The question has been posed, would the riots [born from the Paterno/Sandusky incident] have gained as much traction without social media. This question is a very interesting sociological question wrapped in the influence of technology on society.
Over the past years the world has seen Middle Eastern governments be overthrown by unsatisfied rebels. In the riots and rallies which spawned the over throw of these governments it is pretty clear that social media played a large role. The rebel efforts were planned and coordinated through social media like twitter, facebook, and google. The true power of this media can be seen in the governments attempt to shut these websites down with the hopes that the rebellion, consequently, would be shut down.
In the case of the most recent Penn State riots, I feel that social media did not play as near as a big role as it did in the middle east. Penn State is not the typical sociological environment. Tens of thousands of students, who are at a rebellious, riot-prone age, are gathered almost within one square mile of one another. Just like riots happened at Penn State before the age of social media, shows that something else is responsible for our riots. That thing is our proximity. In other words, You do not need a facebook or a twitter to alert you to a riot, when you can see it out your window or hear it while strolling the campus or town.
Obviously, you can’t rule out that facebook and media have influence on the situation. However, in my opinion, since the State college area has a special sociological environment, social media does not play as big of a role here as it would in different areas of the world.
Leaving the question of social media’s impact, I do believe that the news media did impact how out of control the event eventually became. Originally the mass of people were rallying in support of our campus and against Sandusky. The rally turned into an official riot when the element of news media was introduced. I saw first-hand how relentless the reporters were, and how the often, and annoyingly stuck the cameras in peoples’ faces. It is no coincident that the majority of the outrage emerged in the form of tipping a news van and throwing rocks at reporters. Therefore, it is a safe assumption that if the media would have kept a reasonable distance, the rally would not have escalated so quickly. This does not excuse the students’ actions, it simply provides a sociological explanation for these actions.

As a two year member and leader of a Tea Party Group, the York 912 Patriots, I can clearly and knowledgably say that the Occupy Movement and the Tea Party Movement ARE NOT the same movement by any stretch of the imagination.
While both groups have legitimate and similar concerns (such as the bailouts of the banks), the way they wish to solve these concerns are completely different.
The tea Party movement wishes to bring about a smaller government, less taxes, and less regulations. We believe that the troubles of this nation will be solved by the individual. Made up of capitalists, prideful Americans, The Tea Party is trying to play the part of a solution.
Meanwhile, the Occupy Wall Street Movement seems to be playing the part of pathetic victims quite well. They seem to be bent around getting media attention instead of actually fixing the problems. If they truly wanted to address the issues then they wouldn’t be spending all of their time in a park. News flash, you won’t change anything by protesting for a really long time in a now really dirty public location. Let’s examine the groups which are all jumping into support the occupiers. Unions, George Soros, the Socialist party, the Communist party, the American Nazi party, CAIR, Anticapitalists, Anarchist, Planned Parenthood, Acorn, and Social revolutionaries are just a few of the groups rallying behind this movement. Geez, this sounds like a big ole scary family reunion to me. With consideration to who is involved it is no surprise to me that the protestors (as seen in interviews, and on the signs that they make) espouse getting rid of capitalism and the Western way of life. These people talk about collapsing the American system, perhaps violently, to get something of a Communist utopia started. Maybe they haven’t read history very well, but let’s ask the Bolsheviks how utopian their society was after they collapsed Russia.
The morality between the Tea Party groups and the Occupy groups are complete opposites. How many arrests have been made at Tea Parties? Under ten. How many arrest have been made at Occupy? Thousands. The Tea Party is non violent. The Occupiers have resorted to violence in many cities and openly talk about violent revolutions. The Tea Party is respectful, cleaning up after our own trash. Meanwhile the occupiers leave literal tons of trash behind, which is strange because I thought it was the conservatives who have no respect for the environment….strange…..
I could go on for hours on the difference between the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement. And Sam Richards is a moron for supporting the occupy movement. Shame on you Sam. Revisit your hippy days, smoke some dope, keep “sticking it to the man”, and realize that this attempt to forever alter America for the worst is going to fail just like the revolutionaries did in the 1960’s. You sorry morons lose every time.

