I think that ignorance is the root of the problem of white people not supporting affirmative action. People believe that affirmative action doesn't apply to them, just as many people don't believe welfare benefits them. If people believe a policy doesn't apply to them and their families they tend to think of it as a waste of money. A waste of money is akin to wasted tax dollars, which people tend to vilify. No one wants the government to spend time and money on things that they can't see is benefitting them. I think they believe that affirmative action is harming their chances of getting a job or getting into a good school, which they take major offense at.

A second part of the ignorance stems from not knowing the history of affirmative action and racism for that matter here in the United States. I think people don't know that blacks and other minorities didn't have many opportunities even after slavery was ended. As Sam mentioned, life after slavery was harsher for blacks then it was during slavery. Landowners still wanted cheap labor and didn't want their previous free labor to leave. Laws like Jim Crow were put into place to make sure blacks didn't have rights—there was still no equality even after slavery ended. While affirmative action tried to remedy this and allow blacks and other minorities to gain better chances than they would have otherwise, whites were helped just as much as other minorities were.

When white people think of affirmative action, they tend to link it with minorities and like I said, they don't believe they benefit from it. In reality, affirmative action doesn't give that much of a leg up to minorities. Most of affirmative action policy is simply giving a chance to minorities—meaning they have to have their resume reviewed instead of tossing it because the name sounds foreign. Affirmative action is meant to give an equal chance rather than a sure thing. Most of affirmative action is not in quotas. Furthermore, affirmative action can benefit whites as well, be it if they live in a mostly minority neighborhood and apply for a job there, or if they're related to someone who benefits from affirmative action—usually women. When women benefit from affirmative action—which we all have, as we wouldn't be in University without it—their children, their families, and their communities benefit from the better quality of life. More than usual, these are white families and communities that benefit.

My mother is an immigrant who moved here with her family when she was fourteen. She always told me she became very fluent in English during college, as she was away from her family more and only spoke English here (I'm a legacy kid). But whenever she or her sister and brother are together, or when they talk to their parents, they speak their native dialect, or the official language of their birth country. I grew up learning English, but learned a few words of my mother's first language. I have never been fluent, and I haven't learned that language yet. So whenever I visit her side of the family, I'm constantly surrounded by conversation in a language I don't understand.

One of the strange things about this is that because these are my family, I can usually guess what they're talking about, just from their mannerisms. I know if they're worried about my cousins, or if my grandparents don't understand some kind of technology. It's fairly easy to follow a conversation without knowing a lick of the language. Because of this, I've never felt uncomfortable surrounded by a language I don't know. I grew up in it, I've had people talk about me in a different language, and it never bothered me. If they wanted me to know what they were talking about, they would translate. If they didn't or it didn't matter to me at all, I was used to it enough to not worry about it.

Though I feel I can still communicate and connect with people whose language I don't understand, sometimes I do feel frustrated, as I feel the connection would be faster if I spoke the language. I've never felt that they need to speak my language; I've always wished I understood and spoke theirs. A lot of the time, because of this, I know I've asked people who are speaking a different language to teach me a few words, just because I want to feel a connection. Speech is a strong connection to others, so I understand why people would feel uncomfortable around what they can't understand. I've never felt uncomfortable, but have still tried to make a connection. I find nothing wrong with someone asking me a word I've said that they don't understand. In the end though, if it's clear people are having a private conversation, or just a conversation amongst friends you're not part of, I feel no need to butt in.

I'm not surprised, nor am I at all apprehensive about whites becoming the minority. I see a lot of differences in the various cultures that populate the US, but the people behind the culture really aren't that different from their neighbors. Minorities aren't different from whites. As an example, many of us think of whites being the only racists, when in fact, those of minority status can be just as racist as the worst white supremacist. Minority status does not determine personality or human qualities. What minority status tends to do is simply show that some of us don't look like the rest of the others—which in turn, creates other social issues if those differences are made unequal.

