I don't think that it's right for the US to invade other countries and to police the world as we sit fit, regardless of the problems we have to deal with at home. It seems that we're so often bombarded by news of a tyrannical dictator who is killing his own citizens on a whim and who needs to be ousted so that order and justice can prevail in the world. But in the last several decades the US has supported numerous dictators so long as they provided something or yielded to US interests, despite many of these regimes being more brutal than those that we have deposed. We don't police the world so much as we impose our will onto other countries for our own gain and it is precisely this problem that has caused so many ill feelings towards the US.

Our freedom is not hated by those who would harm the US, nor is it under attack from these people. Freedoms granted to US citizens are often highly regarded, at least outside of Europe where freedoms are arguably much greater. Instead it is our foreign policy and hypocritical actions that have created unrest and ill will towards the US. We preach truly amazing ideals like sovereignty and national self-determination - the ability to decide without outside interference how best to run one's own country - and then we invade other countries and tell them how best to govern themselves, blatantly contradicting our words with our actions and broadcasting this to the rest of the world. We have installed dictators and totalitarian regimes that have been puppets whose strings lead back to US fingers, undemocratic behaviors in every way. But as soon as someone is critical of our actions he is anti-patriotic or anti-America or anti-freedom and he is cast aside because it's constantly reinforced that the US is a source of righteousness and justice in the world and can do no wrong. Yet it is this critical thought that we so need precisely because we are not always correct and just. We must be critical of our actions and be willing to step in the shoes of another to understand how we might feel if our roles were reversed.

By believing that we have the right to treat the rest of the world as we so please we have offended many of our fellow human beings who reside outside of the boundaries of the US. The belief stems from pure ignorance and arrogance and shows a lack of respect for the rest of the world. Most of us are offended and upset when our government oversteps its bounds in our lives; why should we expect citizens of other countries to react any differently? So long as we continue to invade countries, to be hypocrites of the ideals that we cherish and to act as if we are righteous and infallible we will continue to see people who are angry with the actions of the US. We must change our thinking and our actions if we want to improve the state of our world.

The statistic that Sam presented in class was a number that was much higher than I expected child-adult sexual encounters to be. I think that we all want to believe that something like this hasn't or can't happen to someone in our own family but the possibility that this has happened is very real. The main thing that hit me during the lecture on Tuesday was how little we actually discuss what is a major issue. We are encouraged to speak about most other problems and to discuss and debate the issues that surround them but this treatment of most issues seems not to apply to sexual abuse. It almost feels as if we're not to discuss it at all, instead to ignore the problem and hope that it gets better. And it's not just the idea of sexual abuse from the abuser's side that we seem to want to keep silent but we're also reluctant to hear the victim's side as well. In a society where the problem is seen as horrific but abusers' thinking and the victims' stories go unheard how can we hope to combat the issue?

I think that part of our unwillingness to examine both the mindsets of the child abuser and of the victims stems from wanting to distance ourselves from the idea that this issue is real. Talking about this issue in words other than "Child abuse is sick and wrong" and hearing stories of both abusers and victims makes it that much easier to imagine it happening in one's own life. Too many of us are willing to take the "ignorance is bliss" path and pretend that there isn't actually a problem. Laurie's analogy of waiting until extremely sick before going to the hospital was a very accurate representation of this situation. Instead of saying "Ok, here is a symptom, let's get it checked out" we wait until a crisis to deal with the problem but by that time it is out of control.

The only way that we can make some headway in dealing with sexual abuse is to be willing to discuss it more openly. In our society everyone knows that child molestation and sexual abuse are frowned upon but our unwillingness to speak about these issues only exacerbates the problem. Sexual fantasies develop naturally for a host of reasons; labeling certain fantasies as sick or twisted or freakish only makes those who have these fantasies less likely to speak about it. Fantasies can then turn into urges and desires and eventually lead actions that even perpetrators often know are wrong. Harsh truths about ourselves, about our friends and family, about groups that we belong to are often the most difficult to face but they also usually lead to the most cathartic thoughts and can initiate the most change. If we continue this trend of ignoring the most important issues then we face the possibility that they will spiral out of control, becoming a crisis that we are in no way prepared to handle.

