For sale: baby shoes, never used.

“Jelly,” She had said, staring straight out the window from the two-story apartment. There was a white-truck advertising Welch’s grape-jelly parked across the street from the apartment building. A young, pregnant woman was pushing a pink stroller right next to it, stopped and looked at the white truck, and grimaced when the baby boy in the stroller started crying. The sun was beating down in Newport, and the buzz of the heat surrounded the city as a cloud of mosquitoes.

“What’d you say?” An older man asked from the canopied bed pushed against the corner of the room. He began brushing the sleep away from his drooping eyes. The young girl looked back at him, with her vacant eyes.

“There’s a jelly truck outside,” Vacant-Eyes girl repeated, pulling the hem of her white t-shirt down to cover her knees. Older Man wasn’t wearing a shirt. Vacant-Eyes girl hated when he didn’t wear a shirt. The heat was simmering the two of them, like cracked eggs on a frying pan.

She didn’t want to think about the heat. She’d been thinking of a baby. A beautiful baby boy wearing a blue shirt. Jack? No, that was too common. Derek? Well, she could think about that later. The baby sitting in the flour, patting his hands up and down and creating a mess all over the kitchen table. She could think about the perfect memories, sleeping in bed with the baby crawling up her stomach. Kissing the sweet boy on his nose, dressing him up, feeding him. Vacant-Eyes girl pressed her forehead against the window and breathed. Tiny circles of white formed on the window under the warmness of her breath.

“Why’d you buy those?” Older Man asked, in an annoyed voice. He’d begun rummaging through her drawers and pulling out shirts, underwear. He was holding up a pair of baby shoes. Tiny ones that could only fit fresh life within them. She gave a drooping smile as compensation.

“Those are for my sister’s baby. Just born two months ago.”

“Oh, huh. That’s interesting. She like you?” Older Man asked, picking up his shirt and putting it over his head. Vacant-Eyes girl didn’t feel as uncomfortable when he had his shirt on. It made her mad when he would sit up in her bed without a shirt. People should wear shirts, she thought. People should wear goddamn shirts.

“She married,” Vacant-Eyes girl trailed off. Older Man didn’t say anything. He straightened the pillows and checked the time on the digital-clock lying on the dresser.

“Hmm. So how much was it again?” Older Man asked, fishing out his worn, leather wallet. Vacant-Eyes girl sat down on the window sill, her legs disturbingly still.

“Two-fifty,” She said, scratching her elbow.

“Here it is,” Older Man sniffed, handing her the bills. “Nice work you do,” he joked.

Vacant-Eyes got up in an instant.

“Get out.”

Older Man gave her a look. She didn’t look right. No, something wrong with that girl. He left the way he came. Vacant-Eyes girl put her things back in the drawer, but left the baby shoes out. She thought of giving the baby a bath, holding it against her chest. Her chest that drew such belabored breathing at night, as if a weight had been pushed atop it. Combing her hair, she noted the baby shoes in the mirror, the way it was the only speck of color within the tired, gray room.

Walking to the kitchen, she took out the barrel of flour, bought last week. Prying off the lid, she spilled it all over the kitchen floor and threw up heaps of it into the air, playing in it, rolling in it. Vacant-Eyes girl was laughing, spreading the flour everywhere; throwing it onto the table, the refrigerator, and even herself. At last, when the laughter turned to big, fat tears leaking from her eyes, she thought of the baby shoes in the bedroom.

The baby shoes in the bedroom. Never used.

Duck & Cover: Nuclear Proliferation in the United States and Russia

Since World War II, the United States and Russia have been competing with one another in a nuclear weaponry duopoly. In 1961, the Soviet Union Russia developed “Tsar Bomba,” a nuclear weapon containing 50 megatons of TNT. Seven of these superbombs could effectively take out the world’s population. Since the 1960s, the United States and the Soviet Union have been in an arms race to develop even deadlier nuclear weaponry. Only recently have both countries slowly begun nuclear disarmament.

