I think the rise to what this guy is talking about has a lot to with America's place and power within a global landscape. I think hes completely right that say Mexico couldn't just come in and take over America, because of America's power. When the pilgrims colonized the Americas there was some fight from the Native Americans however the vast majority of the land was not populated with people. I think a more relevant situation to apply this to is the immigrants that came through Ellis Island and the many Italian, Polish, Russian, etc communities that were set up. When many of these people came over they were treated poorly (like many illegal immigrants are today) and separated into their own communities (for the most part still the same). Many of these immigrants who came through Ellis Island or otherwise were used in factories to manufacture goods at lower costs, although they provided the United States with less expensive goods, and they braved the conditions that no one else would, they were never treated fairly. I think the basic landscape of immigration hasn't changed in a very long time, and I think its inevitable for people to show hatred towards immigrants when technically they might be helping the economy of your country more than hurting it.

I think a clear example of how people will never give immigrants a break can be seen in tourism. Now tourism helps an economy, but what do all the locals say about tourists? "Oh those tourist come in here make a mess of everything, crowd up our city, etc" Its the same way with State College "townies" you can't deny that State College would be the same if there wasn't a college campus and there weren't students. However many locals think that the college kids are detrimental to the town, and wish for a time when students aren't here.

At the heart of immigration problems, I think lies general discontent with people from another country. I don't think people understand the cheap labor situation and that many immigrants are willing to do work that citizens aren't willing to do.

I think a good point to bring up is, if the native americans were a stronger force they would have deterred the settlers from well settling here in the first place. However now Native Americans are thrown under the rug, and no one really thinks about them anymore. I think many people associate letting too many immigrants in and associate that with declining American pride. Immigration is a hot topic but a lot of people don't realize undocuemented workers are what keep commodity prices down, and with out those less expensive commodity prices many Americans will be a lot more upset.

I think that legal immigrants as long as they are paying taxes should receive the same health care as every other American citizen. If immigrant is here legally I think it'd be difficult to refuse coverage. If an immigrant is here illegally again I think it might be difficult to refuse coverage, but what if immigrants started to come here solely for the purpose of receiving free (or discounted) healthcare that they very well could receive in their own nation? I am well aware of the many companies especially along the Mexican border that use undocumented works so our commodities are cheaper, but I feel like you have to draw the line somewhere. If not stiffer border protection and more expensive commodities would come at the price not letting illegal immigrants to use our health care, I say so be it.

This is a very thought provoking and interesting question. I think inevitably there’s a fine line between thinking your better than someone and racism/bias. I think racism has a little bit more of an irrational fear and hatred for a specific group or groups of people. I think many people who could very well affect the living situations of developing countries are taught to worry about themselves from when they are raised. Even the simplistic “its not polite to stare” doesn’t allow for your curious mind to find out more about people. I can honestly say that some people probably don’t think of being able to helping these developing countries at all. Like this guy said it took him several trips to realize that he could be making a profound impact on thousands of lifes of other people in developing nations. I guess this goes along with the whole out of sight out of mind principle. I guess it’s difficult to draw the line where racism starts and not caring begins.

I think hollywood is beginning to portray all different types of women. Some of the most powerful women in Hollywood wouldn't be what many people would consider extremely attractive. Take Oprah for example, you don't see her half naked on the cover of Vanity Fair, yet many people look up to and strive to be like her. I don't think that there is anything wrong with wanting to look better, but I think girls and guys need to be taught earlier how the media portrays certain things. I think thats the biggest problem that women (and men) can't take these advertisements and movies with a grain of salt.

I think that a peaceful coexistence is not possible. I think there will always be powerful countries trying to overcome less powerful ones either for natural resources or some other benefit. For example the United States has NOT been at war for 30 something years of its history since the birth of our nation. Don't get me wrong i'd like to see a peaceful co-existence, but as long as a country can sustain itself by itself I think there will always be military engagements. Our nation was built on us not being able to peacefully co-existence with England or any other nation that had created colonies in America.

