I totally understand Sam’s point, but it will never come close to happening. March is a long way away, and by that time everything will be in the back of the students’ minds. Its unfortunate, but that’s the way it is. The reality is that the students desperately want to move on. If put on record, everyone will say that they’re thinking of the victims and haven’t gotten over it, but the vast majority are longing to get back to normal. By March, this will be even more the case. Had the accusations and everything happened near State Patty’s day, there would be a far better chance of the holiday being cancelled. The realistic opportunity to make a positive statement was squandered with the idiotic riots, followed by an attempt to make things right with the vigil.

Sam believes that having State Patty’s day will bury the student body for years to come. Perhaps I am being naïve, but I believe him to be overstating. The media moves quickly from one story to the next, especially on a national level. By March, the story will be out there for those searching for it, but not in everyone’s face twenty-four seven like it had been. To cripple the student body like Sam suggests would mean that the media would devote as much if not more attention to State Patty’s day as they did to the accusations and to JoePa’s firing. A lot of people across the country know who Joe Paterno is. The amount that have even heard of State Patty’s is far, far less.

Everyone wants to keep the victims in mind. That being said, do I really think the victims will feel hurt if the holiday were to go on? The continuing of what has become a tradition has nothing to do with child sexual abuse or any of the issues of the trial. It has nothing to do with the firing of Joe Paterno or anything regarding the scandal. It is nothing more than college kids having (immature, misguided) fun. State Patty’s day does not help or hurt the victims in any way, and I honestly believed that if you asked their opinion they would reiterate the same point. You cannot equate State Patty’s day to the riots. One has become a tradition started years before the scandal; the other was in direct response to an appropriate repercussion of the events that transpired. State Patty’s day will not receive the national attention the breaking news of the scandal did. The reports prominent in the local media outlets, but elsewhere, one will have to go looking for State Patty’s news in order to find anything.

There are a few things I have learned in light of recent events. The first is the importance of morality. The actions (or lack thereof) of Paterno, Schultz, Curley, & others, are incredibly alarming. Let me start by saying that in a case like this, the law should not be the motive to do what is right. For any just, reasonable person, “right” and “wrong” easily distinguished under these circumstances. Their legal obligation should not have been the first thing to cross their minds. How about compassion for the victims and an immediate need to help? Not because the law requires you to do so, but because of your obligation to the victims as a human being.
Secondly, because some people clearly put their focus only in their legal obligation, I wonder why the fundamentals of the “moral obligation” are not put into law? Especially considering a case like this. Make it illegal to not report such a crime to the proper authorities, not just your superiors. This way, those who worry only about legal responsible will be obliged to do what is truly right, and those who fail to meet that obligation can be properly punished.
Another thing I learned is how quickly one call fall from grace. Coach Paterno was and is a legend not just here but throughout the country. His inaction does not erase his long history as a source of great good for the university. His (in)actions do not, in my opinion, make him a terrible person, void of integrity and morals. He made a mistake. Let me point out though that “mistake” is not used lightly here. It was terrible, horrible, heinous…whatever you want to call it, but a mistake nonetheless. One mistake does not define a person, as this mistake does not define Coach Paterno. However, this does not mean the he should get a free pass. Your mistake should not define you, but it does bring consequences. I will not argue whether or not his firing was just & I will not suggest what I believe to be appropriate punishment. The punishments deemed appropriate are what they are, and he must accept them. One mistake does not define your life, but you certainly must deal with the consequences of it.
Lastly, I learned how many idiots there are here at Penn State. The riots which we all witnessed were, for lack of a stronger word, embarrassing. Apparently, nobody who participated has ever heard of the word “perspective” and focused on a football coach rather than what is really important. It pisses me off. I wish there would have been a way to check every person who attended that candlelight vigil. If they were out during the riots then they shouldn’t have been able to attend the vigil. Either act responsibly and keep things in perspective by showing your support for the victims, or disregard that altogether and go flip a news van because you think that’ll bring your football coach back. You can’t have it both ways.