The behavior of the United States and Russia can be explained by game theory. The dominant strategy is to develop nuclear weaponry before the adversary. Failure to develop will lead the country to be in a vulnerable position. If the United States decides to develop nuclear weaponry and Russia does not, Russia will soon join in by mimicking behavior. Both countries will enter a war or attrition, with the same outcome as if both had chosen the dominant strategy of developing weapons.

The best solution is for both countries to make the best choice while considering the other country’s choice. In this case, the Nash equilibrium is when both countries do not develop any nuclear weaponry. However, neither the United States nor Russia would be expected to make the first move, leading to either of the countries to defect eventually. However, if the United States does complete nuclear disarmament, Russia will follow suit. The optimum number of nuclear weapons is and will always be zero. As soon as the United States or Russia even has one nuclear weapon, the other will respond with massive retaliation, developing hundreds, if not thousands of bombs and weapons in response. The United States and Russia are also aware of the mutually assured destruction of both parties if they continue to escalate their arms race.

Therefore, it is in both countries’ interest to disarm entirely and choose the Nash equilibrium. Both parties will thereby be benefited. Although it may initially seem to serve a country to defect, this works to their own detriment as soon as the other party defects as well. If both countries disarm entirely and sign a treaty to never develop nuclear weaponry again, both parties will be benefited better than if either had defected.

Brady Bunch: Prisoners of a Dilemma

In the Brady Bunch episode entitled, “Confessions, Confessions,” Peter breaks one of his mother’s favorite vases. Recruiting the help of his siblings, Peter hopes to avoid getting in trouble before his weekend camping trip. Greg, Bobby, Marcia, Jan and Cindy are all glad to help and even repair the vase with glue. However, by dinnertime, the vase leaks and Mr. and Mrs. Brady demand to know who has broken the vase. Every Brady-child save for Peter confesses, leading the two to believe that Peter has done it.

It is in Peter’s best interest to avoid confessing. Although many would believe that confessing is the Nash equilibrium, it is unimportant in this scenario. In the “Prisoner’s Dilemma” situation, neither party knew each other’s choice. The Nash equilibrium for each prisoner would be to confess, as this would be to their advantage, regardless of what decision their partner makes. However, in this situation, Peter knows that his siblings have already confessed. Mr. and Mrs. Brady will avoid punishing Peter unless he personally confesses. All of the other children will be punished for confessing. In this case, the table only has one column, because the other party’s decision is known.

As shown by the matrix, it is in Peter’s best interest to avoid confessing. The siblings are punished in either case because they have already made their choice of confessing. Therefore, Peter should avoid confessing. He is in the situation that every prisoner in the Prisoner’s Dilemma would like to be in – to know what his or her partner’s choices is and make a move accordingly.

By the end of the episode, Peter will not confess; he has no reason to. The Brady siblings will unfortunately ostracize him, but ultimately, he will be able to attend his weekend trip while his siblings are punished.

Self-Selection of Grades and Game Theory

Choosing an A, B or C for yourself may seem easy until you realize your final grade is determined by what an adversary chooses as well. Simulations like the ones in class closely mirror the Prisoner’s Dilemma. In the Prisoner’s Dilemma, two suspects are separated and questioned. If both are silent, they serve six months; if one betrays the other, the betrayer will go free and the silent one will be sentenced to 10 years. If both confess, both are sentenced to five years. In many cases, one of the suspects will defect and cause the other to be sentenced to jail. Like the Prisoner’s Dilemma, students in the class will defect from the group and choose an “A” instead of a “B.” By choosing an “A,” the student exercises a dominant strategy. By choosing a “B,” the student will be practice a cooperative strategy. If everyone in the class chooses a “B,” everyone will be better off. However, the payoff for defecting is great; one can earn an A instead of a C.  Therefore, choosing “A” is the best strategy because it will yield the greatest payoff in the case that surrounding individuals decide to play cooperatively and choose “B” or “C.”

