the United States should remain to occupy the areas that we have occupied and police international policy minimally but just enough to make the presence of the USA clear to the international community. A break down of international policing at the low point of the economy will say that the American people are currently weak and not able to provide for themselves, a total economic recall to the mainland. Lets see, where have I seen this before? 1945 imperial Japan, late 1980s USSR, Fascist Germany in 1944, 1943 England, etc. although we are not at war, we are still struggling for an economic advantage, in many ways it can be argued that economic advantage is more powerful than even the strongest of physical weapons. Sanctions and trade cuts, taxation can really destroy a foreign powers economy and lay waste to their private sector. So in recap, I believe that we should not police the world because honestly no one likes police, we should just maintain what we have now, not overdo it but just enough to make our presence heard until we can recall our policing from the international community.

mistake. If anything, we should maintain our policing up until we can provide it again so that we can not make a mistake like the British did circa 1945. The last thing the United States wants is to lose status as a world power and have one, if not multiple BRIC countries take over. With the amount of money that the United States spends on military upkeep, we could help to solve our problems domestically, but at what cost? And although it is a “what if” situation, that exact situation of “what if” is what kept us out of combat with the USSR during the Cold War. The threat is the same, we now face enemies in Pakistan who are currently attempting to get ownership of Nuclear missiles which they have made perfectly clear (actually publically stated) that if and when Pakistan obtains a nuclear missile, they will not hesitate to test, and use against *Sa-tan (*the oppressor) which could mean Israel or the United States or any of her allies. Im not a fear monger, if I hadn’t watched the statement myself I wouldn’t believe it. Regardless,

I don’t think that it is necessary but at the same time I also feel that by recalling our “policing’ of the world will make an international statement of how bad off the united states economy really is and could potentially make us look weak to our enemies. While I agree with Ron Paul and think that the United States should mind our own business in deciding what is “right” and “wrong” in the world, I think that by recalling our “authority” at our low point would be a

I feel that if sandusky had been a minority of any type not only would fox news have a field day with destroying him and making comments and over generalizations of that race but I think that there would be a more in depth look at what caused him to do it rather than what was done. Whenever someone of a minority group makes a bad decision the focus normally goes from criticizing the person to having a societal understanding of “why?” honestly I don’t think its fair but from other instances ive seen both in my own life and in recent politics minorities are rarely blamed by society for their actions or words. For example; ex ceo of godfathers pizza herman cain went on the record saying that he would never have anyone of the Muslim faith advise him if he were to get elected president, saying that a person of that type of religion is untrustworthy. Clearly a racist statement, although since he is a black American he was not held accountable for his statement, rather the major news corporations covering the interview asked “why he would feel this way” rather than calling him out on it. Factually, if cain was white and said an identical statement he would take so much flack from it, he may need to drop out of the primaries all together, although instead he was given the option to simply recant what he had said and although he didn’t need to bow out of the running, the statement I feel did drastically effect his standings in the eyes of potential American voters. So how would things be different if Sandusky had been of African American decent or latino decent? I feel that either he would be criticized more harshly for his actions or he would have gotten less attention for his short comings as a school employee and less criticism from the student body. That’s just my take on it though, it seems that when minorities do wrong they get less hurt than white people, I know that statistically it is the other way around from what we have seen in class though I feel that in the upper levels of society (school administrators, political candidates, etc) there is a caution to not target minorities even if they do deserve the negative attention simply because the people who would be doing the criticizing do not want their actions misconceived as being racist. Example being the tea party, back in the beginning of last summer they were talking about how they disapproved of obamas health care plan, well among other things that they disliked about the obama administration. The whole tea party movement was seen as racist because of this statement and I feel that many other people and/or organizations try to avoid this label of “racist” because it doesn’t help anyone’s agenda.

I think that the comparison that sam gave in class about how penn state students feel like Muslims do in Iraq or Afghanistan is very close to how I feel, I mean I had nothing to do with the instance other than the fact that I attend this school and since people will now view my resume and automatically think of the penn state scandal, that could put a dark mark on my future. I don’t think that that’s fair but whats done is done and there is nothing that I can do about it. I do feel betrayed by my school though, the fact that they covered this up for as long as they did is offensive to everyone who attends this school. This also makes me wonder what other things that they may be currently covering up since this was permitted to carry on for so long. Although on the other hand it is possible that the name of penn state has not been tarnished by this instance, but rather the schools administration. Im fairly certain that employers will realize the obvious truth that current penn state students had nothing to do with the instance and that the large majority of us were in middle school while the events that are effecting us today took place. The one thing that I think could effect us is the riots and the proceeding candle light vigil. The reason being because those events do reflect our classes, and while I didn’t take place in either (and not because I feel strongly about it one way or the other, its just because I don’t see a reason that I should get involved because once I get involved in something im very dedicated to the cause and I don’t want to make things bad for myself) it is entirely possible though for this whole instance to be a non-major issue, I mean every school has bad things that happen to it or that has been done by the school, such as the Virginia tech shootings or Kent state, and still alum from those schools have been able to find jobs regardless of the wrong doings of their schools or dark marks of their schools past. All in all I don’t see how other peoples mess ups should make my life harder. I chose my school on the academics that the institution of penn state is known for and I hope that my future employer does the same, penn state has the number one anthropology program in the country and what Sandusky did should not effect that standing. While the university of penn state is well known for its football team, that is not all that penn state is. We are penn state.