Amidst this current struggle all of Penn State - students, alumni, faculty and staff, administration, everyone that makes up Penn State - has begun to be viewed in a negative fashion. It is as easy for people removed from the situation to generalize Penn Staters as it is for us to sit in Happy Valley and bemoan these generalizations as being unfair when the truth is most likely some combination thereof.

While the media spins the reality into a more fanciful story there is some truth to what was said. Yes, several thousand students took to the streets after the announcement of Joe Paterno's removal as Penn State's head football coach and engaged in acts of vandalism that included the tipping over of a news van. This of course, however, was only a fraction of the current Penn State study body. Most of us, over forty-thousand of us, were and still are opposed to the destruction and took no part in it. I am ashamed of and angry at the student rioters but it runs deeper than that. At a school with a reputation of students getting drunk and doing stupid things a sizable number of students got drunk and did stupid things on national television. Like it or not, these students are a part of Penn State, they represented us in the national spotlight and we have to pay the price. However, we cannot make excuses. Yes, students of ours acted like idiots and the blame is unfairly falling on all of us but those of us not involved have to work actively to bring us back into a more favorable light. It is going to take effort, it is going to be tough but I know that I do not want to be forever associated with these acts performed by Penn State students.

Furthermore, though Joe is a legend nationwide and especially here in Happy Valley we must be able to view his actions from another view point, the view of the rest of the country. The world has been told that Joe was told of an incident of child sexual abuse from the eye-witness, reported it to his supervisors as he should have and then did nothing more. This last aspect, in my eyes and in the eyes of people across the country, was a supreme failure. Joe has always been one to go the extra mile to help out those in need but in this case when a child was in dire need he barely made it across the starting line. More than the residents of Happy Valley lost an idol; people nationwide lost a man, not a football coach, who they idolized for being a great human being. None of us wishes that the child abuse had happened but when no student voice is heard to speak out against the child abuse but thousands of students take the street when a man who should have done more is fired we must expect that we as a collective student body, as a university, will be viewed negatively. The only way to come out of this is to accept and own up to our failures and to work to brighten a reputation that has been both fairly and unfairly tarnished.

I'm fortunate enough to have contact with people in Mexico, with the family of an exchange student who lived with my family, and more fortunate still to have been able to visit true Mexico, not Americanized-Mexico in places such as Acapulco and Cancun. Poverty is rampant in Mexico on a scale that is almost unfathomable. Entire families - parents, children, grandparents and more - live in 10ft square block wall shacks with a piece of scrap metal for a roof and everyday they have to work and struggle to survive. It's no stretch for me to see that people coming from this type of life easily accept hard labor as a way to get ahead, a way to survive; it is a necessity. And with family playing a large role in life in Mexico it is also no stretch to understand that people will take the risk to cross into the US and then work ceaselessly in order to scrape together meager amounts of money, most of which will be sent home. Frankly, I find myself somewhat appalled when I hear the Mexican people as a whole being labeled lazy; many are anything but lazy.

In contrast, manual labor is to a large extent looked down upon by US citizenry. The value of a hard day's labor seems to have been lost upon many of us, evident by the fact that a produce-picking job that pays nearly twice minimum wage is abandoned for being too difficult. What is worse, those desiring a trade-skill based career are often labeled as unambitious, unintelligent and unable to hack it in the US job market. There is a stigma unfairly attached to these jobs, jobs which many people seem to be too proud to pursue. Moreover, there seems to be a pervasive lack of respect for the people who follow these paths but why? How many of us without the existence of maintenance workers would be utterly helpless if something we own broke down?

