en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/2443542 Comments by gjt5034 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-82/#IDComment231184489 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. Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:07:07 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/29/voices-from-the-classroom-82/#IDComment231184489 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-75/#IDComment222983377 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. Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:31:53 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/15/voices-from-the-classroom-75/#IDComment222983377 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/10/voices-from-the-classroom-73/#IDComment220443223 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. Fri, 11 Nov 2011 15:24:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/10/voices-from-the-classroom-73/#IDComment220443223 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/03/voices-from-the-classroom-66/#IDComment216811899 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. Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:25:28 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/11/03/voices-from-the-classroom-66/#IDComment216811899 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-58/#IDComment213415450 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. Fri, 28 Oct 2011 13:26:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/27/voices-from-the-classroom-58/#IDComment213415450 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/20/voices-from-the-classroom-50/#IDComment210252274 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. Thu, 20 Oct 2011 22:31:49 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/20/voices-from-the-classroom-50/#IDComment210252274 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/12/consider-the-issue-of-freedom-vs-determinism/#IDComment207244500 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. Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:04:40 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/12/consider-the-issue-of-freedom-vs-determinism/#IDComment207244500 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/06/voices-from-the-classroom-36/#IDComment204402013 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. Fri, 7 Oct 2011 15:33:14 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/10/06/voices-from-the-classroom-36/#IDComment204402013 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-25/#IDComment201308230 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. Fri, 30 Sep 2011 12:50:18 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/27/voices-from-the-classroom-25/#IDComment201308230 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/20/everyone-respond-to-this/#IDComment197593692 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. Fri, 23 Sep 2011 19:30:03 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/20/everyone-respond-to-this/#IDComment197593692 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/15/voices-from-the-classroom-17/#IDComment194221152 I think the defining factor for what constitutes a "big issue" is something that can be seen to affect the world on a large-scale basis. Gay rights has been and continues to be a much debated topic up to the highest levels of the political world in the US but I view it as unworthy of much debate. LGBT are human beings just as heterosexuals are and deserve to be afforded the same rights and to be treated equally, end of discussion. However, gay rights continues to be a huge area of contention and I believe that it is maintained as such to distract people from the real issues. Real issues are those that don't have a clear answer or do not present a clear path to take, for example the state of our economy and the unstoppable movement towards a global economy and how to deal with this transition. The war in the Middle East that has no end in site and into which we have dumped over one trillion dollars over the past 10 years is a real issue, as is the general instability of the Middle East. US foreign policy, sustainable and alternative energy, disaster relief aid, world hunger and overpopulation, and severe violations of human rights that occur over the world are real issues. Gay rights should receive no more attention than the recognition that denying rights to the LGBT community is denying basic rights to human beings, therefore stamping it as immoral. The real issues listed above, among others, deserve more thought and more provoking discussions. While these issues are sometimes reported they maintain their places in the background of the news that we receive or are discussed superficially at best. Ignoring the real issues means that the status quo can be maintained and no major changes to the power structure or mindset that grip and rule our country will be made. If we adjust our foreign policy and how we treat other countries and groups we might not find ourselves under attack and involved in pointless wars that have crippled multiple countries and further destabilized an already volatile region. Or if we could step outside of our US shell we could see that there is widespread famine occurring in areas of the world and it has the very real potential to spread beyond the third world. But thoughts like this on the real issues lead to the possibility of major changes in both the thinking and the structure of power in our country, something that those in control will do what is necessary to stop. So non-issues like how many and what rights gays deserve is stirred into a frenzied topic of discussion that is so passionately argued that it shifts our view from the issues that affect the entire world with the potential of changing it outright and entirely. There is only one real issue in the LGBT rights debate: a group of people is being denied rights in order to mask real issues and hide them from thinking minds that might otherwise examine our own actions and think "Maybe we should be handling this a different way." Fri, 16 Sep 2011 20:53:50 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/15/voices-from-the-classroom-17/#IDComment194221152 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/07/questions-from-the-classroom/#IDComment191519750 At the base level we are all humans and share the same basic features but as we begin to look more closely there are noticeable differences that have arisen as evolution has run its course, with different characteristics such as skin color, hair type, body type, and many other physical aspects. I believe that viewing every other person as a human being is probably the healthiest attitude to have when recognizing these differences but I can also understand why people separate groups based on physical and cultural characteristics. I believe that this view of separate groups is governed by two pieces of human behavior. The first behavior that we humans have is the tendency to classify things based on their differences. This refers not