I don’t think that the occupy x movement and the tea party are the same thing just because of the political affiliation that each has towards the democratic or republican party. While in class sam explained how each shares similar traits and reasoning for wanting to start a movement they both target each other. I don’t think either movement will actually work though, especially the occupy x movement. I believe it’s a failed mission because of who it is targeting, the slogan is “we are the 99%” but theres a reason that the 1% is the 1%. First off I want to start by saying that I disagree with both the tea party and the occupy x movement, the reason being that both are movements towards socialism and I don’t think that socialism is a good way for a government to function, it decreases the competition in the business world and attempts to make an even playing field, regardless of merit. Well, I see that as undermining the key principals that made the united states successful in the first place, there needs to be a competitive market place for there to be a successful country. But back to the initial question, the reason that the one percent is the one percent is because they are smart, they know how to keep themselves rich and how to profit or change functions so that they are not effected or effected minimally. For example, the occupy x movement is attempting to get the one percent to circulate money towards the majority of workers, middle and lower class. The problem with this is that the one percent clearly doesn’t want to give the money to the majority, why should they? They earned that money and other people aren’t their responsibility. (that’s how I feel about it anyway). Well what my point is, is that if the government forces them to give money back, they will simply make cuts, lay people off and lower wages to make it so that they don’t lose a dime and the people who they are supposed to be forced to help will actually be harmed in the long run. On top of that, a single action will not change this, in a matter of years the same imbalance will happen again because the money will still be going towards the big companies. As a side note, I don’t support the tea party either because I believe they are contradictory, they push for neo-conservatism but want the results of a socialist regime. The sooner this is over the better, the founding fathers stated “united we stand, divided we fall” and given the five way split among American peoples, I would say that we are fairly divided.

I think that it will be less that whites will be the minority as opposed to there being no one race majority. The mixing of genetics will eventually have the same effects here as it has in brazil, where the intermixing of races has eventually created one “race” of equal mixture. I think that since whites are already a minority in the world as a whole the end development of human civilization will very minimally resemble the white race, majority of features would likely be that of black or asian traits simply because of dominant and recessive alleles. I don’t feel that there will be an end product of human development either, I think that the climate will change the way each individual “new race” develops and that because of this we will always have distinct trait markers which will determine origin. But the human race itself is constantly changing with each new generation so the idea of humans coming to a definite affinitive end stage is very unlikely. But back to the original question. “how do you feel about whites no longer being the majority” I mean I suppose it would change things in the united states a bit, there would be less discrimination I would assume, but then again at the same time its shown that the more diverse a state is the more racism that is in that state, and that could simply be that because in states with not that much diversity that there are less people to trigger the racism but at the same time that could also mean that people who live in less diverse areas are less prone to act upon racism. However unlikely that sounds, due to stereotypes of rural America. But that in itself is racist too isn’t it?
regardless there may be more equality in the work place, more hiring opportunities for non white races, and I could see how whites not being the majority could have a better effect for non whites, but then again, at the same time when there is less of something its rarity value goes up and its worth more, im not comparing white people to diamonds or gold but more the concept of how rarity boosts value might play a minute role in some sections of American society. As we saw in class there are many examples of where people of color have valued white skin over their own, as sad as this is it still demonstrates the desire for white skin in many cultures and subcultures, not only in the united states but also in places like south korea, which has become the plastic surgery capitol of the world because of their attempts to appear “western”, which includes rhinoplasty, and creating double folding eyelids among other things.