This stark contrast in the attitudes of peoples of these two countries creates this rift in the work ethic of our groups. The aversion to manual labor persists through all social classes in the US. A man can take pride in his work even if no one else would do the work and a man should take pride in his work if no one else can do the work. This idea applies to what are more traditionally thought of as successful career paths but it absolutely extends to jobs such as carpentry, all forms of maintenance, mechanical work and all other skill-based labor positions. Too often are noses turned up at the people who have taken these careers; our country and our world would be lost without these men and women. A country full of millionaires and no road-building crews will have no means to travel despite all its wealth. Manual labor is not everyone's dream job but we need to discard the notion that it is something undesirable or to be frowned upon because it is very much an integral part in the well-being and maintenance of our nation and of our planet.

I think that Sam was correct in his statement that many white people are scared of the fact that one day in the future we will be the minority group in this country. I would describe myself as curious more than I would describe myself scared, curious to see how this shapes and changes the United States, if at all. More than anything else I think this anxious and/or scared view reflects part of the hill that race relations still needs to climb. Being the majority often seems to instill a sense of power, control and security that I think many whites are terrified to think about losing despite the fact that very few of us hold any real power to sway things individually or as a small group. This notion also suggests that all whites have the same values and are looking to achieve that same goals, which quite obviously isn't true. Large groups of white may learn that they have much in common with other races.

I don't believe that much will change as whites move out of the majority position in this country; what reasons are there to believe that any real change will be brought upon us? I see this movement as a side note, something that doesn't even need to be reported. I think that the correct response to the statement "White people will no longer the majority" is "Ok" but instead there seems to be a prevailing attitude of "Holy shit! We're doomed!" that I cannot begin to relate to. I think that part of the fear stems from the belief that whites "have something coming" and that all the other races are scheming to do whatever they can to punish whites. There is no reason whatsoever to believe this is accurate. And in a system with an overwhelmingly high representation of whites in our national government what white person can say that he is 100% satisfied with the government's actions and choices? Who can say he's even 75% satisfied? Who is to say that a decrease in the white population percentage won't bring around positive change, not just for some of the more troubled and put-upon races but for whites as a group as well.

Ultimately I think that a decrease in the percentage of whites to total US population can and will be a big step forward in furthering and bettering race relations. The only way to break the stereotypes about another group is to be exposed to people of that group and to see that their goals, their lives aren't that different from one's own. Furthermore, when the boundary lines between racial groups are blurred or broken it is possible to see positive aspects that can be adopted in order to better one's own group. If we allow ourselves to hear the voices of other groups, to count them as friends and neighbors I think that we can together take true steps forward towards the goal of racial equality.

I don't think that there is any doubt that different people will be in different stages of the racial identity system based simply on the fact that people are different. I see huge differences in the stages that I am in compared to some of my friends but there are also friends who share the same stage with me. I grew up in a predominantly white rural town in northern Pennsylvania. In the four years that I was in high school I think that about six black students attended my high school so for a long time I was in stage one. I knew that there were different racial groups but I didn't really understand how these groups affected life. I've always thought that my views about people have been judgements of their actions and unrelated to racial identity but I can't say the same for some of the people who I know. From stage one I pretty much skipped stage two and went straight to stage three as I began to be exposed to racist thoughts and I felt guilty for belonging to a group that hated other people for something as ridiculous as skin color. As a white person in the United States, reading history books didn't do anything to help me out of this stage and I can attest to it having quite the opposite affect. Currently I would say that I pinball back and forth or that I am a combination of stages three, four and five. Sometimes I still feel a little guilty for being white per stage three and combine this with trying to gain the acceptance of people of color as per stage five. However, there are times when I feel somewhat angered because not every action against people of color is racial in nature. Racism does go both ways as well.

As for my friends, I'm not sure what stage is the "blatantly racist" stage but I know a few people who fit into this category. I think that the vast majority of my friends and family are rather firmly placed in stage two and recognize that there are racial differences but tiptoe around any real, meaningful discussion of race. While stage two is better than being outright racist I think that it also has some major disadvantages. Race is at the forefront of one of my closest friendships; I'm a white kid from rural Pennsylvania and he is a black guy from New York City but we never let race or background come between us. Indeed in some ways we bonded over embracing these differences with the similar mindset of not allowing race to dictate who we would be friends with. We accept that we are different races, we joke about it, we discuss our differences and we respect these differences. Most of my friends don't have relationships like this, even with friends of other races, and I think it's a shame because it allows for a truly meaningful discussion about race to take place.

