My viewpoint of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not change much after Sam’s lecture on Tuesday. Very early in the lecture, Sam made the assumption that the SOLE reason we invaded Iraq and Afghanistan was due to the fact that the Middle East is rich in petroleum and the United States was attempting to allow US oil companies to create a US oil stronghold in the Middle East. Sam completely failed to mention the oppressive regimes that were in power before the US invasion (The Taliban in Afghanistan and the Saddam Hussein led Ba’ath party in Iraq. Although I do believe oil did play some role in the US operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I felt it was very narrow-minded and unfair to make this assumption. The United States had an obligation to the oppressed citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. In northern Iraq, Kurdish people were gassed by the Hussein regime. In Afghanistan, the Taliban instilled fear in people across the country with their violent, intimidating behavior. This was a big elephant in the room that Sam consciously avoided addressing. I feel like this is very unlike Sam’s normal lectures where he addresses many sides of a situation and challenges us to draw our own conclusions from his lectures. Unfortunately I was very “hung up” on this point the entire lecture and didn’t glean as much as I should have from the rest of the lecture. Of course it didn’t help that most of his lecture was based on the fact that the US invasion was due to oil and oil only, leading to Iraqi and Afghani distrust of the US and our troops.
When Sam attempted to make the parallel between the US operation in Iraq and Afghanistan and a Chinese invasion of the United States I completely lost him. This point in the lecture was again completely based on the assumption that the US operations were solely due to American greed and the hunger for foreign oil. Sam made no mention of the current political situation in any country, and to pinhole something like that really lost him credibility. I understand Sam was very passionate about the issue, but I feel like Sam let his emotions drive and his logic was thrown into the backseat.
However, I did gain a little from this lecture. Sam helped me understand that Christianity can be perceived as an oppressive and pushy religion as well. There are radicals in every religion, organization, etc. The media’s coverage and interpretation of religions and their actions certainly do not help these stigmas, but the best we can do is to understand that everything we see on American media isn’t necessarily true. We need to make our own assumptions and challenge others’ assumptions.

If Sandusky were Black or Latino, I believe this case, situation, scandal, etc. would be much different. The reaction from the media would have been much different, the reaction from community members, and the reaction from students.
From a media standpoint, I believe they would show many more pictures of Sandusky, and make note of his race if he were Black or Latino. More emphasis would be put on his race and his background if he were a minority. I was surprised at how fast people were emotionally charged in a case where a verdict had not been found. I understand undermining the innocence and safety of children in our society is not taken lightly, but a large majority of the Penn State and national community have concluded that Sandusky is guilty. Many of these judgments have been made by those who believe they are knowledgeable about the case because they have read the Grand Jury report, or have been following the scandal carefully on the news. I find it terribly hard to believe that Sandusky did not commit at least some of these crimes, but I am a strong believer in a fair trial and the opportunity to defend yourself in the courtroom. Given the reaction from the community, I find it hard to imagine what actions and judgments would be made of Sandusky if he were Black or Latino. Sandusky’s house was vandalized already as a white male in a prominently traditional community. Sadly, I can only imagine more violence and hatred would be directed toward Sandusky if he were Black or Latino.
I would like to think that Sandusky’s race did not play a role in the way the administration and athletic department handled the investigation and accusations against Sandusky. This reminds me of the video we watched in class about the bicycle thieves of different races. Of course the alleged acts of Sandusky are much worse than stealing a bike in the park, but parallels can be made between these situations. I would like to believe that Spanier, Curley, and the others accused of inaction did not allow Sandusky’s race to play a role in their decision making process. These men lead our university, and we trust them to make level-headed decisions to benefit the university. If Sandusky were Black or Latino would his chances of being reported earlier be increased? We don’t know but I’d really like to think no.
I understand that race plays a role in every aspect of our lives, but the role that race plays sometimes in our decision-making processes is something that we don’t think about enough. This is a situation that I hadn’t thought about before I watched the question, and leaves me thinking more about the integrity of our administration, media, and community.

