What the citizens of Haiti have been able to accomplish thus far is remarkable. Already they are starting up small businesses in the midst of tent villages. And this is only 10 weeks after an extremely devastating natural disaster. Whats really incredible is that not only are these businesses selling the necessities (food, clothes, water, etc.) but they are also providing what some would consider to be luxuries. These include nail salons and television entertainment. Not only this, but these entrepreneurial endeavors are taking place in a competitive environment. Which means that many other people are also providing goods and services to the surrounding population. This situation is simply a testament to the resilience of Haitian citizens in the midst of disparity. If a natural disaster of the scale with which they experienced occurred in the United States, people would not be able to recover as quickly. It would be one thing for a disaster to just hit a major U.S. city. People would be able to simply evacuate to surrounding areas, or go stay with family members or friends who live elsewhere in the U.S. With Haiti however, it was basically their entire country that was devastated. If a disaster were to destroy all the U.S. infrastructure nation wide, it would be almost inconceivable to think what people would do. The citizens of Haiti have some experience with debilitating natural disasters and political unrest from their past. The vast majority of Americans have not had to deal with severe natural disasters at any point in their lives. Certainly nothing which affected every single American directly. A case in which almost every American loses their home and almost all their possessions. Our government is woefully under prepared for such an event. Granted it would take an extreme act of man or nature to cause this scenario, even a state wide disaster can show our inability to adjust. In a disaster such as hurricane Katrina, the system our government had in place for evacuating and maintaining the safety of the regions' citizens was poor at best and criminal at worst. The United States just does not have the man power or leadership in its emergency response programs to deal with large scale disasters. For the population of Haiti the situation is even worse. There is basically no government based plan in place to deal with major natural disasters. The people are basically on their own until a system can be reestablished with which to rebuild the nation. However, reconstruction will take place in the years to come. This system begins with small steps, and the Haitian people are already taking those initial actions towards recovery. By setting up small businesses, a stable economy can eventually take root and spread to larger industries. This process is absolutely essential for the long term welfare of the citizens of Haiti.

The American schools who are now offering mandarin as a language option are very forward thinking. Learning mandarin will be extremely useful to future students and workers. Knowledge of the language is already highly desirable to employers around the world. I took Spanish for about seven years in school because it seemed to be the most practical to me. When I was in high school however, I would have liked to start learning mandarin. I realized that it would have been the most beneficial for me down the road. My high school did have a wide variety of language choices though. A lot of my friends took French, German, or Latin; a few even took Japanese. I have already seen examples of where schools are offering the language. My brother's two children are both being taught mandarin at their preschool and kindergarten. In my opinion, this is the best way to go about it. Studies have shown that the best time to teach a language is when the person is very young. This is why if schools are going to teach a language at all, it should be at a young age. Most schools currently have the issue of not introducing a language until a much later grade. The first language class I had wasn't until 5th grade. Even at this age, it is too old to be immersed in a language. The United States as a whole has to realize that China is becoming a world super power at an amazing rate. This means that our kids will undoubtedly have to learn to interact in a changing global marketplace, where the predominant language will be mandarin Chinese. American school systems definitely need to take this into account. I do not feel that cutting out all the other language programs is appropriate however. There needs to be a balance. There should still be some choice for students to make in regards to what language they want to learn. A problem arises because to effectively learn a language, teaching must be started at a young age. But when the child is this young they cannot make a decision on their own about the language they want to learn. This results in the parents ultimately deciding what language their children should learn; like in my brother's case. This is not bad thing really because when a school offers choices the student can always switch to another language at a later time. It is not a big stretch to have schools teach mandarin. Almost every other country in the world teaches English in their schools. They do this for the same reason, because English has been the predominant language. When the rest of the world starts to teach mandarin instead of English, we will have no choice but to follow suit.

The individuals who develop the Census are just doing the best they can with the information they can gather. I am sure that they are not trying to offend the American people in any way. The people who create the Census and the questions that make it up are going off of the best knowledge they have in regards to what people classify themselves as racially. It is not easy to classify every possible race and fit it onto half a piece of paper. Race is and has always been a touchy subject in our nation, so it is not surprising that people have become upset. Most people either do not understand racial issues, or just do not care. The main problem arises because most average Americans have not done the homework that the Census folks have, and so they really can't be too upset about the language used in describing races. For example, if they were cognizant of the fact that some older African Americans prefer to call themselves negro then there would not be such an uproar about it. Its not wrong or unjust, it is simply because that is what they think of themselves as. The confusion amongst some Americans is a classic case of ignorance turning into anger. They see a word that triggers an emotional response. The best way to clear this issue up would be to release the studies conducted by the Census bureau in regards to what Americans call themselves racially. I am not entirely sure the study done by the reporter was legitimate evidence against the 2010 Census. Asking if the word negro was offensive is a prime example of a loaded question. Anyone would have said that it was offensive. A better report would have drawn out why it was placed on the form. Instead of asking a few random people who have done no research in the matter, why not go to the source and get the facts. The news anchor in the video even commented that he knew of older individuals from his family would classify themselves as negro. That being said, I feel that in the next 50 years or sooner, asking about someones race will be meaningless. Eventually everyone will be everything (or close to it). It is just the nature of living in a globalized world. This does not mean that the census has to stop, it just means that they question of race will not have to be asked. The problems with the system are evidently already starting to show in the difficulty of classifying multiracial people. The options the Census bureau has are either to create a box for every possible combination of races, or just to stop trying to fight a losing battle. It is not a bad thing that race will eventually become indistinguishable in America, for that is the very nature of the United States.

