If Sandusky were black or Latino, I think the underlying problem would still be the dominate driving force in this case. I can't deny, however, that the media would be gearing this more towards the sort of neo-racism we typically see on T.V. We discussed this topic in my discussion group, and when brought up, it was unanimous that this case would have unfolded very differently. Why though? My thought is, since the world is in the "white male lens" , that we would see this as a sort of opportunity to more or less belittle the minorities, as we often do in the media. I'm only saying this because this is how I notice the newscasters and "big timer" media members curving the facts into their schemes. It would not surprise me if there was an underlying agenda to keep blacks and Latinos suppressed as minorities and treated like minorities by the top 1%, who are mostly white males to begin with. Now for the good, if you can call it that. I think either way, that is if Sandusky were white, black, or Latino, I think the underlying problem would still have light shed on it by the masses, who in my opinion are awakening to color-blindness. I think people are starting to understand what it means to be human and forget what it means to be white, black, asian, Latino, etc. If this were to have happened 40+ years ago, and he were black or Latino, Sandusky would already have been put in jail - no doubt about it. It seems as though today, more and more people are being treated like humans and not judged strictly by their skin color. This is not to say that this is always the case, as we have learned in class that it is still not 100% true. Yet, if we were to look at the statistics of the past few centuries, we would see great improvement in the criminal justice system when pertaining to people of color. I can not deny, though, that Sandusky is in the best possible position for himself. He is white, he is a known member of this society, and he has money. Remove any one of those factors and the odds against him would increase, guaranteed. I think the one big change would be the media's attention to Sandusky had he been black or Latino. The media seems to be covering more of Joe Paterno's falling out as well as the rest of the football and PSU administrations failing to report the incidents to the authorities. I think if Sandusky were to be black or Latino, the media would focus more on demonizing him rather than covering the broader topics of the story. We all know this to be true, and it is rather upsetting. Ultimately, we are only given the facts of the current crisis and can not change that, nor would we want to, in order to find out the "what ifs".

People these days don't think they will be able to make a much money as their parents do when they are part of the work force. I think this has a lot to do with the dropout rate and the fact that a high school diploma just does not suffice anymore. When our parents were growing up, a high school diploma was a big deal. You could get a great number of jobs with the high school diploma. Our generation, however, is limited to food industry and a handful of other jobs. Statistics show that white people tend to make more money that other groups (not all groups though). I think this has to do with the reason why whites have the lowest (12% I believe it was) statistical thinking that they will make more money than their parents. I will use myself as an example. I am a white male. For me, my parents have worked their way up in the business world. My father graduated from high school, took a few college classes, and landed a job working as a scientific glassblower. My mom got her bachelor's degree in speech pathology and ended up wiping asses until she went back to school to get her master's in psychology. She only recently got her master's in psychology and is now the director of the sex offender unit at Rockview State Prison. My point is this. Both of my parents felt the effects of this new generational standard of living and education one way or another. Check this out. My parents make the same amount of money now. One parent (my dad) worked his way up to being a supervisor with little more than a high school diploma. The other, my mother, had to go back to school in order to live a higher quality of life. Nowadays, we have very few options like my father had. Working your way up the hierarchy of society is not as common these days. In order to live a high quality life, at least monetarily speaking, one MUST complete at the very least their bachelors program. Recent projections show that even a bachelors degree may not be sufficient in the near future. This is the reason I think most feel they will not be able to keep up with their parents monetarily. The cost of tuition is another factor. It keeps rising. It leaves students who can't find jobs in massive debt. And even the bachelors degree is a risky business these days. Most of us in the academic world only hope to get a job, we do not go into college knowing for sure we will have a job when we complete our programs. I am a part time cook and a college student at the moment. My job as a cook is steady but will not let me live a higher quality of life. My work as a student is a risk that, much like the lottery, may have me living a higher quality of life

I believe it is a combination of both. I think we should give back a majority of the land to the Native Americans, but also help them reestablish themselves as productive members of society. I really think that Native Americans should have a bigger role in government. Since this is, after all, their land. I think they should have more of a say as to what happens on their land. I am myself part Native American. In my tribe, they say that if you have one drop of blood that is Native American, that you are Native American and nothing else. Although I appear on the outside as white or European, I identify with the culture of the Native Americans and will put myself as a native on the consensus. Even though I am only 1/16th Native American. I am very displeased with how the Native Americans have been treated over the years. From mass genocide to suppression to having their history almost completely removed or altered form the history books. This is a disgrace to me. Sometimes I find it hard to identify as an American just because of what horrors have been done to my family. Heck, we don’t even see the true side of Native American history in the history books nowadays. We hear stories of their culture, but not of the mass murders that occurred in order to take their land. Most people do not even wonder where all the natives went. This is disgusting to me. All these people reaping the benefits of their ancestors mass murdering people of my tribe and many others, and we are stuck in poverty because of some dumb shit. This issue really heats me up. I walk around looking like the people that piss me off. I do not identify as white, because I am Native American, and am disgusted by the people who think it’s cool to kill off a bunch of natives in order to live luxurious lives. Where is karma? Where is God? This leads me to why I am an Atheist. But I will not get into that. I don’t need to go off on a tangent. My main point is I think we owe it to the natives to at least give them a chance. Even if it was our great great great grandparents who murdered all of them. We are still indebted to the natives as it was our ancestors who committed the crimes. If your family dies with a lot of money, don’t you get to keep that money? If your family dies with a lot of debt, don’t you have to pay the debt off? Doesn’t it make sense to repay our debt?

