Even though I got that clicker question wrong, I was not at all surprised to find out that business is the main driving factor in determining immigration policy. The way Sam explained it makes perfect sense. The primary objective of any for-profit business is to do just that: to maximize profits. The union movement in this country has led to many pieces of workers’ rights legislation, which has driven the cost of labor in the United States way up. Also, as Sam pointed out, there are many jobs that the average American citizen doesn’t want, therefore creating problems, as illustrated by the great pear debacle we saw in class. So in light of all this, it makes sense that business would be driven to search for cheap labor, whatever way it came to them. It doesn’t matter if it comes in the form of undocumented workers coming to us through holes in the border.

It’s a very interesting dilemma. On the one hand, I want the available jobs in this country to go to our citizens. We have a high enough unemployment rate as it is, and it’s just made worse by jobs going to people here illegally. I don’t mean to sound insensitive to people searching for a better life than what they have. In fact, I recognize that this country was founded on that principle. And I know that we have a certain level of responsibility to take in people wanting a better life. In fact, it’s written on the Statue of Liberty.

On the other hand, I know that if we didn’t have a certain amount of cheap labor in this country, it would also negatively affect unemployment rates because businesses wouldn’t be able to afford workers. So it’s kind of six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. We need business to be open and to thrive to strengthen our economy, and we want all of our citizens to be able to find jobs within those businesses. Unfortunately, with our employment policies, that’s an impossible combination to have. Therefore, of course businesses are going to have some pull when it comes to immigration policy. Legislators want and need a strong economy. But they also take a lot of flack from other citizens who want our borders more secure. So they are straddling that very fine line of making it more difficult for illegal aliens to cross over our borders, while still fueling our country’s businesses with the cheap labor they need to stay operational.

I don’t know what the proper answer is. It’s a really touchy subject. I’ve known illegal aliens; some of whom I wouldn’t want to have to go back to their country. But I recognize the need to control our growing population. I suppose I find some solace in the fact that I’m not the only one who doesn’t know the answer. Nobody really does.

I’ve always had mixed feelings about the overuse of emotional appeals in public service commercials. On the one hand, they exploit children or poor people or animals or any number of beings less fortunate. On the other hand, it makes a strong message and evokes emotion within people that may not have supported the cause otherwise. Is it right, then? I’m not sure. When I see those types of commercials I think about what the people that are being filmed think. What would they want? Are they annoyed? Do they feel like they’re being exploited? Do they want to be left alone? Or are they grateful that someone is paying attention to their hardships and trying to do something about it?

I wonder what I would want. I think about rough spots I’ve been in in my life (obviously I’m not comparing any hardships I’ve endured to those that poor or starving people endure. I recognize the vast difference in scale). The rougher ones, that warranted the need for help, induced feelings of helplessness. When you feel helpless, it can get to a point where you don’t care what you have to give up to get help, you just want to get rid of the troubles. However, there’s also a propensity for feeling regret after the fact. The very few times I’ve gotten to my “breaking point,” whether emotionally, mentally, or financially, and I’ve reached out for help, I had feelings of regret after the fact for not being able to overcome the problem on my own. However, like I said, my problems are minute compared to those of impoverished and starving people. I feel almost foolish for even using myself as a comparison, but I have nothing else to go off of. So, perhaps there wouldn’t be feelings of regret for the help provided, or for allowing themselves to be “exploited.” It’s kind of a silly thing for us, more fortunate people, to decide what is and is not acceptable to show when asking for aid. Have anyone asked the people being videotaped what they think? I think that’s the biggest issue. If we are just going over there with cameras and not asking how people feel about it, then that’s the biggest exploitation of all. We’re not treating them with consideration and dignity they deserve. I think maybe if I were to be in there shoes, and was asked how I felt about the cameras, I might ask why it would be necessary to show me sitting on the street, filthy, when I’m feeling at my lowest. Why couldn’t I be allowed to clean up and speak directly into the camera and explain the hardships I go through?

And again, the flip side is that maybe at my lowest, I care more about being helped as quickly as possible and if the Americans seem to think that this is the best way to get people to help, then I don’t want to mess with that winning formula. I just want help.