We cannot simply “give land back” to the indigenous people. Yes, I understand that years ago we (white people) “took” their land. It was an inevitable outcome. Stronger nations conquering lesser ones has been the way of the world since the beginning of civilization. Should the U.S. “give back” the original thirteen colonies to the British first? After all, the land was theirs before it was ours. It was, is, and always will be survival of the fittest- that’s how civilization progresses. The whole idea of “we were here first so you coming in and taking our land is wrong” is so childish it’s almost comical. “We were here first,” ok, well, we’re here now; if you don’t like it then do something about it. I realize and understand the sympathy for the indigenous populations, but no nation in history has ever “given back” land because another group was there first. There have been wars fought over such things, and quite simply, the winner keeps the land. That’s just the way it is.

I’m not saying there weren’t terrible injustices committed to the indigenous population, and I’m not saying that it isn’t extremely regrettable that such acts were committed. Unfortunately, this is human nature. We take advantage of others for our own benefit. It is done on a personal level, as well as on a national and global scale. If you think the early history of America is the only example of “taking land” from a less powerful population, then you are kidding yourself. Every nation on earth was formed in this way. Again, there were obviously some horrible acts committed in the process, but in regards to the idea of securing of new borders through force, neither the US nor any other nation in the history of mankind, owes anyone else an apology.

That being said, the only option left is to help the indigenous people establish themselves. I took the prefix “re” out of there, because what exactly does that imply? Establish them back to how things were hundreds of years ago? In the U.S., in today’s world that is not possible. I’m no expert on statistics regarding Native American populations, but it seems pretty clear that on the whole they are facing tremendous a struggle. The U.S. needs to help not only these groups, but also all groups living under those conditions. I realize that is a lofty goal. “Lets help everyone!” If only it were that easy. I don’t know how it would be accomplished and I can’t give any specifics, but luckily that was not the question. Should we give land back or help (re)establish? The latter. Why? See first two paragraphs.

No, if someone hangs out with people of a different, that person would not be classified as a “poser”, at least not in my mind. To me, being a “poser” means acting, dressing, talking, etc., a certain way that you know is not truly representative of you. You may not necessarily disagree with this lifestyle, in fact you may find certain aspects appealing, however, you are not fully expressing yourself, and you are both conscious and accepting of this. I was a poser between approximately fourth and sixth grade. Many of my friends were into skateboarding, so I began dressing like a “skater”, even buying my own skateboard, which was completely useless to me, I could barely stand on it. The only thing I was good at was Tony Hawk Pro Skater, but I’m not sure that counts…

There are numerous explanations as to why someone would hang out with people of a different race. Perhaps that person was raised in a community where their race was of the minority. They went through school surrounded by kids of a different race, thus making it perfectly reasonable for them to immerse themselves into a group of a different race. Is that person a “poser” because they made friends with the kids they were in constant contact with- considering those kids were of a different race? No.

Perhaps one simply identifies themselves, in terms of say personality, better with another race. If they truly feel at home in a particular group of a different race then how can one call them a “poser”? Furthermore, simply hanging out with a group of a different race than your own does not make you a poser. My roommate last year was black, and, as with anyone else really, we had a lot of similarities, as well as many differences. That being said, we hung out all the time, but still neither of us conformed in any way towards the others beliefs. The majority of my other friends are white & when my roommate was around he was still himself. His association with us didn’t make him a poser because he was still himself, still did his own thing. The same can be said in regards to his friends and me.

Now certainly there are some cases where an individual acts a certain way and associates with a group of people that does not truly stand for or represent the individual. If that person realizes they do not mesh with the group, yet continues to act accordingly and associate themselves with said group, then yes, go ahead and call that person a “poser”.

