en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2454768 Comments by ZBurke15 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/12/02/voices-from-the-classroom-85/#IDComment231944238 The American dream, in my opinion, definitely still exists. I think the American Dream will always exist as long as there is the constitution protecting the right to grow and create your own life for your self and your family. The American Dream is the fact that you can go and work as hard as you would like and earn as much as you would like. All Americans still have the opportunity to do this today. We all just need to realize that it's not an entitlement, it’s not promised, or given to you, it's something you have to work for. Countless Americans have busted their rear ends capturing their american dream. The opportunity to follow your dream, any dream, is still there, and will always be there, just as it always has. But... you have to be willing to sacrifice for it. The “American Dream” is not just going to land in your lap because you come here to America or live here in America. The “American Dream” will never be handed to you, it has to be taken. Looking back upon what I have experienced so far in my life, my life was extremely easy. I grew up in a nice house, with loving parents, friends always around, good schooling and teachers. It was the textbook childhood. I watched my parents do well in their careers and was told that if (or when) I go to college and work hard, the world is yours. That anything is possible. That as long as you put your mind to it and pushed for it and busted your back side for it, that anything was possible. That the “American Dream” was available for anyone who wanted it bad enough. There was a time when some places absolutely refused to hire African Americans. To a slight degree, this still exists in certain places. Affirmative Action was necessary only to get to ball rolling; to force those that would not hire blacks to do so. Now, Affirmative Action is no longer necessary. What was once a tool to break a social barrier has become a weapon in the hands of those that feel that their relatives were oppressed to seek some sort of vengeance or entitlement. As far as affirmative action relates to this topic, I feel that in the beginning of its existence, it helped the under privileged get considerations that they never would have before. It helped them be able to maintain their quest of the American Dream. Now, however, I feel that AA is becoming a possible burden to the idea of the American Dream. As mentioned above, I feel that I makes people feel entitled. Which detracts from everyones desire and hard work. Sat, 3 Dec 2011 02:42:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/12/02/voices-from-the-classroom-85/#IDComment231944238 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-78/#IDComment227476166 What lessons have I / we all learned from all of this? There are so many ways to go about this, so many things we can all learn from this. You can target so many lessons, so many virtues: honesty, respect, loyalty, honor, trust, being able to do the “right” thing, what to look for to get people (especially children) help with abuse, to now be careful and cautious of positions of power, to not listen to everything that your told and to be skeptical of those things, to be proactive, to take charge: the list is endless... In my young career so far here at Penn State, this is the major life lesson teaching situation that I’ve encountered. Of course there is the growing up, and balancing drinking and school, and yadda yadda yadda, but this scandal is much more immense and impact-ful than any of those other things were. Coming here, you’re expected to have honor and loyalty and pride in yourself and in your school. You’re expected to trust your fellow classmate, your teacher, your counselor, your head football coach. Through out every branch of command and every branch of friendship, these key virtues were always stressed and warranted. But this situation shakes our foundations and I thoughts toward everything. Now I can say that I learned not to trust the system (since it was a key member of one of the biggest football programs in the nation that this scandal is all around), or that I learned that you can’t always trust your peers (due to the violent riots and stupid acts that took place after the firing of our beloved Joe Paterno), or even that you can trust people in positions of power (since it was Joe and his staff that the scandal engulfed.) But instead of naming one of those things as the main thing that I’ve learned, I was to flip the script a little. I want to say that the biggest lesson I’ve learned throughout this scandal is faith. Not toward Sandusky at all, for all of the terrible things he did to those poor children, or not Joe Pa, McQueary, Spanier, or anyone else that was involved in the cover up. (I know we still don’t know we have all of the facts. I still feel Joe is completely not responsible, but we’ll see what comes out.) But faith in this establishment. Faith in our brilliant university to right itself again, and once again establish us as one of the cleanest and best universities on this planet. Right now we are in the middle of a giant mess, but by the end, as the dust clears, I have faith that we will once again be the school we once were. Sat, 26 Nov 2011 04:44:52 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-78/#IDComment227476166 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/10/voices-from-the-classroom-73/#IDComment220634868 Even since the news of allegations being re-brought up against Gary Sandusky hit the news, it has been the number one thing on the docket on every tv show, in every paper, on every radio show, on twitter, and on facebook for the past week or so now. It has been absolutely impossible for someone to open a paper or turn on the tv and not see a story that has to do with Penn State, or an update to the Penn State scandal story. And the kicker to all of the coverage is that it was all negative. Every story, every interview, every opinion was negative which lead to the quick decrease of the Penn State name, as a football team, as a community, and as a university overall. One of the major reasons why this is such a terrible story and why it spread like bonfire was because was one of the only “squeaky clean” universities left in the nation. Penn State has always been known for integrity and respect and