I do believe that people need to have money to carve out a better life for themselves. Hard work alone can only get you so far. Also, it really determines how much of a better life you’re looking for. If you’re thinking better life mean them climbing up the socioeconomic ladder, then I’d say without some cash you’re probably not going to get very far. Not to say that hard work can’t get you anywhere, but I’m saying that hard work ALONE won’t get you anywhere.

Think about it for a moment. If you’re starving and penniless then go to work, you’re not thinking of making a better life for yourself. You’re thinking about eating. Chances are, your living conditions are crap, but you’re only making enough to make the rent and you can’t scrounge up any savings because you’re spending the money on food and shelter. Better life? No. You’re worried about surviving. You’re working hard and your reward will be enough food on the table with a roof over your head.

Also, there are about three elements that can help a person get a better life and move up the socioeconomic ladder. Those are resources, connections, and hard work. And in my personal opinion, resources and connections are much more valuable than hard work when you’re trying to get a better life. Hard work gets you noticed and helps you get to the resources and connections. But if you already had those two elements, you don’t really need to work hard.

First of all: Resources. That should be self-explanatory. It’s the same reason why inner city urban kids don’t do so well as upper-middle class suburbanites. Inner city kids don’t have access to the better education, the better facilities, and the support that the suburbanites have. So, at the end of the day, who gets into the better college and who gets into the better job? The kid who doesn’t speak properly and scores lower on the SAT’s because he or she didn’t have the same opportunities has a much lower chance at hitting that mark.

Connections: We already talked about nepotism and how that affects who gets into what jobs. Connections are a huge part in scoring really good jobs. If you have a strong network and people vouching for you then you’re already halfway there in climbing the ladder. You just have to make sure you can justify yourself when you are hired. CEOs and Senior Vice Presidents always have their kids join their companies as top executives the moment they graduate. You think a new entry with no inside connections can ever do that? No.

Hard work: This is what gets you noticed. Simple as that.

I always found it interesting how people didn’t know that the other word for “Terrorist” is “Freedom Fighter.” It would simply depend on who you asked. Back in the days where Ireland was occupied by the British Empyreal Military, the Irish Republican Army was known as a Terrorist organization by the British. Though I’m pretty sure if you asked any Irishmen back in those days and perhaps even today, the IRA would be known as “Freedom Fighters.” Back in the days of World War II when France was occupied by Nazi Germany, members of the French Resistance were labeled as Terrorists from by French appeasers and Germans. Of course, we know them today as “Resistance fighters.” But it’s all in perspective.

While I do understand to a certain degree why these “Terrorists” do what they do, I don’t by any means think that they’re right in doing things like that. Someone once told me that Terrorists aren’t stupid or crazy. They’re fighting for the same reasons why anyone in an organized army would fight for. They fight for a cause they believe in. “Muslim Extremists” blowing people up in trains or at US Army checkpoints isn’t something that should be looked at and say, “These durka-durka’s are all crazy! Why would any blow themselves up like that?!” Probably the same reason why Japanese pilots flew their planes into US Aircraft carriers in World War II.

These people are all fighting for their homes, or their religions, or their families. In their eyes, we are the unjust; we are the monsters. Try to justify it any way you want to, but in war; atrocities are committed on both sides. And these atrocities can cause “Terrorists” to spring up. If their cause is worth dying for, they’ll do it. And they’ll hurt or fight anyone who stands against that cause.

Personally, I feel that I would probably want to take some sort of action to avenge my family, or a close friend, or a spouse if I felt some grave injustice was done to me. But to take it to the level of these guys? Probably not. But I can only say that because I have options. Legal pursuits, organizations, peace demonstrations, rallies… America is great in that it allows these alternatives to blowing up the nearest school. Places like Afghanistan? They don’t have the ability to do anything like that. And to them, we’re a foreign power there to take their land, culture, and oil.

Still, even if I were in the situation of many of these terrorists, I don’t think I could do something like blow myself up in the name of righteous vengeance. I don’t think I have the stomach or the balls to do something like that. But you never know. People usually don’t know what they’d do until they were faced with the circumstance. Taking that into consideration, I can’t say that being a terrorist wouldn’t be huge stretch for me. I don’t know and I really don’t want to find out.

