This war is a constant never ending cycle. Innocent people were killed on September 11th, and innocent people were killed when we bombed Iraq and Afghanistan. Will this cycle ever end? Is there really someone out there who truly believes that God stands behind this war in support of it? Is there really someone out there who believes that God really wants to see the loss of the lives of innocent people? I honestly do not even think this can be a question. I was born and raised into a Christian family, one that focuses on the ideals of God and his teachings to his people. We are raised to believe that God’s own son, Jesus Christ, came into our world preaching peace. Jim Winkler of the United Methodist Church once said, "Nothing I understand about Jesus Christ leads me to believe that support of war and violence are necessary or tolerable actions for Christian people." God and Jesus Christ would never, I believe, show support for any act of violence. On that note, however, there are also innocent soldiers who are overseas fighting for our country day after day. There is no part of me that believes that God is supporting this fight, yet I would one hundred percent agree that God is supportive of the soldiers putting their lives on the line everyday. I don’t think that God supports the war in any way, with the violence and the injustice that is occurring, but he does support those who are still doing their best to not create violence and try to make things better and help those in need. If you ask if God opposes war, you might as well ask if he opposes the whole human race. We are raised to believe that God is our creator. So with this belief why on earth would he support the violence that would diminish his people? There is war everywhere, there is no way to oppose war and not oppose the human race. We are not perfect. There is not a single person who is perfect, and those who believe that they are, are wrong. There is also no person better than other people. God does not oppose people, he opposes sin. He opposes when people do things that are wrong. There is a lot that goes wrong in the war that he opposes. Yet he feels for all of the innocent. He feels for the father who was shown in class that was killed by the American bomb with his baby. He also feels for the American soldier who was holding the child who had died. He does not take certain sides or oppose such big matters. He supports the good in this world, and opposes the evil.

The whole cause of this entire scandal is Jerry Sandusky. So why isn’t it his name we see on the television; why isn’t it his name we see on the headlines? Most importantly, why is it only Joe Paterno’s name we see everywhere? Yes, Joe Paterno could have stepped up, and he could have taken the information he received and done more with it, but why does his name have to be the only thing that everyone sees? This is why: the media will do whatever they can to get an attractive, intriguing story. If people were to be asked which name sounded more familiar, Joe Paterno or Jerry Sandusky, their answer would undoubtedly be Joe Paterno. It is for this reason that the media decides to make more use of Joe Pa’s name. He is a person known nationally, a person who whether we like to believe it or not, acts as a figurehead for Penn State, and lastly he is the person that the media will get the “juicier” story from. His name being used so frequently has, however, been taken to the extreme. So much so that headlines such as “Paterno Fired Over Sex Scandal” have led outsiders to believe that Joe Paterno was actually the primary criminal here. I know and I believe that Joe Paterno could have done more, but I also believe that the media got carried away with this scandal. If it was up to me, I would have Sandusky’s name all over the headlines then disperse the names of the other men (Paterno, Schultz, McQueary, Spanier) who were involved on a lesser level than Sandusky himself. Basically, I would tell the story how it is.
The situation changes, however, when we begin to look at this situation from a sociological point of view. The question, what if Sandusky were black, would really put a twist on this whole story. If Sandusky were black, all the attention would be taken off of Joe Paterno. We try to say we are a society that is moving in the right direction, equality, but I believe that people just say this. It all goes back to that video with the little girl trying to distinguish between the white doll and the black doll and her saying the black doll was “bad”. The same thing applies to this situation with the media. They would have to choose who to put the spotlight on: “black Sandusky” or Joe Paterno. Which story would be uglier? They would choose black Sandusky because it is just another excuse for people to get heated up and for racist thoughts and beliefs to flow. Putting the spotlight on Joe Paterno affects Penn State and everyone associated with it, which granted is a ton of people, but putting the spotlight on “black Sandusky” would affect our whole society because it would once again question where we stand in terms of racism: are we moving in the right direction or are we not?