The class data reveals that no one received an A, though many individuals did choose it. Eight individuals received a B, with half of them having requested an A. By choosing an A, a student has the possibility of earning the highest payoff. However, a greater number of people would be better off if everyone selected a B. In defecting to an A, the student can cash in on others’ cooperative behavior. This can also backfire if an individual selects an A and his or her peers select an A, resulting in both of them receiving Fs. However, unlike the students that will choose a B, students who choose A are using a dominant strategy to get the highest payoff. It may ultimately be more effective to choose an A rather than a B because of the possibility of such a high payoff.

Decay, Consumerism, Space & Absurdity

Photographers communicate a vision that can only be captured through a camera. The world is in actuality, an infinite ground of possibilities and pictures. Through the camera, the photographer captures a small glimpse of reality, and the result is part-reality, part-fiction. Photographers such as Jan Theun van Rees, Beate Gutschow, Paul Shambroom, Brian Ulrich and Julie Blackmon capture their surroundings in a variety of ways, such as space, political commentary, and difficult angles or composition. Rees, Gutschow and Shambroom describe their mundane surroundings by utilizing space and form in their photos. Brian Ulrich captures American mass consumerism through photographs depicting shopping. Julie Blackmon paints an odd picture of her surroundings through difficult compositions of umbrellas, human figures, and organic forms. All of these photographers utilize the human world as a springboard to further their messages about the otherwise mundane, or overlooked.

Rees’ photos, currently exhibited in the Museum of Contemporary Photography at Columbia College in Chicago, feature dilapidated architecture and spaces. Decay is a prominent figure in nearly all of his photos. One of the most striking photos details the inside of a movie theater, with neatly lined rows of purple seats. The viewer takes a backseat in the theater, and looks straight ahead. Rees builds on expectation; there is no movie screen, but a decaying concrete wall. The otherwise new and pleasant movie theater is now awkward. Rees has effectively built on the viewer’s expectations of a movie theater, as well as humans’ repulsion towards old, ancient and outdated parts of an otherwise brand-new object. The movie theater isn’t perfect, but it comes close, which is that much more infuriating to the viewer. Another one of Rees’ photos that focuses on expectation features a single door at the end of a hallway. The door is open, and leads to a clean, bright-looking room. However, the door is framed against a building that is falling apart. What may have been once tempting to the viewer, such as to step inside the door, now seems repugnant. The viewer’s repulsion towards decay prevents him or her from focusing on the bright room beyond the door. Rees’ current exhibition features many spaces that focus on decay, expectation, and architecture.

Gutschow, like Rees, has taken many photos of architecture, landscape and other spaces. Lacking any meaningful titles, her photos rely heavily on disparate and sometimes lonely subjects. One of her black-and-white photos, S#5, features a granite arch, with a lone, cylindrical building underneath it in the distance. This stark depiction of architecture leaves the viewer feeling cold and unsure of how to respond to her subject. The grainy sand underneath the arch adds texture but no emotion to her image. In another one of her photos, Gutschow frames a single, complicated architectural find against a flat, texture-free background. This photograph points to the overwhelming lack of decoration and emotion on much modern architecture, such as skyscrapers. Many of Gutschow’s photos have similar subjects: lone architectures against flat environments. Her photographs seem to point to the popular obsession of functionalism, a preference for architecture that has no excess; every part contributes to the whole’s function.