Ah, RapeLay, the controversies that you generate… I actually had a discussion about this not too long ago. Hentai games, or “H Games” aren’t anything new and I’m surprised it took so long for people to even catch wind of this stuff. RapeLay, the game that CNN shows as its centerpiece in this story, in itself, is like four-years-old (I googled this, I didn’t know that number off the top of my head). Cartoon pornography, in the form of videos or even games, have been around forever in Japan. Why is it a big deal now? Because the internet allows for it to be shared? The internet has been around for years, too!

First of all, let’s take a step back and think about this for a moment. Yes, this genre of games can arguably be called offensive. Is it a problem? Probably not seeing as how most mainstream consumers of media would never touch anything like this… until CNN decides to show it on national television. Think about it: how many people own or have played an H-game? Not many. Only a small niche market exists for these types of games and they’re probably played by the same people you wouldn’t want to hang around anyways.

Another thing I’d like to bring up: why is everyone making a big fuss of this? This is no different than pornography except it’s digital (IE, no one is hurt in the making of this video) and it’s interactive. And how is it interactive? You click a button. Woooo… big deal. If you’re going to fight something like this, you have to fight the entire porn industry. So if you watch porn, in my mind, you cannot seriously stand up and say, “this is a problem.”

I have a serious problem with people suddenly picking up pitchforks over this topic because it’s a game. I am a gamer. Sure, I don’t play these types of games, but I do play a lot of games. I have grown up with people telling me that I’ll become some psychopathic killer because of the games I play and I have yet to take a rifle to the nearest school or mall. And there are a lot of idiots in the world that I really do not like. I have been playing video games since before I can remember (First game: Super Mario Brothers for the SNES). And I have been shooting people in these video games since I was in second grade (Golden Eye for the N64). So I don’t believe in the argument that video games turn people into monsters (or rapists in this case).

But something like this, I feel, isn’t or shouldn’t be a big deal. That is to say, if you’re willing to let the “Adult entertainment industry” thrive as it has. I just think that’s hypocritical. Because that’s basically what this is. A pornographic game. Also, I do believe that these games are only available to purchase by adults (IE: over 18). Those who take them from the internet: those are pirates that don’t pay for it.

I don’t want to say I support this game, but I do support the idea that games shouldn’t be censored or banned without reason. This game is offensive. Yes. But Grand Theft Auto pretty much promotes the idea of fucking hoes and then killing them to get your money back. This game is pornographic. Yes. But so is porn. In fact it is porn. That isn’t real. And doesn’t involve anyone humiliating themselves except for the voice actors who have to moan into a microphone.

Also, as for Sam asking if this is the type of game a guy would play with a bunch of guys and beer… I’d have to tell him that’s kinda… well, for lack of a better word: gay. It’s like a bunch of dudes watching porn together with beer. And no women. This is a type of game you play alone. Ashamed. And hopefully tell no one of. Just like porn. You watch it alone. Ashamed. And hopefully tell no one of it. (Except your partner if they’re into that sorta stuff). In fact this is porn. I think I mentioned that before? It’s just me.

I just find it irritating that people are attacking this because it’s a game and not because it’s porn. It’s. Freaking. Porn.

I think I talked about this before but the whole negro being offensive thing is totally insane. I can understand why people think it can be offensive, but at the same time, “Negro” is not a word that is used as an offensive slang. As I said before, “Negro was used as a respectful term for black people before the word, ‘black’ was reclaimed.” The ONLY reason why Negro is offensive to blacks nowadays is because during the Civil Rights Movements in the 1960s black movement leaders told their supporters to abandon the word as it was associated with African American slavery, segregation, and other such injustices.

But it does surprise me that one of the people being interviewed in the news report associated the word “slavery” almost immediately with the word “Negro.” Doesn’t the word, “nigger” do that job a bit more suitably? At the time, the word “Negro” was the most polite way to address a black person. And now, it’s an ethnic slur. Why?

Also, I think people need to take a step back and remember something: in official government forms, all words in that document are meant to be denotative, not connotative. That means, for all intents and purposes, the words on that paper are to be taken in their definition, not what the word is associated with. In our particular example with Negro and Black, the meaning of Negro is supposed to mean “A person of sub-Saharan African descent; a person with black or dark brown skin” nothing else. So what’s the big deal?