So in class today, Sam Richards said, “In thirty years white people will be a minority.” This statement drew a lot of muffled conversations from around the room and many looks of surprise.
First, let me say that I believe that many in the class interpreted this statement of shock the wrong way. Sam has a way of throwing statistics around that are meant to shock and awe. Sam wisely states these statistics in words that are carefully planned out to maximize the stat’s impact. I believe that the aforementioned quote is a great example of this. In my opinion much of the class took the quote to mean that in thirty years the white race would no longer be the most populous race. Ultimately, some other race would outnumber the white.
Luckily, I’ve known these statistics for awhile now so I know how to correctly interpret them. Instead of the white race being outnumbered, the white race would simply not be over fifty percent of the population. Simply stated, the white race will still be the most common in the United States.
Now that we have put that into perspective I can answer the question that was found in today’s video post: How do I feel about the white race being a minority in the distant future. My answer, is pure and simple, I’m ecstatic… I’m exciting. For my entire life I have always loved entering into conversations with people who were different than me. From Pakistani, to German, to Indian, to Israeli, I have loved learning about other cultures from a first-hand source. I have always been lucky to have a child like sense of curiosity and an uninhibited, non political correct need to question others’ actions, dress style, and culture. I have always found people different from myself to be especially interesting. I am proud to say that, because of this thirst for knowledge, I have made many friends with individuals from a diverse range of cultures.
Therefore, I would be so excited if we had a culture that wasn’t primarily white, because then I would have even more opportunities to question individuals about their culture, beliefs, and customs. So while Sam feels like a lot of white people would feel uncomfortable with this notion, I enthusiastically say bring it on. The only related notion that would make me uncomfortable is being told that our nation would see a larger majority of white people. How boring of a world it would be if people were all the same. To whom would I be able to ask my questions to?

Throughout my recent life, I have constantly been alternating between two different stages of the racial spectrum. These stages are stage number four and stage number five. Normally, I become angered about the hypocrisy I see in some of the “black” community. While I have no bone of racism in my body during this stage, I become angered at the fact that stage three African Americans are allowed by main stream society to hold very racists views without being ostracized. Then, I begin to see the futility of this anger toward others at which point I then move into stage five where I see and accept the world more clearly. I am very happy that in my few short years I have managed to make it to stage 5 already. Yay!
Fortunately, I have a few family members who have also made it far on the racial spectrum. First, my mother, a lady who has taught me much of what I know of race (up until I met Sam Richards). I believe that my mother is in stage five or six. She knows race, and works with a diverse group of individuals. One being my stepfather who is most likely in stage five. He is a Columbian American. After his family moved here, he grew up in racially separated New York City area and was thrust pretty quickly into the world of race. I have never heard any racial joke, slur, of slight from either of them.
Unfortunately, I have a few family members who haven’t yet reached a high spot on the racial spectrum. One would be my Great Grandpa who is always insisting that the African American race has inferior characteristics. No matter how much I plead with him and show him the truth of equality, he just ignores all the points I made. Similarly, my grandpa and my grandma makes racial allegations, but they do so in a very sneaky way that wouldn’t be noticed without a little thought.
I believe that my family members’ position on the racial scale either differs or equals my position because of their individual life experiences. For example, my grandpa grew up in the racially segregated South. Racism became a way of life for hum, unfortunately. Meanwhile, my mom has grown up in a rather diverse high school and has worked since college in a diverse work environment. I believe that peoples’ lives experiences shape their position on the racial spectrum. Plain and Simple.

I found it interesting and thought-provoking when Sam put white people into different categories regarding how he or she views race. I have always been relatively pride in my abilities to confront racial issues head on. What I mean by this, is that I have always asked questions regarding one’s race in an attempt to explore the individual with which I am speaking. Some questions that I have asked before include: “How does it feel to be apart of the black community,” “Is there a black community,” “How do you view white people,” and “Why are their racists”. Not only have I asked similar questions to many racial/ethnic groups, but I have done so without really being scared or worried about being politically correct. It’s not that I don’t realize the implications of my question, rather it is that I don’t really care about the implications or reactions. I’m comfortable knowing that I do not use race to judge people; therefore, I personally do not worry about being politically correct, because I do not need society’s approval or acknowledgement of my lack of racism. I question with boldness and without fear.
Obviously, I am aware of race and aware of those who judge based on racial guidelines. This would mean that I am not in stage one. Also, I am aware of what it means to be from white or black culture (at least what our society has said that it means). This would mean that I am not in stage two. As I previously stated I do not worry over my political correctness or attempt to appease the political correctness cultural warriors. This would mean I am not in stage three.
Ultimately, I believe that I am in stage four. This stage is marked with anger toward minorities and the political correctness police. I have been in this stage for a long time and have come to know it as one of frustration. For the past four years I have been a staunch conservative/libertarian. This ideology has fueled my stay in this level, because I want to see every person emphasized as the individual he or she is. Therefore, I become angry when a person associates and names themselves by the racial group that he or she is in. This anger gets multiplied when a group identity is used as an excuse for failure as well as when it is used as a ploy to judge someone. If hear someone judging someone based on race my first response is to point out that one’s shortcomings are a result of an individual’s actions and behavior, but it is not the result of the color of his or her skin. Similarly, I get angry when someone celebrates their racial identity, because I sometimes believe that it is an excuse to run from the responsibility that is found on an individual bases.
Unfortunately, I have been stuck in this stage for a long time, and I do not foresee coming out of it, because I can back it up with my individualistic ideology.

