This definitely has given me a new perspective on how inmates who are sentenced to life in prison feel and think. I have never met a person who was in prison, and I have never known the psychology of someone who has committed a crime that got them a life sentence. And since I obviously am not on a life sentence, I do not know how lifers think. That being said, this is the first experience I have had regarding someone who will be spending the rest of their life behind bars. This letter really surprised me, and it shows more than just lifer psychology: it shows human psychology.

I will admit I have stereotyped inmates before just from everything I have ever watched on television or read. But outside of gang members and ruthless serial killers, many of these people are normal citizens who made a bad decision and now live with the consequences. That does not make them necessarily bad people however. I always thought a murderer would either be an inherently evil person who would commit murder again if released or a person who would sit in prison and pity himself. That is not the case it seems.

This small act of compassion shows more than just how the inmates think and act. It shows how we think and act. When this inmate and his friend saw the crying man being consoled, they joined in. And how often do we see that happen in our regular lives? It is really a great thing to see that when some person is upset, it sets off a chain reaction where one person helps, followed by another, and another, and another. For example, a friend of mine this weekend, at a party, found out his cousin and best friend had been hospitalized and was in intensive care. One of our friends and I, instead of just blowing it off and going to party with everyone else, we took him upstairs to a room and hung out with him and helped him call his parents and figure the entire situation out. We could have just played the situation off and gone to a party or whatever but one person consoling my friend was enough to influence me and make me realize what the most important things are.

For everything you do that helps someone out, they will remember. My friend thanked me the next day and that was all the favor I needed in return. I knew I had done the right thing and that was enough for me. I wish people would realize this, and despite it being second-nature to many already, I believe we could have a lot more compassion in the world, more than we already have, if people recognized this.

This was a very interesting article that raises a lot of questions when it comes to the tactics used by our country in response to terrorism and the situation in the Middle East and elsewhere. It brings to question where we draw the line between responsiveness and recklessness.

Obviously when things like September 11th and Saddam Hussein's reign of terror, so to speak, in Iraq occur, action is necessary. No American would have stood idle if President Bush had not taken drastic action following the actions of September 11th. At the same time, regardless of your opinion on the matter, Saddam Hussein had to be overthrown from his position in Iraq. He committed genocide and he was a threat to the area and the world at large. Even harking on the oil issue, you cannot have a person that dangerous in charge of a country that is so heavily relied on by so many for such a valuable resource.

However, in every war imaginable, there are stories about some innocent civilians getting killed by soldiers who, for one reason or another, could not fulfill their duties properly. It is tragic, but a fact of war. It happened in Korea, in Vietnam, and in Iraq during the first Persian Gulf War. And now it is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. But this time it is different. The Iraqi and Afghani militant fighters have access to much more than any other United States war enemy in history. Suicide bombers are so common in these war zones, and soldiers literally cannot tell who is who. Their enemies dress like their friends and their friends dress like their enemies. There is the threat of roadside bombs everywhere and they are hidden all along the roads in the countries our army occupies. They could be anywhere at any time.

It is safe to say that most of these insurgents exist prior to some of the mishaps that occur in the line of duty. However, as this article points out, we can create more enemies every day because protocol is not followed. Our troops are brave and, for the most part, perform according to the standards set forth by the Army. However, the amount of stress they are under, especially when you are somewhere in the world where death is a daily occurrence and you may not know if you or the guy next to you is making it back from the next mission. That is enough to drive anyone insane and sometimes some soldiers cannot handle that stress.

Over in those parts of the world, civilians have the access to the kind of weaponry that can kill a lot in a little amount of time. The leaders of the insurgency I am sure are not ones to say no to a woman who wants to avenge the deaths of her family by blowing herself and ten American soldiers up. It really is a tough situation on every side and unfortunately, it has not changed since war has started.

I personally struggled with the second piece for multiple reasons. Obviously the video we watched was rather disturbing and its hard to eat a piece of chocolate knowing someone was viciously beaten and enslaved in order to make it. As Sam said, nearly every piece of chocolate on this planet will have traces of slave labor in it.