Recent events have attracted a ton of negative media attention for Penn State. People all over the world are viewing Penn State through a very narrow lens, which has been molded by local and national media. Much of the media attention recently has surrounded the reaction from students to the events.
The first thing we all noticed when we turned on the news Thursday morning was the video of the media van being overturned and the windows being smashed in. The media covered chants of “F_ _ _ Sandusky, F _ _ _ the media, and F _ _ _ the board of trustees.” The media was also quick to point to the destruction of property in State College, being 1 light post, 1 news van, and 1 rear windshield. However, much of the media outlets have neglected to mention the blue out at the game, and other events like the candlelight vigil for the victims to be held on the lawn of Old Main tonight. Unfortunately I believe many will buy into the pinhole view of Penn State given by the media this week.
I was at an interview this Wednesday and Thursday in New Jersey. Wednesday night was a networking session in which we had an opportunity to speak with current employees about the program we were interviewing for, and the company itself. However, I found much of the conversation surrounded the current situation at Penn State, rather than the position/company I was interviewing for. I am the first to say I am Penn State proud, but in this particular instance, I was embarrassed in my university. I understand the actions of a few in the administration and football program do not and should not reflect the students of the university, but transitively they do. Their actions reflect the brand and image of Penn State University, and in turn reflect the students who attend this great university. On Thursday morning interviews were held, where I was questioned further about the actions of my fellow students in their reaction to the firing of Joe Paterno. I asked what they knew about the student reaction, and they mentioned the rioting that took place. They believed this was a violent reaction that numbered in the thousands of students, when in reality the reaction was wholly peaceful minus a few dozen malicious people who call themselves Penn Staters. I received almost the same reaction from everyone I asked this question to. The media has molded their coverage of the events to make Penn State appear as an ignorant, violent, football obsessed school that is apathetic to the victims of the alleged crimes.
Of course Penn State students are upset, disappointed, and confused as to what has occurred and the results of recent events. The facts in this case are blurry, and many have adopted a “guilty until proven innocent” mindset. Of course, this mindset has been fueled by the media, driving public outcry and therefore pushing many to make knee-jerk decisions, in turn causing more anger. I am extremely disappointed in the way the media has covered this situation. The public’s view of Penn State has been largely negative, and one can only hope that the public can look at this situation from a more grounded point and form their own opinion of Penn State and our students.

Big business shapes the entirety of foreign policy involving immigration. Big business is reaping the benefits of immigration while exploiting both nationals and immigrants in the process.
Businesses that employ illegal immigrants are simply exploiting cheap labor while putting Americans out of work. The last part of the statement can be debated as to weather Americans would be willing to do this work in the first place. However, we do know that businesses are benefitting from this. They are receiving essentially the same services while paying the workers a fraction of the wages normally given to nationals. Illegal immigrants are in high supply in some areas, and are (in general) desperate for work. They cannot afford to not work, and are driven to earn as much money as possible to send back home to their families. Business owners are using their unfortunate situations to their advantage, and are in turn reaping profits. Economically, it makes sense to employ cheap labor if productivity, quality, etc remains constant. The wage that is paid to the workers is economically accurate given the supply of these workers and the demand for the workers. However, the business owners are behaving extremely unethically. They are taking advantage of the unfortunate situations of the illegal immigrants. They understand they are desperate for work, and are exploiting their situations.
Ok, I’ll take the viewpoint of an illegal immigrant. They are simply here to work hard and provide for their families back home. They work extremely hard in most circumstances and work incredibly demanding hours. They don’t see themselves as “taking American jobs,” they see themselves as working hard in undesirable jobs to go somewhere.
Now I’ll take the viewpoint of an American citizen that was removed from their job. They have been working in their job for 20 years and have been displaced by an illegal immigrant. It would make sense for the American to have some animosity toward the illegal immigrant, but their anger should be directed toward the business owner. The business owner is putting him out of a job by exploiting illegal labor.
Overall, I believe our anger should be directed toward these business owners who are pushing our government to create more lax immigration regulations. The business owners can reap the benefits while the immigrants and the Americans suffer. The anger should not be directed at the workers! We sit amongst ourselves arguing and pointing fingers at one another, when we need to look at the situation and understand who is benefitting. The immigrants are working hard while they are in such undesirable situations. The Americans are being pushed out of their jobs. All while big business pushes our government to allow more immigration so they can make more of the almighty dollar.