I found this video to be fascinating for two main reasons. First, the physiology behind conjoined twins is very interesting to me. My understanding from watching this video is that the girls seem to have split control of the whole body; for example, each girl can only control the arm on her side of the body. This leads to the second and much more interesting piece about the twins and that is that they do not share the same brain, indeed they have two very distinct brains. I think that this very well illustrates in a physical form the factors that affect all of our decision making processes, factors that remain mostly invisible but nevertheless change how we think and react.

Take for instance dating. Due to aspects in our lives beyond our control we will pick someone to date based on certain reasons. How do these girls react to the dating scene? What if one likes the partner and the other does not? Despite the fact that the girls quite obviously love one another how would they cope with a situation like this? I think that in a very real way each girl can see the other as one of these "factors or forces" that Sam is always speaking of. Brittany and Abby did not choose to be born this way, it simply happened and no one had any control over the situation. Yet the mere fact that the other girl is there sharing the same body inevitably affects the decisions that the other will make. Brittany and Abby are a living, breathing very easy to see argument of free will vs determinism; even though they may be more conscious of each other as a determining force than most of us are of our own factors and forces it doesn't affect life decisions any less.

It's also a very interesting because in a way any arguments that the girls have can be viewed as simultaneously an internal and external struggle. There can literally be no separation between Brittany and Abby if they get into a fight; being someone who likes to be alone after an argument I don't think that I would have been able to survive. But maybe this is just another one of the forces at work. Whether conscious or not, the girls must have realized "I will always share this body with my twin sister and therefore it's not worth fighting over anything." Regardless of how you look at their situation I think that the girls show tremendous strength and resolve to be able to live in very tough situation. As Brittany and Abby said, though, it's nice for them to never have to worry about being lonely and to always have someone who will have your back. I would guess this extends even to those times when one's decision is affected by the status of being a conjoined twin.

The way in which women dress, with Penn State students being a good example, can be quite easily seen as a response to the student subculture seen on our campus and as campuses across the nation. While some individuality can be expressed it is largely the same across the board: short dresses, nice tops, heels, etc. In the hypersexualized student culture looks are very important in order to out-compete one's rivals and though this challenge affects men as well is does so a much lower level. Men dress a specific way to get noticed but it so happens that that dress code can be as simple as a nice shirt and a pair of jeans. Women are forced to bear the healthy majority of the "dress to impress" burden, which stems from the differences in how men and women see the opposite sex. The man's view is often very physically based and though this is important in the woman's view as well factors - personality for example - can be much more important. Just think about how many times you've heard a guy tell his friends "She's really nice. I'm going home with this girl."

On the other hand there are numerous sociological and biological factors that cause women to want to be treated in a different way than their dress might otherwise indicate. Women are biologically programmed to find a solid relationship with a partner in order to ensure protection for her offspring; it is natural, therefore, for women overall to want to be in relationships. Moreover, there is fairly intense societal pressure for women to be in relationships. Though I believe the views about it are improving, for a very long time single-motherhood and single women in general were very uncelebrated, indeed even persecuted. On top of this there are societal factors that drive both sexes to want to show to their own group that he or she individually is deemed attractive and "datable." We pride ourselves on being noticed and accepted especially by the group that to which one is attracted.

When all of this is combined I think it very obviously produces an outcome in which women "dress one way and want to be treated another." The fact that men view dressing a certain way as meaning that she wants to be treated a certain way as well is a major issue and is probably the easiest course of action against the view in the question. Do some girls want a simple hook up? Sure. Do others not want this? Absolutely. The only thing that dressing how girls often go out says is that they are keeping up with sociological pressures and/or that they want to be noticed. It falls upon men not to assume that just because a woman dresses a certain way that she wants to be treated a certain way, too.