Sam said it himself: the Census is a document that the government spent millions and millions of dollars researching and preparing. I just don’t understand why people are so worked up over this matter in the Census. Do they honestly believe that the United States Government is trying to offend the black Americans living here today? What would be the point? The President of the United States is half black for God’s sake. It’s not like they have another more offensive word on the Census. If they had, “Nigger,” on the census, then I can see a problem. But no, they have Negro. And they even explained WHY they have the word “Negro.” They gave a reason, it serves a practical purpose, and I doubt half the people in America even know why the word “negro” is offensive. They should just let it go.

I also think that people are forcing “their way” on other people. For example: when they were interviewing the people on the streets, a young black man said, “Well I can understand why they put Negro on the census. I mean I know some older black folk that still go by Negro” And almost immediately the other two black people practically attacked him. I think it’s those people that are dragging society down. People need to take a step back and stop taking things so personally. If everything is offensive, then no one can do anything without offending at least someone.

I am actually not all that confused as to why the black kids picked the white doll most of the time in the little experiment. The reason, I believe, is mainly because of the media. I remember when I was that young, watching Disney movies, the protagonists were always white. Almost without fail. And as I was growing up, through the genres of the media, the protagonists were still white. From the Recess (T.J. was white) to the Power Rangers (the red ranger was always white) to Superman and Batman (both are white), they were always white. Any person of color either had a supporting role or played the bad guy. In fact, if you think about the original Power Rangers, the writing staff must have been really racist. The red ranger (who is the leader) was a masculine white male, the black ranger was black, the yellow ranger was Asian, and the pink ranger was a girl. They were already classifying people by color back then.

But what I found really interesting was that the children identified the black doll as the “bad one.” I can barely think of anything that really justifies that… Perhaps it’s the news, which usually shows a black person as a perpetrator of a crime? Or maybe it has something to do with everyone who always associates “good” with “the light” (which is usually white light) and “evil” with “Darkness” (which is black). Everyone does it… but how does it translate into skin color for these children?

While I can justify why the children picked the white dolls while they themselves were black, I am still a bit surprised that they did pick the white dolls. I remember when I was in preschool, black girls would play with black dolls and white girls would play with white dolls. In fact, I remember in the Barbie commercials that would occasionally come on, the little girls were playing with dolls of their corresponding race. The white girl would be playing with Barbie, the black girl would be playing with the black Barbie, the Asian girl would be playing with the Asian Barbie. It somewhat confuses me.

Still, even though the commercials showed that… I do also remember that the Barbie aisle in Toys-R-Us had shelves of white Barbie dolls and perhaps one or two slots reserved for the colored Barbie dolls. I think that even my older sister’s Barbie was a white one. It’s strange. However, I think that I only started paying attention to those kind of details when I was at least eight, on my way to the video games section. These kids are four. How can they know anything about race at that age?

Whoa. They cancelled prom over a couple that happened to be two girls as opposed to one boy and one girl? The hell is this?! First of all, the school’s defense was that it might make other students feel uncomfortable. Statistics show that younger generations of Americans are way more open and tolerant toward same-sex couples. So that argument is of no consequence. Besides, if other students were uncomfortable, so what? What about the lesbian student’s rights? What the school board showed in that demonstration was one thing: pure homophobia. There is no logical or ethical reason to deny these students the right to go to prom.

And I also find it funny when they couldn’t convince the students to stop chasing the issue, they decide to cancel prom all together. Really now? If they were trying to avoid some serious political and media blowback to their reputation, this was no way to do it (because they landed themselves on the news). Are people really this homophobic that they need to ban gay couples from being together where heterosexual couples are? Because that doesn’t make any sense.

Something like this shouldn’t be allowed to happen. If they cancel prom because two girls decided to go to the prom together, what’s to stop them if they cancel prom because a black man and a white woman went to the prom? What’s to stop them from having black people in general attend the prom? This type of thinking is decades old and it’s been stomped out before during the civil rights movement. The only difference is that before there were signs that said, “Whites only” or “Blacks not allowed.” Now they’re handed out in memos in school that have a “friendly reminder” that “Same sex couples are not allowed.”

It’s also somewhat funny that the school board’s official reason for not hosting a prom is due to, “distractions in the educational process.” I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that having two girls dancing together was really detrimental to the education process… at a DANCE. What the hell are you supposed to learn at prom anyways? What the hell does prom have anything to contribute to the educational process? You learn that “taking your date out to very nice places is expensive” and that’s about it.