honesty and tradition. Joe Paterno and his staff were always known to lead a team, putting those honorary aspects first. We, as a team, as a coaching staff, as a town, as a community, as a university, WE were respected by everyone. But now our slate is no longer clean. We now have to deal with all of the back lash that this great university has coming our way. And that back lash only became worse with the rioting by the students that occurred down town after the annunciation of the Joe Pa firing. As we talked about in class, we understand why the students were there, we understand because we are part of this university, this community, this town; but the other 99% of people that do not go here or do not understand what it is like here think that we are all monsters for supporting this man. And those thoughts have lead to a further decline of the view of Penn State and its students. (On a quick personal note, I was absolutely devastated. And yes, I found it unfair and over the phone to be extremely unprofessional, and still do, but taking those emotions to the street and wreaking havoc is not what this university needed AT ALL. It just continued the back lash and the jokes and taunts and lengthened the road to recovery. Also, why is McQueary still on staff!?!? But anyway...) But we need to face this all head on. We as the students of this university need to show the world that we are still worth their time, and that we stand united under our school and stand united in the fact that we are what we are, and are proud of who we are and the school we go to. We are the future... and WEstillARE Penn State. Sat, 12 Nov 2011 00:02:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/10/voices-from-the-classroom-73/#IDComment220634868 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/01/voices-from-the-classroom-60/#IDComment216996606 If I was a business owner in the America and had to make the decision between hiring illegal immigrant workers, who are willing to work for lower wages and who are willing to work where ever and whenever, in whatever conditions and during whatever hours, or hiring legal American citizen workers, who will demand more money, shorter hours, and better conditions, I’m not 100 percent sure of which I would choose. When taking each into consideration, even thought it is against the obvious and cheaper option, I would choose the American workers. I would make sure that all of my workers were legal for a few main reasons. One is that I am a man that believes in the American public as a whole and the passion our workers have behind them. We are labeled as lazy and fat, but I believe other wise. I believe we need jobs and people will take them. Our economy is in a down turn and these people with out jobs will take these menial jobs for the money. People who hire illegal immigrant workers are screwing over his or her fellow citizens by hiring an illegal because he or she is cheap and easier to manage and can be treated less respectfully. From my perspective, thats the bottom line. I don’t under stand how business owners claim that legal workers are too “expensive" in their eyes. Of course, a big part of that expense is paying a living wage, all the taxes and benefits associated with the wage, regulatory compliance costs for government, from local to federal, paying for equipment, overhead, etc. But if I was a business owner in America, I believe I could be very profitable in my business if I didn't hire illegal immigrant workers and just stuck to the all legal all American worker. Paying a "cheap" illegal is taking an opportunity away from a legal American worker and a legal business practice. It is also depriving local, state and federal government of tax revenue as well. Hiring "cheap" labor has a steep price for our society. Overall, I feel that illegal immigrants should not be hired. Taking this argument a step further, how can we stop this from happening? How can we stop business owners from making the more sensible choice of hiring illegal workers and saving money, but at the same time hurting his fellow citizens by depriving them of jobs and also depriving his government from money it deserves? Personally, I think the only thing we can do to prevent this from happening, I think we need to raise the fines and penalties for hiring illegals. Maybe the employers of illegals should look at jail time or something more severe... Just something to think about. Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:59:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/01/voices-from-the-classroom-60/#IDComment216996606 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-58/#IDComment213666639 How do you really feel about the whites of the world becoming the minority... Hmm, such a loaded question. I’ve hear many people of color say the world will be a better place without the “white” people being “in charge” of it anymore, when they become the minority. They say that white people take over everything and invented rape and murder and crime and racism. They claim we do nothing good and only bring bad into this world. I would beg to differ. When hearing these statements, I feel very hurt. I guess I feel very hurt when I hear that because, and it might not be proper to feel this way, but I guess I somewhat feel hurt because they are kind of “biting the hand that feeds them” in some sense. Being classified as an “evil” or “bad” white man, and having people not being able to wait until we are a minority is just strange and for lack of a better term hurtful to me. This may be very one sided or very naive, but wasn’t it the white man who invented electricity? And wasn’t it the white man who invented the computer? And wasn’t it the white man who invented the car, and industry as a whole? Wasn’t it the white man who has provided high standards of living and jobs and governments and laws and democracy? In my eyes, these don’t seem like such terrible things to have an evil or bad label placed upon our white race? From my view and from my perspective, it is america that has the highest standard of living? And it is america that has made them most significant growth over the past hundred or so years. And it is america that has the most steady growth year in and year out. And the fact of the matter is, who “runs” america? The white people run america? Who founded america? The white people founded america! I dont want to come off as a dick or a racism, but when people make such stupid