I think it is safe to say that everyone in State College, our branch campuses, as well as alumni all over the world, are feeling the emotions of this tragic circumstance that has occurred. I use tragic to describe two things: 1. The hearts and lives of the victims who have been affected by Sandusky’s gruesome acts 2. The loss of the figurehead of Penn State, Joe Paterno, as our head coach. Being here and experiencing this as a freshman is crazy to me. Ever since I made my decision to come here and talked to others about it, I would always hear “oh Joe Pa this, Joe Pa that”. My grandmother, someone who I would definitely not consider to have an interest in sports, told me “he’s a legend”. So coming here I knew of the “famous Joe Pa”, but that is just about how far my knowledge of him went. It was not until I came here, saw his name everywhere (including the library), and read about him that I truly realized what an impact this man has on our school. I can honestly say that throughout this whole week I have felt sympathy for the man. Yes, as some say, he could have probably done more, but in my opinion he did as much as he could at the time with the facts he had. There were other people involved in this, Spanier, McGreary, etc, who could have stepped up more, but they did not. Joe Pa was the only one who spoke out about this situation. The media, being selfish, used Joe Pa as a scapegoat. They knew that their story would be THAT much bigger if they were able to include Joe Pa’s name in it; so unfortunately that is exactly what they did.
Besides hearing about Joe Pa all the time, I also heard what a great school Penn State was when I would tell people I was coming here. It is sad how these events and our constant exposure in the media has changed the perception of Penn State, something that people try to argue when it is in fact a sad truth. People have been all over facebook and twitter for these past few days posting things. One of the things that stuck with me the most was a status saying how Penn State was more than just football; how we have great education programs, a world-known philanthropy, etc. The fact is, however, that our school is a football school. People come to Penn State and part of the experience is going to a football game. We cannot avoid the fact that football does help define us.
I pray for the victims of Sandusky’s gross acts; they are the real victims here. I would hope and have faith in the fact that our school will show just as much support for them as we are for Joe Paterno. While I believe that this event will effect the way people perceive Penn State, I believe that this will bring us even closer as a school, community, and family.

To me, there was nothing wrong with this video. That is not to say that I was not surprised. Upon seeing the video, the first thing that popped into my head, as it should have based on this course, was race. Back at home when I was a junior I had a senior friend who was doing her college searches. For her English class at the time, she had to write about something to do with representation, and the topic she chose to write about college brochures, particularly how college brochures always portrayed different races and ethnicities, diversity, on their brochures. Colleges try to portray a lot of diversity among their students on brochures in order to attract everyone. They are trying to prove themselves to be accepting. Based on her research, one of the colleges that stood out more than others in portraying this diversity was Penn State. When she further developed her research, however, she found out that Penn State was a white-dominated school. This is why when I viewed this video I thought that there was not anything wrong with it, especially due to the fact that the amount of kids filmed in this video was probably only about forty at most. That is to say about forty out of forty thousand. I think when people see this kind of stuff they automatically assume that just because there are only white people in it then it’s attempting to be racist. If this video were to have all black, all brown, or all Asian people in it then there would have never been a question of why there are no white people in it. This just goes to prove how much our society has not changed. People still assume that whites are up to the worst, and that they are trying to consistently be the dominant race wherever they can. Everyone says that we are growing closer and closer towards equality, but the fact that this question is still being raised shows that our society is not on a road towards equality. We are trying to avoid the topic of racism because it is “supposed” to be a thing of the past, but it keeps reoccurring and coming up. In my opinion, color is obviously present, but it is not something that is seen or should be seen in a person. This goes back to just about every example we have ever gone over in class – like the employee example. The manager interviewing the black man and the white man should not see color as the difference between these two men; he should hire one over the other based upon which man makes the better presentation for himself. I think society just has to accept the fact that race is going to always be an issue even though we say we are striving for it not to be.

We all would like to hope that we could give the indigenous people back what is theirs, but at this point we just cannot do that. Taking everyone that has the land now and giving it back to them would make things worse than they were in the first place because although we would be solving the indigenous peoples’ problems but we would still need to figure out a way to solve ours (the current landowners). Although, we can’t just give it back to them, we can help the indigenous people reestablish themselves. In a way, I think everyone should feel like they have a duty to do this. We walked into this country a couple of hundred years ago, and took everything they had. They were all living simple lives and we sort of ruined it to them. Not only should we feel like we should help them, but we should want to help the indigenous people get back on their feet. The government can intervene and set up some sort of program in order to help them. Maybe offer them some sort of money or the younger children an education that they were not able to get because of the conditions they were living in. If the indigenous people saw that the government actually started caring, they would have a slightly better outlook on life. If some sort of education system was implemented or if they were simply allowed to join quality schools, the sexual assault rate would go down and alcohol abuse wouldn’t be as prevalent. Things would be better for everyone, not just the indigenous people, but for everyone in America. Having land and giving it to others can be a complicated situation. There is so much that we took that it would be hard to just let go of it and give it all back. I also feel that it would be hard for many generations because we didn’t come in and take it all for them. You can’t even go back that far because you don’t know how many generations there were in that time. So although we should try to find ways to give them back what they had, at this point in time it would be extremely difficult. I think our best bet would be for the government to step in and help in any way they can. A lot of people living in North America don’t really know how they got here. Most say Christopher Columbus discovered the land, and our founding fathers made this land what it is today. But, we don’t know that there were people here before the founding fathers. We need to be educated first, before we can try to help. Once we realize what our ancestors did, we can help in as many ways as possible.