That brings me to my next struggle. If they all have traces of slave labor, how is someone supposed to eat chocolate ever again and be able to say they are against slavery? You have the average Brit downing two hundred bars a year (how? I have no idea, I think I eat maybe five chocolate bars a year, maybe) but there is no way to keep the slave labor out of the chocolate.

How do we accomplish that? Is it better for us to eat chocolate and be aware of the situation than it is to eat it and be completely oblivious? The demand for chocolate will always be high, especially in America, where we have so many chocolate demanding holidays, such as Halloween, Valentine's Day, and Easter. So to boycott chocolate products would be pretty difficult to do. Someone is going to buy all that chocolate so why not us? Why should we not buy it, the ones who know the situation and the slavery involved to make it, and then turn around and educate those who are unaware? Why not buy it and then turn around and demand that the companies who sell it attempt to do something about the slavery that produces their products? Why not buy it then match that purchase with a donation to one of the organizations whose purpose it is to stop these things from happening?

I feel like it should be our obligation to take a stand and educate others, but we should not feel guilty for buying or eating chocolate. It is better that we who know the situation enlighten those who do not. We should not feel guilty for buying or eating anything as long as we are at least trying to help the situation. There are just some things we cannot avoid and the fact of the matter is that many corporations may use slave labor as a means to cutting back on costs because in the end, earnings mean everything. There is no way to stop all the bad things that happen in this world because some people are evil and will fuck over everyone and everything in their path to get where they want to go. That is just the way things are sometimes.

I say we just need to be aware of these types of situations and at least try and do something to change them. We do not have to go travel to the Ivory Coast and start raiding chocolate farms but if every chocolate eater did just the tiniest bit, that is a huge difference. Think about how many people eat chocolate in this world.

Here is the issue I want to bring up in regards to nepotism. For many occupations, I do not believe that an employer would hire someone who was not fully capable of fulfilling the requirements of the job no matter what the relationship between the prospective hire and the employer was. Since this is the case, I do not believe nepotism is unfair. It is not an issue of fair versus unfair but more an issue of lucky versus unlucky. As well, we could consider networking to be nepotism because your contacts help you get a job you would not otherwise get. But is that necessarily unfair? No.

I am a finance major and a hopeful to be working on Wall Street in a few years when I graduate. When someone applies to one of these Wall Street firms, they enter one of the most competitive job pools on Earth. The fact that I go to Penn State instead of a University of Pennsylvania or Harvard or Stanford or University of Virginia puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage in this situation. However, my stepbrother works on Wall Street and I intend to use him in order to get myself an interview or job. When there are this many people, all of whom are extremely intelligent, fighting for the same position, recruiters literally read one line of the resume and move on unless they see something that really sticks out. OR they or someone they know can vouch for you and tell them that you deserve an interview. I do not think nepotism in this sense is at all bad and I intend to use all the connections I have to get ahead in this process.

As we saw in class, nearly everyone has used someone they know to get a job or position somewhere, sometime. On the other hand, I do not believe giving a systematic advantage to someone is as fair. However, I know that affirmative action would never hire an unqualified person for a position and that whole idea should be squashed. The fact of the matter is that no business is going to hire someone that is not qualified for a position because they could make more money and run a more successful business by hiring the most qualified person. Affirmative action may force them to hire some LESS qualified but definitely qualified for the position.

I believe affirmative action may be necessary in order to even the playing field when getting into schools, especially given the struggles of inner city schools in areas that are traditionally heavily populated by minorities. It could be used in a situation where there are two candidates of equal or very similar skills applying for the same position in a company that has poor diversity. But I believe that if a company has a good track record as far as diversity, that company should hire the most qualified person no matter his or her color.