arguments against me/ “us”, I feel the need to fire back. Sorry... Going a different route from that, white people will still be the number one majority race in the future, will they not? White people will still individually outnumber other races, the blacks, mexicans, asians, etc. To come to this conclusion that whites will be a minority in the future is a true statement, but isn’t that conclusion drawn from adding up all other races and comparing them to the whites? And people claim that it is the white people who are racist, don’t you find this stat racist in itself? Sat, 29 Oct 2011 00:47:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-58/#IDComment213666639 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/13/voices-from-the-classroom-45/#IDComment207701012 How does your race shape the way your view the world? This is such a loaded question. Even though it is a terrible thing to admit, race definitely effects how one views the world. It all starts from when you are young. The way your raised, where you were raised, what you were raised up believing in, language, everything has an effect on how you view the world. If you’re white, black, brown, whatever, and grow up in a rural, slow moving neighborhood, where everyone is friendly and nice, and education is pushed, then that greatly skews your view of the world. For kids like me, that is how we were raised. That was for awhile, all that we knew of the world, to us, that was the “world.” On the other side of the spectrum, there are the white, black, brown, whatever people who grow up in a inner city environment, your “world” view is so much different. Violence and survival are much more prevalent than the push for education and other things of that nature. Your view of the world is much different than the other view described previously. To me, the majority of how you view the “world” as a CHILD comes from where you grew up, not what race you are. As we grow, the more that race comes into the picture and shifts and shapes our view of the “world”. As we grow and progress, and see outside of our local surroundings, and grow to think and learn for ourselves, we our views of the world become much much more effected by color and race than they did when we were young children. As we move on with our lives, we see how differently people are treated, and how differently groups of race interact with one another. As we grow and learn and see and notice these things, race becomes much more prevalent in our lives. Even though these race issues should not be a huge factor in shaping our views, they definitely do, which is very very sad. As teenagers and young adults, race plays way too much of a “world” view shaper than it should. As we grow older, the race again fades to the background. They are now lost in our minds as we slowly get over of stupid teenage year preferences and ideals. Usually by this time in ones life, religion, no matter what it is plays a much more major role in ones life as well. By the time we reach old age, race is a thing of the past. In my opinion, race definitely shapes ones view of the “world” in all stages of life, but it just varies from year to year and stage by stage. Sat, 15 Oct 2011 03:55:26 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/13/voices-from-the-classroom-45/#IDComment207701012 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-22/#IDComment201550288 Over the years, many have screamed about the inequity of this system! Sadly, the disparity in the numbers continues to grow... There are going to be the comments that if the blacks and latinos didn't commit the crimes, then they wouldn't be arrested and have to be sentenced. But that is not the point. The point is, that in my mind anyway, without a doubt there are some sort of racial factors that play key roles in how we as a population view criminals and also how the justice system views criminals. This is and has been a major problem in our society throughout the past few centuries. So question really is, hmmm, what do we do about it? I think we should reduce the prison population by assuring the minority prisoners do not exceed their percentage of the general population, if Blacks represent 13% of the general population then only 13% of the prison population should be black. In order to achieve social justice we must incarcerate more whites, or release a great many minorities. This does not relieve the underlying problem of racism, so never mind, forget that suggestion. That would make it plausibly more fair, but at the same time it does not relieve racism. Hmmm, what to do? We could look inward. We could examine the sentencing record of every judge in America, if they have sentenced members of the minority community to prison in excess of their numerical population representation, then they should be looked into more throughly. If there are some facts or things that are found out and lead to the assumption of favoring one race or another, then that person could possibly be removed from their position of authority. But again, this wouldn't really solve the problem though. Hmmm what to do!? Do we punish the police if they arrest a disproportionate number of minorities in relation to their population representation? This still won't solve the problem though. Hmmm what to do? The answer is nothing. There is nothing really that we can do. We just have to hope and pray that the system is doing the best they possibly can and that at the end of the day, racism is set aside and the true criminals, no matter their race, are being sent to prison as they lawfully should be. Sat, 1 Oct 2011 01:19:23 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-22/#IDComment201550288 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/20/everyone-respond-to-this/#IDComment197820904 First things first, I personally know at least 6 kids from high school who were personally affected by the tragedy in Haiti. The stories they told me and the things they said about their family members who lived there still to this day were crazy. The hardest thing they were going through at that time was just trying to figure out if their loved ones were even still alive. All electric and communication was out, so it was basically a guessing game. Could you imagine not knowing if your loved ones/your family was alive or not? And basically all you could do was watch on the news for details and pray? Besides personal stories, we also hosted a live talk TV show from our school