Foreign Aid and our foreign policy in general are two things that our country must treat as issues of great importance and must address in the near future. The US is by no means the most generous nation in the world from the perspective of monetary aid but foreign aid can come in many different forms. Moreover, not every other country requires or wants the same type of aid. Sending money to another country works only if that country possesses the capabilities to utilize that money; money is only worthwhile to have if one lives in a system in which money is the medium used for the exchange of goods and services. If one poor person buys a another poor man's cow for $5million but has nothing to spend the money on then he ultimately has lost.
The difficulty in determining the best type of aid to provide stems from the fact that much of our foreign aid is supplied to help the US, that is with the ulterior motive to protect US interests. We preach democracy but how many times has our government pushed a single group into power so that we could call upon them for resources?

I think that aid that genuinely seeks to improve the overall well-being and sustainability of a country is the only aid that can be said to rank above any other. Service, monetary aid, resources, and food, among others, are needed in different and constantly fluctuating quantities throughout the world. The manner in which we provide that aid is what I believe is truly important. We can advise, we can help build, we can help to distribute food but ultimately we must be willing to listen to the peoples of the country that we are aiding in order to hear what they need and desire. Operating under the assumption that other countries all want to achieve a system like ours breeds problems because it is a leap that we should not and cannot make. Those people who are advising must provide their opinions and present paths that can be followed to achieve the aid receiver's goals but the must also defer their decisions and goals. Failure to do this results in the risk that the aid becomes a US operation on foreign soil and the application of terms like arrogant and self-serving applied to the US.

Our aid needs to be made based on the legitimate desire to help others rather than viewing aid as a way to gain something in return. We will all gain through the process and as the result of helping other countries in ways that will increase their sustainability, whatever those ways may be. The willingness to help foreign countries to achieve for themselves should be the goal that we strive to reach as we think about what the best type of aid that can provided truly is.

Each entrepreneur in the videos is a very talented craftsperson who, more importantly, seems to have to desire to not only earn some money but also to help to improve the predicament of the entire country. I gathered from the videos that there are two major problems plaguing these Haitian business owners and these are the poor availability of employees, resources and equipment, and the difficulty of transporting the raw materials to the workplace. For example, Clorene's business is utilizing sewing machines that are decades old and Figaro must spend an entire day each week picking up and returning with her week's supplies. Think of the strain that would be put on companies operating inside the US if one seventh of the maximum possible work week was spent collecting the necessary resources. Similarly, how long could a business that cannot keep up with its own demand because of poor equipment hope to compete with other businesses?

The problem of run-down or a lack of equipment seems like it could be quite easily combated by donations of equipment from people who can and are willing to donate. The Haitian entrepreneurs seem quite capable of making a piece of equipment last a long time so the equipment doesn't have to be brand new as long as it functions properly and can be maintained fairly easily. Given the extra equipment it would be possible to expand the business and to reach a larger range of customers.

What I think could really help these businesses is an increased raw goods production system. The demand for things like fabrics and raw food goods is obviously there if only at a small level currently. If this area of business is expanded within Haiti then the entire country would benefit economically. Haitian business owners buying goods from other Haitians creates jobs in the country and also keeps the money circulating within Haiti's economy. Some of these business seem to be really held back by this lack of resource availability and I think fixing this issue could play a major role in increasing the business potential and the economy in Haiti. Even a delivery service for raw materials could positively impact all parties involved. The raw goods gatherers and manufacturers could deal more product, as could the entrepreneurs in these videos, and this creates the opportunity to expand.

Expanding the entire system that these businesses use is the key to bettering Haiti sustainably for the long term. Yes, volunteer help from the US could increase the productivity of a single business but if the supply base is not also increased then the system will eventually collapse. Even if it reached the point that these entrepreneurs' businesses were able to ship overseas, without a supply source of raw materials from inside Haiti there is a very real chance of forming a dependent business relationship or partnership when people are forced to utilize raw goods from overseas. In my mind, increasing the supply base within Haiti is the key piece to helping to create a sustainable Haitian economy, which for me should be the ultimate goal of a program like this.