en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/761317 Comments by aawonc https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/south-park-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment70588296 I think that this situation is pretty ridiculous. I really do not understand the Muslim's groups calling for the death of the creators of South Park. Its funny that they not only call for the death of the creators, but they also say that they hope that the creators burn in hell. Well, maybe these Muslims are the ones who should burn in hell. After all, they are calling for people to be killed. These people only undermine themselves by making outrageous statements like this. Its too bad that they cannot look in the mirror and see that they are really the bad ones in this situation. The writers of South Park attempt to point out things that are ridiculous in the world and poke fun at people, especially those who are overly sensitive. Many people have gotten upset at their depiction in South Park episodes but it is not necessary every threaten some one's life. It is also important to note that no one has every threatened to kill the writers of South Park because of how they were depicted. So why have Muslims constantly had image problems with people who thought they were overly radical? Its situations like this where the radicals overreact and threaten to kill. This is a cartoon, not anything that has to deal with real life. Who could possibly get this angry over an off the wall television show? Although these people make me really angry, I guess that I can look at it from their point of view and see why they could be angry. I do not at all agree with killing the creators of South Park, but I can understand their anger. Some people really have a deep belief in things whether it just be opinions or if it is faith. If someone has a deep belief that their religious idol can never be depicted as a cartoon. People who are deeply rooted in their beliefs have a reason to be angry about the South Park creators depicting him as a cartoon if it is truly what they believe in. Maybe it is important that I live in the United States and that I understand what South Park is really like. I guess that I can see that everything is a joke and I have seen the show many times and I know what the writers' goals are. From afar, it may seem like the writers' of South Park are attacking the Muslim community and the show may seem dangerous. But at some point these people need to open up to the modern world and accept that people have the right to say and do what they want. So hopefully, the Muslims who are angry about this situation recognize that this is a joke and change their opinions on South Park and its creators. Mon, 26 Apr 2010 00:54:36 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/south-park-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment70588296 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68726161 Sam made me think about the war in Iraq and Muslims in a very different way. Once he presented the argument from the Muslim perspective, I can understand why they would be angry. I also understand how they probably see us exactly as we see them. When they see images of United States humvees running cars off the road, tanks running over cars, and soldiers shooting civilians, I am sure that they quickly form opinions about the United States. The Iraqi and Afghani media surely run the more provocative images to not only sway peoples' opinions about the United States, but also just to gain viewers. In a way, they are the exact same as the United States. U.S. media outlets run similar images in print or on the television, in which we see Muslim extremists blowing up cars or murdering innocent people. The media here does this to back the war and to attract more viewers. But we do not see the majority of the Muslims, the ones who just want peace; the ones who are just like us. Unfortunately their images and views are blocked by extremists. They are just like us. Behind the images of rogue soldiers at Abu Ghraib is a nation of Americans who find their actions horrific. We know that they are simply a rare occurrence, but the Muslim world does not know this. We think that they do, but in reality they see us just like we see them; as a bunch of immoral, heartless Muslims. I do not disagree with the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, and I am sure that many Muslims are just like me and agree with fighting against the United States. Meanwhile, there are probably man Iraqis and Afghanis who just want peace, like many Americans. In reading some other peoples' posts, I find it funny how people are offended by what Sam says. There is no reason to be offended, he is just trying to get you to think about someone else's perspective. The writer of the first post complains that this is not a "Christian Invasion." From our point of view the writer is correct, but from the Muslim point of view, it is a Christian Invasion. We think we are fighting a good cause against the Muslims who want to kill us. They see exactly the opposite. They are just trying to protect themselves from Christians. So really, if you are open-minded about this whole war, it is evident that this is just as much a Christian war as it is a Muslim war. We are the same as the Muslims, just that our roles are reversed. In words only are we different from each other. Sun, 18 Apr 2010 18:11:37 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/christian-invaders-the-turnaround__trashed/#IDComment68726161 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/want-to-learn-chinese__trashed/#IDComment67347005 I think that to a certain extent is important that children continue to learn a foreign language. Learning a foreign language really opens up your eyes to a foreign culture