I think everyone has to conform to society. In many ways by attending Penn State everyone is conforming a society that say that you need a college education be successful. However, as a man I feel the need a lot to conform to society. Maybe not in the same exact way women are but I think men have a certain image that they must live up to to be successful. I think for the most part women and men respect men more when they are in shape and clean cut. In other ways, I think men may not be able to show a "feminine" side or show their emotions. If they are, they are somewhat outcasted by their friends. For example, if I cry in class, I'm now that guy who cried, but if a girl did the same thing no one would think about it twice. I think especially at Penn State, a school that has students largely from the upper middle class there is a certain way guys should look. Another good example would be the most televised sports are men's sports, and everyone looks up to these sports stars. So there again men have to be strong and powerful. Many men idolize and try to look like their NFL counterparts. Men must also be successful and bring home the most money (not saying that there is anything wrong with a wife making more than her husband) and if they don't they are seen in a different light.

I think men hold themselves to a high physical appearance as well. You can tell by how crowded the gyms are, and who are most of the people in there? Guys. I think that women feel that they must look good for men, but I think the opposite is held in just as high of a standard.
If men differ from the standard of what society thinks of them, there are assumptions immediately made against them.

Also, there is all of society's norms about dating. The guy is expected to pursue, pay for the dates, and initiate the woman. In many cases if men feel insecure or not calm in social situations other people assume that there must be something wrong with that guy. Guys also have to be strong when a relationship ends, and can't show any emotion. I think the phrase "take it like a man" kind of sums up this whole topic the best. Men are held to emotional standards higher than women are. Its okay if a woman shows too much emotion in a situation, it can be written off, but a guy is supposed to enter and exit a situation sans emotion, and bottle up everything else.

I think that people were able to eat the second piece of chocolate even after seeing that video because while it was terrible to see that these slaves are treated like that, many people still feel so far removed from the slavery aspect of chocolate or anything other product. Do you think about the freedoms that you take for granted everyday that many people fought and died for when our nation was formed? I think its easy to removed your blame or being involved in something like this. I also think people are confused about what they can actually do to prevent problems like this slavery and chocolate, and when they really think it about theres not much any one individual can do .

However easy it sounds, I think that would be hard to do. And even if you did buy "less" clothes, you would still probably have purchased something from a sweatshop. You can't boycott clothing all together, you will eventually need to buy it. I think this is too extremely of a measure. What's next are you going to boycott chocolate, coffee, and any other commodity? I think a better solution would be too make sure that the clothing you are actually buying is produced in a sweatshop free environment, rather than not purchase it at all. I wouldn't mind paying a little more for somehting I know is produced the right way.

How and who would ever create such a video game? I think the next question is who would sell it? I guess in Japan carrying certain products don't hurt a stores image. To be honest however, I'm not surprised by this game at all. What I am surprised by is why it took CNN almost 4 years to report about it. The game was made in 2006. It's really difficult to imagine the twisted mind that came up with this, and the actual follow through of programming it. The game looks pretty detailed. I did a little research on the media censorship in Japan and video games. It appears that Japan has freedom of expression like the US does and any form of censorship falls into criminal law. Pornography in Japan has come into light and has been mildly regulated, however it doesn't stop stores from selling it, so I'm guessing there must be a customer base for it. When I think about regulation and which store would sell this the first thing that comes to mind is the culture that Wal-mart has put out. For example they don't sell parental advisory CDs yet they are the largest retailer in the world, so it hasn't hurt them that much. So easily these store owners could take this controversial item(s) off their selfs. I can also see how Sam can relate this to crime video games, but this particular video game or genre of video games falls out of the realm of what is acceptable by a modernized culture. You see movies all the time where people are killed, or fight in war, etc, but it is very rare that a rape scene is in a movie and when it is its very powerful, and controversial amongst viewers. So what I'm trying to say is that the games depicted violence are nature of the way the rest of our media depicts violence in movies and tv, however this video game I struggle to believe will ever fit into culture. This woman's rights group Equality Now I think makes some fantastic points, but on a bigger level, regardless of gender how to one person depict such an act on another person? And where is the game developer in all this? More on the gov't however, I think even mild action from the gov't would scare retailers into taking these games off their selfs and away from the public. Its a problem in more than just one place, it lies with the gov't, with the retailers, with the developer, and with of course whoever buys it. Another noteworthy thing is that the internet attention this game gets is not necessarly all negative.

Being a white male, I this doesn't really strike me as surprising. I agree with Sam, why is this being reported? Is this say we all should be afraid or something like that? I think this might have an undertone that there might be more racial equality, if more people are willing to have children with someone of another race. So this is actually a good thing in my perspective. I also think that this would be hard to see in an area like Penn State that is mostly white, and closer to a metropolitian area this might be more evident. Would this mean that for our children (college students now) will the affirmative action tables be turned? I guess we can only wait and see.