When most people in the continental United States think about Hawaii, they see only the glamorous side. There's the beaches, the climate and of course, beautiful vistas. The advertisements that draw newly weds and families looking for a nice vacation never show the real Hawaii. Or at least the whole story of Hawaii. Tourists are only given the veneer of the true Hawaii, consisting of fancy hotel complexes, pristine beaches, and "traditional" pig roasts. Very few of these tourists ever see the tragedies and injustices that are described in this article. I am sure most people were not aware of the conditions that many of the native Hawaiians were living in, unless they had lived in Hawaii for an extended period of time themselves. I had worked with a native Hawaiian in a past job and since then I have had a different perspective about that "paradise". She had explained how life really was living there. It is about time for our government to recognize the indigenous peoples of this state. It is hard to believe that it has taken so long for our government to take note of a native people living in the United States. All the other Native American tribes residing in the United States were offered some say about their people and given "their own" land to use. Granted, it was not very much considering all that the government has taken from them. But to not give anything back to these people seems an even worse crime. However, either way it can be seen as insulting. By giving the Hawaiian people a small fraction their own land back then the question is why doesn't the United States government just give them back all their land. By not giving anything back, the United States government is seen as cruel and inhuman. Of course the first option is not very practical, however It is a very touchy situation that our government has not had to deal with for many years. The vast majority of Native American issues were dealt with before most of us were even born. The reservations were established and brushed under the carpet. Now the United States is forced to open an old wound that has not and may never fully heal. Something about the article really jumped out at me. It was in regard to the U.S. apologizing for its actions. I do not approve of the United States government giving a formal apology to the native peoples of Hawaii. I am pretty confident they already know that the government left them out in the cold. The last thing they need is for the U.S. to apologize and then not do anything to make the situation any better. The damage is done and giving them back a small fraction of their own land will unlikely improve their living conditions. All we have to do is look to the Native Americans for an example. We gave them a "government" and land. Has their society greatly benefited from that?

This was a very surprising story to me. Granted I do not watch as much news as I wish I had time for. I guess I had assumed that a woman had already been appointed to head coach of a football team before. Especially for only a high school team. I am kind of disappointed that it has taken so long for a blatantly deserving female to be offered this position. Clearly Natalie Randolph has the experience and willingness to coach her own team. Even if it is an all male team. I am certain she was not the first woman in this position either with these credentials. It seemed to me that cnn was making a bigger deal out of this event than it should have been. I could see if Natalie was appointed to coach a professional team from the national football league, how that would have made national news. But she is just coaching a regular high school team from Washington. It seems like cnn just blew it out of proportion into a huge story about the epic struggle for a female to coach in a male dominated sport. Obviously Natalie has the talent and the chops to hack it as a coach. She played in a professional women's football team herself. Its not like they just picked some random woman off the street and assigned her to head coach. I can definitely see where some of the men on the team would have doubts about their head coach being a woman. Its not a very common situation so prejudice should be expected. However, just because a woman has never done something like this does not mean that they are not any good at it. All we have to do is look into the recent past. Almost every sport which was male dominated for years (even centuries) has now become associated with a women's team. From lacrosse to golf, and even rugby women are showing they can go toe to toe just like the men in these sports. So it was only a matter of time before women started to break down the gender barriers of football. And now it is time for a woman to not only lead a female team as head coach, but to also lead a male team as head coach. The more people who doubt her abilities will only be more embarrassed when they realize her talent for the sport. There is a reason why she was chosen for this historic role and the skeptics need to respect that decision. In addition, this appointment is an excellent opportunity to break down not only gender barriers, but also racial barriers as well. Everyone seems excited and ready to play and I hope for the best for her and her team.