and sometimes spurs a unique interest in a country and its people. I don't really think it is important to constantly think money, money, money when learning a foreign language. It is ridiculous to criticize someone for learning Portuguese instead of Chinese because Chinese will drive the market place in the future. Lesser used languages are still important. Maybe a person who learns Portuguese will develop an interest in Brazil, Portugal, or Spain and decide that they would like to study or even work in one of those countries. Learning a foreign language, whether it is widely used or not is important especially in today's globalized world. A person will do fine knowing English and Portuguese rather than English and Spanish or English and Chinese. I don't think that people should be forced into languages that they are not interested in. If someone doesn't want to learn Spanish or Chinese, there is nothing wrong with that. It just shows that the person is interested in things bigger than money. Basically, it is important for someone to learn a language they want to and will enjoy learning. This is the only way that a student will get the most out of his foreign language experiment. The interest in a language is what drives the student to listen to the teacher and soak in the information rather than it just flowing through his head. You remember things you care about and enjoy, but typically forget the boring stuff. With that said, a foreign language class it what a person makes it. In this blog, Sam says that students typically don't learn a language in four years and they we shouldn't waste our time. He's right, most people typically do not learn a foreign language in four years. But this is not because it is impossible or anything like that. It's because students have no interest in the subject. People excel at things they enjoy. Granted you cannot become fluent in a language in four years of high school but you can learn a lot. In high school, I took German. I actually enjoyed the class and I listened during class and did the homework. In those four years I learned a lot. I can read books and articles written in German and I am sure that if I needed to, I could survive in a country that speaks only German. I learned because I was interested and I'm sure that there are a few other people that do the same. Thus, it should not be about learning a language that will make you money or the language that everyone else takes. You should take a language that interests you and then you will succeed. Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:52:26 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/want-to-learn-chinese__trashed/#IDComment67347005 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment64760696 I think that this article is kind of funny because, it talks about the white minority now. Just because whites will soon make up less than fifty percent of the population doesn't mean that they are in the minority. Whites still make up a higher percentage of the population than other races. For example, if armadillos make up forty percent of the animal population, kangaroos make up thirty percent, koalas make up twenty percent, and groundhogs make up ten percent, then are armadillos in the minority? They make up the highest percentage of animals, yet comprise under fifty percent of the population. Thus, when whites make up less than fifty percent of the population they will not be in the minority because they will still make up a higher percentage of the population than every other race. However, I do no think that it is ridiculous for the article to be written about this topic because in some ways, it represents a milestone in United States history. I think that it will be much more interesting when the white population is passed by the Hispanic population and whites are truly in the minority. I think at that point, many white people will be somewhat disappointed that they are no long in the majority. I do not think that they will be disappointed because they are supremacists or selfish or anything like that, but anyone who is always in the majority, or always winning, would hate to see that slip away. Do I really think that whites losing the majority will have a major political and social effect on the United States? No, I don't. Whites make up the overwhelming majority of government. Essentially, the ratios of whites to white politicians and minorities to minority politicians are not equal. Although the ratios may converge in the next four decades, I do not think that whites will soon give up their dominance of the government. Government is largely made up of men who have done well in politics due to their relationships and connections with other people who are typically in politics. Due to the white stranglehold on politics, it will be tough for minorities to break through. In addition, politicians generally need a lot of money to get where they are. Whites hold a lot of per capita wealth, while minorities, especially blacks and hispanics, lag far behind. Many hispanics struggle in America and it will be difficult for them to ascend quickly to obtain a majority in the government. Thus, I doubt that an overwhelming number of hispanics will be able to overtake whites in state or national government. Unless Hispanics are able to overtake the white majority in government, there will not be a whole lot of change in 2050 when whites become the minority. Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:54:37 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/the-white-minorities__trashed/#IDComment64760696 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-are-all-of-you-thinking-about-asians__trashed/#IDComment64281135 This was one of the more interesting topics brought up in class because it was something that I never thought about but overall its very true. Whenever there is a minority in the group, I typically don't identify him or her as the Asian, the black, the Indian, etcetera. So to answer your question, I see you the same as I would any other black or brown people. To answer your question to a greater degree, I can discuss my relation with my friends. The majority of my friends now are white, but I am still friends with some black and brown people. Whenever I need to describe the Asian person to someone, I typically don't identify them by their name, but rather I identify them as "the Asian kid." Yet, when I'm describing one of my white friends, I don't identify him as "the white kid;" i just identify by his name. So I would definitely say that what Sam said is very accurate. I don't, however, see this at all as a racist thing. Sometimes, it can come over as a race issue depending on the context in which it is used. If you say the Asian made a stupid comment today, or some woman cut me off on the highway, it seems like a race or gender issue. Yet, I see it more as a key identifier. In an area where white people are the majority, saying that the white person is bad at baseball does not mean much. People don't see this as a race issue because white is the majority. In addition, you cannot identify a white person by simply describing their skin color. It simply means nothing when you have a bunch of white people. Its like watching a basketball game and the announcer saying that the basketball player is really good. Which one? They are all basketball players. Its like white people. Everyone is white so you cannot differentiate between them. You must also describe their color hair, their height, or what they are wearing. Just like when an announcer identifies a basketball player, he can describe him with his jersey color or number. In order to more fully answer your question I can also point out situations in which I am the minority. I am Mexican, yet it is almost impossible to tell by looking at me. However, my cousins are much more Mexican looking than I am. When I am with my cousins and their friends, I'm seen as the minority in their group. They would describe me as the white person. However, I would not describe one of my cousins or their friends as "the Mexican kid" because that phrase does not contain any key identifiers. Thus, I feel like it would be erroneous to describe this as a race issue, and it would be more insightful to describe skin color or race as a key identifying characteristic, especially when the person is in the minority. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:41:59 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/what-are-all-of-you-thinking-about-asians__trashed/#IDComment64281135 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment62516427 For the most part I'm really surprised that something like this happened in 2010. If something like this had happened even in the eighties, I would not have been surprised, but now? There is a part of me that isn't completely surprised, as this occurred in a deep south school, which typically are a little behind on the times. The thing that really surprises me is that this discrimination occurred in a public, not a private school. I cannot believe that the school board actually thought they would get away with such blatant discrimination. Perhaps the school thought that canceling the prom completely as opposed to just banning the girl would justify their decision. There are a variety of other things that really surprised me about this situation. The first of which is that the school actually went through with their decision to call off the prom. I thought that once the school received pressure from the ACLU and the media, they would reverse their decision. Canceling a once in a lifetime event for high school seniors due to one student is kind of sad. These students will never have a chance to get back their prom. Although the school may think that it is legally doing itself a favor by canceling the entire prom and not just barring the girl and her partner entry. However, I think that they will only get in more trouble because of it. They just anger all of the other students' and their parents and stand to face a great degree of backlash. Perhaps even worse is that the school suggested that a private citizens will organize a prom. They are asking people to shell out their own money and resources to basically have a party for a bunch of high school kids. Why would a private citizen have a party for high school kids. They don't really have incentive to have the party; the only possibility is that kids will do something to get the person in trouble. In addition, they are asking the person to put aside their personal beliefs when the school cannot. I'm sure that private citizens do not agree with many things that high school kids do, so why should they pay for a prom for these kids. The school is also promoting discrimination to its students whether it wants to recognize that or not. Not only is it demonstrating to students that it is okay to exclude gays and lesbians. In addition, students are sure to be angry at the girl and this will probably encourage them to discriminate against lesbians in the future. I hope that this school is sued successfully by the ACLU and that whoever made this decision is barred from holding any public position ever again. Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:53:50 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/prom-or-no-prom-just-dont-let-the-queer-students-dance-together__trashed/#IDComment62516427 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/whats-with-the-theme-parties__trashed/#IDComment61618271 I'm sorry, but I would like to start off by saying this has to be one of the more ignorant questions I have ever seen. To be honest with you, I think this girl is seeing everything in black and white, whether she thinks so or not. I have never thought of the fact that only white people hold themed parties, and I am sure that this is a ridiculous claim. Second of all, I have yet to attend a themed party aimed at stereotypes aimed toward black people. I am not sure if this girl has ever attended a theme party before because here question is so off target and so outrageous. In fact, she is the one inciting racism: she is making a race issue out of something that never involved race in the first place. This is what really angers me. Someone who seems to have limited knowledge about a subject wants to turn this into its the world against me, and they are making fun of me. I don't want this to sound racist, but I'm sure to some it may seem racist... Why does it always seem like black people want to turn every issue into a race issue? I see it constantly played out by people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. To be honest, they are stupid. If they want true equality and people not to see things in black and white then they would stop turning everything into a race issue and manufacturing racism in every piece of fabric in society then there could be a chance that people won't see things in black and white. But as soon as you turn something into a race issue, you eliminate this chance. Not only are you turning things into black and white, you make black and white people angry at each other. The black people typically side with Jackson and Sharpton and get angry at white people. Meanwhile, most white people cannot believe that Jackson and Sharpton make such ridiculous claims and get angry at the black community. So who are the ones that cause racism? Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and people who make comments like this who have slanted views on the world. But you probably are right, so I will list a few of the "racist" theme parties I have been to and point out how racist they are. Let's start off with the simple highlighter party. Everyone wears a white shirt. That's really racist. Why can't all color just be equal? Wait, its because highlighter only shows up on a white background. What about 80s parties, they're pretty racist. People wear bright, flamboyant colors. That's something black people would never do. How about golf pros and tennis hoes parties? Are we offending black people because only rich white people play those sports? Last time I checked, golf is dominated by Tiger Woods, while Serena and Venus Williams dominate women's tennis. I think those people are black. Oh yea, all those Jersey Shore parties. I hope I'm not offending my black friends with their blowouts and their fake tans. I could keep going, pointing how how racist these white people are with their themed parties, but I don't have time so I figured I would just point out the real racist in the United States..... P. Diddy. He has his annual White Party. Hundreds of a-list celebrities attend, but can only wear white. If they even have black shoes or a gold necklace, they are not allowed in. So next time you post a question, ask why Sean Combs is so racist. Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:23:50 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/whats-with-the-theme-parties__trashed/#IDComment61618271 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment59155438 I think that in some ways the oil boom on the Three Affiliated Tribes' land is a good thing. One of the primary reasons that I am happy for the Indians is the whole irony of the situation. After the United States persecuted, killed, controlled, and oppressed Indians and their tribes, it is kind of funny that three Indian tribes are no practically sitting on a gold mine. I'm sure that when the United States government moved the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara tribes in the mid 1800s, they probably moved them to land that was cheap, and that they thought was infertile or incapable of exploiting. However, this proved to be a huge mistake and now that a huge oil reserve has been discovered, some Native Americans will be earning millions of dollars. Even more ironic is that fact that the Indians will be selling their oil to the United States government and the white settlers that exploited them. Perhaps the most troubling thing for the United States' government is that while the Indians rake in millions, or even billions of dollars, they will be receiving government transfer payments and tax breaks and exemptions. I am hoping that the Indians are able to successfully turn this oil reserve into a booming business because it will, at least for these three tribes, give hope to Indians. At the same time, I also hope that the Indians will be responsible with their new found wealth. It is well documented that many Indians who live on reservations are not well educated. In addition, most Indians have lived their lives in poverty and have never experienced wealth and a sudden deluge of money flowing into their pockets. I wonder if they will be able to responsibly invest, allocate and spend their money. In the article, one person is cited as saying that it is easy to spot the residents with a new found wealth because they are driving expensive cars. In addition, profits by sixty percent. Obviously, this is not a promising sign as someone who has just started to receive a regular salary should not celebrate by purchasing expensive cars. Whether the Native Americans spend their money responsibly or not, I do hope, and think, that this money will help advance their society and better their education system and suicide rates. While I do hope that the Indians do succeed, I question their ethics. I thought that the Indians were all about the land and nature and purity. However, as they begin to