I had seen this video several times during high school and each time is pretty disturbing. I find it incredible that children this young (they only seem about 6 or 7) are already instilled with this vision of themselves as inferior. It is a poor reflection on our culture and an even poorer reflection on the progress that has been made at bringing the races on an equal footing, or lack thereof. The expressions on the faces of those children pretty much tell the whole story.

I cannot comment on my personal experience regarding choosing the skin color of my dolls, partly because I never played with dolls and partly because I am not a person of color. But the girls that commented in class helped me understand the struggle. I would always assume that a person would pick a doll that looked most similar to how they looked but I am also white so maybe that is just another version of this situation instilled in me.

What worries me the most is the upbringing these children received, and the environment they grew up in. They must have had it pounded into their heads early and often that they were inferior to white children. I am disturbed to see such low self-esteem so early in the lives of these children. Just the expressions on the faces of those kids were enough to send several people into tears, as I observed in class. The dead silence after the video just further proved how horrifying this video was and how there really are no words to describe the situation. Our race relations effort has a long way to go if this experiment stays current. Hopefully we can make strides where at least we can keep the kids from experiencing race relations problems too early, if not eliminate them from our lives entirely (even though that is very unlikely).

I hope we can learn a lot from this video instead of saying how shocking it is and then forgetting about it next week. This is a huge issue, I cannot reiterate that enough. Something needs to be changed because we cannot continue to have our youths, or even younger, corrupted by the media and social standards that exist in this country. Like we discussed in class, the white perception is everywhere. In the Disney movies, all the characters have white features, they just happen to change up the skin color in the tiniest amount in order to give the perception of a person of color. Subconsciously, little kids do not realize it but at twenty years old or so, we all see it every time we look back on a Disney movie. I realizes it years ago. What does that say about our culture that we cannot even incorporate diversity into the lives of toddlers and young children?

The situation regarding teaching history in schools is a delicate one that I have heard brought up on many occasions. My only memory of the first grade was creating a table setting for Thanksgiving and thinking about how cool it was that the Native Indians and European settlers got along and traded with each other. Of course, in 1st grade, I did not know any better. But how do you think I would have felt if I had known the truth at such a young age?

I definitely believe that historical racial tensions should be brought to light. I took a class in high school about the 1960's which visited many of the problems, especially in the south, surrounding the Civil Rights Movement. I found this as one of the most unbiased, albeit disturbing and eye opening, classes I have ever taken. However, I could handle it as an 18 year old senior in high school. I feel that before high school, such delicate subjects cannot yet be explored.

Another problem is the "white history book" so to speak. I believe a problem here is that going back to Revolutionary times up until near the beginning of the 20th century, there are so few recollections from slaves and former slaves and those who had little education who were discriminated against in the southern plantations or the northern cities. With such a plethora of information coming from white historical figures and a shortage from black ones, it is difficult to construct an unbiased history book. You can read documents from white slave owners much more readily than you can read documents from black slaves.

Even more difficult would be to be able to accurately construct a history lesson on the hardships of the American Indians when such a high majority of the problem is rooted in history from a very long time ago. I personally have never heard an account of an American Indians struggle with European settlers and only on a few occasions have I read literature regarding their current struggle. It may be a problem with the schools, which is why I read those books in the first place, but I also believe that it is more a problem with the national attention that is not given to the subject. Many people may be ignorant to the fact that it is an ongoing problem and not just something that happened hundreds of years ago.

I believe that unbiased textbooks would be great. Unfortunately, they would be extremely difficult to construct. Not to say that it should not be done, but so many factors could affect such a project. The academics putting together such a book would need to be very diverse with very different viewpoints, which may sometimes conflict, so that there can be a system of checks and balances. Also, there is a shortage of information from all sides of any racial relations situation, so that could be a potential shortcoming.

I too am not exactly sure how to side on this argument. While my initial response was that this would cause more harm than good, after reading some comments, I am pretty unsure of how to think. The person who brought up Ms. Black Penn State makes a perfect point. That may be okay, but this is not? I understand black women are underrepresented in pageants, but then again, white American men are underrepresented in the NBA.