The whole argument that the lesbian students were a distraction to the educational process also reminded me of some congressmen who refuse to pass laws that secure rights and protections to same sex marriages. “Same sex marriages would be detrimental to the institution of marriage.” …How? Canada has legalized same sex marriages for decades and their couples don’t seem to be divorcing at a faster rate than ours.

Okay, I don’t know where to begin with this one. I guess I’ll just tackle the small thing first: “Ghetto party.” I personally hate these types of people and I was whole heartedly agreeing with the sociologist being interviewed that these people are putting their own race down. I hate those types of people and I hate that type of media that promotes these ideals.

“Be as ghetto as you possibly can.” The hell is that? Is it really that cool to break the law and go to jail for some street cred? I can’t say I didn’t see this coming as most of the movies and songs that are made by current Black artists tend to be about “Gangsta life.” And it’s complete bullshit. The party about being as ghetto as you possibly can is something that made me think about a friend I had in High School. The kid was a Black Muslim and he was a good student; hell, a great student. But his black friends called him, “white.” So apparently it’s not black to be a good student, to care about your future, and to actually go to class instead of hanging out in the halls like a pack of hyenas? It’s that kind of attitude and peer pressure that makes kids make dumb decisions that could possibly screw them over later in life.

Now, onto the bigger thing: the noose. …The hell? A noose? What was the message they were trying to get across? What was the “student of minority” trying to say with that symbol? (And by the way, why the hell doesn’t the reporter simply call it as it is? The student was black. Just say it. Instead they made me go through some mental gymnastics to figure out that the student was black because he was a part of a black frat.) I can’t believe that anyone would hang a noose on the library. What’s the point? I can’t think of anything logical that can answer the question. And I can only wonder what conclusion people would come to when they saw a noose. Personally, I was thinking that if I didn’t know the video was about race, I would think it was a statement on student suicide, being that the noose was found in the library.

I also can’t believe that people are seriously considering the campus as being racist. This is why people can’t have nice things: one person or a group of people try to mess around, have fun, and ruin it for everyone else. After seeing so many of the students protesting and demonstrating against hate and racism, how the hell can you say that the campus is racist? No, the campus is not racist, some of the students on that campus are racist. And those students are probably the minority… (no pun intended.)

Yvrose Jean Baptiste is a woman to admire, I’ll give her that. And yes, it is tragic that she wasn’t born in America and she didn’t have a chance to make it big, BUT do not underestimate the power of nurture in this whole “Nature versus Nurture” problem that you’ve created for yourself. MAYBE, just MAYBE, Yvrose would be a financially successful executive if she were born in America versus if she was born in Haiti. But there’s also the chance she’d end up not having half the drive and motivation she has while in Haiti.

Think about it. It is the wolf that makes the deer sprint; the deer does not run when it sees no danger around. And, on that same token, it is fear that gives men wings. The wolf in Yvrose’s case would be hunger, death, and the wellbeing of her children. She makes due with her microbusiness because she has to. If she doesn’t, her children won’t go to school, they won’t have food to eat, they’ll starve, and they’ll die. It’s hard to say that many Americans have that kind of drive that would push us to the limits like that. Most of us (not all) are well off and aren’t in the danger of starving to death. If Yvonne was in America and was well off, do you really think that she would have something pushing her to be her best? Maybe; but we’ll never know.

People aren’t just the innate talents that lie within them. They are also the circumstances in which they are raised up. A war orphan in a developing country that’s in the state of civil war will fight and struggle much harder for a better life than a kid that was raised with a silver spoon in his mouth. Sam, you asked what do you think will happen if you were born in Yvrose’s shoes and if she was born in yours. I’ll tell you that the question wouldn’t be applicable. You wouldn’t be the same person. Yvrose wouldn’t be the same person either.

Another thing that you need to remember is this: Life is not fair. Some of us are dealt really bad hands at life (Poker term… or general card-playing metaphor) but we all make due with what we have. But you can’t expect by wishing that Yvrose was on a level playing field, the field will suddenly level itself. It’s impractical and it doesn’t work like that. Remember about the kings of the mountain; they don’t want to give up their top spot. I wouldn’t either.

The best thing that Yvrose can do now is to climb as high as she can up that ladder of financial security and secure a better life for her children. Then, maybe, in the next generation, Haiti won’t be as underprivileged as you see it today. Everyone can only do their best.

