During the last lecture, when Sam introduced the concept of “Christian Invaders,” he was attempting to highlight the fact that by us, the United States of America, going over into the middle eastern countries and waging a war on them we are essentially acting in the same fashion as we say the Arab Muslims do. While the few radicals are often the representatives the Arab’s and the Muslim’s image in the United States, our soldiers, to the people of the middle east are, what Sam has titled, “Christian Invaders.” From a middle easterners’ point of view, us Americans, often seem praying with the Bible, are all soldiers on a Christian crusade to take down the Middle East for nothing other than their oil.
So, the question is: “Has this lecture changed my view on the United States’ war in the Middle East?” The simple answer is, “yes.” Of course it has changed my outlook; how could it not? I think for a while, when I was younger and the war was fresh in our minds, I thought the war was mainly to shut down the terrorist threats in the region. However, I quickly determined that it would be quite difficult to take down a group of people that were not necessarily a part of one certain country. I therefore concluded that it must be about something else. That something else was obviously determined to be oil. So as the war shifted from terrorists to other invasions within the region, it became quite clear that this was the driving force in our involvement over there. However, getting back to the lecture, I understood where Sam was going with saying that our “Christian Invasion” was very similar to the radical Arab Muslims. And; I understand that the general public over in the Middle East do not agree with these radicals and are actually quite peaceful and accepting. Where Sam began to lose me is where he began to talk about us “supporting” the Middle Eastern people who were shooting back at the United States soldiers. He then went on to try to make the connection between the Chinese trying to do the same to the United States by coming and killing Americans for our coal and asking us if we would support the United States soldiers that shot back. Maybe I just did not understand his purpose here, but I could not bring myself to saying that I supported the Middle Easterners shooting at the Americans and I would support Americans shooting at Chinese invaders. I guess what he was trying to get us to see is that the Middle Easterners had no choice but to defend their land and resources and that we should not be there in the first place.
With this statement, I do agree. As Americans, historically we have been innovative and revolutionary, and now we stand at a point where we need to rework our energy system and halt our dependence on foreign oil. There are other solutions and if war over oil is ever going to stop, we must explore and adopt these other solutions.

This terrible event, much like any other terrible event, has left a lot of people wondering and wishing that they did more to stop it. We have seen our figure heads of this great university come forward and say that they wish that they had done more to stop this horrific act. All of us, as students, have stood by and watched as everything that we thought Penn State stood for crumble and come into question worldwide. Situations like these, while horrific and sickening, often provide opportunities to do something special moving forward. I am sure that each and every Penn Stater, alumnus or current students, has learned something through this experience. Personally, I feel that this experience has resulted in a lot of new feelings for me. I have never been in a situation where I can be so mad and disappointed at a person (Joe Paterno) for not doing what he has, for decades, preached, yet at the same time still support him and feel bad for him. So I guess if I learned anything from this scandal it is that no one is perfect and if you are going to stand for something then make sure that you stand behind what you are preaching. Joe Paterno has been like the distant grandfather that we all share. While he has made a great mistake, it is hard to hate someone that you have loved for so long. Anyway, let me get back to the question: What have I learned from this whole experience and what will I change in my life to adhere to this new found knowledge?
Like I said, I have learned that no one is perfect. But I think more importantly, we need to realize that as a society we cannot put our personal well-being ahead of society. Too often our society chooses personal gain over growth for all Americans. In this instance, I feel that too many people were either worried about the repercussions that they would face if they came out and accused Sandusky and told their story. In doing so, they forever altered at least eight children’s (probably much more) lives. We need to step back and really ask ourselves what we are doing. Our legal obligations are one thing, but our moral obligations are usually much more vital. If everyone, especially the people involved in this case, stood up to the moral standards that we set for ourselves here at Penn State then this whole situation could have been stopped and our university would have been able to largely avoid this widespread tarnished reputation.
With all of this said, I want everyone to sit tight and wait for the facts to come forward. What people are not realizing is that so much of this case is based on hearsay. We all chastised McQueary and now he is saying that he stopped the act. We really need to hold judgment until we know all of the facts. I just hope, for the Board of Trustees sake, that Joepa was not fired unjustly.