Paul Shambroom, also currently featured at the Columbia College of Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Photography exhibits his works that focus on space in interior environments. His Office series consists of many images capturing what many would perceive to be a mundane, overused subject: the workplace. One of his photos portrays a cubicle, a messy desk, and awkward angles formed by wood, misplaced drawers, boxes, and other office paraphernalia. The viewer is struck by the utter mess of the desk, and left contemplating about the personality of the owner. However, Shambroom conveniently builds off of expectation, much like Rees; the owner is missing. Another photo is taken at an extremely low angle, as if the viewer were a worm, looking up. A neat whiteboard with the United States map shows several strings connecting to someplace in Michigan, and various cords are organized in a pile to the right of this whiteboard. Again, Shambroom poses several questions to the viewer, such as why the strings all point to a location in Michigan. Although Shambroom’s pictures feature the workplace, his photos are absent of any actual workers, once again playing off of expectations. His photos describe the entropy and high-stress environments of the modern workplace.

Brian Ulrich is a photographer most popularly known for his work portraying American mass consumerism. Many of his photos feature known subjects to the viewer, though they are placed in awkward and even questionable context. One of his photos depicts gigantic, bulk packages of Scott and Mardi Gras paper towels. Ulrich humorously portrays America’s obsession with buying in bulk, and always needing to have the cheapest prices. The bulk packages seem almost unnecessary, though many individuals would buy in excess. Excess and consumerism is a common theme in Ulrich’s photos. Another photograph portrays a young woman in designer jeans, a brown jacket, with cell phone next to her ear, staring intently at the various packages in the frozen food aisle. Ulrich speaks volumes in this seemingly simple picture. The woman is multi-tasking by talking on her phone and shopping, as many Americans do, even when it comes to necessary things such as buying food. Next, she is buying in the frozen food aisle, probably wanting to save even more time cooking. Last, she has only a single package in her cart, which is almost unexpected. Here, Ulrich may have wanted to feature an overflowing cart to depict consumerism. However, such a display may have been too comical for the seriousness prominent in the rest of the photograph. The rest of Ulrich’s photos prominently feature retail workers, shoppers, and products to point to the mass consumerism and fast-paced lifestyle of modern America.

Lastly, Julie Blackmon is a photographer working not on the reality of the world, but posed photos that capture a fiction that can only cause a viewer to quirk their eyebrows. All of her photos build off of expectation of reality, and many of them feature children as their focal subjects. In one of her photos, a young child is standing by a swimming pool, looking up at two pinstriped umbrellas through plastic binoculars. The umbrellas dangle precariously above the water, threatening to fall down and cause a big splash. However, unexpectedly, the composition of the photograph seems too perfect – how did Blackmon arrange for the umbrellas to be thrown up just as the child looked up through the binoculars? It is clear that the photograph is posed, though the viewer has a hard time believing the reality in the photograph albeit this fact. In another one of her photos, Blackmon captures the high-anxiety lifestyle of the working-class mother. A young woman is hurried out of the frame, with barely a leg representing her, and a young child is hanging upside on a sofa, mouth open. Blackmon portrays a commentary on the mother’s commitment to her work and her children. Here, the mother has chosen her workplace over her home, and her children are left to become rowdy. Blackmon’s photos prominently feature children, difficult composition, as well as a fiction that seems all too real.

What the Bleep do you Know?

Swear words. As the epitome of teenage culture as well as mass media, swearing is a favorite American pastime that has proliferated in the last decade. In response to excessive swearing on television, censorship has been prominently featured in the form of a bleep! or tone. However, the “bleeping out” of swear words can leave questionable context, and some even question the legitimacy of having a single “bleep” to represent all swear words. Swear words are inelastic goods, an irreplaceable part of the English language that nearly everyone will use at some point in their life.

Like nearly all other goods, swear words come with total and marginal utility. Swear words are especially taboo if they are rarely said, a fact backed by the principle of diminishing marginal utility. The more frequently a swear word is said, the less vulgar and more commonplace it becomes. The word “damn” is considered less obscene than the f-word, because the former is said much more frequently than the latter. The less a swear word is used, the greater marginal utility that the user will derive from it; the more frequent the usage, the less effective the swear word becomes. The marginal cost for the f-word is also much higher than “damn,” and by way of the law of demand, it is used less frequently than “damn.”