This is a topic my discussion group spoke about once, and it made me think a lot about the things we hear in passing, or the things that are said directly to our faces that we choose to ignore. My first reaction was, “of course I would say something to someone making a racist comment.” But then I thought of all the times I’ve heard someone say something offensive and didn’t say anything. And then I thought about how one deals with humor. Are all racist comments unacceptable, or can one be made out of humor? Comedians do it. Which leads me to the question of how you deal with questionable comedy. Also, does your relation to the offending person matter? Should we be harder on our friends? Easier? Should we sound just as angry to a stranger as would to our friend?

I’ve continued to think about this since we discussed it in my group, and this blog post made me want to share where I am in my thinking process. I can definitely say this issue has made me want to be better. I should never stand idly by while people slander other races unjustly. There are prejudices out there, and don’t get me wrong, I believe everyone has them to some degree. Regardless of what race you are, or how open minded you think you are, you have some preconceived notions about people based on your own experiences or other peoples’ accounts. And we tend to take those experiences or accounts and generalize it across the race of the offending person. And those generalizations turn into gossip, inappropriate jokes, or the avoidance of a particular race.

I believe the only way to change this cycle is to prove each other wrong. And this starts with the way we handle situations where racists slurs and comments are being said in our presence. I think lashing out is the wrong thing to do. While reasoning doesn’t always work with the unreasonable, we have to take our cue from the great Dr. Martin Luther King. We must face racism in whatever form it takes today with peaceful resolve and thoughtful reasoning.

So my intention now is to start taking action. To make a conscious effort to help the progress of a more peaceful human relationship in whatever small way I can. By respectfully interrupting a conversation speckled with racism and explain the flaws in their viewpoint could perhaps be the small contribution that makes the greater difference. I don’t expect to be able to completely change the way someone thinks, but if I can get someone to just think about what they’ve said, I think that is a win. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll pay it forward.

I moved here last year from Los Angeles to go to school. Living in urban California my entire life, it didn’t even occur to me to check student demographics. I don’t think it would’ve changed my decision to go here, but finding out that Penn State is 75% white is pretty astonishing to me. I went to Berkeley High School is Berkeley, CA, where I, a white guy, felt like the minority. That’s kind of how the urban cities in CA feel, I’m fine with it. To me, that’s normal, not what exists here. When I first arrived here in central PA, before I knew the percentage, I was pretty surprised by the lack of diversity. It never occurred to me that I would be in a much whiter part of the country. Like some who go from white suburbia to more diverse, urban environments, I had a little bit of culture shock. I thought it was a funny exercise that we did in class to see how diverse the Penn State pamphlet is. I honestly expected an even higher percentage of white people than we actually observed.

I’ve had the experience here of other students telling me that this school is so diverse. When I ask where they come from, they’ll usually answer with someplace way off the diversity spectrum. I’ve even been told that I’m the first Jew that they’ve met. That’s astonishing to me. I’m just so used to being around a very diverse population. When I decided to take SOC 119, I just assumed it would be material that wouldn’t be new to me. “I’ve been around it all,” I thought. But seeing some of what still goes on this country is somewhat disconcerting. Not just the blatant racism, but the lack of exposure a lot of my student peers have to different races and cultures.

I did have one personal “seclusion” experience when I was younger that I shared in my discussion group. I went to a private elementary school in a fairly wealthy neighborhood. I didn’t live there myself, but my parents worked extremely hard to keep us out of the Los Angeles public school system. It was a small school with only about 100 kids. One of whom was black. Who happened to be my best friend. Even with the blatant discrepancy, I never noticed that this was the case. But I also didn’t view my friend as being different. He was just one of the other kids in the school. And he was my friend. One day when he was over at my house and we made plans to go to college together. Mind you, we were in 3rd grade. He informed me that he wanted to go to Howard University, a predominantly black university. And I, oblivious to what Howard University was at that age, said “sure, whatever. As long as we go together.” I then ran to tell my mom, who is very liberal, and all I remember is her smiling, obviously knowing what Howard was. I wish there was that form of innocence remained through adulthood.