When Sam said that the amount of money that one has no bearing on their happiness, I believe he was trying to say that we, as a society, have come to allow our “things” to define us and our level of success. We have been trained to think that more money equals more things and therefore we have the ability to satisfy all of our needs. However, it has reached a point that we confuse our needs with our wants. We need a very basic set of things: food, water, shelter, love. Once we have these things, everything else is just luxury. So, I feel that anyone that has these basic things as well as the right mindset can be happy.
So going back to the question of whether one’s amount of money has a bearing on one’s happiness, I do think that money definitely has an impact on how happy we are. With that being said, I think it’s more about having the right mindset. Happiness is an odd thing to measure. It is something that can change daily. So to say that money has no impact on it would be a bit rash, but I do believe that people of low economic standing can still live happy lives and there are plenty of people doing it worldwide.
It is a shame that we measure our lives on the amount of money we have and the amount of “things” that we have. We have been trained to link material things with happiness. However, I think history has shown that these material objects provide short-lived happiness. It is things like friendships and companions that bring live-long happiness. I do not think that I would be happy if I had a ton of shit but had no real friends, like Richie Rich (come on, everyone has seen it). If that movie has taught us anything it is that money cannot buy everything. It is the friendships and memories that bring happiness, as corny as that sounds.
So, while I am guilty of owning and striving to get more and more material things, I really feel that is my wonderful girlfriend, my close friends, and my family that bring me the happiness that I have. We, as a society, cannot allow ourselves to grow up thinking that money will buy us happiness. Americans are always one’s that think they need to live to work. We, instead, should be looking to work just to live. In that I am saying that our lives are not defined by our jobs, it should instead be all about our lives away from our jobs. The idea of sacrificing one’s friendships for a job is quite sad. I just hope that I never put my career ahead of the ones that have been there my whole life. It is just money after all.

Throughout my childhood I was exposed to various groups of people who spoke languages that were different than mine. Then once I arrived here at Penn State, this same exposure continued to occur. Looking back on when I was younger, I think that it bothered me to hear people speak different languages around me. This annoyance, I believe, can be attributed to a couple things. The main one, however, was my general ignorance as a child. I did not understand at that point in my life that people came from different places than me and had a very different subculture. I did not understand why these people “chose” to not speak English like everyone else. With that being said, as I grew older and I guess wiser, I began to understand the reasons behind people not speaking English. So here I am today, walking around campus, hearing people all around me speaking different languages. You hear it on the bus, walking through campus, and walking downtown. The difference today is that it does not bother me. I actually find it interesting to hear the unique qualities certain languages have and the different ways they shape sounds to represent words. So, going back to the question, currently it does not bother me at all to have people around me speaking a different language. With that being said, there is a difference between people speaking a different language to each other when it is not directed at me and when it seems like they are talking about me.
Say you are walking down the sidewalk and you notice a group of kids speaking a different language while shooting looks at you while you walk by. I do not know if I would say that this “bothers” me, but it certainly makes me feel uncomfortable, especially if they are laughing. In this circumstance, I would really like to know what they are saying. It, in a sense, is a kind of bullying and makes people feel quite unwanted. However, for the most part, this occurrence is uncommon in everyday life.
When it comes down to it, people are going to speak the language that feels most comfortable to them in the setting that they are in. A good example of this was given by a kid in class on Tuesday when he stated that if he and his friend were in another country where people did not speak English he would speak English to his friend still because they understand each other and it is easy for them. I totally agree with this statement. So when you hear people around you speaking a different language you should enjoy it and appreciate their culture, and if you are the people speaking a different language try not to make others feel unwanted.

Did she ask does that make one a "poser?" Does that even make sense? Why would hanging out with people of a different race make one a poser? Is she insinuating that people only hang out with different races because they want to be them? Anyway, the simple answer is no, it does not make you a poser. If anything it makes you more of a complete person. To hang out with people that are "different" than you means that you are exposed to scenarios and situations that you would normally not be introduced to. Hanging out with people that are of a different race than you usually means that these people have a slightly different sub-culture. In my opinion, the more cultures and sub-cultures that one experiences throughout their lifetime the more knowledgeable and all-understanding that person becomes. To call that person a "poser" is just ridiculous.
Growing up, my good friends were an even mixture of white, black, yellow, and brown. I hung out with them because I appreciated their company. Not because I wanted to be them. Each person brings something unique to the table; whether it be a different take on certain situations, a different work ethic, or a different value system, the more diverse group of friends that one has, the better their lives will be.
I am trying to understand what this girl meant by the question of it making one a "poser." So, she is essentially wondering if people that choose to hang out with people of a different race more than they do their own. Maybe she is thinking about a white kid hanging out with all black kids growing up in the city. Do people see this white kid as a poser? Or maybe she means a black kid growing up with all white kids in suburbia. Does that make the black kid a poser? The question then becomes is race a viable reason to determine how or what a person should be. Again, I feel that the simple answer is no. In my opinion, this goes back to the culture or sub-culture of a person. People who grow up in the same situation are often going to act the same. Race, again in my opinion, has little weight on this acting. I do recognize that race does still play a certain part in each person's life, but I do not feel that it is enough to call someone a poser. People can only be what they know, and if all someone knows is to act a certain way and that way does not jive with the so-called "race" that is associated with that way of acting, then they should not be considered a poser. Who knows, maybe I am just a stage 4 white guy who is tired of blaming things on race.