Personally, I can see a very clear progression in how I view race. For a number of years I was at “stage one”. From as young as I can remember until eighth grade I was for the most part unaware. I went to a catholic elementary school (not a particularly large one, about sixty kids in my graduating class) and none of my classmates were black, and very few of any other race. Obviously I was aware of different races, but because I did not come into contact with them on a daily basis, the issue of race never really shaped how I viewed the world.
I then went to a public high school with a much bigger graduating class of approximately three hundred and fifty students. Here, individuals of a race other than white were certainly the minority, however I see myself as having progressed into what Sam calls “stage two”. Whereas before I never had to concern myself with being politically correct, it was now something I needed to keep in mind. At the same time, I would never say it was “an issue”. Its not like I went to school everyday worrying if I would offend someone. Fitting the mold of “stage two”- I was aware of different races and I suppose would act somewhat accordingly, however it did not have a major influence on my behavior, at least as far as I could tell.
Now in college, I still see myself for the most part on “stage two”. Yes, there are situations where I worry about being politically correct and not offending anyone, but again its not like I have to watch every word I say. I am certainly around more people of different race than I ever have been before, but this greater exposure hasn’t lead to any changes in how race affects my life. My roommate sophomore year, for example, was black, and this was by far the most contact I had with someone of another race. Him and I got alone just fine, in fact, he made far more, shall we say, “risky” remarks about black people than I did. Being politically correct around him was never really an issue. He was a reasonable person who, if I did say something that could be construed as offensive, knew I meant nothing by it.
From elementary to high school there was a definite change, but from high school to college, at least for me, I don’t see it. I’m not sure what it will take for me to move on from stage two. The only time I spend any considerable thought on race is in class, but when I leave there I act for the most part the same as I always have. I try my best to not offend anyone, regardless of race. If that means being politically correct then that’s fine- doing so doesn’t require any real effort and isn’t something that stresses me out.

There are plenty of racial stereotypes that I do not agree with, such as, “Jews are cheap,” & “Black people are lazy,” two stereotypes that I saw mentioned in other posts. My roommate last year was black, architecture major, and he had the best work ethic I’ve ever seen. Maybe some Jews are cheap, but so are some whites (I know I am), blacks, Asians, etc. Most stereotypes are so baseless that they are nearly impossible to defend, such as the two listed previously, along with many others. Rather than elaborate on them all, I’ll focus on two of what I believe to be the most important.
First, “Asian people can’t drive well.” Neither can I. But seriously, from my experience, every Asian I’ve ever driven with has been at the very least a competent driver. I car pool home several times a year (a four hour drive) with a friend of mine, who is Asian, and have never once felt in danger. My bus driver from first to fifth grade was an Asian woman named Kathy; we never once got into an accident, not even a close call, and were rarely ever late to school.
Moving on from my personal experience, I now focus on a 2004 Time Magazine article. “With just 16% of the world’s cars, trucks, buses and motorcycles, Asia accounts for more than half of the roughly 1.2 million traffic fatalities that the World Health Organization (WHO) estimates occur globally every year.” Now, at first glance, I found that stat pretty convincing. Can I use it to influence my opinion on whether or not Asians are bad drivers? No. How do I know that poorly constructed roads, improper traffic flow, or more unsafe cars isn’t to blame? There are simply too many unknown factors to allow a stat like that to influence my opinion.
Second, “Black quarterbacks can’t succeed in the NFL.” The main reason I don’t agree with this stereotype is that there is simply too small a sample size. There have only been twenty-seven Super Bowl winning quarterbacks. Am I surprised that only one of the twenty-seven was black? No. Between 1936 ad 2008 only 13% of all quarterbacks were black- ninety-six, to be exact, vs. six hundred and twenty three white quarterbacks. To win a Super Bowl you must have an exceptional team, outstanding coaching, and a little bit of luck. Having only one black quarterback find himself in such circumstances is not surprising - not because he is black, but because the odds are stacked against him. If the percentage of black vs. white quarterbacks was, say, 50/50, 40/60, or even 30/70, then I think you could make a case for a trend. But 13%? The sample size is simply far too low to come to any conclusion that would lead one to believe that black quarterbacks can’t succeed in the NFL.
The easy rebuttal here is to say; “there is a reason only 13% of all quarterbacks are black- because they can’t play quarterback.” I can say that perhaps the reason is because the particular black athlete was better suited at another position, i.e. “Why be an average quarterback when you can be an above average corner?” Regardless, I am not arguing as to why there is such a low percentage, but rather stating that there is no reasons to believe that the quarterbacks who are black wont succeed because of their race.

