Weblog 5

Weblog 5

Weblog 5

Weblog 5

I have been fortunate enough to have been able to use the internet for a number of things. I have had a computer for a while. I remember the first computer that my family bought. I used to take a computer class in elementary school, when i was pretty young. I remember learning how to use Microsoft Office, floppy disks, and other programs. I recently took a computer class in high school also which taught me a lot about computers and the internet. I am mostly a consumer of internet materials. I have never created much on the internet except on social media sites. I have never created my own website or anything like that. The internet is a great resource that I have had the privilege to use over and over again. It helps a great deal with school work, learning, and keeping in touch with people. I could not imagine living without internet access. This is a real thing though; there is a digital divide, and some people live with minimal access to the internet, while others have no access at all. This can lead to problems because more and more things are being done online from e-mails, to research, to finding jobs. The digital divide is a not only about internet access, but also about how well people are able to use it. For example, some people may have internet access, but have no idea how to use it efficiently. This is a problem that needs to be addressed in the near future.

Weblog 4

Weblog 4

Government policies have made it easier for some Americans to live in good neighborhoods, while others are forced into bad neighborhoods , and even poverty. The government used to allow discrimination and segregation in local communities. This was  not the worst part though. The minority's neighborhoods were appraised at lower income levels than the neighborhoods of the whites. This eventually led to the decay of neighborhoods, low income society, low property values, and poverty. The poor became poorer, while the rich became richer. This was a continuous cycle, that never ended. When these minorities would move into white neighborhoods, the whites would move out, property values would drop, then these neighborhoods would slowly decline. It was not about who was moving in, it was more about who was moving out of these neighborhoods. The government didn't do much to accommodate to the needs of the minorities. They would often give whites great loans, and minorities would be given cheap loans, if any at all. This allowed the whites to progress and have security for retirement, while minorities were forced to retire with very little security money. This cycle still continues to this day.

Weblog 3

     Miller believes that social justice is an object that can be distributed among the people of a community. He believes that we should all share in the "goods" of society. He believes that we should also share in the parts of society that are not so glorious, such as taxes and military service. Miller is an activist for the state stepping in to deem things socially just or unjust. He believes that it is the role of the state to enforce social justice. Miller's arguments relate to my two contrasting theories from Weblog 2 because his argument supports one of my theories of social justice and contradicts the other.
     First, Miller's arguments supports my theory that it is wrong to leave the child locked in the room, for the happiness of the community. Miller states that the goods of society should be shred equally among all the citizens. If this is true, then the child in Omelas should be able to be a part of the community, and not have to be locked up. Also, Miller states that the community must share in the "bad" parts of society also. If the city of Omelas has to sacrifice some of their happiness for the child to be set free, then they should do that. even if nobody wants to set the child free, it is the right thing to do. a good example of this is taxes. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but we must do it for the good of the whole community, and we all share in an experience that might not be so pleasant.
     Second, Miller's arguments contradict my theory of social justice for the parents of Omelas. They teach their children that it is right to leave the child in the dark, cold, dirty room. This is not just because, as Miller states, justice should be distributed evenly to the people of society. The child is not receiving any benefits or any happiness because he is locked in a room. How is justice being distributed here? Miller also believes that the state should intervene when necessary and enforce social justice. This does not happen at all in Omelas, their is either no authority, or the state does not step in to create justice.
     Miller makes some very good points that include sharing the "goods" of society, enforcement of justice from the state, sharing the "bads" of society, etc. My two contradicting theories both agree and contradict Miller's idea of social justice.