This is exactly what I was thinking and discussing with a friend on the walk home from class. Whenever the white people in class were texting, and someone wrote something about black girls in the computer lab being loud, there was almost a hush that fell on the room, and obviously, much offense taken to it, naturally, and understandably so - it was a pretty rude thing to say. However, when it was the people of color's turn to text, and say what they felt it was like to be white, someone wrote "Benchwarmer", and not only did everyone laugh, but Sam even joked about it. I am Indian, so I'm not even white, but I kinda find this interesting, and quite imbalanced. Why do we perpetuate a society where there are double standards so clearly evident, and out in the open?? I fail to see the true difference between calling a particular racial group extra loud at inappropriate times, and calling another racial group athletically inept and less skilled than others. Of course, they are both just stereotypes and equally bad, but why are they responded to so differently?

(cont'd) If a man went to prom in a dress, I have no doubt that he would be asked to leave, and rightfully so. A man can wear a dress all he wants at home, to the grocery store, to the gym, I don't care. But at a prom, which is, at the very least, a semi-serious event at which people spend hours looking their best and cleaning up, it is not fair to ruin the atmosphere and make a mockery of it by putting on a dress. You can't choose who you love, but you can choose what you wear, so make it a wise choice, and don't make a fashion statement at your prom. This isn't the MTV Movie Awards.

(cont'd) This is a FREE country, as we Americans brag about all the time, yet I don't see a lot of back-up to that bold statement in scenarios such as this. If anybody else has a problem with seeing them together, dancing, holding hands, and kissing, then maybe THEY should stay home, otherwise, turn away. She is not imposing her sexuality on anybody, and it is certainly not contagious. Don't worry, shitheads, you won't turn gay from being in the same room as her. At the same time, I don't think she should be allowed to wear a tuxedo. This simply goes back to the damn double standard between gay men and lesbian women. (cont'd)

As with anything, and any topic, or debate, there are always two sides. Of course it is wrong to judge McMillen on her sexual orientation, assuming her relationship with her girlfriend is real, and legitimate, and not an act of defiance and "individuality". The fact of the matter is, unfortunately so, that many teenagers sway between guys and girls, looking for love in various places, for experimentation, self-expression, and a feeling of individual freedom, when in fact, they may not even be truly attracted to a member of the same sex at all. At the same time, it is not the school board's place to judge whether or not McMillen's sexual orientation is a fad or pure. Therefore, they have absolutely no say in whether or not she is "allowed" to go to prom. We cannot choose who we are attracted to; we cannot choose who we fall in love with; it just happens. If everyone were able to choose who they wanted to be in love with, why wouldn't everyone be in love with smart, funny, supermodels? (cont'd)

I have wondered this very issue for years - why is race relations always immediately geared towards the blacks and the whites? Why is the first image that pops into my head (and other people's, I'm sure) when I hear the word racist or racism, a white person, and their actions and attitudes towards black people? In actuality, there are other racial groups that have had much bigger and more pressing issues than the blacks and the whites. It's interesting to think that, depending on who you ask, racism brings up different images and ideas. Geography and cultural differences lead to this variation, but as Laurie mentioned, here in the northeastern United States, it almost always leans towards black and white. A part of the reason may also be psychological, and people just naturally and subconsciously envision black-skinned people and white-skinned people as being at directly opposite ends of a spectrum. I think this is why we always use blacks and whites as examples in conversation, when talking about racism in America.

I am from New York City, and the area in Brooklyn where I grew up was of heavy Jewish population. I have been around Orthodox Jews for my entire life, in their stores, in their homes, even at their weddings. Sure they have cultural traditions and rituals that may seem strange to the everyday eye, but then again, what is this so-called "everyday eye"? Who's eye is it, exactly? I'm sure they look at the American traditions of eating little clumps of cow meat with cheese on them, or drinking massive amounts of alcohol and sitting in front of a television to watch other people try to get an oddly shaped brown leather ball across a hundred-yard field, and think, "Wow, that's pretty weird." And I know there are always people out there who subscribe to the "Well, if they don't like America and it's traditions, they can just leave!" ideal, but is this country really ours? I mean, what percentage of us is truly native to this land? I agree with the pilot's protocol of landing the plane, because, after all, we must look after our own securities, and it is always better to be safe than sorry. I am of Indian descent, and since 9/11, I have faced the incessant jokes about brown people being terrorists. I think it's funny, but even I would do a double take if I saw a brown-skinned person in religious garb, praying aloud and wrapping himself in what seemed like wires on an airplane. Does that make me a racist? No, it makes a HUMAN BEING. It is in our animalistic nature to coil back when we see something that has the potential to be a threat to our well-being. This article just further proves my notion that religion is the knife that cuts the threads of society, causing more trouble than it does benefit.

babes

Life is such a difficult thing to figure out how to carry out properly. I am 21 years old, and to this day, I don't even know whether to classify myself as a utilitarian and generous human being, or a selfish, narrow-minded bigot. On one hand, I am a firm believer of the theory that if everyone sweeps in front of his own door, the whole world will be clean. Every man for himself. but every now and then, a large-scale tragedy, such as the one in Haiti, comes along, and it makes me wonder if that is truly the right attitude to maintain. It makes me realize that some people, under certain unexpected circumstances, cannot sweep in front of their own door. "So what happens then?", I ask myself. Are we, as human beings, just supposed to leave our fellow earthmates to die and perish under the forces of something so grand? On the same hand, wasn't it this natural population cleansing that has been evening out the balance of the planet since the dawn of time? Sure, it may sound heartless and ignorant, but let's say these catastrophes didn't happen, and all of the hundreds of millions, or possibly billions, of people who have died because of them still lived, then wouldn't life be that much worse for each and every one of them, and everyone? I mean, would they really be better off living in such overpopulation and fierce competition for survival? Professor Richards himself lectured on how the vast majority of the planet's population already lives under such rough and poverty-stricken conditions. Imagine what it would be like for each human if there were a billion more people living right now. While what happened in Haiti was a downright tragedy, and not something that should be taken lightly, it is a natural part of Earth's evolutionary process, and in the grand scheme of things, we humans are completely and utterly insignificant.