Women are constantly drawn to Cosmo magazine. Every time I pick up a new issue of it, I see the same things being highlighted on the cover: how to eat right, those exercises that will give you what you want, and most of all SEX. All of these things are things women are undoubtedly curious about or else the issues would not sell as well as they do. But the big question is, why are women so drawn to these topics? Every woman wants to be the perfect woman to her man. What this magazine does is give women the ideality that men wish to see. This magazine is written and all the things in it are drawn from a man’s point of view: the point of view of how men wish to see a woman. And now the sex factor. All the articles relating to sex primarily have to do with how a woman can please her man. What if there are girls out there who never had sex before and were curious as to what happens or what to feel. Men want women to be able to see what to do, how to do it, etc. Is the woman’s point of view ever incorporated into this? Is there a magazine written from the women’s point of view telling men what to do? We live in a world that is centered around pleasing men, which leads to the question of whether or not women have actually ever escaped that subservient role. Men hold so many expectations for women. We are expected to cater to them. Why do so many women in relationships find themselves doing so many things for their men: their laundry, making them meals, etc. Is it because we just want to be nice or because we feel like that is the role that we are expected to fill? Just another example of how women are always doing things to please men is the way they dress. If someone were to go out to a party, they would see women dressed in heels, short skirts, and trying to show as much skin as possible while the men at the party would be casually dressed in jeans or sweats and a t-shirt, maybe a polo if they wanted to try an ounce harder. Women are forced to dress uncomfortably in order to please men. We say these things, but I myself know that if I went out to a party and saw a girl dressed in sweats I would look at her and wonder what the hell she was thinking. Sometimes it is sad to accept this, but it has come to be reality. Feminist issues have come a long way in this society, but the fact is that men are still the dominant sex in this society.

In economics class, we talk about utility, which is defined as the sum or satisfaction or benefit that an individual gains from consuming a given amount of goods or services in the economy. Some like to say money buys happiness. This is not a plausible case. Money will buy a rich person everything and anything that he or she wants. In fact, like the article says, being rich has its advantages because money can sometimes buy some of the most memorable experiences. Money, however, can deteriorate a person’s happiness. Having an endless desire for things may bring someone satisfaction but not necessarily happiness. Think about it: a middle to lower-class person will have a lot more happiness towards finally being able to get that one thing they wanted. A rich person, however, expects to continually have the opportunity to get whatever they want. Which leads to the question: are they truly ever happy if they can just expect to keep getting things? The rich person will take value for granted compared to the lower to middle-class person. Economics also relates to this point. Total utility corresponds with a person’s level of consumption; the more a person consumes, the larger his or her total utility will be. Marginal utility, however, is defined by the additional satisfaction or amount of utility gained from each extra unit of consumption. While the consumption of more of a good increases total utility, it usually decreases marginal utility. This is due to the fact that the consumer will no longer receive the same satisfaction from a good if it is being purchased over and over. Take something as simple as an ice cream cone for example. Think about craving an ice cream cone, and then finally being to get one. One’s total and marginal utility from getting this ice cream cone will rise. However it is the continual purchase of more ice cream cones that will make the total utility still rise, but the marginal utility fall. Think about it, obviously purchasing more and more ice cream cones will put the total utility, person’s level of consumption, on a rise, but it will not do so for marginal utility. After craving that ice cream cone and then finally being able to take that first bite, the consumer was completely happy. Eating and purchasing more and more, however, does not have the same effect on the consumer as the first one did. It no longer is something that is being craved and the consumer is spending more and more money. This example makes a valid point: sometimes people with a lot of money feel that they can just spend it frivolously, without thought, and sometimes on things that are not necessarily even desired by them. Although money plays a big role in everyone’s lives, it is not and should not be the only thing that should bring happiness to people. Other things include relationships, success, etc.