that was actually broadcasted on live television. It consisted of the haitian teens from our high school conversing with the older members of our local community about the tragedy to further understand its destruction and to further understand their personal ties and feelings on the situation. Through those two experiences, I experienced first hand how this massive earthquake changed the lives of these individuals forever. Branching off of that tangent I just went onto there and onto what I’m actually supposed to be discussing, the article/group/piece that I found the most interesting was the Christian partners church article. It amazes me how all of these people show up to worship in a church that only has one wall and no roof. Being brought up with a semi-strong church background, I see why and know why they continuously show up to praise and worship. You need to have faith, and keep your faith, especially in times like those. As far as how we can partner with the Christian partners church, I feel that we could effectively help them in a few ways. First and foremost, we could have a fundraiser to raise money to rebuild the church itself. A new, safe building of worship would work wonders for a group/organization like that one. We could also possibly, although it might be hard or impossible, put together some sort of mission team, or help group to send down there to help rebuild as well. Yes, I realize that that would be quite difficult, since we all have school, but maybe instead of sending Penn State students, we could possibly link up with a near by church, or someones church from back home and see if through them we could run some sort of mission group down there also. I don't really know, I’m just throwing ideas out there. I’ve just personally seen how this tragedy has affected so many lives, and it would be nice to do something helpful for them. Sat, 24 Sep 2011 03:54:31 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/20/everyone-respond-to-this/#IDComment197820904 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/07/questions-from-the-classroom-2/#IDComment191769220 When it comes to classification, there are many different ways to classify people and there are many different reasons to classify people. As stated in the video, there are many many ways to classify people. Classification in general is a very broad and indefinite topic. Classifications can be based on job, gender, race, religion, income, popularity, hobbies, etc. So when one bases decisions off of classifications, or studies classifications, which one or group of classifications do they use? Also, along with the broad range of classifications comes initial judgements as well. When one immediately feels the need to classify, they immediately judge as well. And even though we all know that this is not the proper thing to do, we are all extremely guilty of this... As far as classifying oneself, I feel that people use things that they are good at and things that are very prominent (physical appearance) to be the main things they classify them self as. As far as me classifying myself, I would say that I’m a middle classed, athletic, white male. Since sports and social standing are things that I find prominent in my life/things that are important to me/that I’m proud of, I use those things in the classification of myself. As far as other people classifying me, I feel that the white male part would definitely be apart of my classification as well, since that is a prominent feature of mine. The last question the kid in the video asks “Do you pick your own classification, or do people pick it for you?” was the most interesting comment he made. When thinking about this, I feel that you can answer either way. Looking at it from a “I pick my own classification” stand point, the individual is still basing his classifications off of other people/compared to other people. Whether it is race or gender or religion or whatever it is, you’re basing your own personal classification off of other people. Now looking at it from the “Other people choose my classification for me” stand point, again, instead of comparing yourself to them, they are just comparing you to them and the others around them. And again, it all depends on what classification you’re looking for or wanting to be classified by or classified in. To me, its a slippery slope. Do you want to classify yourself compared to others, or do you want others to classify you compared to others? It seems to me that either way classification is pretty stupid and unreliable. I see the purpose and the need for classification, but overall, the entire subject of classifying people and making lists of classifications seems to be so subjective.... Sat, 10 Sep 2011 03:32:54 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/07/questions-from-the-classroom-2/#IDComment191769220 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/01/how-do-you-feel-about-interracial-dating/#IDComment189142584 The subject of interracial dating is a very touchy one, but it is also one that seems to be very prevalent in todays society. Being a white male, I guess you could say that I’m supposed to be attracted to white females. To be honest, for the majority of the time I am, but there are still plenty of girls of other colors/races that I personally find very attractive as well. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with interracial dating at all. I feel that people who have problems with interracial dating are very surface level people. If you can’t see past race/color, then I feel that you are in a very sad state of mind. The whole purpose of dating and being in relationships has much more meaning then just what people look like on the outside, so whatever the race/color of the person you fall for, as long as they make one another happy, what difference does color make. As far as the second part of the questions, would I feel weird/awkward (however he worded it) dating someone of a difference race, my answer is no. Again, to me, relationships are much more than a surface level undertaking. As long as I find the girl attractive in all aspects (looks, personality, beliefs, etc.) then what does it matter what color/race she is? What I find really interesting about this topic is how the outlook upon the interracial dating issue seems to have under gone great change over time. Looking back to the generations before ours, Interracial dating used to be illegal. As the times