I don’t think so because there is a distinct difference between race and culture, just because someone of a certain race hangs out with people of a different race does by no means that they are a poser. I suppose we would first have to see what a poser is, is it a person who imitates a culture or group of people that they don’t belong to or is it a person who attempts to become immersed in a culture not of their own? In essence it is the same thing I suppose but the distinct difference being the third person stance of the individual. What I mean by this is that if the person who is making the label of a “poser” is a person from outside the group which the person is attempting to become involved in then it would be fairly safe to say that they would come up with the label of a “poser” however I believe that if a person who is in the group who the “poser” is trying to become a part of then it’s possible that they would either accept that person into their group or the exact opposite, they may completely ostracize that outside individual from the group or even make a separate boundary for them. Now this may just be me being racially centric but I believe that a lighter skinned person trying to join a darker skinned dominate group would be more likely to be ostracized than a darker skinned person trying to become a part of a white skinned dominated group, for example Eminem’s story “8-mile” is about his struggle and effort of becoming a respected white rapper in a primarily black section of Detroit, that is the culture/ sub-culture. Where as shawn belle, a black ice hockey player had less of a struggle becoming accepted in a primarily white dominated sport. While these are just two instances, and not at all meant to depict all people trying to become involved in a culture not of their own. But this issue is not just a black and white issue, you see asian rappers and Hispanic baseball players, what I believe it all comes down to is the openness of an individual to embrace a different culture and that cultures willingness to adapt an un ordinary member to its ranks. I also think that the more and more mixed the races become and the more people tend to associate themselves as people instead of a certain race or group the more openness there will be in the country and the world to the accepting of all peoples in all “cultures” and “sub-cultures”. For the time being though, I suppose we will just have to wait for the world to open up.

I don’t know if its that certain races are more innocent than others or if that’s just how its viewed in the location in which the offence is taking place. We have learned that environment plays a huge role on sociology so therefore location likely plays a large role in the minds of people in which an offence takes place. What I mean by this is that if a person sees a black man walk by them on the street in an urban environment, they would be less surprised than if they saw a black man in a suburban or rural environment simply because these locations are not where people generally expect to see them. The opposite is true also. So I don’t know if its that certain races are innocent and others are guilty (looking) I think its more atune to the environment. As we saw in the bike stealing video, people were less threatened by the white male stealing the bike because in a park in suburbia is where you would expect to see a white guy, the black male stealing the bike caught a lot more attention because of the setting I believe, if the bike was positioned in a downtown project and the same test was done, there would likely be a significant difference in the results. As for women, I believe that most men look at women as not being able to do harm and it is instinctual for men to want to protect women, especially ones which they feel attraction towards. While we know that this is not true and that women can be just as malicious as men, society doesn’t view them this way, possibly because of their petite bodies or beautiful looks. I have also noticed that women who are not attractive get less attention from males and I think that this may cause men to look at less attractive females and judge them more harshly. After all now that I think of it, innocence may be attached to attractiveness? As we have stated in class lighter skinned people are seen as “beautiful” even in the eyes of darker skinned people, so is it possible that the fairer complexion a person has plays a role in how innocent they appear? Also women (as we have seen in class) receive less harsh punishment from the law, combined, its possible that a light skinned woman has the best chance of getting away with a crime.
So the next question would be is this fair? I for one believe that its not fair, but at the same time what can one do? Perhaps in the future things will change and peoples innocence will be determined by other factors aside from their gender or melanin content.

I think that some people find some accents attractive and others not because of what sounds good to an individual person. For example I think the French language/accent is one of the ugliest sounding accents/languages out there which a lot of people don’t understand why I think that way but I just do, on the other hand I find east asian accents sexy, doesn’t matter what accent it is, even a Vietnamese accent which I understand a lot (a huge majority of people ive talked to) of people dislike this accent. Personally, Korean and Spanish accents are the most appealing to me and I don’t know why, maybe it’s the personal appearance which complements the accent and that’s what im attracted to? Although there are good looking people from other places but when they open their mouths to talk sometimes its just like “no… stop”, especially French accents/ language (Canadian French accents are the worst). Part of me thinks its because I like intelligent girls so if a girl is bi-lingual that’s a huge turn on. Although now that I think of the original question, an accent doesn’t necessarily mean that a persons from a different country, so about American accents, maybe its what we relate the accent to? Maybe an accent not only tells us where the person is from, but it also makes us think we know things about that person based on their origin? For example if someone has a thick new York accent, I would likely assume that they are trashy, just first thing that came to my head, don’t judge. And on the other hand, if someone had a really thick southern accent, I would assume that they aren’t well educated. Oh! Yeah that’s probably it cause my pastor (back from when I was religious and went to church) was from texas (my favorite state) had a really thick southern accent and I knew he was smart (he was fluent in greek, sumerian, and other ancient biblical languages) but I cant help think that he wasn’t all that bright, probably because of his accent (either that or his obsession with star wars, honestly could be either…) so on that note my new conclusion for why I find certain accents attractive and others not is because I directly compare the location of origin of the accent to that person. Being that I think Hispanic countries are hard working but dangerous (because of cartel, violence, drugs, corruption) its attractive in the “dangerous” sense, and asian countries (and im being very very very general here) are moral hard working people. With that conclusion, it makes sense why I don’t like French accents; I dislike their political affiliation/courses of action, I dislike how “pussy-ish” they are (and I know this isn’t politically correct… but w/e) and I view france as a weak pushover society, no wonder I dislike that accent. German accents on the other hand , sexy ;) (yes that was a WWII reference)