From a political standpoint, I still don't foresee that much difference from now till then. People will always be people, and politicians will never change in this country unless the actual political process changes. I'm assuming that the minorities now would gain political majority and power, in which case, we could definitely see some reform in education, health care, and the work place. But this is all assuming that the white minority indeed loses its political power. Eventually, I believe that will happen. However, I don't see any of this change happening over night. It's going to be a long process and I doubt the changes will even be noticed. A radical shift in power would never happen.

One thing my discussion group talked about, that I thought was very interesting was education and the impact a demographical shift would have on it. As of now, people are not required to take a language all through college, and sometimes not in high school or lower grades. On the other hand, some schools do teach languages at a young age—when children are more likely to learn it and gain better proficiency. This inconsistency would be more likely to change when the demographic shift took place rather than before it. A greater percentage of non-native English speakers in schools would by necessity require better proficiency of let's say, Spanish (which is the most statistically likely to be needed). If the entire country has to learn two languages like the rest of the world, there would at least be a change in education. Furthermore, there might even be a way to bridge racial gaps if both languages are spoken. Communication lines could be opened up.

It depresses me when women say they don't like or support feminism. Feminism fights for equality amongst all races, genders, sexual orientations, and social status. This kind of equality, related to women's rights specifically, does not mean supremacy over men, or suddenly lowering the status males have in this world. This kind of equality means that women would be able to make the same exact choices as men do and receive the same benefits or punishments. For example, in our society many people would regard a single middle-aged woman as strange or say that there was something 'wrong' with her. In contrast, most are far less likely to regard single middle-aged men in that same light. If both made a conscious choice to remain single (say that they're both financially secure to be on a more level playing ground), why should the woman's choice to remain single be regarded as a 'wrong' choice in comparison with the man's?

Obviously, there are numerous other factors that influence a person's perception of a man or a woman. However, when women make the same choices that their male counterparts do, they are more likely to be regarded in a completely different light. I don't think it's that extreme of a statement to say that you're arguing for actions to be judged on just actions instead of your gender. Feminism, unfortunately, seems to have garnered an extremist definition as a men-hating, bra-burning, militant group, due to (I think) misinformation and the same passivity Taylor mentions. This misinformation and passivity stems from both feminists and anti-feminists; there have been militant, men-hating, bra-burning feminists. The large majority is not. Unfortunately, their voices aren't as loud. Because of this, loud, anti-feminists can misrepresent feminism and skew the definition of it, which only allows that definition to be spread further.

Taylor is right in saying that the feminist process is not and should not be a passive process. But just as with race relations, people need to be willing to talk about it, listen to arguments for or against it, and have a conversation about what it means, how it is portrayed, and what can be done. It's a shame that more people—not just women—have no idea what feminism is, and don't want to be classified as a feminist even if they support equality. Double standards and inequality—these are things that exist between multiple races and classes, but should also be discussed for gender.

I think you may have missed the point of the article, where it stated that the current definition of happiness is new, and that all definitions of happiness that we understand as a society are in constant flux. I'm not entirely sure what you're argument is against the article, as the article isn't stating happiness doesn't exist--it's simply going through different definitions of happiness. At one point, it says that happiness is different for each person, so your happiness that you experience at a tailgate, or your parent's happiness together may not be the same happiness your friends or your neighbors feel. The everlasting happiness you or your parents feel may simply be the difference in definitions of happy between you or someone else. Your everlasting happiness may not actually be 'everlasting' to other people.

First off, yes the guy in the video is very critical of the US's military operations and the amount of money we spend on the military, but don't take that to mean he's somehow against the soldiers and those who work to protect us. This talk is about how we spend our money, and what else it could be used for—if you noticed the last part about education, healthcare, and other federally funded operations. When I was watching it, I saw him pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of people wanting to cut spending on things like welfare and education, when so much money is spent on military operations, domestic and foreign.

I'm not going to say that military spending is unimportant—yes, I think it's always a bright idea to protect your citizens and make sure we're not killed. That said, I'm not in support of war, as I believe the cost is usually so much greater than the benefit—the cost being in lives more so than money. Money usually isn't much of a problem—in fact, wars seem to help a lot of business sector grow. The problem I have with the US military spending is that a lot of it seems backwards—one day we're supporting Saddam Hussein with weapons and political advantage, the next we're invading Iraq to topple his regime (I'm not in support of Hussein, to make that clear). Not all of military spending really seems to be focused on truly protecting our nation.