Benefit number two is that war allows us to aid countries in need. This may seem to contradict strike two, but it is in reality, two sides of the same coin. On one hand, rebuilding a nation is not our responsibility. On the other hand, let us compare this to a real experience. If you saw someone on the street that had slipped and fell, would you help them up? What if helping them caused you to miss the bus. In this sense, war may inconvenience a nation, but in return may benefit another nation. The third benefit, and this is a little more abstract, is that war reminds us that we are human, and we should love and care for our fellow humans. After every war, a time of peace and remembrance arises. We tend to mourn the loss of our loved ones, which reminds us of the beauty of life. So, am I for war? I guess so. Am I against war? I guess so too. My opinion must be both, as I see both benefits and drawbacks to the matter.

. Thirdly, when did war ever pay off more than it cost? Wars always cost millions, billions, and trillions of dollars and never seem to have any positive monetary return. We are in the midst of a debt crisis and we are going to blow our money on guns and lives in order to kill a handful of people and rebuild infrastructures that are beyond our responsibility. Strike three for war. Now that I have given war three strikes, and trust me, there are many more that I can come up with off-hand for a blog response, let us examine the benefits of war. War has its benefits. I believe that participating in some wars have actually saved the lives of a potential many more victims. Take World War II for example. If it were not for the United States involvement, Germany may have become a superpower strong enough to reshape the world as we know it. Many more lives that are innocent would have been lost. This is benefit number one for war.

I am not against, nor for war. I play the neutral card because I am not directly involved. Then again, according to this video, the government spends fifty-three cents for every dollar I give them on war. Therefore, I guess I should be coming up with an opinion. I cannot even fathom three billion dollars. I work for less than ten dollars an hour! It is amazing how much money we can accumulate with the help of many, and by many, I mean a nation. When a nation has such a great amount of cash on hand, we have to question where the intentions of the leaders are in spending that money. First, let us look at the war in Afghanistan. We invaded Afghanistan in order to seek an “enemy” to the United States. Hold the phone. Why did we have to invade a country to go after one person? That is bothersome to me. Strike one for war. Next, let us examine the war in Iraq. We invaded Iraq in order to take out the leader, and rebuild the infrastructure to something more manageable and fair for the people. Why is it our responsibility to take care of another nation, when our nation has enough poverty, debt, corrupt leaders, and etcetera? Strike two for war.

First off, I do not think that anyone “has” to worry about looking good. That is a choice, disregarding certain situations such as, job interviews, award ceremonies, etc. I do, however, find it ridiculous that women go through all the effort to “look good” when in reality, they will get a piece of action whether they are dolled up or not. I think it is more about competing against each other rather than trying to get a hook-up. It is not fair that men have the luxury of being comfortable in most situations, but then again, life is not fair. I think the media has a lot to do with this. In fact, I believe the media is mostly at fault for women feeling the need to doll themselves up. The media portrays some women who have nearly impossible looks to replicate. I think women look up to these images, icons, and role models. When they do this, they want to act like them, talk like them, and dress like them. This usually happens at a young age and is implanted for a long time. In addition, a woman looking up to their predecessors contributes greatly to this phenomenon as well. When women see their parents and grandparents dressing up, they see and associate that as being the right thing to do. Few women out there challenge this ideology. To the women that do challenge this, my hat goes off to you, and I do not take my hat off often. I think that challenging old beliefs, like a woman going to party wearing socks on her hands, is something like a jewel in society. If I was a woman, I would probably (statistically) be like the majority of women out there sacrificing their comfort for a stupid game of life. My only hope is, if I come back in another life as a woman that I would be the one that goes to the party with socks on her hands. I think that would be sexy now that I think of it. Aside from that tangent, it disturbs me that women go through all this competing with each other and dolling up to impress guys only to be called harsh names. Slut, bitch, whore, they are all words devoted to the looks that women are shown, taught, and conditioned to look like. How can society continue to promote these looks, while also bashing them to hell and back? It seems like discrimination against women is a double standard. This is because they are told to dress and act one way, and in the same breath are called the harsh words that I mentioned before. This is completely backwards and I believe something needs to happen, and will happen, given time.