progressed, interracial dating was still greatly looked down upon. It seems to get better and better over time, and when you get up to today, I feel that the younger generation (us students) find interracial dating more acceptable than even our parents do. I think that it is a great thing that interracial dating is becoming more acceptable, but at the same time, it is still very sad to see how much of the worlds population still does frown upon the issue. My final major thought on this issue is the types of people that are most commonly found to be an “issue.” Most of the discussions on interracial couples we hear about or seem to talk about the most or people find the most strange often focus on the interracial pairings between white people and someone of color. As we discuss a lot in class, being “white” is what seems to be preferred around the world. So why do the majority of the interracial dating issues come from these couples, and from what side do they come from? Form the white perspective, is it because its a perceived “down-grade” and other white people look down on you, or it is “jealousy” of the colored perspective? Or, are either of these two “perspectives” true at all!? Fri, 2 Sep 2011 21:09:56 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/01/how-do-you-feel-about-interracial-dating/#IDComment189142584 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/16/the-kill-team-tragedy-in-the-middle-east-001-blog/#IDComment145260739 I'm glad Rolling Stone has written an article like this. It's important to see people in their true light, but also to expose the ugly sides of humanity that we try so desperately to hide. We are in a war people. It isn’t always the cleanest operation that one can undergo. I am in no way supporting this effort, personally, I feel that it is an horrendous, gruesome, foolish, psychotic, act that these men accomplished. You are soldiers representing the best nation in the entire world. We are world class in everything. You cannot get yourself into stupid shit like this that ruins our nations reputation. 
After reading through all of the comments that the people left, saying that they no longer support the troops, they really need to re-think their statements. These "men", these US “soldiers”, aren't our military. We have good men over there fighting. Sociopaths like this should not shame what good they are doing. As we talked about in class, there are many many men and women who are over there doing good and helping the cause. I can’t believe that one grotesque article like this one can change peoples minds about supporting their country so quickly!? That is unbelievable to me... But for a moment, think like sam and view this situation from the opposite perspective. Again, I agree entirely that this is absolutely wrong but, it is no different than what the people over there are doing to our soldiers, our innocent men and women that are sent over there to support our country. When an American is captured alive by insurgents or the “evil” people that are over there, the US soldier is tortured and dragged around the streets and publicly dismembered by a bunch of people acting like savages. They dance all over the corpses and hang them up on city streets like some kind of victory banner. Why is it that to them it is such a good thing, but to our society it is such a horrific act. What are the major differences in our society that make these differences ok? At least our government has the decency to try to stop this kind of behavior... Sat, 23 Apr 2011 01:13:46 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/16/the-kill-team-tragedy-in-the-middle-east-001-blog/#IDComment145260739 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment143254403 The truth is that going back to war or being repeatedly exposed to the effects of war, even if not in the war zone, has the cumulative effect that produces PTSD. The Army is just now approaching the 2 year "dwell time" that was their goal, but scientific studies show that a soldier needs 3 years down time for every year of deployment, to let the symptoms subside. Many commanders in the military have a "show up, shut up, do your job" attitude for their soldiers, especially on the Reserve and Guard side. The burden of repeated deployments appears to be a contributing factor to the rising suicide rate among Army personnel. The surge in suicides, which have risen five years in a row, has become a problem for which the Army's highest levels of command have yet to find a solution, despite deploying hundreds of mental-health experts and investing millions of dollars.They are probably immensely depressed by the horrors they are facing daily. They are provided with no safe outlet for their emotional feelings and no outlet for their physical being. They probably feel they have only one viable option to escape the nightmares they face daily in their heads and in their physical environment. If faced with a daily living hell such as they endure, what would you do?   The problem with the military and the governments is that they treat soldiers like machines, that are programmed to do without question. The problem is that they are not machines, they are human. They think, feel and question everything, all the time, just like the rest of us.  The perfect soldier is one with no emotion no feeling and no remorse, but those people in reality don’t exist. The current situation is at least looking like its improving. During the previous 8 years of the Bush-Cheney administration, Veterans Mental Health services were minimal to say the least. President Obama is actively working with the Veterans Affair organizations for proper funding and support for troops suffering from PSTD. Hopefully through these improvements, we can find a solution to these horrors. Sat, 16 Apr 2011 00:00:37 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/war-vets-and-ptsd/#IDComment143254403 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141113379 As a nation, we need to move toward more “green” ways of producing and using energy. This should be our major focus in the upcoming years. It's time to begin relying less on the oil industry, and more on alternative fuels. It’s time for the US to get busy building more solar panels and solar power facilities, to build more windmills and wind power facilities, and more hydro-electric turbines and hydro-electric powered facilities. We need to forget about more oil drilling. First of all, it would take a