A parent’s love for their child is unconditional. However, that being said, I think the news of a gay child would be handled differently depending on the sex of the parent. This is not necessarily primarily based on the differences in sex, but also the effect that society has on people’s opinions. As a female, I know that initially the news of a gay or lesbian child would shock me. However that does not, in no way shape or form, mean that I would stop loving my son or daughter. I would do everything to support the way he or she feels. The thing I would worry about, however, is how society has come to influence others to not accept gays. Although out society has conformed a lot more to the recognizing the existence of gays and lesbians, I think it is still very apparent that some people tend to look down on it. If my son or daughter was a gay or lesbian this is exactly why I would worry about them. There are people in our world who are unwilling to look past what they believe is the “norm”. This is where bullying comes in. As a mother, I would fear the moment I had to send my child off onto the bus every morning. Let’s face it: there is usually some awareness that a child is gay or lesbian prior to them coming out. I think there are clearer signs with gays than there are with lesbians. Gays sometimes portray characteristics of femininity, and this is perceived by society in what is sometimes a negative way because of the fact that the so called “norm” for males is a portrayal of masculinity, strength, etc. God knows what my child would have to take from others day after day. I would fear that he was getting physically and verbally bullied and could not do anything to defend himself. As a mother, I would defend him until the end. This, however, would only make things worse because people would then make fun of him for not being able to stand up for himself enough that his own mother had to jump in. This is why I feel fathers would take their son’s gayness worse than mothers would. A father’s dream is to be able to go out back and toss a football around with his son, but what happens when all his son wants to do is stay inside and play with dolls or do some other kind of feminine activity. If my child was gay, my love for him or her would not change one bit, and although I know that coming out takes a lot of strength due to society’s expectations, I would always be there for my child.

Dating back to days before our country was even formed, women and men served different roles in society. Women were always known for being inferior to men. They always held the duty of staying in the home, cleaning, gardening, and taking care of the children while men were in charge of the so called “masculine jobs”. Throughout history, and this is not just American history, the female race has been the “inferior” race, in the eyes of society. The men have been the breadwinners, the hunter gatherers, the physically superior. Although this does not in any way mean that men are “better” than women as far as personalities goes, the physical superiority does hold biological truth. Because of this, women have been put on the backburners of society. Until this millennium, they have held secondary roles as wives, caretakers of children, uneducated, unthreatening. These characteristics, particularly the last two, correspond to the idea of innocence. Just like discrimination, even though women gained rights, there are some aspects of society that put them to an inferior level. Sometimes history tends to carry over and become stereotypical. Because of them being put down compared to men, it made people believe they were incapable of doing things other than jobs they had been identified with. This sense of incapability and inferiority made women seen as innocent. Because of their past, women today are much more likely to be able to get away with things. When people see woman doing something like stealing a bike they are more likely to be seen as needing help than doing something wrong as opposed to men which was clearly portrayed in the video. When it comes to race I think certain races are seen as having thicker skin than others. Black girls seem to come across as tougher because of the way they were raised. They are not the white innocent girl who woke up with no struggles. They were put through so much more and therefore cannot carry that innocence. It is true that black and Hispanics are more likely to get arrested. We saw that in the statistics Sam showed us the other day. The more “innocent” races on the other hand (whites and Asians) seem to not have this big of a problem. There is obviously still some form of discrimination still going on in our legal system. Especially since we have seen the statistics. Maybe stereotyping has something to do with it. It is ingrained in many people’s minds that whites and Asians are more “innocent”, even though we know this isn’t true. Stereotypes play a big role in race.

Haiti is clearly a country who is struggling and in need of help. Its poverty does not only come from the fact that it was hit by an earthquake, but also the fact that it is a country that has been kept underdeveloped. I am really excited to get started with this project, and I think that its great that we can try to get involved. It seems like a good way to help Haiti get back on their feet, however a question I want to ask in my recitation is how exactly we will help the people of Haiti, for example what our plans of action will be. I am really interested to see what everyone in my recitation has to say about what entrepreneur they are interested in working with. These videos and the articles on the different entrepreneurs portray some great ideas on how to get the people of Haiti out of such a great struggle. Some of my favorite ones include the ones that have to do with providing meals because I love to cook and bake. Aside from this, however, food is an essential, and therefore should be of top priority before some of the entrepreneurs such as the clothing manufacturing or designer totes entrepreneurs. Granted, once food and other needs are settled I think it will be nice to have some other things to be set as wants. People like Figaro Louis need help with baking supplies so she can avoid that long walk through the town each and every time she is in need of supplies. I see Fluze Fleuriza’s peanut products as a potential problem. Yvrose Noncent’s project making sandals and evening wear will provide many shoeless Haitians with the proper protection they need on a daily basis. The project also provides jobs for people who need to support their families. Besides providing objects for people, providing care is of the utmost importance as well, and I found it a bit concerning to read about the lack of doctors and medicine in Haiti. I think it would be important to figure out a way to get medications shipped to Haiti. Watching these videos and reading these articles made me realize how much we take everything for granted in the United States. It is a great opportunity we have to be able to figure out how to make a different in Haiti. I look forward to working in my recitation to try and make progress on the different ideas we have to make improvements in Haiti. I think this project will teach us to gain more appreciation for the lives we have here in the United States, and the things we take for granted when we are basically handed opportunity.