drill for oil, they are exploiting the land. I am not well briefed in Indian values, so it may be irresponsible of me to comment on this, but I feel like drilling for oil is something that may go against Indian values. However, in today's world everything is about money, and most Native Americans live in poverty, so I cannot fault them. Ultimately, I hope that the Native Americans are able to live a better life as a result of the discovery of the oil. Mon, 1 Mar 2010 02:10:05 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/1880__trashed/#IDComment59155438 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/who-could-compete-with-this-woman-on-a-level-playing-field__trashed/#IDComment58586650 This is a pretty cool story, in the fact that not very many people in Haiti do not have enough education to even think about a business similar to this. In addition, it can be quite tough to start a business like this when you do not have a working model to work off of. However, I do not think that we can glorify this woman to the point that we idolize her. After all, many other people have have similar stories like this. In fact, I feel that it could be even harder to come from a poor background in the United States and be a good business person. A person in the United States who founds a successful company will, granted, make exponentially more money than this woman does, however, he or she will also face much greater barriers of entry into the market. A poor person in the United States is behind rich people from the start. Often, the poor receive an inferior education. High schools attended by the inner city poor are often underfunded and students are not afforded a vibrant array of activities and opportunities. When poor students graduate high school, many cannot afford college or must stay home to support their family. The few that are lucky enough to afford college often must attend a local community college and work while taking classes. The Haitian woman, meanwhile, is on an even playing field with everyone else. No one has money or an education. If a poor man is able to overcome these barriers, he still faces many more. A college education often leads to a decent-paying job, however, it provides little insight into actually building a business in the real economy. An entrepreneur who wishes to start his own business often must have a spectacular new business model or creative new idea in order to have a chance to succeed. He cannot establish a company similar to the behemoths that already exist; his company would be crushed instantly. If he is able to formulate an enterprising idea, he must acquire investors to create his company. Even with investors, funds often fall short, and startups fail. If a company makes it through these initial barriers, it must successfully advertise and convince a national audience that it is better than the trusted mega companies who spend millions on advertising campaigns backed by celebrity sponsors. Through this process, the entrepreneur must higher trust worthy workers, and navigate the tangled web of legal barriers and regulations thrown up by the government. So now I return to this Haitian woman. Is her story impressive. Yes, it is. But thousands of people like her do this every day with equivalent or greater barriers. There are many examples including Sheldon Adelson, Li Ka-Shing, Roman Abramovich, and Francois Pinault. This woman has presumably done this for years, but has never received any attention. However, an earthquake that devastated her country enabled us to hear her story. The fact is that around the world, thousands of people are doing this day in and day out, but we do not hear about it. Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:29:14 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/who-could-compete-with-this-woman-on-a-level-playing-field__trashed/#IDComment58586650 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/men-and-women-were-really-this-different__trashed/#IDComment56868677 When I first started reading this blog, I wasn't at all sure what Roxxxy was or that technology had even come this far. With that said, I think it is interesting to examine the male versus female dynamic of this twenty four - seven - three sixty five prostitute. I'm sure that to almost anyone it is not surprising that the first sex robot is female. After all, men are the ones that are constantly seeking sex. If there were a statistic about the male, female breakdown of who watches porn, it would probably be a ninety/ten split with the overwhelming majority of porn viewers being men. After all, if the sex industry thought that a substantial demographic of porn watchers was women, they probably wouldn't have put Ron Jeremy in any films. You do not often hear of women going to clinics to get help for an addiction to sex. It is much more common for males to develop a sex addiction (eg. Tiger Woods and Steve Phillips). Another interesting point of view could be that all men have a sex addiction. Perhaps some men are just able to control their sexual urges better than others. At first glance, I didn't really think there would be much of market for a sex robot. After all, I would think that every man would rather have sex with a real woman, and every guy, no matter how different, should be able to find a woman who likes him. I found it almost comical when the man said that there is "a tremendous need for this product" as though it were a necessary part of life, just like water. I wondered how there could really be a need. Like who really "needs" this? Can some guy just not survive without a sex robot? I doubt it. But not only is there just a need, the need is tremendous. But I thought, well this guy is just trying to pump some hot air into his product; of course he cannot say that no one will want it. But as I