year, maybe two, maybe even longer to get offshore drilling up and running to produce any significant amounts of oil. Secondly, onshore drilling in the areas where oil companies want to drill would be of zero benefit to the U.S. again because of the time involved in getting operations up and running and because the oil in those areas is of such poor quality that it will all be used in countries other than here. Also, as seen in the Gasland movie in class, (I know this isnt natural gas, but my guess it would be the same thing) the drilling could and probably would negatively effect the surroundings, including the people and environment. Nuclear power is done in this country too. There's no such thing as "safe nuclear power" just like there's no such thing as "clean burning coal". Both are ridiculous oxymorons that only fools would believe. As was seen in Japan, nuclear power is definitely unsafe. The negative effects that they will be feeling from those earthquakes and those nuclear reactors basically melting down will be felt for a very long time. Overall, the oil industry, even though it has a lot of money it in, and it is one of the biggest industries of todays society, needs to start being left in the past by the US. Every thing we do as a society some how relates to the usage of oil and natural gas. If we, as a nation, went green and became more efficient in all manners, we would be a much more successful in the future. Fri, 8 Apr 2011 23:19:02 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/07/4827/#IDComment141113379 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment139232826 We all dream of hitting the big one, the jackpot, the lottery, or wish that we could fall into instant riches by simply choosing the right winning lottery numbers or allowing them to be randomly generated from a computerized lottery machine onto a little piece of paper, but it has often been said that we should be very careful about what we wish for as everything comes with a price, including winning the lottery, especially when it involves winning millions of dollars. The actual chances of becoming a multimillion dollar lottery winner are astronomical to begin with, but when fate intervenes, miraculous things can happen that will forever change a person’s life, for better or worse. Even though huge winnings can change a person’s life style dramatically, it is said that if you were happy before winning a huge sum of money, then you will be happy afterwards, but if you were an extremely unhappy person to begin with, winning a multimillion dollar jackpot will change nothing except the size of your bank account. In other words the problems that you had are still lying in wait to rear their ugly head, and the lottery money only temporarily covers up the problems for a brief period.  So just imagine, You Have Won the Lottery, Now What? First, catch your breath, then immediately hire a qualified and reputable financial planner like a CPA or a CFA. Do not hesitate to ask questions and get several names of other people that they have worked within the past. Do not solely rely on your financial planner as you have to learn how to budget your own money at some point. Purchase secure bonds, and even though they don’t yield as much interest as stocks, they are a safe way to invest your money. Another option is online banking for stashing your cash. Two of the best are citibank or HSBC Direct, simply because they offer a high yield of interest to customers, and they are FDIC insured, have no hidden fees, and come highly recommended by the Wall Street Journal. So when debating whether or not winning the lottery is a good thing or not, it all depends on the one who won, and their tactics. Sat, 2 Apr 2011 00:09:27 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/28/the-lottery-as-a-blessing-or-a-curse/#IDComment139232826 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment137609869 I have read the study, which is basically a math paper rather than giving any serious attention to the sociology of religion as such. The key flawed assumption is that the so-called utility of religious affiliation is exactly the same for each citizen in a given country. That is regardless of whether they are frequent religious attenders, people who only go occasionally, or atheists. This is assumption is clearly untrue. They also assume the utility has changed in the past but will remain constant hereafter. Their model does not represent diversity. They do discuss the case of different social networks (e.g. regions, races etc.) but then they assume the same nationwide utility number applies to every group. They do not consider countries where religion is growing at a faster rate than non-religion, such as Russia and China (the logic of their approach would end up with those becoming 100% religious). They do not consider the interplay between countries where religion is growing and where it is declining. In short their model is absurdly simplistic. In New Zealand the drop in census religion is mostly among people who 
weren't particularly religious anyway (low utility) while the core attenders (high utility) have kept going. The core could be estimated as at least the 20% of New Zealanders who attend religious services at least monthly, or up to the 47% who attend at least yearly for reasons other than weddings, funerals or baptisms. I found all of this information while just doing some brief background research on this topic before i responded. Although overall census numbers have dropped, attendances are rising for some churches/religions. One example is the Methodists, one of New Zealand's bigger denominations, which had been declining for years but confounded predictions of pending extinction by growing at the last census. Similarly I think the overall census religion numbers will not go to extinction but eventually bottom out above the core numbers and start to grow again. Comparing my experiences to the info I found online, I believe that the argument I presented for New Zealand will also apply in situations that I find my community/area in as well. Sat, 26 Mar 2011 01:25:30 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/24/religion-in-the-future/#IDComment137609869 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/09/the-r-word-and-the-oblivious-others/#IDComment135969538 When walking to the commons, around campus, in downtown state college, or anywhere for that matter, one finds it almost impossible to not