This is a very interesting passage. One that has inspired me to think in greater depth about what I consider freedom. What it is exactly that I’m looking for in life. What makes (or will make me) feel free. We live in a very materialistic society. I think most Americans view freedom as involving some form of possession based life; monetary and/or material. I know that there is a part of me that looks to future monetary and material wealth for ultimate freedom, but there is another part of me that believes I won’t find complete freedom in those things. I suppose there has to be a combination of a variety of financial comfort and interpersonal contentment. Someone who plans on finding all of their happiness, or freedom, in monetary wealth, I think, will find great disappointment.

I enjoyed the prisoner’s insight into freedom being a state of mind, a thought process, a way of acting towards people. I’ll get back to that in a moment, but I do wonder if his/her viewpoint is somewhat of a coping mechanism resulting from being incarcerated. However, I suppose it’s also possible for a simpler life, such as being confined to one place, allows for greater clarity of what’s important and what really makes one free. I’m not sure what the answer is to that. In fact, I’m not sure if a true answer can be formulated from that question.

Going back to state of mind and thought process idea, I think there is a peace of mind that can be acquired from engaging in a particular state of mind, thinking in a certain way, and acting in a particular fashion towards others. This is freedom. Or perhaps freedom to a certain degree. After all, can you ever be completely free? I’ll get back to that in a moment, but I want to talk about the idea of acting a certain way towards people as a means of finding freedom. I like this idea. I strive to build and maintain positive and meaningful relationships with people. I see people that are unable or unwilling to treat others respectfully, or enjoy the company of others, and you can tell they’re living in some form of prison. They are missing a major outlet. It may be somewhat counterintuitive, but companionship, in whatever form, can be very freeing. The sense of knowing that you’re not alone is very freeing. Being alone in your thoughts and actions can be very restrictive. People that provide an outlet for thoughts and feelings act as a receptacle for those thoughts and feelings that may have become trapped.

Finally, going back to the question of whether or not we can be completely free. I don’t believe there is a correct answer to this question. Is there a way one can ever know if they are completely free of all vices? Is the refusal of material possessions that a monk may have not a vice in itself? I’m not sure. I have a hard time believing that I’ll ever find complete fulfillment; no matter how much money I make, how much I love my family, how many friends I have, how few illnesses I incur in my life. I have a hard time believing that there won’t always be something that I’ll be a prisoner to, whether it’s something I have or something I long for. Perhaps I’ll just have to see how my life pans out.

I don’t necessarily believe that it’s true that we’re harder on our own race when it comes to socioeconomic status or appearance. In fact, I think that was made clear by the results of the clicker questions. There were virtually no differences in the responses from people of color and those of the white students. I think it’s kind of a silly idea that I would feel more inclined to help one racial group over the other. I don’t necessarily see the major differences. In California, you can drive from major city to major city and go through some pretty impoverished areas in between. In fact, there are some pretty poor areas within the cities themselves. It is a correct statement, however, that the majority of poor people in cities are people of color, and mostly white people make up the population of the poor rural areas. I don’t feel a bias to either group in particular. I’m not quite sure why one would be harder on their own race. I would assume it would be the opposite. I understand the idea that people would feel ashamed to be represented in a bad light, but I don’t believe it works that way. I think people are more inclined to help their brother, rather than a stranger; if not merely for the sake of helping someone out, than at least to improve or maintain their group’s status and image. But, as I said before, the clicker question results showed that there wasn’t a tendency to side either way, at least with our class.

I do think that the question that was brought up about why impoverished people of color are more vocal of their hardships than are poor white people was an interesting one. And I agree with Sam’s answer. I do believe poor white people may feel a greater amount of shame for their lower status than people of color do, making them less likely to call attention to themselves. It is also interesting that it is absolutely socially acceptable, for all races, to make fun of lower class white people. Redneck and white trash are readily used terms, but jokes about poor black people, or Hispanics, or Native Americans, is a no-no. I think I understand why, though. An argument can be made for the idea that whites are to blame for poverty among these minority races. With many years of oppression, violence, and discrimination, whites have created certain inherent obstacles for minorities, and when people of color are successful, they are considered as having “overcome adversity.” Even though whites account for the majority of people living under the poverty line, they are expected to be more successful, therefore, when they aren’t, it becomes a joke.