read further in the article, there were statistics that proved that Douglas Hines was indeed correct, there is a need, or at least an extraordinary want. According to the article, four thousand men have already pre-ordered Roxxxy and a whopping twenty thousand have requested information. I really wonder tho these men are. In order to pay up to nine thousand dollars for a sex robot, you must really be desperate and extremely lonely. Another reason that I do not believe that there would be a large demand from women for a similar product is simply that every woman can certainly find a man. If there are at least twenty four thousand men bold enough and lonely enough to want a sex robot, they would surely have sex with any woman that crossed their path. Thus, I doubt that there are that many lonely women willing to spend thousands of dollars for a male sex robot. Mon, 15 Feb 2010 02:47:48 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/men-and-women-were-really-this-different__trashed/#IDComment56868677 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment56088173 Although many people may think this man's comments are outrageous and insensitive, I kind of agree with his point of view and I do not fault him for saying what he said. To start, I will mention that I cannot fault him for his statement. It makes me laugh how people are so sensitive. The man is simply trying to put his statement into a simple form, to compare it to something else. There may not be any analogy that he could use to talk about people on welfare that paints them as great people. What do you suggest he compare them to. Even if he compared people on welfare to poor people, I'm sure that people would have gotten angry. The only way people would have been happy was if he compared them to a mixture of Bill Gates and Ghandi. Obviously, this analogy would be inaccurate. Unfortunately, in a world with weak and overly sensitive people who only want to create controversy, people cannot state the truth. Instead, people would rather make false claims that makes everyone feel all happy. Everyone's a winner a camp America! This is too bad because today's children will only grow up to be more sensitive. Even people like Sam Richards may not be able to speak their minds in the future because of America's coddling. As a politician it is necessary to step up and say what you feel, and Bauer stepped up. Many politicians hide behind vague answers and political correctness in an attempt to appeal to everyone. However, this is not possible and hopefully more straight shooters like Bauer express their true feelings. In addition, he should not feel sorry; he said what he thought. And really, he probably is not sorry for his belief, he is sorry that he ruined his chances of being elected. With that said, I agree with Andre Bauer. I think we need to continue to give them benefits, but not unsupervised. Many people that receive welfare are not actively seeking jobs. Bauer points out that these people are not contributing to society, and people who make their living off the government should not receive welfare. In addition, many welfare recipients use their welfare checks to buy drugs. I think Bauer was simply angry about the fact that people claim they need "help." But if they are buying drugs they do not need any help. Bauer also mentions the fact that people on welfare are having children, and you point out that many people on welfare are children. If people on welfare stop having children then there will be less people on welfare. Those with low incomes or with no income at all need to stop and realize that if they cannot afford to support themselves, they should not have children. It is truly a simple concept and I feel that it was important that someone finally stepped up and said something. Bauer will probably lose the election in part because of his controversial comments, but I feel that his bold statement will improve some people's views of him. Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:14:03 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/animals-vs-humans-vs-welfare-cheats__trashed/#IDComment56088173 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/voters-and-their-senseless-stories__trashed/#IDComment54947607 The overall theme of the article, that voters are largely uneducated, is true for a large segment of the United States. Thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of Americans, voted for Barack Obama because he was black. A large majority of his supporters could not even identify his political platform from John McCain's. However, his race and charisma carried him to victory. In addition, his party affiliation assisted as well. Liberals are known for supporting the little man, the underprivileged man, and blacks are the most recognized minority group in the United States. It was almost unthinkable that any Democrat could vote against his party affiliation in such a monumental moment, no matter how leftist Obama's agenda was. Obama rode the wave of momentum that he garnered through race. I knew a girl who had a Barack Obama poster in her room, and she asked me if his first or last name was Obama. I would assume that she voted for Barack if she had the poster. So why did she not know his name? This election was the epitome of wreck-less voting, as thousands turned out in order to simply be part of a monumental moment in history. I understand that Americans want to see the underdog succeed, as our country was started by the underdog, but at what cost did we do this? I will admit that I thought it would be cool to be able to say that I voted for the first black president in United States history, but I could not vote for Obama because of his platform. Barack Obama, and the fact that 2008 was a presidential election year, were the reasons for the excessive