We implemented affirmative action policies that seek to undo this very sort of activity. Affirmative action seeks to artificially compensate for this sort of racial preference and selection bias by making it worth for a school, institution, or employer to employee people that data says they would not normally employ. I think many people would see it as ideal to live in a world where an individual was what decided whether somewhat got a job or not. Where the skills and actions of a person were enough to get someone hired, not their skin color or national origin. This leads to the argument, how do we know when affirmative action is no longer required? Many have argued that the fact that we have a black president in the United States of America is enough of a justification to limit affirmative action. However, while things may be beginning to sort themselves out at the top, there is still certainly plenty of selection bias when it comes to job employment and college acceptance.

I believe that, at least to some extent, that it is human to feel that you need to help your people before others. I think that in this day an age that many people who are not as racist as in the past designate "there people" based on national origin where previously people divided this barrier along racial lines. Like in the flip cam video inspiring this post, Karim mentions that he thinks of his people before others. I do not believe he is referring to people of his skin color, I believe he is referencing people from his home country. Perhaps the issue is not where we draw lines, whether it be along the lines of race, nationality or gender. Perhaps the issue is the fact that people draw these lines in the first place and it is irrelevant where they draw them. People always seem to draw these lines around a group with which they associate themselves. For example, I would imagine that an Asian child who was adopted and raised by black parents would take on traits and attitudes of their parents. Thus, they may draw their lines in a fashion where they would act preferable towards black people over people of other races. I had an instructor in a different sociology class who informed me that managers often choose to hire and promote people that look similar to themselves over credentials. Now we come to the million dollar question: Is this racism? I believe that while this sort of activity is somewhat normal that it is a slightly racist practice (as if there are degrees of racism). However, while this sort of activity clearly does go on, we have made strides in this country to counter such actions.

Another source that contributes to peoples racial self image is mass media. When people see people of their race portrayed in a different fashion than people of other races how could they not see the world differently? Minority characters are certainly underrepresented in many television programs. When they are shown they are portrayed by racial stereotypes such as the "black inmate" or the "smart Asian". We also have beliefs about mass media and joke about such things. For example we joke about horror and action movies that the "black guy is always the first to die". We also have expectations that people in charge or in managerial positions are likely to be white within the realm of film.

The second institution that influences our view of self is the school system. Many children of color find themselves in inner-city schools where they will not receive the same level of schooling as elsewhere. This could lead them to see themselves as dumb as compared to other people who were not taught in inner-city schools. Also, teachers that teach in these schools often are not as good at their job as teachers at better schools. They also may not seek to encourage students or even recognize them as being worthy of their time. One student within my discussion group went so far as to say that their school, which had two cafeterias, was actually segregated by cafeteria. The "black" cafeteria actually charged more for the same sorts of food as the "white" cafeteria. How could these children not see themselves as being absolutely different from each other when this sort of thing occurs.

I believe that the messages and influences that come across to the people within our society come from numerous sources. The first source is the one that is the closest to the children when they are being socialized into our society: the family. The family is the place where we learn literally everything about society and the world around us when we are children, before school. Many people in class eluded to the fact that their family members influenced them in a negative fashion when they were children. Some people talked about their parents saying that they wished the child's hair was more straight, or that they did not know what to do with their child's hair. These sort of messages from within one's own family would be very demeaning and would encourage that child to view themselves as being not proper or "bad". The family is the factor that most helps us determine who we are and where our place is in the world when we are young, if not properly encouraged, people will not see themselves as being complete people.

He doesn't use slang and leave any room up for interpretation. He also repeats himself to eliminate any sort of confusion, especially in regard to where to position the device. It is almost like he is insisting you do things his way and that if you don't, you are doing it wrong. He also dressing in what may be a white fashion in that he tucks in his shirt, which is white. The rest of his outfit consists of blue jeans and a simple belt in what I would call a very "Hank Hill" kind of ensemble. Perhaps the very fact that he is talking about a firearm product conveys his whiteness. His message is obviously not banned from Youtube. He is advertising a product that is likely not legal everywhere and that is meant to hide a pistol on his body for some surprise use. Imagine if a black person made the same clip, talking about having quick access to their concealed firearm. Would that sort of clip still be on Youtube? I would wager that sort of clip would be seen as one where the black person in the clip was showing others how to commit a crime by hiding their weapon.