Thus far this semester my blog posts have been of a very serious nature, discussing topics like racism, welfare, and the United States government’s foreign expenditures. Therefore, when one of the videos asked the question “What would porn look like in a women-centered world,” I immediately jumped at the opportunity to respond. Finally, I have gotten a chance to be playful and less, well…old sounding and serious. Even though I may have a mind of a 70 year old, my more age appropriate heart has been begging to be let out! I will happily oblige.
Porn. It is possibly the most male centered industry in the entire world. Because of its nature, I have come to the conclusion that women do not care much for these “productions.” Ultimately, in a woman-centered society, I believe that pornography would not exist! This is a rather boring approach to the answer and possibly a response from my 70 year old brain, so I decided to assume that our society suddenly and miraculously became woman dominated, allowing porn to have existed and therefore allowing the “new” society to transform it, to shape it to her heart’s desire. Politically correct people beware, my playful heart is about to pursue all types of female stereotypes. Let’s begin!
Music: We all know that porn in our society has developed it own brand of music. Normally starting off with the words “Oh Yeah” slowly sung in a deep voice. Similar to elevator music, it is upbeat and suggestive of the “movie’s” theme. Meanwhile, In a female oriented society, the music has been transitioned to a more soft and more dramatic classical music. Instead of suggesting the fun that is about to transpire, this new music is suggestive of the emotion that is about to be felt.
Acting/dirty talking: In today’s porn industry the scenes aren’t necessary or even remotely known for intriguing acting. The guy is normally acting the role of a macho man, and the girl is acting out the stupid blonde stereotype. Here is some dirty talking:
Man: (Egotistically) “Oh yeah baby, daddy is ready!”
Woman: (Coyly and perplexed)“What are you gonna do, and who’s daddy?”
I’m pretty sure you get the idea. Meanwhile after the women have taken over society by gassing us men with perfume and shooting shoes of mass destruction, the dialogue gets much more emotional and dramatic, featuring more sophisticated actors and actresses. Here is some dirty talking.
Man: (Sympathetically and with much concern) “How was you’re day honey? Wanna cuddle?”
Woman: (With interest and compassion) “Aww baby my day was boring til I remembered I had your arms to fall into.”
Same cheesiness…ten times more relationship.

Scene Content: Now we get down to the meat and bones of pornography (No pun intended). In today’s world it is pretty obvious that the content is raw uncensored sex. Interestingly in the new, nightmarish world, porn’s content involves a lot of conversation, a lot of relationship development, and a lot of examining each other’s feelings. In this new porn, the removal of clothes is a rarity and full sexual intercourse is even more uncommon.

Basically, in the female world what used to be considered a romantic drama is now considered a pornographic film (NC-17). We arrive back at my original idea. Perhaps in a woman centered society porn as we know it would be non-existent. Ok, that’s enough from my playful heart…Now back to my wrinkly liver-spotted brain!

For many generations, the United States has taken a part of its revenues and used it to aid other countries in need (which happens to be the vast majority of them). In fact, a few countries happen to get a big chunk of their own budget from the United States of America. While one can use this aid to paint a benevolent and philanthropic image of our country, I believe that this aid isn’t as altruistic as many believe.
We tend to almost always (cough…cough always) financially help the countries with which we have a financial stake. By this I mean we help those who can benefit us. Going beyond this greedy motivational force, our international aid has a tendency to come with ties. Which means in order for a country to receive the aid it must agree to our terms, for example housing a United States military base. This so called “altruistic” aid isn’t so altruistic when one explores the reasons behind it. Ultimately, we use our money as a force of grand manipulation to control and use other nations.
As if things couldn’t get worse, the aid provided by the United States is often unbeneficial to it benefactors. By simply giving money to nations on an annual bases we allow those nations to have less of a need to find ways to make it on its own. Instead of putting in the extra effort to find a successful cash crop to plant, resource to mine, or business to cater to, the nations receiving the aid are able to rely on everything being OK due to the stream of money flowing their way. It allows these nations to succumb to the most vile and destructional illness of dependency. Similar to capable people who are content with living off of welfare, this cash provided is great for the short term but cancerous for the long term.
In this weeks video the question was asked: “What is the best way for the United States to aid foreign countries”. In my opinion little monetary aid is the best aid. If I were in control I would immediately stop aid to the countries which harbor negative feelings for America. You can’t hate us and expect us to pay for you as well. In addition I would end all financial aid that is monetary. Instead, I would aid needy nations by helping them with technology and to develop a business model for their nation. This business model would show how to best use the talent and resources that a particular country has. By helping a country to actually develop, it will one day be able to run on its own, meaning that we will no longer have to help them. Therefore, we will no longer be able to manipulate other nations into being dependent on America. A rising tide raises all boats!