turnout of uneducated voters in 2008, however, in the majority of elections voters are somewhat educated. Often, the country gets caught up in the uneducated because they are funny. The media exploits their lack of knowledge and draws in viewers and creates a good story. Everyone enjoys these clips, but they do not represent the voting base on a whole. In the majority of elections, voters are well educated. Presidential elections occur every four years, but there are elections for other positions every year. With the exception of voters who vote simply because they have a personal connection with a candidate, the majority of voters in annual elections are well-informed. In addition to these voters, a there is a faction of voters who take up the initiative to educate themselves on the presidential candidates every four years. Thus, there are many educated voters, and they should not be forgotten. With that said, I want to touch on the topic of conservatives not listening to liberals. This is absolutely true that conservatives probably are not listening to liberals, and vice versa. Liberals have great ideas for a grandiose society, however, they often come with major consequences. I often say that liberals are idealistic, while conservatives are realistic. If the ideas presented by liberals could be easily implemented without consequence, everyone would be a Democrat. However, it is simply impossible. Take for example an extreme liberal idea such a communism. In theory, it is an excellent idea, and on paper it seems flawless. But, when it is implemented there are thousands of flaws. This is similar to public housing projects and raising minimum wage. Raising minimum wage is nice for those who can find or keep their jobs. However, it increases a company's cost and forces them to lay off people, creating unemployment. Republicans' ideas may not seem ideal, but that is because they are not. However, they often work well; not perfectly but well. It is due to this theory that I believe that liberals make up the majority of uneducated voters. They often just look at the facade; they do not dig deeper and see consequences. I hope that people don't think that I mean that all liberals are uneducated because some of the smartest people are liberal. I am, however, saying that the majority of uneducated voters agree with liberal ideas. Tue, 2 Feb 2010 02:54:22 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/voters-and-their-senseless-stories__trashed/#IDComment54947607 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/i-guess-it-pays-to-learn-a-bit-about-other-people__trashed/#IDComment54140416 Its crazy how often flights have been diverted in the past year or so. On one hand, I kind of wish people just wouldn't always feel threatened and unsafe every time they fly, but unfortunately the world we live in does not permit that. Unfortunately, in any situation similar to this, it is smart to err on the side of caution. Although I do feel bad for the boy, I really do not find that the flight attendant or pilot did anything wrong or acted inappropriately. It is simply amazing how much the world has changed and these changes are evident in the peoples' reactions towards this event. Had a plane been diverted due to a boy praying prior to September 11th, news channels would have been all over the event and probably would have harped on freedom of expression for days. I'm sure MSNBC anchors would have blasted the pilot and flight attendant, and the airlines may have suspended them. The ACLU probably would have filed a lawsuit on behalf of the boy alleging civil rights violations. However, I believe that the fact the the boy was Jewish has something to do with the limited reaction. Had a Middle Eastern man been pulled off of the plane for suspicious activity, this situation would have received a lot more media coverage. The media probably would have supported the actions of the flight attendant by calling them precautionary. Nevertheless, the situation would have been blown up by the media. Similarly, a situation involving a black man would have caused unthinkable amounts of controversy. The ACLU would have taken up a case and cause a major uproar. Al Sharpton would have been all over the television screaming about the injustices that occurred. With that said, it is evident that the boy's religion had a lot to do with the public's reaction. The boy was Jewish and the Jewish are not really viewed as a struggling or underprivileged group. In general, people consider the Jewish community to be wealthy. Due to this distinction, I feel that there was little reaction to the plane being diverted due to prayer. This points out flaws in our society such as affirmative action. Minority groups who are not seen as underprivileged to not get the benefit of the doubt and are often forgotten about, while the "underprivileged" minority groups have received excessive benefits. With that said, I cannot completely point out race and religion as a contributing factor to the limited reaction. Perhaps the boy and his family deserve the most credit in this unfortunate situation. Most of the time, the victim's family goes on a crusade blasting the airlines and the public and stop only when news outlets stop offering interviews. It is good that a positive fact has come out of this debacle; not all people wish to exploit the court system for financial gain. Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:14:45 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/i-guess-it-pays-to-learn-a-bit-about-other-people__trashed/#IDComment54140416 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-c__trashed/#IDComment54036718 castle Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:57:01 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-c__trashed/#IDComment54036718 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment52882824 Unfortunately, there are many people who hold extreme views and many people who feel obligated to turn every tragedy or triumph into a political event. Pat Robertson's comments were ridiculous, and I don't understand how anyone can legitimately believe that a pact with the devil caused an earthquake. Californians did not make a pact with the devil, and neither did Haitians. I understand that Robertson is not a scientist; he is deeply religious, and thus looks to religion for answers. However, any reasonable person can look at the earthquake in Haiti and all of their recent tragedies and realize that the location and poverty are explanations behind its tragedies. Residents of the Midwest are vulnerable to tornadoes, those living in Japan are susceptible to volcanoes and tsunamis, and those who call Haiti home are prone to hurricanes and, of course, earthquakes. With that said, Robertson is not the only one who has proved to the nation that he is ignorant and cold hearted. Rush Limbaugh, Keith Olbermann, and Rachel Maddow have, whether they believe it or not, stooped to the same level as Robertson. They turned a tragedy into some kind of political event. Limbaugh's comments were ignorant, and it is amazing that he found a way to make the earthquake a racial issue. I think that President Obama was hoping for more positive means to connect with black people around the United States, not a devastating earthquake. Before the earthquake, I'm sure that half the nation did not even know that people from Haiti for black, and there are probably still a handful of people who don't know that Haitians are black. I'm also sure that no one would have guessed that Haitians were black after learning that they speak French. I don't think that black people would have thought about race, I think that they would have thought about helping a fellow country. Perhaps President Obama does plan to use this to connect with blacks, just like George Bush used the 2004 tsunami to gain political clout with Indians and Asians. Actually, he didn't do that, he thought about helping people in need, just like President Obama and the rest of the United States. Keith Olbermann's comments are even more deplorable than Robertson's or Limbaugh's. He points out that this is a time of crisis and we have to put political and extremist views behind us and work together to aid people in need. But what is he doing? He is using the crisis to attack Republicans and their views; he's turning it into a political event. He is making a fool of himself during this entire segment, and should feel embarrassed. Hopefully people can see through his shallowness and right to his political agenda. Meanwhile, Olbermann's fellow anchor, Rachel Maddow, also turned the earthquake into a political affair. It was wrong for her to do that. However, she did not make a fool of herself like Olbermann. She did not attack Republicans for pointing out political undertones, and then proceed to stir the political waters. Maybe she is cold-hearted enough to believe it is okay to turn this into a political issue, but at least she is not a hypocrite. Although I point out many the many atrocities committed by these four Americans, there are still great people among us. John Stewart, for example points out the ridiculousness of Olbermann, Maddow, Robertson, and Limbaugh's comments. Many athletes have used their wealth to give money. Dwayne Wade and Lebron James have give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the effort in Haiti. Disgraced and bankrupt NFL star Michael Vick has donated money. Dominican-born Miguel Tejada, who many people view as one of the scoundrels of the steroid era, has not only donated money, but flown to Haiti in order to assist in relief efforts in every way possible. From all this, it is evident that there are more good people in the world than evil. Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:44:10 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment52882824 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment52822428 Unfortunately, there are many people who hold extreme views and many people who feel obligated to turn every tragedy or triumph into a political event. Pat Robertson's comments were ridiculous, and I don't understand how anyone can legitimately believe that a pact with the devil caused an earthquake. Californians did not make a pact with the devil, and neither did Haitians. Limbaugh's comments were ignorant, and it is unbelievable that he made an earthquake a race issue. Perhaps President Obama does plan to use this to connect with blacks, just like George Bush used the 2004 tsunami to gain political clout with Indians and Asians. Actually, he didn't do that; he thought about helping people in need, just like President Obama and the rest of the United States. Keith Olbermann's comments are even more deplorable than Robertson's or Limbaugh's. He points out that this is a time of crisis and we have to put political and extremist views behind us and work together to aid people in need. But he turns it into a political event as well. He is making a fool of himself during the entire segment, and should feel embarrassed. Hopefully people can see through his facade and right to his shallow political agenda. Rachel Maddow joined her MSNBC counterpart in turning the tsunami into a political affair. However, she did not blast others for doing so. Maybe she is cold-hearted enough to believe it is okay to turn this into a political issue, but at least she is not a hypocrite. These are examples of the extreme and fortunately many people do not exude these qualities, or lack thereof. Tue, 19 Jan 2010 19:47:58 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/clubbing-the-bejesus-out-of-rationality__trashed/#IDComment52822428