On top of that, I then see the second video Sam posted, and the cost of war argument comes back to me. We are spending money on weapons that hurt these children in Libya, and elsewhere in the world. The US military is behemoth—and it has a presence everywhere in the world. I have no idea if that's truly needed. Personally, I feel a lot of the money could do excellent work here at home—in welfare and education, and other national affairs. I'm far from qualified to make a decision, but I don't think we'd be in so much danger from foreign attacks carried out by people who hate America if we focused more on building the strength of our nation from the inside.

To reiterate, I think that military spending is necessary in most cases. I also think much of that money could be better allocated towards programs that would directly increase our standards of living here in the US.

If my roommate told me on the first day she was gay, my first response would be, "Coolio. Which side do you want?" If she told me later in the year, I'd be just as flippant about it. Gay, straight, transgender—as long as she doesn't mind a colder room, doesn't listen to country, and doesn't interrupt my sleep schedule, we're going to get along splendidly. Unless I'm personally interested in dating him or her, a person's sexual orientation doesn't affect how I interact with them.

Coming out isn't easy—I'd definitely respect my roommate more if she told me straight up she was gay. I'd probably respect her even more if she waited till halfway through the year, assuming we were getting along. I'm bi and while I've come out to most my friends, I've not told my parents explicitly. Generally, I tell people immediately that I'm bi if they seem interested in me. It's intimidating to have those words come out of my mouth and not know the reaction I'll receive. It's almost panic inducing just thinking of telling my parents or any close friends. If they reject me just for whom I'm attracted to, I've lost someone important to me and I don't know what I'd do. Coming out to friends takes a shit-ton amount of courage.

I've never believed being LGBT is a choice—to me it has always simply been what you are. I still don't understand why many straight people—men and women alike, though mostly men—believe all gay people will be coming after them like chasing straight people is the only thing they do with their time. Being bi, I find a large majority of the population attractive, but I immediately lose interest if they're not available, which could mean being a sexual orientation that wouldn't work with mine, or not being single. I've found this is true for most people. Living with an LGBT person isn't some new challenge where the straight person has to continually dodge advances and has to set up a fence around their bed so they don't get jumped at night. If it is, blame the person, not their sexual orientation. The worst people that have hit on me have always been drunk, straight men. I've had my ass groped in McDonald's at 2am in the morning while I was wearing jeans and a winter jacket. I can tell you that it is not sexual orientation that makes someone a randy sex offender.

The best type of aid the US can give to developing countries is to support these countries' own economic growth. While our own economy can benefit from trying to control the foreign market, in the end, it would benefit the economy more. For one, while we don't exactly spend a lot of money on foreign aid, allowing and helping other economies to grow would save us money. The money that we spend on foreign aid now doesn't really help the countries we give it to because, as Sam said, the majority of the money goes straight back to our economy. Throwing money at developing countries isn't helpful and hurts in the long run.

Obviously, supporting economic growth is not as simple as it sounds. Supporting economic growth in developing nations deals with education, allowing the countries' own money to circulate and be used, as well as many other things that I honestly am no expert in. Personally I believe in education being a major part in economic development in any country. Once people are aware and know the options they have and what they can do, more and more possibilities arise. Again though, simply giving things to countries is not answer. People in developing countries are not stupid—their options are narrower than ours might be, but given the right opportunity, they know and will do what's best. One of the best things that can be done is working actively with people in developing nations and talking with them. Seeing what they need and what they want is always a fantastic place to start. No matter what, people are ready to state their problems and already are. If we listen, it's only a matter of time before people wouldn't even need our help.

