Opportunities

I'll be honest, this past Wednesday's visit to Bread for the City was my favorite lab excursion so far.

For those of you who didn't sign up to get their RSS feed for the blog, Beyond Bread, they just put up a post giving a shout out to us, and to Amanda, B.A. Baracus and Ziggy for putting up posts dealing with our visit. So, congrats to those three for getting a nod and even comments from Matt. It's exciting to think that our little blogs are attracting outsiders.

To get back to what I wanted to discuss....

I realize that this upcoming week is "poverty week" in our class, but since this week's visit was obviously dealing with the relationship between poverty and prosperity, I'm jumping in on the issue a little early (besides, they are two ends of the same wealth spectrum...you can't discuss one without the other, really).

As I mentioned in my last post, I've begun reading Jeffrey Sachs's The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time. I haven't gotten too far into it, since other readings have gotten in my way (Regarding the Pain of Others is the most pointless book. It makes schaudenfreude no fun.) but of what I have read, it is going to be an interesting read. Immediately within the book there is a distinction made. Sachs is discussing an end to extreme poverty. Bread for the City isn't an institution meant to alleviate what Sachs and the U.N. determine as extreme poverty, or living on less than $1 a day. There is even moderate poverty, where people living on only $1-2 a day (that's moderately poor?). Finally, there is relative poverty. Relative poverty is "a household income level below a given proportion of average national income. The relatively poor, in high income countries, lack access to cultural goods, entertainment, recreation, and to quality health care, education, and other perquisites for upward social mobility." Simple as that, almost 40 million people's lives in the United States is summed up in that one definition.

Extreme poverty is just a strange term to me. For someone living below the poverty threshold in the U.S...isn't that poverty extreme in its own way? The fact that we classify people's suffering into extreme, moderate and relative takes out the humanity, in my opinion. And, though I may be in the wrong here, in some ways it may be more extreme, more psychologically frustrating, to be living in poverty in America. Even looking at it from a "relative" level, it isn't hard to see someone and say, "Yes, that person is definitely wealthier than me." Even though we can move upwards in society, to be one of those who lack "perquisites for upward social mobility" and living amongst it on a day-to-day basis...to be one of the "invisible working poor" in America...yeah, not so great.

Even though you can't help but take a step back at that point and say, "I'd rather be poor in America than poor in Kenya."
I'd rather not have to be in a situation where relative poverty is an issue.

Yet, it is. Poverty can't be eradicated. Not when there is risk in society. And you can't get rid of risk, just like you can't get rid of chaos.

...One last thing to this long post (which is usual). I admire what Bread for the City is doing. They are taking a direct, head on approach to fighting poverty, offering services to help the vulnerable in DC. Even though I'm not sure where I want to go with my international studies major, for some reason, poverty, regardless of the adjective attached to it, compels me. It makes me want to do something, because I have those "perquisites for social mobility."

Because I'm a bit lame, I come up with aphorisms in my free time (really, I just want to be someone who people quote). One of my favorites is "I want to make a difference in the world; maybe not to mankind, but of somekind."

Maybe I'm looking that somekind in the face.
Hey, BFTC, you'll be hearing from me.

Dia De Los Muertos

Happy Dia De Los Muertos everyone! Well, Dia de los Inocentes, but November 1st and 2nd are both really Dia de los Muertos, because dead kids are still dead.

Anyway. Let's talk about the media.

Yesterday in class we discussed briefly the media's role in what people deem as "threats". I said that the media can never be balanced.

And it can't. Media's job isn't to be unbiased, it's to pay the bills. Sensationalism means higher ratings and larger profits. So, how best to create sensationalism? Play off people's fears.

What's more terrifying? Being attacked by a shark or being diagnosed with cancer? While cancer is pretty frightening, being ripped apart by a shark a la Jaws (which is what you automatically think of when you think shark attack, isn't it?) is more terrifying on a visceral level. If a shark attacks you, you can't do a whole lot. Getting cancer, at least you can do something.

The point is, even though you are much more likely to die from cancer, if there is a sudden "upswing" in shark attacks, guess which story gets covered more. Same goes with terrorist attacks, SARS, avian flu, mad cow disease...things that are not a common happening. The unusual sells. The same ol', same ol' (aka: cancer, AIDs, car crashes, heart disease, poverty, starvation) is boring, because it happens all the time. Thousands of people die from cancer, car crashes, poverty, starvation, AIDs, whatever, everyday! That's not news! That's just life! (and death)

Life, sad to say, is generally boring. And what better way to increase ratings than to sensatilonize marginal threats (meaning, in all likelihood, you are not going to be on a plane that gets hijacked by terrorists; meaning, in all likelihood, you will not eat meat contaminated by mad cow disease)...to place what unusual and dangerous as a "very plausible, even quite probable" part of your life? The media are experts at creating irrational fear, and making it appear rational.

Isn't that a happy thought?