listen in on other peoples conversations as they pass by. The opposite is also true. As people pass by you, they are more likely than not, going to listen in on your conversation as well. When overhearing these conversations, one of the easiest and most common things one tends to notice is the use of slang. In modern society, there are an abundance of words that take on additional meanings over time. These alternate or “slang” meanings are what cause these normal everyday words to be used incorrectly. When thinking about everyday “slang” terms that are very commonly used in today’s society, I feel that the best example of incorrect usage is the word “retard”. The word retard is defined as: a holding back or a slowing down; cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate. An example of the usage of “retard” by the previous definition is as follows: “This drug will retard your heart rate.” The word “retard” is also defined as: slow the growth or development of. An example of this specific definition is: "The brain damage will retard the child's language development.” The final definition, the more common, incorrect manner that the word “retard” is used in is defined as: word used to describe/label a person, place, or thing as stupid, dumb, incompetent, etc. An example of the “slang” usage of the word “retard” is as follows: “This class is so boring. The information we learn is so retarded.” There is a clear difference between the three main usages of the word. The first definition of the word “retard”, a slowing down (in terms of speed), is a proper term and has no repercussions when used. The second definition of the word “retard”, to slow (in terms of growth or development), is also a very proper term. This definition is most commonly seen in describing those who have mental retardations (intellectual disabilities). This term is slowly being replaced by new words like special or challenged, but as of right now, mentally retarded is still the politically correct term. When using the word “retard” in this manner, there are usually no repercussions as well. The same cannot be said about the third definition of “retard”. When using the word “retard” incorrectly, the term is a much different story. The incorrect use of the word “retard” can be found every offensive to those who have disabilities, to those who suffer from mental retardations. To the normal everyday person, using the word “retard” is very easy and simple and only carries surface level meaning. In the case of the person with the intellectual disability or mental retardation, they find this word to be extremely offensive. The word “retard” to them is very hurtful and and very demeaning. Overall, the word “retard” can be perceived in many different ways. I believe that the “slang” reference to the word “retard” should not be used in everyday conversation. It is very ignorant of the people who throw this word around meaninglessly, when in fact, the word can have an extremely negative/hurtful effect on others. One should not think about him/herself, but should think about the “people passing by”, and care about their thoughts and feelings as well. Sat, 19 Mar 2011 03:28:37 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/09/the-r-word-and-the-oblivious-others/#IDComment135969538 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-much-government-do-we-need/#IDComment128937392 I'm a Republican and I disagree with Bachman on this. Anything we can do to help new mothers to breast feed is good. They are not being forced to do it as Bachman would have you believe. Rather, we are allowing them to deduct the cost associated with it from their taxes. Isn't that a Republican idea? Allowing us to keep more of our own money? Why would this be any different? Science has proven that breast feeding babies is very advantageous. These advantages affect both the mother and the child. Breast milk is the perfect food for the baby, with numerous advantages over formulas, especially in the first four months or so of life. The major advantages are as follows, it is always available, it is free, it contains active infection-fighting white blood cells and natural chemicals that give increased protection against infections, it contains the perfect proportion of nutrients that your baby needs, including protein, carbohydrates, fat, and calcium, it is easily digestible, it may protect against allergies and asthma in the future, it may decrease a baby's risk of obesity in the future.Many medical professionals feel as if breastfeeding is the right choice of nutrition for newborns. This is because of the fact that milk that comes from the breasts contains a high level of nutrients, vitamins, and other essentials that are beneficial to the health. Breastfeeding can also help new mothers lose weight more easily, which is very efficient and helps with self-esteem as well. So why not take advantage of this and help people out? With those previous ideas in place, we now need to get those new mothers to eat better themselves. It is not enough to just breast feed . If the mother is feasting on McDonald's everyday, or smoking two packs a day, or sucking on their own "bottle", then breast feeding becomes less valuable. The mother needs to have a healthy diet so that will get passed on to the child. So in conclusion, I feel that the overall argument for increased breast feeding is a good thing, but in order for it to be a good thing, the mothers have to do their part as well. Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:51:27 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/17/how-much-government-do-we-need/#IDComment128937392 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/04/the-not-so-invisible-structure-that-shapes-us/#IDComment127437325 I think that most of the reasons have been well represented: Work, culture, money. What I think wasn't very well represented was the sheer size of the country. In fact it takes at least 6:30 of uninterrupted flight time to get from say Boston to Paris, from two rather close points on the edge of the respective continents. You'd have to travel from Hawaii to NYC to cover that. Or Anchorage to El Paso. So size is not all. Yes, it's big but it's not that big. The problem is that it is insular. There are two huge oceans and two other big countries. So the US only has two neighbors. And it's not easy to even get to know more than that. One of the neighbors is on top of it culturally quite similar