Feminism is a "movement" that the general public does not understand. As seen in this video, most people think that feminism is a group of extremist woman who hate men. However, feminism is merely a push for equal rights between all groups of people. Those groups are not restricted to men and women, but also young and old, tall and short, black, white, brown, or yellow, overweight versus underweight, and any other one can think of. It is really a "movement" that when it is fully understood should receive little opposition in the current society. Therefore, I am, too, a feminist. In today's world, have we not reached a point where the majority of people feel that all people should be treated as equals?
The trouble with the feminist movement is its name, "feminism." People ignorant to the movement hears the word "feminism" and think feminine, which is for woman, and since it is a movement then these woman must be extremist. This confusion is the main opposition to the feminist movement. When the full message of feminism is conveyed to people, they generally accept it and join it. However, I do believe that this name is equality is harming the movement. There has to be something better out there for the name of the feminist movement. The only reason I already consider myself a feminist is because I have been introduced in length to the movement during my Philosophy 13 course here at Penn State. Prior to this class, I, too, had a very different view of what the feminist movement was all about. The title of the movement just has a very different feeling then the actual message of the movement. It seems to be a large hurdle that the movement has created for itself.
When looking at this video as a means to highlight one, what people think about feminism, and then two, to inform them what feminism actually is and if they think that they are feminist, I feel that this video had decent success in showing the general public's feelings toward "feminism." Their responses are the responses that I would expect to hear from people that are unaware of what feminism is actually about. The words and phrases that came out of these people's mouths may anger people involved in the feminist movement. However, I, as a feminist, cannot blame these people for their ignorance. Instead, as I have previously stated, I blame the title of this movement for people inclinations toward it.
I hope this video reaches more people and more people, or that students take classes that inform them on the truth behind feminism. It really is a great thing and it is something that most people cannot disagree with. It almost makes me wonder if this movement is even necessary at this point in history with all of the progressions that we have made as a society?

The whole racial stages for white people seem a little odd. Well, let me clarity this statement. It strikes me as odd because Sam explained this system as if each person could classify themselves as being at one level and they remain there until they graduate to another. While I do think that each white person can relate to each stage at some level, I feel that most white people would agree that classifying themselves at one stage is very difficult. Sure, there have been times where I felt uncomfortable describing a person of color. However, I feel that that discomfort is not a result of me being scared of saying that wrong thing about race. Instead, I think this discomfort stems from us generally not wanting to disrespect anyone. For example, with the girl in class that was wearing the "scarf" on her head; I would feel weird trying to identify what she called her head dress no matter if she was black, brown, white, or any other "race." I think that this scenario is just another example of us trying to blame racial relations for situations that make us feel uncomfortable. We just feel uncomfortable when people are different than us; whether that difference is race, ethnicity, or economic standing, it does not matter.
Then again, when I think of this viewpoint that I have on this situation, it may just be that I have been so exposed to various racial groups that I generally see past race. My high school was located in the first ring of suburbs outside of Philadelphia and as a result, we had a far more balanced racial breakdown than Penn State. Growing up, my best friend was a Vietnamese kid and I have a pretty even split of white and black friends. Additionally, I have roomed with an African American every year here at Penn State and the past three years I have lived in a house with that African American man, one South Korean man, one Vietnamese man, one Indian man, and one white man. So maybe as a result of this exposure, I have graduated to the ranks of stage 6. Who really knows? Sure, there are times when I do not want to say the wrong thing to someone; but like I said before, that discomfort is often an ignorance I have toward that person, no matter of their race.
It really sucks that we still have to talk about this whole race thing, but it is obvious that it is still very apparent in our society. People are people, and if you are scared to say something to someone, ask them, learn about them. As I said, the discomfort those feel at stage 2 is a result of ignorance. Let us become less ignorant. These situations provide opportunities to learn about someone different than us.

This topic, homosexuality acceptance among various races, is an interesting one to look into. Is the white community more accepting versus the black community or the brown community? It is difficult to say. I do think that like Sam has said, we are often more critical of people like ourselves. So, specific races are probably harsher on homosexuals of their own race, but probably not so much of people of a different color. However, when it comes to the acceptance of homosexuality, I feel that the race of a person does not play a huge role. Being a white, heterosexual male I recognize that I may not have the best perspective on this topic. With that being said, I still would like to think that it is the culture and/or sub-culture that one has been exposed to that eventually determines their level of acceptance of homosexuality. There are a countless number of "races" in the world and although we often associate ourselves with one race versus another, I feel that our culture and sub-culture are what shape our belief system. Whether your value system is based off of a religion, what your parents have taught you, or something else that has occurred it is more than likely that it is these occurrences that have affected your feelings toward homosexuality.
In addition, I think with each passing generation, homosexuality becomes increasingly more accepted. I know that personally I do not mind whether someone is a homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, or anything else. Now, that feeling could be a result of the sub-cultures that I have been exposed to. However, I do believe that, in general, homosexuality is not such a taboo subject anymore. In my opinion, it is becoming the present day women's rights movement or civil rights movement. We look back on these movements and question why an issue even existed. Obviously there is still lingering opposition to such movements and, as Sam has alluded to, lasting underlying feelings that are gut reactions that we cannot always explain. For the most part, however, these movements were successful and are now just part of our common culture. I can see how the homosexuality movement could have similar success in the near future.
Linking the homosexuality movement back to the idea of cultures being the driving force of homosexual acceptance, the success of the movement will lead to a changed culture and sub-cultures and therefore, result in more people of all races being more comfortable and accepting of homosexuality. Just like the other movements that I have brought up, there will still be lingering effects of the former thought process. With that said, and like the other movements, homosexuals will, and should, be treated as equals to everyone else in due time.