I'm not terribly surprised by this fact. Race on television has been an ever increasing issue in recent years among the populace. I feel that some stations have embraced diversity while others have yet to increase their multicultural attitudes. A lot of it however depends on what the CEOs of the companies decide. Many major national broadcasting companies are hesitant to push any race related limits when it comes to race on television. They do not want to alienate any americans but at the same time, they end up turning their backs on a vast majority of the population. I am fairly confident that within the next five or ten years television will be pretty well integrated. The voice of the minority will become the voice of the majority. A lot of cable television is integrated already. Just look at the disney channel, music television, nickelodeon, and of course BET (Black Entertainment Network). These cable channels hit multiple age groups which increases the chances of national television to become integrated. Just turning on the disney channel or nickelodeon you would undoubtedly see multiple races (or characters who represent other races). This will make the youth of today more accepting (or presumably so) of other races. The opposite side of the coin is music television in which we see multicultural individuals portrayed in a negative light (for the most part). Even if these individuals are only trying to get attention or fame, it sends a bad message to todays youth. Just as it sent and continues to send negative images to my generation. Why the bachelor specifically does not feature a large majority of people from other races could be for a number of reasons. Polls are taken on what the vast majority of people want to see, but no one knows about them being taken. A lot of americans do not mind seeing various races on television but are against people marrying between races. Its possible that this is why ABC has hindered the number of non white persons featured on the show. Personally I feel that maybe it is just that people of other races are just more intelligent when it comes to not being drafted into reality television. Although other prime time television stations host individuals from other races. Take the amazing race for example. For as many seasons as I can remember there has always been a vast racial diversity among the contestants. The same goes for another of CBS's prime time shows, survivor. These facts only go to show that eventually there will be no controversy about races being represented on our nations shows. Until then the best way to vote is with the remote. If you are inclined to not support a program due to its content, then just do not watch that show or series. Many series have ended by lack of viewer-ship, so it is conceivable to get a show off the air by using this tactic.

I see where you are coming from in your argument and I definitely understand your perspective on the situation. How can you or any of your previous ancestors be be blamed for any wrong doing towards the native americans? The answer of course is you can't be blamed directly. The point I feel Sam was trying to get across was that no one is alive today who really took a part in terrorizing, murdering, and raping native american land. However, we still hold on to this land which was given to us from our previous families. Moreover, we buy this land when immigrants arrive from other countries. The idea Sam wanted to ingrain in our minds was that all of the United States still belongs to the native american population, even if it is not owned by them legally. So here we are today, and when a family arrives from another country the first thing they do is find a place to live. It just happens that because that place has always belonged to native americans it is technically calling their land your own. So where does that leave the United States then. In my opinion we have to options. One, we continue living out our daily lives oblivious and unresponsive to the wrongs that the government has done to the native population. We feel for the original peoples of our nation and our horrible treatment of them, but only think of them in passing. Such when we notice a native american mascot at a sporting event, watch a western, or eat thanksgiving dinner. Mentally, most of us do not have any direct connection to a native american or live near a major reservation. This makes it very easy for the average american to wake up and go sleep without ever thinking of our own government sponsored genocide. Option two is actually quite simple (to say at least) and direct. Give it all back. For this to happen the United States and its government would no doubt need to breakdown at a fundamental level, at which point the native americans can retake their land. To make sure the transition is smooth, an official body would have to enforce the change (as you can imagine almost every american would go kicking and screaming). I'm sure that to even mention this option sounds crazy. There is no way the entire United States population would get up and leave our country. Not after all the years we put into making it the "greatest" country in the world right. But the underlying question is how far would americans go to make things right. How far would you go to make things right? An even better question is where would the world be without a United States as it stands today? Moreover, if our america were run by a coalition of native tribes would it be as successful as our United States? Or would it have crumbled or dissolved into a third world country.

The article does an interesting job of casting the bible in a different light. Whether any of it is true or not is another story. I like that at least someone is willing to pose these kinds of questions. I respect their points of view and it is an interesting proposition they put forth. I was raised Christian but never really believed anything I was told or read in church. I was always fascinated by science and technology and even at a young age religion just never made sense. On the other hand if I were alive even a hundred or two hundred years ago religion would have made perfect sense to me. There was no hard evidence to refute its teachings. For all intents and purposes it was the truth. And before Christianity came along humanity believed in other truths. I guess I have a hard time dealing with a concept not backed by hard evidence and/or facts. For example, its common knowledge that the universe is about 13 billion years old and the earth itself is around 4.5 billion years old. That kind of puts a hamper on the "earth made in seven days event". But that doesnt mean we should turn our backs on religion. The lessons the bible teaches are not meant to be taken verbatim, rather they are to be interpreted by the reader. The stories from the bible (or any other holy works or religions) only seem like good lessons to live by, not necessarily the ultimate truth. The lessons taught by the bible are extremely vital for a civilization to exist. The ten commandments and a god that enforces them for example are a good way to keep a population in check. There is always the the threat of displeasing god by not following his orders. Unfortunately, religion has turned over the years into a means of control (particularly control over women in many cultures). Personally, I feel that anyone who takes the bible literally has a very closed mind, or is just plain ignorant of historical data and facts. Anyone who cares to follow the breakthroughs in modern science and technology should realize that many of the stories from the bible just dont add up if taken literally. However, they make perfect sense for a society which did not understand their world entirely and tried to interpret their existence, creation, and death the best they could. Every major and minor culture around the world has done this; from the Americas to Asia, and of course the middle east. The primary difference being that a vast number of people tend to follow the teachings of the bible as opposed to other beliefs; but does that make it right or better than other belief systems?

