The first video is really cool that someone would do that, but for some reason I just feel skeptical of his motives. Maybe I'm just cynical, but all I can picture is that he must think he is really great. I'm sure he thinks himself to be very righteous, and even though he deserves to feel good about himself, it bothers me that people like this often have such a high opinion of themselves. On the other hand I see the value in his actions regardless of what his motive is, and I see how terrific his charity truly is. Even though it is a little tough to get past what I perceive to be overt righteousness, I definitely admire what he has done, and I hope more people follow his example in contributing extraordinary acts of kindness toward others.

This is an interesting point. I definitely see what your saying, but I guess maybe if you start to think this way, you just need to remind yourself of the truth. Think about how the only reason you are in a position to help is because you were born into a position that allows you to get an education. You are able to make money at a greater rate than these poor people, because of where you live and who your parents are. You are lucky, not chosen. If you can see this, then hopefully you will not see yourself as the great, chosen one who deserves all he gets and others are simply lucky enough to receive what they get. The truth is, in a purely economic sense, the average Penn State student probably is worth more than a starving person is Haiti, because others have invested more in you, but it is simply by luck that we have received that investment. Keep that in mind, and hopefully you can keep things in perspective.

Well first it is important to point out that the episode of South Park in question does not actually make fun of Muhammad. It makes fun of the fact that every other religious figure is fair game, but Muhammad is not. This was referenced in an earlier episode as well, which was supposed to parallel the bombing that occurred in the Netherlands after a cartoon was meant to depict the prophet Muhammad. So what makes the episode so edgy is that Matt Stone and Trey Parker are actually attacking the means by which they are being threatened. So I just thought it was important to point out that they are not attacking Muhammad himself, but instead they are attacking how touchy the extremists are who are willing to kill because of a joke in a cartoon.
Having said this, they have openly made fun of other religious figureheads and in fact, in the episode at hand, they show Buddha snorting lines of cocaine, and make a reference that Jesus is addicted to online pornography. While I am sure that many people were potentially offended by this, and many more would have been offended if they were aware of the episode, but none of these groups have threatened Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Considering our discussion earlier in the week, I would be curious to hear what Sam has to say about this fact. It is a very interesting point that figureheads of other religions can be made fun of, while Muhammad has become off limits.
I personally think that it is ridiculous that we cannot mock Muhammad, but we can make fun of others. I guess most people would argue that it is really inappropriate to make fun of any of them, but one cannot deny that it is at least more taboo to talk about Muhammad than other religious leaders. Especially when it is at risk of a bombing. I actually feel a little proud that Matt Stone and Trey Parker didn’t back down, and went through with the episode. I do often believe that people shouldn’t always act in ways that are controversial, but I don’t think people should ever back down because of a threat.
So in conclusion, I think that Trey Parker and Matt Stone did the right thing by sticking to their guns. I also believe that exposing extremists to these things may be important, especially in the context of an episode of South Park, which makes fun of everyone. Humor is a beautiful thing. It teaches others how to laugh at oneself, and when one can do that, then one won’t lash out at others anymore. I think shows like South Park may actually save lives.

Guys are just as shaped as women by socialization, and we feel the need to conform, but it simply shows itself in different ways. Men do not have to look sexy like women do, but men are still mocked if they over dress or if they dress gothic or something. We are also subject to other social standards like having to be strong all the time, and needing to be providers. This has made stay at home dads a taboo institution, and inversely it has hurt women in the job market. Men may not have some of the same issues and disadvantages as women, but having the advantages has a down side in that if one is not as strong as one should be or a provider like society says we should be, then we are shunned in society and don't have respect in society. I am not saying I don't like the perks, but the perks do come with a down side. So that is my answer, men face social constraints and pressures, but they are very different from the ones women face.

I haven't looked up any polling information on the subject but I'm sure most Muslims are moderates, and I hope that most people realize this. However, I do think that some people of Arab descent would still likely sympathize with the cause of the extremist, not because of the religious aspect, but instead because of the injustices done to the Arab people. As Sam stated in class, America is exploiting their land, and it is Muslims and people of Arab descent who are likely aware of this fact. I'm not really sure what I am trying to say, maybe I'm just trying to point out that it is not all about religion. It is a political war, that is often justified through religion, but it really isn't a religious war. People connect Islam to the war, but it is also about geo-political boundries, resources, culture, and various other things that are really behind the war and the mistrust of our groups.