The video of the big thieves touched on a number of different issues going on in the world today. With that being said, this project only showed a small sampling of what is really going on out in the world and there were too many variables to determine if the test yielded any reliable results. For example, yes, it was obvious that more people were proactive when they saw the black man stealing the bike than when passersby viewed the white man stealing the bike; and yes, men were willing to help the woman steal the bike. However, all three of these people did not come into contact with the exact same people and therefore, it is impossible to judge the separate situations.

The ambiguity aside though, this small test, though it may not have been 100 percent accurate, yielded results that would probably hold true if a more extensive experiment was held. The situation with the man helping out the woman stealing the bike, in my opinion, was probably the most accurate situation. While the man's wife was prepared to call the police, her husband ignored her and helped the woman steeling the bike. Society, and probably more so, the media, has painted a picture of what suspicious people look like. Rarely is that image one of a woman, let alone an attractive woman. Actually, society has learned that woman of this appearance often need aid in whatever physical activity they are doing. This trend is why I believe that when the man helped the woman out, it was an accurate depiction of what would really occur a good percentage of the time. The other two situations basically said that black men appear to criminals while white men may not, even if they are dressed the same. However, I believe that this is not always true. In most cases, the exterior appearance, for example the way one dresses, plays the larger role in how strangers treat one another. So, while the black man actually had the police called on him and the white man did not, I feel that that same man who called the police on the black man would have done the same for the white man. Instead, it was their saggy pants and overall poor appearance that caused people to send a skeptical eye their way. I would be willing to bet that if both of these men were in suits that someone would have stopped and helped them.

When it comes to what I would have done in all three situations, I think that I would react the same in all three. I would throw out a smart ass comment congratulating them on their boldness to steal a bike in broad daylight and continue walking.

The Haiti Project that we are headed into seems like an interesting opportunity. I visited the website and got to know Yvrose, who makes sandals and evening clothing, Sonia, who makes insulated bags, and Jean-Ronel Noel, who is the co-founder of ENERSA and makes solar appliances. Each person shares similar qualities and many of the same constraints. While all of their products were unique, of high quality, and produced using its local resources, each person faced problems with product exposure and funding.
It seemed for the most part, Yvrose and Sonia could be grouped into a similar group as far as their constraints and possible opportunities. It was obvious that their products were of high quality and reasonably priced. However, their working conditions, access to proper machinery and lack of exposure holds them back from expanding their businesses. Sam mentioned in Yvrose’s video that $400 would get her a “folder” machine that would greatly streamline her production. Additionally, although she sells clothing and sandals, she did not even have enough funding to purchase a manikin to display her work. The displaying aspect of the business was a problem that Sonia faced as well. While Sonia had beautifully crafted insulated bags, she was stuck in a single room to work. Additional exposure would prove greatly beneficial for Sonia too because her business helps fund her whole family from her mother to her siblings.
When I took time to learn more about Noel, I learned how innovative and down-to-Earth the Haitians can be. Like this man gets “it.” Business people in America too often have only the bottom dollar in mind and as a result, they send all of the labor overseas. Noel, on the other hand, had made a decision that it was his duty to formulate a business that benefited the Haitian community in addition to himself. Noel recognized that if he went overseas to get his product made he would only need a fifth of the workers he has and a warehouse. However, he now employs 35 Haitians and trained them all to become skillful workers. That is an awesome thing to see. What sucks about the situation though is the fact that the banks cannot understand that he needs funding for local raw materials to make his product. They only understand funding for finished products (i.e. laptops). I mean Noel is even benefiting the local economy by buying local materials. It seems like we need to come up with some way to convince the bank to give Noel funding for his raw materials.
I feel that it can be seen that we can help these businesses with exposure and funding and hopefully convince these banks that buying local raw materials is deserving of loans. If you have not yet met Noel, you should do so. If businesses in America had the same morals that he does then we would be in a much better situation.