Again, handouts of any kind are not helpful. People may welcome free stuff, but are just as willing to work with others to gain economic stability on their own. They are proud of their nation and themselves and want to make their lives and their children's' lives better. Looking down on them doesn't work. Respecting them as people will. Besides communication, a more concrete idea for people to look at is microfinancing. This is money that doesn't go back to the US, but instead circulates, helping people gain significant items that they otherwise wouldn't be able to get. Using those items (or extra employment, anything that would help them specifically), they can then pay back the loan and the process can start anew.

I'm very excited to be working on this project, as it stresses sustainable development through economic growth instead of just handing-out help. The problems these small entrepreneurs face in Haiti seem to revolve around a lack of materials or no adequate means to obtain materials in a timely manner. Working with these growing businesses to help them develop will be an interesting challenge. The videos I looked at were mostly the designers'—such as Anaes, Euclid, Yvrose—so helping to set up a growing business I think will be especially hard. Figaro might benefit from micro-financing, such as small loans so she can afford to buy a mixer. In other methods, trying to make some kind of public transportation cheaply available to Haitians might benefit all the entrepreneurs. For the designers, small loans would probably work as well, as they are all trying to expand. Given the money to invest in better techniques—such as better screen-printing or better material, their production could increase and they could sell more of their product. The reason small loans would be a good idea is because small loans have historically been paid back in full and on time. They have a high interest rate usually, but provide enough money so that small businesses like the ones we are looking at can invest in better equipment. Using this investment, the businesses can then pay back the loans with the money they've made. If not loans, perhaps some of these businesses would benefit from getting in contact with other small businesses. There have to be other businesses starting up that would be willing to work with local Haitians to increase both of their productions and client map. Some kind of communication between two businesses that would mutually benefit from each other's services could also help. Any help that is more of a push in the right direction through the right amount of education would probably be best in Haiti and other developing countries. Obviously, some resources are scarce, but with ingenuity, which Haitians have, combined with educated business and technical sense, local resources could also be utilized. Sustainable development in developing countries like Haiti doesn't just mean environmentally conscious development, but development where locals don't have to rely on outside support to maintain their lifestyle. All of the entrepreneurs can do this, if the right doors and opportunities are made available to them. Watching these videos really emphasized how amazing they are to try and start such small industries.

People don’t know what welfare actually does in this country. Government loans, Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, agricultural subsidiaries, people who cannot get help anywhere else—these are all welfare programs. Apparently, stories of how the unemployed ‘ride’ their checks, or those in poverty use food stamps for irresponsible items, though have completely taken the public eye on welfare.

As unemployment benefits affect me the closest, I’m going to explain that side of welfare, and why it specifically does not discourage people from looking for jobs. When you lose your job, especially a middle-class to white-collar job, you lose all the benefits that come with that job, including a health care plan. If you’re laid off—meaning you lost your job not because of misconduct on your part, or because you quit, but because the company was making cut-backs—you will receive a severance package of varying quality depending on your past position. You cannot collect unemployment checks on severance pay. You cannot collect unemployment if you were fired or you quit without good reason. You cannot collect unemployment if you are self-employed. You cannot collect unemployment if you are attending school. You cannot collect unemployment if you are not actively searching for a job.

Unemployment checks come with restrictions. The longest you can be on unemployment (as of now, if unemployment benefits are not extended) is about a year. Those benefitting from unemployment checks are not taking your hard-earned tax dollars and stealing it for the rest of their lives. Those on unemployment are on it for a short period of time, a time period that has actually been growing as the recent recession continues. Yes, there are always lazy people that are doing less work than the rest of us. But if the restrictions on unemployment don’t make it obvious, you cannot ride unemployment for an extended period of time. You will be actively searching for a job. You will be looking for a way to get enough money to get health insurance again, because surprise, surprise, unemployment checks are not enough money to pay for a health-care plan, especially for the average US family of four.

Welfare does not discourage progress. The circumstances that might surround the welfare can very well discourage progress—like the fact no one is hiring, and the only jobs that are available are so far below a person’s qualifications that they still won’t hire him. If you are against welfare as a whole because of a few stories that make it seem like people are using your tax-dollars poorly, I advise you to study not the minority of those stories, but the majority of what welfare has actually done.