I can honestly say that I have shared Sam’s perspective on this prior to this lecture. I was actually a little disappointed that this was what his wife was referring to when she said that this class was going to be very difficult to take, because it really shouldn’t be. I agree with Sam entirely in that I understand why insurgents act as they do. Like Sam I do not condone it, but I certainly do think they are not crazy, evil-doers. They are in fact acting rationally. One must understand that terrorism is these people’s only real way of combating U.S. invasion, and exploitation of their resources. There is never any acceptable time to target civilians, but if one backs another into a corner, one must expect that the other will thrash out with any means available to defend itself. To answer Sam's question, I personally would not pick up arms unless their were extenuating circumstances like a close relative being killed, but once again I do understand why some would.
Another point worth mentioning is that many people think that the terrorists started the war. While they may have started the physical fighting, it was the U.S. who provoked them by essentially going in to their countries, striking deals with a few wealthy individuals, and then basically deciding all of the terms of production for these countries. It is like going into someone’s house and telling them they have to sell their possessions to you and at the price that you have decided. This would probably piss you off. It may even piss you of to the point where you pick up a gun and say no. So I just wanted to point out that America is not this altruistic entity that only does right, and countries like Afghanistan and Iraq are not inherently evil. I certainly do not think that America is all bad either or that these middle eastern nations are entirely benevolent, I just wish that people could see the situation as it is. The truth is, both sides have committed some heinous and unfair acts. We must atone for ours, not ignore them.
Lastly, we as a people need to push our politicians to atone for the sins committed in the middle east. There is no reason that the struggle with them should have ever gone this far. However, because of the terrorist attacks, it will be more difficult than ever to change our policy because it will appear that we are giving into terrorist demands. This is something that simply cannot be done, because it may signal that terrorism is an acceptable means for other groups, and that it is effective. This does not change the fact though that we should do the right thing and give these nations autonomy over their oil fields. Other issues are more complex like what to do with Israel, but the issue of oil is pretty straight-forward. It is the least the U.S. can do. More than likely the price of oil would go up, but I think we have got this commodity at a premium price for long enough.

Well he did mention the fair trade chocolate that I think is the least someone can do. I don't necessarily think you have to avoid all other brands entirely that use these tactics to turn profits, but if people make an active effort to avoid these companies and they lose market share, then they may change their ways. The only way one can ever really change the policies of a major corporation is to hit them in their wallets, because turning a profit is their only real goal. If we attempt to boycott their products, and they lose a large enough portion of their market share, then they may change their policy. I don't agree that thinking about it is enough though. I sort of believe in utilitarianism in this regard, and if ones thoughts do not lead to action then I believe they are worthless. So one should always find some way to act, rather than just think about the morality of the issue.

What this class has done for me is really remind me of things I once knew. I was taught the tolerance thing in grade school, but I have been exposed to a lot of racism and negative stereotypes since. Living in my white world I don't see the statistics of how minorities are treated, and in the past I have blamed minorities entirely for their positions as opposed to considering the lack of opportunities that are provided to them. As a result, I will admit that I have had racist ignorant thoughts. What Sam has done for me is reminded me of why certain groups are at the bottom. It has made me think of how if I grew up less privileged, what path would I be on? I have not changed who I am entirely or had some huge revelation that has moved and touched me to the point of tears, but I certainly think I will leave the class as a more enlightened person then when I went in. Unless you happen to know everything or are simply to thick to see the facts right in front of you, I would find it hard to believe that you cannot take something away from this class.

I really don't see the big deal with saying the word negro. I am aware that it is an outdated term and is not politically correct, but it is also not a racial slur. It was simply the technical term for black people of the past. Furthermore, to not use the term negro in the census would lead to an inaccurate calculation of people, thus making the entire process less significant. The census also helps to appropriate social programs to groups that need them, which are more than often minority groups. So the very people who are offended by such means of collecting information are the people who are likely to gain from the research. So while I understand how the word is not the most appropriate, politically correct term, sometimes you need to take function over form in order to obtain real results, and this is one of those times.

I would say that you are white. I certainly cannot say how much your life is affected by your Hispanic heritage, but I think I have a similar predicament even though I am most definitely white. I have a strong Italian heritage, and I am aware that Italian is still considered to be white, but the culture sets one aside from normal American culture, just like I am sure having Hispanic heritage does for you. However, my Italian heritage really only comes out in my house, not in public. But the point I am trying to reach is that because of your skin color, people treat you like a white person, and that should be the primary criteria in making this distinction. People do not know you DNA markers of race, so as long as you appear white, you will be treated that way. I say this because how one looks is often contingent upon how one is treated, especially if one does not know another intimately. I believe that this interaction is what shapes our opinions and beliefs about race, so this is what makes us who we are. So based on your skin color and the interactions you have likely had as a result of your skin color, I believe that you would most likely identify with a white person as far as your experiences and your ideas and values.
Furthermore, as far as I could tell, I did not detect any accent that would hint any origin other than American, so this would also help in pegging you as not only white, but also as a native born American, which also puts you into the majority group. I would imagine you have faced little to know discrimination in your life, which sets you apart from other minority groups who have experiences with racism or discrimination. I have noticed that many people discriminate more against accent than against race, so just having an American accent helps to dissuade any discrimination, and enforce that you are another white American that blends into the minority.
In conclusion, I would argue that if you had to choose a category of race then you would be placed into the white category. I know that you identify with a Hispanic heritage, but if it is anything like my Italian heritage, it only really comes up at home. I think this is an important distinction because how one is treated outside of ones comfort zone is really what shapes ones impression on race. If you appeared Hispanic then you would likely have experiences that would peg you as somebody of minority status, and this would let you know how you should identify. So to reiterate my point, how one is treated will determine one beliefs and values, and this will determine how you identify racially.