Reading this article definitely made me think about this issue. I’m not sure if my views are completely black or white on the issue, but I’ll do my best to describe what I’m thinking. First of all, Arizona seems like its seen its share of controversial votes/acts/etc. Arizona seems like a state that is living in fear, mostly driven by the immigration issue.
Arizona obviously has a rather large immigration issue given its geography. Arizona shares a border with Mexico, and used to be under Mexican control. However, Arizona has been working feverishly to keep the Mexican and Central/South American immigrants out. There have been many votes and there are many proponents of increased security along the border. There has also been support for increased prosecution of suspected illegal immigrants. This is a state that is essentially living in fear. Should they be living in fear? Maybe due to the inflow of drugs/violent crime crossing from the Mexican border, but I do not believe that illegal immigrants should be the root cause of their fear. My grandmother lives in Tucson, Arizona, about 70 miles north of the shared border with Mexico. She has a much different viewpoint on the immigration issue, and I attribute this mostly to her environment. I also attribute this to her beliefs, which differ greatly from mine, but I can say that my beliefs would probably be different if I saw the transformation of her community during the last 20 years. Of course we don’t have the same magnitude/number of illegal immigrants here in Pennsylvania so I can’t really speak on behalf of Arizona on the immigration issue, but I can say from a fly on the wall, it seems the state of Arizona has been passing some laws that are controversial and borderline unconstitutional.
I believe this instance really stems from the general fear in Arizona. They are trying to uphold the “traditional” American way of life it seems. They want a very Christian, conservative community that excludes any outliers or anything they feel would compromise the “American way of life.” If this law stays in place I believe it will result in an incredible amount of discrimination towards minority groups (Latinos, LGBTA community, etc). If this were to happen at Penn State, I believe there would be a rather large reaction from the otherwise dormant student body. I feel like we are educated enough to see blatant discrimination and for the University to pass and support something like this would be incredibly stupid.
Arizona is simply scrambling to find a way that they believe will secure a sustainable American image in their state. And they’re doing a shitty job of it. Open discrimination is not the answer.

People who hang out in mixed crowds are not posers. When someone spends time with folks from different backgrounds and races, they are open minded and accepting, not posing or selling out. I definitely disagree with this statement.
When I see people hanging out from different backgrounds, I see this as a positive thing rather than a negative. If a white person was hanging with a group of predominantly black or brown people, I wouldn’t call them a poser or a sell out. I would commend them for having an open mind and really embracing other races and cultures. Just because someone hangs out with other races and cultures does not mean they can’t embrace their own culture as well.
Obviously when you spend time with a certain group of people, you tend to emulate some of their behaviors and traits. Of course there were similarities before you became friends, but from spending time together you adopt certain mannerisms and aspects of their different cultures. However, this does not mean you completely change who you are when you spend time with a different group of people. If you are true to yourself and really know who you are, you will not and should not change who you are for another group of people.
Race tends to be a very important aspect of our lives and how we identify ourselves. If a group of people tries to encourage us to change the some of the things we hold closest to ourselves, we shouldn’t associate with them. When you spend time with people who embrace who we genuinely are, this is the type of relationship that helps us grow as people. We can explore who we are, while understanding other cultures, races, and backgrounds at the same time.
This sort of brings me to another question that I’d like to ask. Does the race of our friends actually shape who we are? Does the race of our friends matter? The amount of melanin in a person’s skin should not shape who they are or what we think about them. Of course there are trends between races and cultures, but this doesn’t necessarily define who we are. What I’m trying to say is it shouldn’t matter to others who we spend time with as long as that group of people is supportive of who we are. People can care if this new group of people is having a negative impact on our lives, or trying to completely reshape who are as people, but if this isn’t the case why should they care? Let people be happy. If others are happy and have healthy relationships with a certain group of people, let it be. Let it be.