I think it is interesting that this post made it to the top of the world in conversation site as I am going to try to dissect what it is about this man and clip that makes him appear to be a "really white" guy. Obviously, the product that he is demonstrating within this video is designed for holding a pistol. Two thoughts come to my head when I think about gun stereotypes. Many people think about people who use guns outdoors for hunting our target shooting. The majority of these shooters are white people in the United States. The second group of people I think of with access to guns are people usually within cities that use firearms to commit crime or have firearms for gang related reasons. While I don't mean to insinuate that every criminal or gang member with a gun is a person of color I would certainly say there are more people of color in this group than the outdoor gun use group. Through this disparity I typically associate pistols more with inner city use over outdoors use. Through that logic I would think of carrying a concealed weapon as not being something that is quintessentially white. Perhaps a black gang member using this product would be laughed at as wasting money or something because they could just use the waste of their pants for a similar use. One thing the guy in the clip does that makes him seem more white to me is that he tries to talk very clearly and articulating things precisely how he wants them to be interpreted.

It is interesting that the government chooses to control people through a means that is somewhat indirect. They choose to target people in an area that they cannot resist: their wallets. When people are hit with monetary sanctions or the opportunity to save money for doing a specific action they are much more likely to do what it is that the government wishes them to do. Money moves the masses to the action of government. I believe that it is true that the government while under the control of democrats has expanded social programs and offered money in return for compliance. Democratic governments have traditionally expanded the federal government as they feel that controlling people is the proper way for a functioning society to operate. Republican governments have typically made an effort to diminish government and spending, except perhaps for defense spending. I am inclined to agree with this article when it states "This is very consistent with where the hard left is coming from," Bachmann told Ingraham. "For them, government is the answer to every problem." She makes a good point that majority of people are likely to be able to feed their babies without the aid of contraptions funded by the government. It is interesting to see that the government is using people like Michele Obama as spearheads to their goals. Either that or Michele Obama has great influence within the government and can cause policy change based on her personal beliefs.

I believe that this article is correct in stating that there is always a balance to be struck between government control and personal freedoms and responsibility. Sometimes I personally believe that government over exceeds its bounds, and that it is not always done for the good of the people as it is so often justified. In the first example offered within the article I feel it is the responsibility of the individual to chose whether they wish to ingest a product know to be unsafe or not. We all have the right to do what we wish with our bodies as long as it does no harm others. Then again, now that we have universal healthcare it is possible to argue that the negative health actions of one individual are being paid for by all of society, not merely the individual and their family. However, if it is the government that creates the problem for society how can they claim that they are the construct that should get the opportunity to fix the problem. I apologize to no one, I feel that the individual has the right to cost some society so money in exchange for the ideal that we hold above all else within this nation, freedom. A person has a right that cannot be taken away to do as they please.

It was a bit odd that the government decided to focus only on their Muslim citizens. It makes it appear to me that they simply do not care about the morality of their citizens that do not align themselves with the majority. I also think it was a bit odd that university students were the target of this campaign. Perhaps it seems odd to me as I think of most college students as being sexually active and unmarried. Perhaps this is also the case in Malaysia and they simply chose to target the most affected area in their minds. However, as I read on I found a stronger link for these Muslims hating this holiday than the immoral behaviors of college students. The Muslims seem to claim that their dislike for this holiday is also very closely linked to their disdain for Christianity. The feel valentine's day is directly linked to Christianity and should thus be shunned. I also thought it was very interesting that they still chose to celebrate mother's and father's day. Thus, it seems like the big issue could be that valentine's day promotes unmarried sex not that it is western. Of course they chose to administer their vaccine against western society via that most secure means: the clergy. This makes certain that the messages get to ears that will listen to them.