After watching the videos from the Haiti Group Projects page, I must say I was impressed with each entrepreneur. The goods themselves are impressive enough, but when you factor in the limited resources available to them, their impressive nature is magnified. Just as impressive as their products is each entrepreneur’s resilience. They are well aware of the limitations facing them but do not let these limitations slow them down. It would certainly be discouraging, at least to me, to know that equipment/supplies/etc. exists that would make my job much easier and my business more productive, only to have no means of obtaining it. These aren’t luxury/non-essential items that are missing; they are fundamental tools that one would expect any business to have. For example, I don’t know much about fashion or the embroidery business, but it seems pretty obvious to me that having a mannequin is, if not essential, pretty close to it.
I was initially going to write about Clorene, then Yvrose, but I have instead decided on Euclid. All are in similar businesses, (clothes/embroidery) and all are no doubt worthy of assistance and aid. The reasons I am slightly more sympathetic to Euclid is that it appears to me that she is in the toughest situation. While Clorene and Yvrose each have their own employees, eight and five respectively, Euclid has one, her husband, a sort of employee by default. The others appear to have much more workspace, while Euclid works out of her apartment of which she is raising a six-year-old daughter with another on the way. Again, its not that the others are not deserving of support, but they seem to be already more self-sufficient, whereas Euclid has yet to reach that level.
As previously mentioned all of these people exemplify tremendous resilience and I have come to admire and respect them. One thing I particularly liked about Euclid is that she not only has the support of her family, but they are key in having the business operate. Support from your loved ones is always beneficial and I thought it was pretty cool how her husband entered wearing one of the shirts she made. Also touching was when the husband was asked if he was proud of his life, that is to say working with his wife and for his family, and without hesitation he responded (from what I heard in the translation) “yes, a lot”. Now this is coming from someone whose opportunities are limited. He could have easily expressed a longing for more material goods/a better place to live/more space to work, but he had no reservations in saying simply and definitively that he was proud. His attitude is obviously a reflection of his wife’s and goes to show the great attitudes possessed by these entrepreneurs. Attitudes like these are a testament to how these businesses will thrive so much more if only they receive some modest supplies and aid.

As Sam addressed in Thursday’s class, it is a mixture of determinism and free will that shapes peoples lives. He did an excellent job of explaining how there is ALWAYS a choice, no matter how much it may appear otherwise. However, this was balanced by numerous examples of individuals facing the consequences of factors outside of their control. The two schools (in Chicago?) show in the video clip demonstrated this perfectly. After that lecture I think it safe to say that no reasonable person who attended that class could conclude that one or the other is the sole explanation.

Again, I accept that it is mostly definitely a mixture of the two; however, I do not think there to be a 50/50 split. I tend to lean towards the free will argument, while still acknowledge that determinism plays a factor. Yes, some people are undoubtedly better off, but those who are not always have a chance, albeit in some cases quite slim, of reaching whatever goals they may have. It seems reasonable to me that those less privileged would examine their situation compared to someone more affluent, and as a result become discouraged (and, in many cases, understandable so). This discouragement eats away at the enthusiasm needed to overcome various obstacles.