This video was definitely very compelling. These girls were born into an incredibly challenging situation, forcing them to be compatible and to create a symbiotic relationship with one another. If the two of them did not work with each other, they simply could not survive. This got me to thinking about the freedom vs. determinism debate. One side of the argument can affect our lives much more than the other side of the debate.
This especially got me thinking about the determinism side of the debate. These girls were born into an incredibly unique and challenging situation, making their lives very difficult compared to that of a ‘normal’ human being. They are challenged everywhere from driving to dating to their general health. Certainly their life expectancy is less than that of a normal human being. Obviously the fact that the girls are Siamese twins makes things much more difficult for the two of them, and certainly shapes the decisions they make. They were born into a more challenging situation than most, which means they must make decisions to challenge their current situation.
It’s a fact that everyone can agree on that some people are born into more fortunate situations than others. Some are born healthy into well-off, loving families that spend a ton of time with their kids and really nurture them through childhood. Others are born into less fortunate situations with health issues, poor, and sometimes neglectful families that don’t take the time or effort to raise their children in a healthy way. There is a huge spectrum here, which results in a giant spectrum of challenges for individuals. Surely one coming from a less fortunate situation can succeed, but it is more difficult for them. Surely one coming from a fortunate background can tank, but it is less likely.
Everyone is faced with a certain set of challenges when we are born into this world. I suggest we face these challenges to the best of our abilities and truly try to face our problems head on. If we face our problems, attempt to understand the situation we are currently in, and set reasonable goals for ourselves, we can succeed. Surely there will be failures along the way, but if we keep a positive mindset throughout the process, there is a larger chance of succeeding. These girls are truly an inspiration for everyone. They are faced with an incredible challenge and they are facing it head on. Some days are easier than others, but they are making strides to be ‘normal’. These girls are fortunate enough to have a loving family that supports them. Overall the video just opened my eyes to the incredible spectrum of situations we can be born into and how fortunate I am.

First, I somewhat disagree with the statement made when she was asking the question. Most guys do care what they look like when they go out. It is true that the average guy takes less time getting ready to go out. I think this is mostly due to a key gender difference between men and women.
Men tend to think more logically, whereas women have more of an emotional mindset. Guys want to wear something that provides more function, where a woman want to wear something that would make them look more attractive. The typical guy out at Penn State is wearing jeans with a t-shirt, polo, or button down shirt. The average female out at Penn State is wearing a dress (maybe a skirt), and some ridiculous heels. The guy might look more casual than the woman, but he is most definitely more comfortable. The woman on the other hand, is uncomfortable for the entire night, but looks better.
However, something I don’t understand is the difference between clothing choices of women during the day (at classes) and at night (for going out). Girls will go to class wearing sweats, a baggy t-shirt, and messy hair. However, once 9 or 10 PM hits, a switch goes off and function flies right out the door, replaced by aesthetics.
I think the core of the problem actually lies in the way men think. In many cases, men objectify women, and therefore want to find the most attractive women to be with. This mentality, which in my opinion has been magnified and exaggerated by society, is the root cause of this discussion. Women feel like they need to impress men by looking their best. Some show a lot of skin, others take a more conservative route. But the fact that some women feel like they need to sacrifice their self respect for men is alarming. If women do not respect themselves, how can they expect men to respect them? I guess what I’m trying to get at here is that women sacrifice too much for men in a male-centered world.
I encourage women to respect and value yourselves! Rely on your personality and understand that you can look attractive without revealing your personals or sacrificing all your comfort. Men do not do this so women should not feel a need to either. Even if men dressed uncomfortably to attract women, women still should not feel a need to dress like that.
This is something that has gone on for centuries in western culture. Women have always taken more care in their looks than men. However, we as men can address this problem by showing women that we don’t support it. Of course we appreciate it when women take time to address their looks, but, like everything, balance is key.