Despite these realities, poverty is poverty to me. I don’t think color should play a role in how much sympathy is felt. Certain issues have to be colorblind for any improvements to be made.

I definitely think there is a clear tendency of many people to make decisions hastily; whether that be opinions of people or of things that happen, or important life decisions. I think there could be several reasons for this. First, I think a lot of people have an issue with saying, “I don’t know.” We all want to be the authority on issues, so we have to formulate and commit to our opinions quickly. And often, getting someone to sway from that opinion is pretty difficult. Even harder than someone changing opinions on their own volition (people don’t want to appear as a flip flopper) is having someone change it for them. People don’t like to lose, and they also don’t like to give others the satisfaction of being right.
Also, we, as a society, have accepted our news media as the giver of information. Why should we question it? Why should we ask for a second opinion? Once we get the information from one source that seems to be enough. We have all said, and far too often, “I just heard on news channel X…,” or, “I just read in newspaper Y…,” and too often we accept the information we receive. Why don’t we follow up with additional sources? When we hear something absurd, at least for this day in age, like, “Woman Jailed for Sending Child to White School,” shouldn’t we be questioning what exactly is going on there? The funny thing was, the majority of the class shifted immediately after seeing the second headline. They didn’t even consider the idea that perhaps she was racially discriminated against in a different way, such as he inequality of schools, which often put minority students at the disadvantage.
Maybe another possible reason is that we’re too preoccupied to take much time making decisions. We’re more concerned with the Facebook message we just received, or the text that just came through to be bothered to check the facts. We have so many competing priorities that seem to be more important than ensuring that the assumptions we make and the opinions we formulate are accurate; or at least grounded in arguable evidence.
I’d like to be able to say that I don’t fall into these traps; that somehow I’ve risen above the rest. But who am I kidding? I have some of the same vices as everyone else. I’ve chosen the news sources that I’ve deemed “credible,” and don’t always crosscheck information with other sources. While I don’t normally have much of an issue saying, “I don’t know,” I still try to portray myself as a voice of authority on occasion. And is my time tied down by social networking, the internet, and my iPhone? Yes. I hope there is a happy medium found that will allow people to make more educated decisions.

(cont)
So why wouldn’t people enjoy real life stories involving misfortune of others? People like to feel like they are not the only ones that have life struggles. It also creates water-cooler conversations; people are more likely to have an emotional response to tragedy as opposed to positive situations. People are more likely to gossip about bad news than good. It’s human nature. It may sound weird, but I feel people o prefer to see negative news as opposed to positive news. There may be many reasons for this or just one for some people, but it happens all the time. People are more interested in the negative.

(cont)
Regardless of the sources of news - whether it is local news or cable news networks - the focus tends to be negative. It appears that news producers are more concerned with informing us of human tragedies and catastrophic events, rather than positive stories. This happens for two reasons: the viewers are fed specific things because it pays the networks, and networks fed specific things because that is what the viewers want to see. It is an endless cycle of information. Perhaps it has something to do with the human desire to witness people in circumstances less fortunate than theirs as a coping mechanism. Or perhaps it is the cinematic factor. People enjoy watching movies involving tragedies; it makes for more compelling stories. Have you ever been to a movie where it seems nothing happens and everyone is running around in a field of roses? That is not entertainment; that is boring. There is some kind of human instinct to want to watch tragedy. Take a car accident on the side of the road. Do you stop and look? Of course you do.

I think this is a true statement; people do prefer to hear the negative news as opposed to more positive situations. Just look at the kind of news that has been on the television recently. Perhaps not many people around the country even knew who Senator Giffords was prior to the tragic shooting in Tucson, Arizona. It, unfortunately, takes misfortune for people to react or take action and come together, like this shooting. Another example would be the situation in Egypt currently. Until the media covered the uprising, how many Americans even knew there was an issue in that part of the world? Due to what was on the television people who watch news stations are fed what the media provides. Generally, the media focuses on the negative; therefore, people only receive the bad news. This shows that it is not up to viewers what they see: it’s up to news producers and providers. Without providing the most up-to-date information, news stations will not stay in line with competition. This is more about news stations being money-hungry than abut viewers wanting negative news, but it is all relative.