and in terms of landscape and such, too. So they are living on a huge beautiful island in relative comfort. Going anywhere else is difficult and scary. Difficult because it's far and scary because they don't know anything else. So they don't even know if they would find it interesting. Thus the risk is great. High cost, uncertain outcome. While it is not surprising that Americans don't do much international travel, there is not much merit in Europeans doing it more. We are almost forced to do so.If I want to go from Germany to Spain, it's hardly two hours by plane. By car I'd have to cross France. Those are three countries with completely different languages and cultures. You can't even do that anywhere on the North American continent. If you go from Canada to Mexico, the differences won't be as significant. IN Europe they grow up with those differences. They're thrown into it, whether they want it or not. It's not insular and there is much more diversity on much smaller surface. Well, about 500M people on a surface that is just a bit bigger than that of the US but divided into a good 25 countries with easily 18-20 languages, cultures and histories. So for us, to travel internationally is almost a must. We can't avoid it. The question should be how many Europeans travel intercontinentally. That will be much less. Perhaps even less than in America. Why? Why would we? All the diversity is right there, easy to reach. There is perhaps a little less landscape diversity but much more cultural diversity. But for your ordinary European going to America is just as much a dream as for the ordinary American going to Europe. Sat, 12 Feb 2011 00:21:10 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/04/the-not-so-invisible-structure-that-shapes-us/#IDComment127437325 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment126051231 The problem with teen pregnancies is not for a lack of sex education today as that is taught in schools and readily available through numerous other sources in addition to being taught in the home. The problem is that society, especially the entertainment industry, has made it acceptable for single mothers to have children. The government is also complicit by acting as substitute husbands/fathers when welfare payments increase for each child born to a single mother. Unfortunately, the children and mother are likely doomed to poverty as a result of teen pregnancies. And without a suitable role models for the either the boys or girls when born to single mothers the cycle will perpetuate. The high rate of children born out of wedlock is especially high among the hispanic and black population but the white population is rapidly increasing as well. Until this epidemic of babies born out of wedlock decreases, the economic burden on society to provide for them will continue to add to our national deficit. The best solution is "tough love" to stop basing welfare payments on the number of children a mother has and less acceptance and encouragement by society to have children before marriage. But alas, that is not politically correct today. Personally, in my life and experiences, it really is not difficult to be smart about these kind of things. Wether it is in this case sex, or in other cases drugs and alcohol, they are things that are definitely both either avoidable or controllable. As I said earlier, the problem has nothing to do with the education, it is all a social flaw. With shows like teen mom and things like that, it makes getting pregnant seem “cool” and makes gullible teens think that it is a way to bring you fame or make you more popular. In the real world, it is not like that at all. It makes people look down upon you while at the same time it ruins your life. Overall I believe the solution to this needs to be a change in society. Not as far as taking those shows off air or what not, but to have society add the realities of these mistakes into the education process. Sat, 5 Feb 2011 01:59:08 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/23/how-free-are-these-90-students/#IDComment126051231 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/15/blog-1-freedom-and-toddlers-in-tiaras/#IDComment124456689 Personally, I kind of don’t feel like toddlers in tiaras is that horrible of a concept on the surface level. Seeing the show, it is actually some what entertaining. But when you actually look deeper at the choices that are being made (or forced onto the children) and looking at the sociological factors come into play, the show seems that it could take on a much different meanings and cause much different reactions. Lets first look at the lessons that are being taught to these little girls by their mothers and these pageants. In my opinion, it just seems improper to teach these girls that everything is about looks. They have to be slim and in shape, be golden tan, perfect teeth, and pile on make up to be the “perfect girl”, almost a barbie image. Kids are kids. You should just let them be. They are perfect in their own way. It seems to me that the mothers are imposing their wills and insecurities onto these little girls to fulfill some social satisfaction that they need/missed out up as a kid, teen, or adult. It just seems so wrong to be teaching these little girls that life is all about looks and being beautiful, and to accomplish this, it is mostly through superficial additives. Do you want your 2- 3 year old daughter growing up thinking that she needs make up to be beautiful? Or she needs to be beautiful to be liked and or fit in? Or that the fake make up covered girl is better than the real her? I think that the pressure that is being placed on these little girls is unfair. Let kids be kids. Let them be innocent an immature. Dont force them to grow up faster than is necessary. Aside from those all of the issues that I mentioned above (since this article was posted last week and I want to relate my response some what to this weeks lessons), I want to view this show from a far fetched, but possible stand point. Today in class we were talking about pedophiles and secret sexual fantasies with kids in your mind. Here’s a quick ending thought, can’t this show, with these little girls acting way above their age and being “seductive”, provoke more of these thoughts or tempt the people who have these thoughts to act out? Sat, 29 Jan 2011 02:23:16 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/01/15/blog-1-freedom-and-toddlers-in-tiaras/#IDComment124456689