This comment made by Bauer just confirms my beliefs of many, if not most politicians. They do not care about anyone but themselves and those that can get them into a higher position (socially and financially). The political system in the U.S. is largely built on power and greed, but that is another story. This comment takes a personal blow to me since I grew up in the inner city. I saw first hand the benefits and hazards of welfare. Many of my good friends had parents who were receiving welfare checks. Maybe if Bauer knew anyone on welfare personally he would not be so quick as to call them animals. I know first hand that many individuals receiving help from the government were hardworking and honest citizens, not the degenerate sub-human "animals" that Bauer claims them to be. I'm not going to sugar coat the issue and say everyone who was on welfare was looking for a way to better themselves. Many were just feeding off the system. There were also a few friends whose parents did not work and just collected their government checks. I cant say that I blame them for that however, and I certainly would not go so far as to call them animals. Its just a human response to an issue that should be dealt with in other fashions. I do not know what the answer is, or even if there is a viable solution to this problem. Instead of throwing people money and writing them off, the government should help the citizens requiring welfare to get back on their feet. Moreover, the heart of the problem lies in the condition of the areas where the majority of the people requiring welfare live. And its not just the inner cities that would need renewal. Numerous Americans on welfare do not live anywhere near a major urban area. By renewing these locations there will inevitably be less people requiring aid. In addition, this would propagate into an even better living environment for the cities and towns. In the end, the government would be making money as opposed to losing it. It seems like a win-win on paper although the complications with this idea are numerous for legislation to ever take place. It would take a complete rethinking of how we deal with underprivileged members of our society. And the first step towards doing that would be to eliminate all the politicians like Bauer who do not view all Americans as equal and just. Maybe the solution to welfare will come in another form, or maybe it does not exist. I just feel that there has to be a better way to treat our citizens. Instead of viewing these people as animals why dont we grow up and start treating our fellow Americans like people.

"Avatar" is an analogy to human kinds' inevitable progression to use up vital resources as well as its willingness to invade other territories to gain more. Its simple human nature, specifically Western nature; when we don't have enough of something we take it and kill whoever or whatever gets in our way. Even when those resources turn out to be on other planets. The situation in "Avatar" is exactly as David Brooks portrays it. I even thought some of the same things he brought to mind after seeing the film. Brooks wasn't completely right though. He left out the part where the humans come back with more firepower and mercilessly kill all the planet's inhabitants. This is simple fact that history has shown us. The human race can be and has been a terrifying machine of unspeakable death and destruction; And that is just against other humans. I must admit though, it is a nice fairytale story about a downtrodden member of the human race who becomes a pivotal leader for the native peoples of Pandora; But its a totally unoriginal plot. Less than halfway through the film I felt like I was watching a 'starwarzed' version of "Dances With Wolves". When a normal patron of the theater recognizes a blatant remake of a movie, its a sad commentary on the originality of directors. This is nothing new however. The movie industry has gotten so bad that directors are making remakes of remakes. And I don't care if it is in 3D...a remake is a remake plain and simple. I find it hard to believe that people thought it was such an excellent movie. Its graphics were no better than an average video game and its cast of characters were far worse. Regardless of the fact that it didn't depict an accurate outcome. In the real world, bad guys win good guys lose, and at the end of the day the mass population never knows they are being shafted. Besides the fact Brooks forgot to mention this end scenario, I feel that he is accurate in his research of the white hero. Its a typical Westerner's perspective on the situation. Its a nice idea to have a human do something nice for another alien species. I suppose I'm just too cynical to stomach it. If we want to instill upon the world a belief that white people will save the day then so be it. I just don't agree with that perspective. Civilizations have risen and fallen and rose again without the help or even the knowledge of a white mans existence. I guess we are all missing the big picture here. Even bigger than the Messiah Complex. Modern films are about two things, making lots of money and entertainment...pure and mindless entertainment.