It is obvious that Haiti is a very poor country that is in dire need of assistance. Unfortunately, most of the wealthy world believes that sending money to Haiti will directly help the issues of this nation. Whereas it is a nice gesture, simply sending money to Haiti does not greatly help or improve the life of Haitians. Haiti is in need of help that creates long lasting better conditions. This help can include improving private business, strengthening the nation’s infrastructure, increasing faster transportation opportunities, and providing materials or access to materials to spur production. When key things are provided to the Haitian people, they will be able to employ people, produce products, and create wealth. When these things occur, the nation will be able to become more independent and self sufficient. Overall, by helping to create a conducive business environment, we will be able to foster an entrepreneurial spirit which should bring at least a moderate form of prosperity to the island country of Haiti.
When watching the video of the Haitian entrepreneurs, I was impressed. Individuals such as Figaro worked incredibly hard for relatively little in return. This business owner makes primarily bread and pastries. Unlike in America and other wealthy nations, Figaro works much longer than a forty hour work week. Between working at her shop in the morning and working at her shop at night, she must also go a long distance just to get her supplies. On top of the longer hours, Figaro has a very limited working environment. She must find a way to produce a sufficient amount of product by using one oven and a single refrigerator.
I was happy to hear that even with such poor conditions, this entrepreneur proudly employs four other people. In addition, Figaro seems very eager to expand her business so that she is able to employ more people and become more financial stable. I am truly impressed with the fact that all the entrepreneurs that I learned about had an eager desire to expand their business. Here are people who are working hard just to get by and they wish to put in the additional hard work to increase their productivity. If Haiti were to find ways to make production and business easier, then entrepreneurs of the country would be able to combine hard work and creativity to ignite the economic engine of the nation.
I do not know how I can help this entrepreneurial initiative, but I do know that I would definitely like to attempt to help these people. As I go from my daily activities I’m sure that I will continue to think about ways I can help the Haitian business men and women. What is good for Haiti is good for the whole of the world. “A rising tide raises all boats.”

Welfare. This is quite possibly the most fascinating, controversial issue in present-day United States. In this video blog, we were asked, “In what ways does welfare encourage people to not look for another way of providing for oneself.” In other words, how do welfare programs discourage individual progress? Even though this is a very serious and emotionally-charged question, I often willingly and eagerly discuss it.
I believe that the welfare system, which has its roots in early 20th century progressivism, started off with the greatest of intentions: to help those that are in need. While a noble aspiration it soon became apparent that our government is wholly inadequate to successfully help the individuals that it placed on welfare. Initially helping those in need, the welfare society that is found in current day America causes more harm than benefit to the entire civilization.
First, let’s begin by examining the individuals who are reportedly “helped” by welfare. Yes, government programs feed, provide housing, cover baby-sitting costs, and provide cash for additional needs. While these are all great initial benefits, overtime they corrupt the individuals they seek to help. As soon as the individual realizes that he or she can have all the necessities in life provided by the government, then gradually overtime they begin to rely on the government and not on themselves for things. Why work for things when they could be provided to you freely. It is simply human nature to become lazy and unmotivated when necessities do not require work.
Soon a culture of dependence is created. This dependence is most consequential for the individuals on welfare. First, the drive to “be the best you can be” is severely restricted, for why be better when the minimum will suffice. Individuals who fall prey to welfare have less reason to be productive and therefore they do less for themselves. By getting this “free-ride” peoples’ character is made weaker not stronger, for they don’t appreciate the work that goes into living nor do they understand what it takes to be independent. This is a terrible consequence for those on welfare because they are allowed to feel comfortable in their dependence. And dependence is the worst that can be bestowed upon a human being, because with dependence so comes being powerless. In other words, because one is dependent on others (the government), that individual owes everything to and is completely under the control of that other. Just like children are controlled by parents, welfare recipients can easily be controlled by politicians. “Vote for me or lose your food.” They are dependent, they have no control, they are powerless, they are used.
For these reasons I am against welfare in its present form. I wish to give power to the people. I wish to strengthen all individuals and their ability to be independent. I wish to truly and substantially help people. Some people think my desire to drastically restrict welfare is cruel, but I consider it to be tough love. I am a compassionate conservative who knows that the most effective welfare is limited welfare.
Again, I will answer the question posed in the video: How does welfare impinge upon individual progress. It is a fundamental impingement which decimates the core of individuals who are on welfare, by allowing them to be complacent with dependency.

Part 4: The question has been asked whether Obama’s race has played a role in my opinion of him. The resounding answer is Hell no! I couldn’t care less what color one happens to be. I absolutely despise almost all of his policies and I definitely dislike almost every aspect of his progressive ideology. These political policies and theories do not have a color, nor a race. Therefore if Joe Biden (white) would be the President, I would oppose him with the same doggedness that I oppose Barack Obama.