You can get deported for being a homosexual? Man, this woman gets the short end of two sticks when it comes to America: She’s an immigrant AND she’s a lesbian. I know that one of the two prime benefits of being an American Citizen is that you cannot be deported (the other being that you can vote), but she’s a member of an American Family. There has got to be some consideration to that.

I just don’t understand how people think that because a child has two mommies or two daddies (or even five mommies and five daddies for that matter), there will be some sort of problem in the development of the child. From what I know, the more love and attention the child receives, the better off they are. So what if that love happens to be between two women or two men? It’s better than if a child has a single parent who is struggling to make ends meet and can spend no time at all with his or her developing child. And that’s pretty much what America’s encouraging at the moment. “We think that having one parent is better than having two women or two men.” Besides, who are we to judge? There’s no outstanding scientific proof that same sex couples can’t raise a kid.

This story of deporting also reminds me of a story I heard one time in AP Government and Politics about citizenship. An American couple adopted a baby boy in Thailand and brought him back to the States to raise him. This kid was raised as an American, only spoke English, and had all the values of an American. He, however, committed a crime when he was a teenager and was deported to Thailand as punishment. He didn’t even know how to speak Thai. This was all because he didn’t have the documentation that said that he was American, even though he was raised as one. Obviously, there are some very serious flaws with the system.

Deporting a woman because she has a same sex partner? Deporting an American teenager for a misdemeanor because he didn’t have documentation of citizenship? I thought we were better than that as a country. Aren’t we the Melting Pot of the world (Or, rather, as Sam said, “the Salad Bowl” of the cultures)? But it seems like in this melting pot, the Iceberg lettuce has some serious problems with the tomatoes. And the tomatoes have problems with the onions. And the onions have problems with the croutons. And the croutons have problems with the lettuce. But everything in the salad hates anything else that gets added to the bowl.

I don’t think that the woman should have been deported. She wasn’t doing anything wrong (unless you seriously consider same sex marriage to be wrong). And she had an American family. It’s just kind of sad how old bigotries keep rising up. .. And it’s even more sad when it becomes integrated into law. That’s the beginning stages of a Holocaust.

Wait. Rich people get government subsidiaries? What for?! Their brand new Mercedes Benz? Why do they need my taxpayer money? WHY?! That really burns me up that Rich people get welfare. They don’t need it! I can understand some government subsidiaries for corporations as thousands, if not millions, of people if a major company went bankrupt… but the very wealthy get free money? That does not make any sense at all. I’m sure that Sam is right in that most people do not know about the whole, “rich people get tax payer dollars” thing, too… I sure didn’t know.

But back to what this politician said: what the hell? That is a terrible analogy and amazingly insensitive! I understand the point he’s trying to make, “Some people abuse welfare and spend their Government Issue money illegally,” but why couldn’t he have just said that? Instead, he attacks the poor and makes a gross overgeneralization. Yes, I do believe (scratch that, I KNOW) that some people do abuse their welfare checks and breed for the sake of the money. But that isn’t the case for everyone who applies for welfare.

A lot of welfare recipients are really down on their luck and they need that money to survive. Growing up on the streets of Philly showed me the good, the bad, and the ugly. Some people are parasites that probably shouldn’t be getting welfare. Some people made a few bad decisions and are now working multiple jobs at minimum wage to support a family that’s breaking apart. Some people are even so poor that they are so desperate as to turn to a life of crime just to survive. To say that they’re all bad and they’re all parasites is ignorant.

But let’s assume for a moment that Mister Bauer didn’t make such a terrible metaphor and that he said exactly what he meant: Drug tests and parent-teacher conferences? Not all people who abuse their welfare checks spend it on drugs. And what the hell are parent-teacher conferences are supposed to accomplish when you’re on welfare? From what I remember, public schools are funded by the state and are open to anyone, not just welfare recipients. So I don’t quite understand why they need to attend parent-teacher conferences. Public schools also aren’t particularly known for their excellent facilities and superb teaching staff… So exactly what is the point?

Also, has anyone noticed how it is only the people that are found saying these amazingly ignorant things are clichéd condescending Republicans? Not to say that the Democrats don’t have their fair share of faults, but it seems that whenever a Republican is in front of a camera and is talking about social issues, they say the most terrible things and demonstrate the most outdated and backward thinking ever. It’s almost as if they are assuming their constituents are all ignorant and are acting on being bigots with a much larger vocabulary than the average racist.