One thing I can relate this to is sports. Take college football for example: every season prominent D1-A schools schedule “cupcake” D1-AA teams as easy wins (PSU is no exception). Now imagine you are a member of “Cupcake State” and you are playing Penn State. Yes, Penn State football has FAR more money going into their program than you, they have more recruitment capabilities, better players, coaches, facilities, etc. This game was schedule so that Penn State has an easy tune-up win, and so that you, “Cupcake State”, get your name out their for having played a big school. Now if you let these facts into your mind and allow them to stay there, it will have a negative effect on your enthusiasm, your effort, and you will lose. Factors like those must be ignored for you to have a chance. Your chance will be small, and Penn State may beat you 999 times out of 1000, but if you allow factors outside of your control to dictate your actions, to get you down, to discourage you, then that tiny chance goes away completely. And don’t tell me that in reality, “Cupcake State” never wins. Just ask the mighty 2007 Michigan Football team what happened when they played D1-AA Appalachian State.

The point of all this rambling is to (reach 450 words &) make the point that yes, determinism can play a huge factor in some cases, but it never erases free will. As Sam pointed out, there is ALWAYS a choice to be made. Going back to an example, less fortunate people can choose to be discouraged by the obstacles facing them, and when this happens they, in a sense, surrender their free will. At the same time however they can choose to give a big f*** you to the obstacles facing them and do whatever it takes to reach their goals.

I identify President Obama as multi-racial. That being said, my initial inclination was to say that this has no effect on my opinion of him; however, after more consideration I must admit that it certainly does affect my opinion of him. This, to be clear, is not in a negative way. I see the election of a multi-racial president as a great step forward for this nation and thus, to some degree, see Obama as a sort of inspiration. These feelings are directly attributed to his race; thus, race does have a major factor in my opinions towards him.
That being said, race should not matter and does not matter in terms of how effective I view the President or any political leader. I do my best to judge people holding positions of power based on their actions. I know it may be naïve to say that race subconsciously does not play a part in this, but for me I feel comfortable with such a statement. I recognize that this is not the case for the majority of people. While some will undoubtedly have a negative opinion of him based in some part on his race, others will certainly have a strong positive opinion of him, again because of his race. These distinctions are obvious an expected. I think the more pertinent question is, for those who identify as in the middle, as I do, is do I want President Obama to succeed so as to set a good precedent as the first multi-racial President. In other words, although his race is not a factor in whether or not I support him, is it a cause for me to root for him. Here I feel a small part of me answers yes. However, although I may in some ways want him to succeed because of his race, my final judgment of him as success/failure has to put race aside.

(Paraphrasing) “The double helix had been used as a representation for God since the early cultures of ancient Mesopotamia.” Rather than taking the person who made this statement at their word, I did some quick research and sure enough, the symbol for “Enki” a Sumerian god, is two snakes intertwined, shown as if they were mating. It looks like a double helix. Terrific. Do I believe these ancient people had some extraordinary sense that enabled them to make this connection? No. On a side-note, do I believe shamans in the Amazon are truly “enlightened” from doing shrooms? No. Do I even believe that whole story form Sam Richards? The part about his ankle, sure, the rest, I’m a more than a little skeptical. It all makes for a nice story and I’m sure was the “statement of the day” meant to “blow my mind”.

In regards to my personal beliefs, I was raised Roman-Catholic, and still consider myself to be. I go to church, I receive communion, I pray to God. At the same time, I believe in evolution, among other things that go “against” the church. Back on topic, this whole double helix thing doesn’t sway my beliefs in the slightest. Modern interpretations of the meaning and significance of a symbol used by a culture thousands of years ago, are in my opinion, not very convincing. Neither is the story about shamans doing shrooms. Perhaps I’m being biased though, as the most exposure I’ve had with a shaman is from an episode of MTV’s Rob & Big…but I digress. I suppose my reasoning is this; God created life, DNA (the double helix) is the “building blocks” of life, thus, God created DNA. One symbol from thousands of years ago doesn’t make that reasoning any more complicated. Neither do the scribbles from a couple of shamans. Come on…shamans? Is that really where we’re at?