When I first saw the bike thief video, I started laughing. The fact that so many of these people gathered around immediately after the black guy made many people in the class laugh, but after the video ended Sam really provided some input on how to think about the video. The white guy had a much easier time stealing the bike, which was alarming.
The white guy had no issues with people stopping to check out what he was doing. I thought it was very interesting when the experimenters stopped the two black ladies who just walked past the white guy stealing the bike. She said, oh it was a white guy who was trying to get the bike undone, so chances are he wasn’t trying to steal the bike. Huh? Society has this big issue of trying to generalize, categorize, and define everything. I feel like this is one of the biggest issues in our society today. The skin color of this dude has nothing to do with the determination of his guilt! PLENTY of white folks steal stuff everyday! I was disappointed with a lot of the people that just walked by after the white guy made comments that it wasn’t his bike. Come on people!
On to the black guy trying to steal the bike. This was probably the most alarming part of the video for me. The black guy was surrounded by an entire group of white people almost immediately. It wasn’t just one person that stopped, an entire crowd gathered! Some folks stopped by the white guy and talked to him for a little, trying to figure out what he was doing, but at no point did a crowd gather. Anyway, so the crowd gathered and outnumbered the black guy almost immediately. I guess this is the part that I was most curious about. Was a crowd really necessary there? The older gentleman was going to call the police about it. Why was everyone else there if the old white guy was calling the cops? Was it because they were scared the black guy was going to try to harm him? Something to think about I guess… The whole basis of this video was pretty upsetting, and opened my eyes to the discrimination that is still all so common here.
The only bright spot I saw in the video was the fact that it was the older generations that we saw the differences in behavior from the white guy to the black guy. The older generations seem to be more prone to discriminating against others, while the younger generations seem to be more educated about discrimination. Although the video was disturbing, hope for equality and more fair treatment to all races and backgrounds is here.

Trends do show that as family income rises, the SAT scores of their children goes up. This is simply a trend shown by College Board, and is not a determining factor for anyone taking the test. Example: Bob comes from a family with a low income; therefore he WILL do poorly on the SAT. Incorrect. This is just a trend, with an obvious correlation between family income and SAT scores.
I believe the main reason why SAT scores are directly related to family income is linked to another relationship. Typically, as the level of education of a family increases, the family income rises. So, students whose parents make above average salaries typically have parents with a higher level of education. Their parents understand that education led them (or played a large part) in their monetary success. Therefore, it is more likely for these parents to stress the importance of education to their children. Their children will be more likely to succeed in school when the importance of learning is stressed at home too. I understand this is a slippery slope, but I believe it is these relationships that have the greatest impact on a student’s SAT scores.
Another reason why SAT scores are directly related to family income is that families with higher incomes typically live in more privileged areas. These families are more likely to send their children to private schools and wealthy suburban schools, like we saw in the class video Thursday. The disparity in the teaching resources between these two schools really opened my eyes to how different my education was from other students that live just an hour away. I was lucky enough to attend a great high school, located about 45 minutes from Philadelphia. I was blessed with (mostly) great teachers, incredible resources for choosing colleges and career paths, incredible athletic facilities, and a safe environment for learning. I’m sure things were much different just 45 minutes away. We were provided with SAT prep classes, and a quality education, setting us up for a successful run at the SATs. I’m assuming students in less privileged areas were not given the same resources we were to prepare for the SATs.
This leads us to discussing the ‘fairness’ of the disparity between school districts in each state. Should states equally distribute school taxes across all the school districts? If this is the case should there be a flat school tax for all residents? This is definitely a tricky subject to think about. I agree that there is definitely a disparity here and it needs to be fixed, but to what level, I’m not sure. Is it unfair for higher-income families to pay more for a quality education for their kids? Touchy subject, maybe a question will come up to discuss it.