I'm a pretty avid fan of basketball and I see his reasoning in regards to the style of play in the NBA. The NBA, from its origins until around the past decade, was a sport more dedicated to teamwork and strategy. Now, the NBA is a lot more focused on individual achievement and athleticism. So I'm a much bigger fan of college and high school basketball, where coaching and a system still plays a huge role, plus those guys play for the love of the game and not for a couple million dollar a year contract. I can see the type of basketball Lewis wants in this league and it makes sense because that's the type of basketball I find entertaining.

However, this kind of league simply cannot work. The main difference between our Ms. Black Penn State pageant and the new white basketball league is that this new league is for profit. Not only that, but it is to be nationally recognized. That simply cannot happen because there is too much controversy, too much political correctness, and too many sensitive people for it to happen. Oh not to mention, blacks in America have been persecuted and segregated and degraded since they got here and this idea simply looks bad, no matter if his intentions were good.

I understand his reasoning, but a league like this simply cannot be allowed to exist. It is not in the best interest of sports, regardless of what other people are doing and who they are excluding. Sports are nationally televised and it needs to be a source of inclusion and role modeling, not of exclusion.

Another problem is his idea that this is actually going to work. We are in a new era of basketball fan. I am an old school fan: I love guys who hustle, dive on the floor, play great defense, and share the ball. But fans also love to see guys who can jump from damn near the three point line and dunk a ball when their head is at the shot clock and they could probably hang from their elbow on the rim (Vince Carter, 2000 Dunk Contest anyone?) That is what brings in the money and the fans. A good businessperson knows this. This white league based on fundamentals or whatever probably would not go anywhere. If people want to watch that kind of basketball, they go to college games.

I think the biggest problem here is the name of this new league though. Anything remotely resembling ABBA makes my ears bleed.

Like many other people who have commented, I also understand where the student who made the "it's not my place comment" is coming from. However, I do not believe the situation in this video is a time where you can use that as an excuse when there is such an injustice occurring right in front of you. It's one thing to use that as an excuse when it's between friends and there is not a true act of despicable prejudice but I know I would feel extremely guilty if I was in that bakery and had walked out without saying anything.
My favorite part of the video was when the father of the soldier stood up and said something. I believe this was a true testament of character. This man is the father of someone, probably not much older than many of us if older at all, who is abroad, fighting Arab Muslims most likely, yet he is defending the girl at the bakery. It is great to see that there is someone who is close to the situation, that being the several wars in the Middle East skewing American views on Arabs and Muslims and anyone from that general area, knowing the difference between right and wrong and standing up for the girl no matter what his personal situation may be. Furthermore, he condemns the actor behind the counter for his so-called patriotism by showing what true patriotism is and believing in the fabric that created the United States.
Another part I found interesting but more astonishing on a negative level was the first guy who flipped two thumbs ups to the cashier. I thought it was very funny that he would do this when (or so he thought) no one was watching, but then when the cameramen and the host approach, he scolds them for being un-American. Are you serious? Does this guy really live in the same country I do and claim to be patriotic? It hurts my head to think about some of the ignorant people in this country, when we are supposed to be so advanced and reasonable and smart. I guess it goes to show that there are some positive stereotypes here because we can obviously see, not all Americans are smart and open-minded and accepting.

What it really comes down to is right and wrong. If you see this situation occurring, you may react several ways. I'm not sure how I would have reacted but I definitely would not have bought anything there. I probably would have said something just because my temper gets flared up when I see blind stupidity like this because it makes me lose intelligence, that's how idiotic the situation can be. But if you think wrong is being done, you have to be strong-willed and stand up and say something, or else the offending person is just going to keep living their life in their ignorance and hurting more and more people.

This story is definitely a good pointer as to the overall opinion not only of government, but it seems America, towards the gay community. Penn State may be a place where most would say let them do what they want, but I do not feel like a lot of the country agrees or else we would not be in this situation.