Swear words aside, the bleep or tone itself has become a trademark of unnecessary censorship in the United States. How can the bleep itself become a swear word?

To reconstruct the bleep as the most obscene swear word, it requires no substitutes. Since the bleep represents all other swear words, using a substitute would be impractical. Television viewers have become familiar with the overuse of the bleep tone and recognize that it simply represents another swear word. To change this mindset, the bleep would have to be used less often. In this case, the marginal utility of the swear word increases with decreasing usage of the word. However, the price of using “bleep” would greatly increase, in part due to social, familial and religious pressure.

There is a danger that “bleeping” is an inferior good, but assuming swear words are inelastic, this is not a major obstacle. Considering that the bleep represents all other swear words, it may be worse than indicating a specific bad word to another individual. In order to make bleep an obscene word, it must be used less frequently and become a preferred substitution to all other swear words.

Get Rich or Die Tryin’

Estate taxes are a controversial issue, especially when it comes to the rich. Bill Gates Sr. proposed a difficult question to Congress, asking whether they would choose to live in the United States with a 55% estate tax on inheritances exceeding $1.3 million or Ethiopia with no estate tax. The existence of estate taxes is hotly contested, but the argument for equity can go both ways. Although it would be inefficient to tax estate valuing $1.3 million or more, it is inequitable that some children receive nothing while others are given large inheritances at birth.

On one hand, it is inefficient to mandate heavy taxes on inheritances belonging to the rich. By taxing 55% of the value of the inheritance that exceeds $1.3 million, rich individuals are worse off even though the federal government is better off. It is also inequitable that rich parents cannot choose what to do with their wealth, such as give it to their children. At the same time, a small minority possesses inheritances in excess of $1.3 million. It is inequitable that the majority of the wealth in the United States belongs to miniscule percentage of the overall population, and as such, large inheritances should be taxed and redistributed through the federal government.

Although parents have the right to choose what to do with their wealth, such large inheritances given to children at birth are inequitable to those who do not have wealthy parents. In the race of success, a child who inherits money starts ahead of the starting line, making it unfair for the rest. By redistributing the funds, the federal government can utilize the money gained through taxing inheritances to provide public services such as libraries and parks, which can be utilized by all, regardless of wealth.

A Misinterpretation of the Green Light

The New York Times article, “Gatsby’s Green Light Beckons a New Set of Strivers,” is an engaging, however trite, look into how The Great Gatsby has influenced young high school immigrants. However, the first quote by the Chinese, female teenager is a stereotypical one. Jinzhao Wang, featured in the photo above the article, relates Gatsby’s dream of becoming rich and eventually attracting the attention of Daisy to her dream of attending Harvard. Many young adults who remember reading the book miss the point of the novel; Gatsby is not a hero to be revered, but an example of what can happen when one strives for an ideal.

Jinzhao mentions that Harvard is her “green light” at the end of the dock. However, Wang misses a fundamental part of the novel. Gatsby bends over backwards to become rich and never reaches the upper-class status of Daisy and her husband. Furthermore, Gatsby’s obsession with the ideal of Daisy, rather than the real Daisy, is what ultimately causes his downfall. The fixation with Harvard, as with most of the other top twenty-five schools on USNews, is ultimately a destructive outlook, yielding masses of disappointed teenagers.

Many of the teenagers in the article tend towards praising Gatsby for his hard work. Fitzgerald’s intention was not to make Gatsby a martyr, but an individual to be empathized with up to an extent. Gatsby fixation with attaining a higher social status eventually consumes him. At that point, Gatsby is no longer Gatsby. Much like the novel’s pseudo-hero, high school teenagers fixate upon reaching an early epitome of success: an admittance to one of the highly selective institutions of higher learning, such as Harvard.

Fortunately, Wang, like many others, realizes that being denied from Harvard isn’t the end of the world. The majority of college freshmen are happy with their current institutions and unlike Gatsby, have learned to enjoy the journey towards success for what it is: a journey.