live in dangerous, shabby areas. This is why I believe that the Washington D.C. government should do much to encourage and sustain revitalization. Non-profit groups interested in improving the city should put some focus on supporting cultural and business initiatives to make the city more attractive and build community.

I have no research to prove this statement, but based on personal experience, even larger cities such as New York are more attractive to wealthier people because of the shops, culture, and business opportunities it presents. I realize there are dangerous parts of New York, but even in the small amount of time I have spent there I noticed a small-town feel in the city that is sorely lacking in Washington D.C. Bagel-shop owners chatted with loyal customers. People acted more comfortable.
For the sake of many suffering Washington D.C. residents, I hope D.C. becomes a place like this soon!

Power in Numbers in Politics

I think individual citizens have a limited idea of what goes into running a country and have little influence in what transpires in its halls of power.
This is why I believe that both pluralists and power elite theories of democracy reflect realities of the political system in the United States.
Pluralists believe that people as individuals have very little voice in shaping public policy. But when they join with each other to form businesses or interest groups, they began carry enough clout to influence leaders.

Unfortunately there is an aspect where those with the money have access to the power, even in a democracy. Campaigns cost money and connections. Politicians frequently have a good education. While interest groups, lobbyists and business more clout than individuals, I really do think that an elite few monopolize politics (the Bushes and the Clintons, for example). The decisions of these elite few are changes by desires of interest groups when they realize their powers are threatened.

Cheap Isn't Always Good

I believe that best things in life are free. Or so goes the song by Luther Vandross and Janet Jackson. But on the contrary, I think the best things in life comes with a cost. It is bad when an economy is flooded with too many things that are free.


Let's look at large retail stores such as Wal-Mart, for example. On the surface, Wal-Mart and other similar stores seem like a win-win for the American economy. Cheap labor produces cheap products by the mass and this makes things accessible to a large group of people. It seems like an ideal cycle in the economy. But I think this convenience creates a problem in society that limits hundreds of thousands of people to buying and working at places such as Wal-Mart long-term. I don't think many Americans would argue that this is a good thing.

Wal-Mart is bad for America because it puts business owners and manufactures in the United States out of business, or in tough spots, as the PBS special "Is Wal-Mart Good For America" pointed out. Smaller businesses or manufactures have to compete with the stores such as Wal-Mart that stocks their shelves with much from countries where labor is cheaper. When unable to do so, they go out of businesses and their employees loose their jobs. All of the sudden the job market is flooded with people who take jobs at stores like Wal-Mart to survive and then they also can't afford to purchase at more expensive stores, and often don't have enough incentive to pursue careers that allows them to get a better life-style.

The ability to get cheap things is good, but a market flooded with cheap things doesn't lead to a good lifestyle. All this perpetuates the vicious cycle that actually depresses our economy instead of bolstering it. The best things in life aren't free, and hopefully our economy will realize that the many benefits of having large retail stores like Wal-Mart among us comes with a cost we must all guard against.

What changes families?

As I read through material about family, I was struck by the consistent dysfunction of the family throughout history. I wonder what society can do to promote healthy families if anything. I also wonder what causes the nature of families to shift and change. Is is technology? A different economy? The authors of Introduction to Sociology alluded to that. But does the construct of families also shift independently of these factors and if so, what causes this? I wonder if societies value different things at different times, and this is reflected on the family.

I thought about the roles that men and women usually perform and it did surprise me that women's jobs seemed harder than they are in reality. I know women who find joy and happiness in cooking every day and decorating and cleaning - all the typical women's roles. They love to nourish and are content. But I understand that more and more people consider these tasks too much and unfair to expect of women, especially when women have the ability and talent to be successful outside the home.

In my opinion, I believe that if women have children and a husband, these people are their first responsibility However, I do think that some women can do a good job of balancing work and family, or sometimes the husband and wife make a decision to have her work more while he does care taking duties in the family.

The Relationship of Religion and Politics

Religion is something that has touched almost every culture in someway. As science and technology develop, people argue that the face and nature of religion is changing. Theorist argue that religion is an ideology and not reality, or that there are too many myths bound up in religions to make them real. They argue that our world is secularizing. In one sense, I believe they are correct. But I also think that stating that would is secularizing is a statement that is too general. Some societies are still heavily influenced by religious principles, even to the point that they often influence politics and governance.

I should caveat this next statement by saying that I am a deeply religious person. I have been all my life. That being said, I believe that the democratic form of government protected by checks and balances is the best because without checks, people easily abuse their power. If the people are religious and want religious politicians, than I think that is their choice. I do not think that religious groups should try to advance their religion or win converts through government. This is wrong because it is forcing others into false conversion. But there are rights and wrongs that is the responsibility of the government to legislate. For example, people can't murder, steal, or abuse drugs. This gets tough when people don't agree on what is right and wrong (take abortion for example), but the justice system does exist to legislate morality. It has to.

Prejudice: Always Unfair

The internment of Japanese Americans after the bombing of Pearl Harbor illustrates the quick tendancy we all have to judge and stereotype. With no evidence, the United States government assumed that all Japanese were a threat and acted on assumptions.

I understand that they wanted to take precautions, but they should have at least established a system to to verify that they were imprisoning people who were threats. It is indeed ironic that the Japanese who lived closest to the Pearl Harbor tragedy were not imprisoned. Could it be that those Japenese were actually known for who they are, instead of being abused because of their skin color?

Several years ago I read "Snow Falling on Cedars." The novel by David Guterson paints a story about a Japanese man wrongly charged with murder and of his people sent into exile for no reason as their neighbors watched. Stories like that remind me of how tragic and unjust prejudice is. We all know it. I hope we can all live like we know it.

Equal Value to Differences

Someone shouldn't have to change the way they are in order to get respect from others. When it comes to gender inequality, I think this principle should apply. I know the gender equality movement has many aspects and is a complicated one for society. But on a very personal level, I think the movement is a way for women to cry out for respect and appreciation we should be getting, but aren't. Whether our societies, families, or own behaviors contribute to this respect deficit, it's a hurtful reality for women all over the world. I wonder if this drives women to try to be more masculine than they would otherwise. Let women be happy being mothers and daughters and wives and let them be praised and admired for them. Some of the world's most influential women were exceptional mothers and wives.

But if women feel drawn to other callings, let them also be praised when they achieve.

I think it's interesting how different societies assign value to a life and how they do this differently. In some societies, women are literally less valuable. I think western cultures are just now realizing how wrong this is - at least I hope this is the case. Whether poor or rich, man or woman, black or white, our lives are all of equal value, but not necessarily equal. We're unique too, and I think that paradox is the beauty of being human.