But really, who would the legalization of gay marriage affect negatively? I can't say that it would affect me at all. If it makes people happy, then I'm all for it. If it makes people upset because they believe homosexuality is wrong for religious reasons, let's remember that we are supposed to have a separation of church and state.

I believe a great example of the reason for gay marriage was in class when Sam put up all the things that gay and straight parents could or could not do. The only difference is the gay communities inability to reproduce. So what does our country say about a straight couple in which either the wife or husband is incapable of reproducing? Are they any less or more of a couple than one who can? Are they damned to hell because of their lack of ability to bear children? I don't think so. Meanwhile, there are many opportunities for gay couples to have children: adoption, insemination, etc. I have a gay 2nd cousin (or something like that), who is happily married thanks to new Connecticut laws regarding gay marriage, with two kids who are completely normal in every way. They are happy together and so are their children. Isn't that what this whole country is founded on? Equality? When are we going to actually start practicing what we believe makes our country so great? It is not up to us to judge others or put them down, even if our religion says so. God will decide what's best for everyone so stop worrying about it.

The situation expressed in the video is unfortunate. These two women have a family and one of them is under threat of deportation because of a rule that ultimately goes against everything we ideally believe to be constitutional. Maybe this woman is a better member of society than the average American. Maybe with the right resources, she could go on to do something great. We cannot know unless she is given the chance, but our laws say you cannot marry the same sex. Love is love no matter how you look at it. Just let it go already and realize that maybe same-sex marriage isn't that bad. I mean, we know people go to Vegas and get hitched after a night or celebrities marry and divorce more often than they shop, so why can't people who actually love one another experience the same benefits as the idiots who do it for no reason?

This was a great lecture that really brings out the core ideals behind why people are in the position they are today. As far as my opinion on determinism versus freedom, I feel like I have to be in the middle, but leaning a little more towards freedom. I feel like there are better examples of people who have overcome some ridiculous obstacles because they had the drive. It has nothing to do with race or anything, but some people have just the will power to push on through obstacles that others give up on. It may be taught, it may be biological, I'm not really sure. While there are probably more examples of people who could not overcome their obstacles, I just believe the examples of people who do are examples that are better. This argument reminded me of the story of Chris Gardner, or the story of the "Pursuit of Happyness". For those who don't know, the story of Chris Gardner is about a homeless single father who worked hard and was determined to become a stockbroker, and did so, while raising his son, and now is the CEO of his own stock brokerage. I mean talk about overcoming odds.
But anyway, this lecture also reminded me of a discussion I had with two of my friends on our way back from a canning trip. Instead of sleeping, we discussed the ideology of America. Is America really a place where opportunities are endless? Is everyone really equal? Does everyone have the same shot at succeeding? One of my friends argued yes, the other argued no. I was somewhere in the middle. America certainly is not equal. I do not think race is the dividing factor though. I believe money is. For example, I am a finance and economics major and a Wall Street hopeful. Automatically, I know I am at a disadvantage coming from Penn State because it is not an Ivy League school, where Wall Street firms usually recruit the heaviest. Why did I not go to an Ivy League school? I went to a public high school and then one year of private boarding school. I had equal grades and SAT scores of a lot of the boarding school kids, yet some of them got into some pretty outrageously good schools. They could afford boarding school for 4 years and our equal grades, mine in public school, theirs in boarding school, translating into their getting into a very prestigious school and me heading to Penn State (not that I don't love Penn State. I wouldn't trade this school for an school in the country). I see it at home too, where the private day school students are getting into prestigious schools at overwhelming rates. However, the opposite side of the argument says "Hey, I just need to want it more than they do and I can get it". And that is true and it is proven in a similar example. In the past couple years, Wall Street recruiting has picked up at Penn State because the students before me wanted to prove they were better than their Ivy League counterparts.

So again, where do I stand? Somewhere near the middle, but if you want something bad enough, no obstacle is going to stop you.