I think in our society, people tend to hang out with the crowd that “looks like them” in order to identify. While this may not always be the case, my personal observation has shown this to be true. Then again, sometimes you may look like someone and be different races. In this society, it does not matter what crowd you hang out with, there is going to be drug use, illicit or not. In my experience, non-illicit drug use usually leads to dabbling with illicit drugs. Again, this may not always be the case, however, in some circumstances it is. I think in any race or crowd, you have a chance of dabbling with drugs. I identify as a white male and in the past have indulged in illicit drug use. I think that if I were, for instance, a black female, I would have the same odds of using illicit drugs. (Given I grew up under the same conditions). I think your odds of illicit drug use are more about your place on the poverty scale than your race. Location, education, and upbringing are also big factors. Now let us say, that I was still a white male, but I had did not complete high school and I lived in an inner city under the guidance of only one parent. I feel as though in this case I would have a much higher chance of using drugs. I do not think by changing my race or gender I would have higher odds of using drugs. I think people living in poverty are at a higher risk for drug use due to wanting an escape from reality. I know when I was in poverty I did not particularly like my state of being and thus turned to drugs as a temporary relief from my situation. I was brought up in a broken home (parents divorced at the age of 9) and believe that that was a big contributor in my drug use. As far as location goes, I think that being a local (resident of State College since 1997) made it easier for me to find “connections” at a young age. Although, as I said before, my upbringing was in an inner city the rate of finding drugs would amplify dramatically. Taking the other side, if my parents had brought me up in the country, I do not think drugs would have been as readily available. Ultimately, I do not think that race and illicit drug use are as related as we think. I believe there is a correlation between the two, but remember, correlation is not causality. I would say there is a number of other factors that have to be taken into consideration before coming to an educated conclusion on matters like this.

Six bucks for a ball of yarn!? When I hear that in the video with Anaes Blaise, the tote maker, my jaw hit the floor. We could literally buy that all of yarn for no more than two dollars at the local Wal Mart. It seems as though one of the main problems that the Haitians face is cheap materials in bulk. I think there are many ways we could find them materials for cheap or even free. We could have video advertisements attracting citizens of the US to donate materials or money for materials to the Haitians. We could last find people to loan money for these materials, buy directly from source at a huge discount, and save on shipping by shipping in bulk. I noticed that they mentioned not wanting handouts, but access to the materials at a fair price. This is not too much to ask, although in their current situation it may seem like a long shot. I think we take for granted how cheap we can come by these things we look at as hobby materials, when in reality, places like Haiti need them for their people to eat. I took a trip to the Dominican Republic when I was 14 and since then have walked around local supermarkets in awe that we have cheap access to food, water, and even luxuries. How is it that so many nations around the world get to live such luxurious lives while the rest suffer? It seems like a paradox, but in the end we have a duty to resolve this. No one should have to live like that. Especially if you think of fellow humans as brothers and sisters, we should definitely take a closer look at situations like this. My heart really goes out to these people. I mean, take a look at the average American citizens day. They go to work, the come home, take a nap, make a nice dinner, watch T.V. for two or three hours, and go to bed on a comfy mattress. Then take a look at the average Haitians day. They wake up on a not very comfortable mattress, go to work, eat very little, drink not so great water, and go to sleep. Where is the luxury in that? How is either life a life worth living? This is my theory. Someone who is living a too luxurious life needs humility. They need to step down and help a brother or sister out to fulfill their lives. Someone who is living a not so luxurious life needs humility too. They need to learn to take a helping hand and rise from their current situation. The two do not work unless they are timely and efficient in doing so. This is what I think this project is about. Humbling oneself.

When asked questions like this I like to hold the most neutral position possible, being that this is such a touchy subject. The nature of this question, however, begs an American to oppose any notion that the United States government having any involvement. Why? Because if you are an American, and you believe these attacks were staged by the government, then you are considered a conspiracy-theorist and unpatriotic. In spite of this, I believe that we will never know who planned the attacks or carried them out. Call me unpatriotic, call me a conspiracy-theorist. My stance is neutral. That's being realistic. I like to believe that the government had no involvement. Then again, the government did have involvement, maybe not directly. This is my theory. If the terrorists had planned an attack against the United States, then the United States must have been involved in some way or another, even if it's just indirectly. People don't go around planning and carrying out attacks for no reason. Maybe they were just jealous of our freedoms. In that instance, our freedom played a role in pissing off whoever did that to us and therefore we were indirectly involved. On the other hand, the government may have planned the attacks for some sort of financial gain or had some underlying reason to capitalize on the fear that the attacks invoked. In my eyes, I cannot see why either reason is right, or justifiable, but still my point remains. I have no say in this matter, as I was not involved directly. As far as the second question goes, I have seen an increase in security throughout the nation as a result of these attacks. Our airports are now flooded with security officers. That’s not all though. We have extended the boundaries in which our military has involved itself across the world. That to me is a huge sign of increased security. A nation that risks going “behind enemy lines” in order to protect the rights of its homeland is without a doubt increasing its security. Although, I don’t quite agree with the wars that have been waged as a result of these attacks, regardless of who committed the crimes to begin with. I have never been a fan of government involvement in other nations. I stand by free-will and say, “let them take care of their own issues.” This is not to say that government aid, health benefits, and disaster relief should be taken away from nations in need. This is only a statement involving the politics of other nations. Something that does not harm the people so long as the people are not involved. In conclusion, I say that it doesn’t matter to me who committed the acts on 9/11. What we get out of it in moving toward a brighter future is what counts.