only to the differences between humans but in other animal species, in plants, in a host of other items and objects and things. In and of itself, I do not believe that the classification of humans into other groups is a bad thing; it helps us to categorize and understand a different culture or religion or belief system. The problem arises when one group(s) claims superiority over another group because this inevitably leads to conflict when the groups are forced to interact. I firmly believe that noticing differences is an innate aspect of human behavior but acting against a group based on these differences is a learned behavior that only drives a wedge between people. The second piece of the equation is our pride in belonging to a certain group and the desire to feel a sense of belonging. People who have lived their entire lives in the US still identify as being Italian or Irish or German or of any other descent. I don't claim to be nor identify myself as Scottish (where my family draws a large portion of our heritage) but when asked about my ancestry even I will remark with some pride that my family came from Scotland. A student from Mexico lived with my family for a year when I was in high school; Mexico is in the grips of a ferocious drug war and extreme poverty and corruption and he remains proud to be Mexican. Whether it is a recent development or something that has been around for hundreds or even thousands of years I think that many humans take a large amount of pride in their backgrounds. For these two reasons I think it is very difficult for people to be satisfied as simply being "human." We constantly classify things around us, including other people and ourselves, and we tend to have great pride in our family lines. I do not believe that these two behaviors encourage any sort of prejudicial thinking or actions but I do believe that they can easily be persuaded in that direction. There is nothing wrong or incorrect about being different from another person or group; it simply is. We may never classify ourselves simply as "humans" but we should all strive to accept others regardless of our differences. Fri, 9 Sep 2011 15:35:47 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/09/07/questions-from-the-classroom/#IDComment191519750 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/08/26/what-do-you-want-to-know-before-its-all-over/#IDComment189122096 The question that I would like to be answered before the semester is over is why do people cling to the idea that race and the differences that are associated with it are so important? I grew up in a small town, roughly one tenth of the size of Penn State's student body, and as is the case with many rural Pennsylvania towns my high school was predominantly white, about 99% white. Despite this being the stereotypical breeding ground for racist thought I managed to become a fairly tolerant person capable of accepting the differences that are natural in humans. However, I do know many people whose thoughts are affected by race and the idea that one group is better than another, which has always been somewhat difficult for me to comprehend. I know plenty of white people who are assholes, just like I know plenty who are friendly and caring individuals so why should I assume that there is anything other than that exact situation among other racial groups? Through meeting and talking to people who allow racist thoughts, possibly even enjoy them, I've realized that it's as if these people operate with the idea of "guilty until proven innocent" in mind. Simply belonging to another race seems to start a person off with a major disadvantage that assumes that said person is untrustworthy, unkind, a bad person, etc. But what if a racist person had been born into the group that he hates? Would these thoughts still persist? Would they be directed at another group instead? Or, and what I feel is more likely to be the case, is this kind of pointless hatred taught by watching parents, older siblings and other important people while someone lives and grows? The fact that bothers me the most about racist thinking is that it inherently limits the possibility to grow as person and to advance as a species by decreasing the number of people from whom we are willing to take ideas. I believe that truly marvelous things could result if we could forget about contrasting our differences and learn to accept them, to embrace them and to celebrate them instead. If nothing else, we all share this planet and must accept that there will always be a wide variety of differences in people, be that in terms of culture, beliefs or physical appearances or any other number of aspects. If we all share the same planet and eventually the same fate, why do people spend so much time focusing on such a tiny aspect of our existence? "Let us put our minds together and see what life we will make for our children." - Sitting Bull Fri, 2 Sep 2011 19:48:32 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/08/26/what-do-you-want-to-know-before-its-all-over/#IDComment189122096 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment145207719 Propaganda like this has been in use for thousands of years of human history now and as this video illustrates fear can be a very powerful tool used to achieve one's goals. To that end, this video very effectively instills and fosters a fear of Islam and jihad sweeping across the world and attempts to unify its audience into a mindset of definitive action that needs to be taken against these "evil" forces. The result of the fear is a relinquishment of rational thought and a desire for safety that leads to terrible conflicts, very similar to what happened following the attacks on Sept. 11. No one will deny that the attacks on Sept. 11 were terrible. Attacks of this nature occur on a global level and only truly accomplish two things: death and destruction. Where this video attempts to do, however, is disgusting, untrue and has the very real potential of leading to even more destruction. Islam is a religion that represents roughly 20% of the worlds population, a number of around 1.5 billion people. To say that the attacks on Sept. 11 and the others included in the opening montage represent the mindset, beliefs and goals of all 1.5 billion of the world's Muslims is entirely ludicrous. Every religion has its extremists and to believe that the exceptionally small portion of Islamic extremists who carried out these attacks around the world acted on behalf of or towards the unified goal of all of Islam is a massive misrepresentation of the truth and an injustice to most of the world's Muslim population. I doubt, for example, that most Christians would be happy being blanketed under and judged by the actions of Westboro Baptist church. To do so to another religion is similarly unfair. But as this footage and information similar to this video is all that is presented to many of us in the United States how are we to know that the information is not as truthful as is wanted for us to believe? Instead fear takes control - "They hate our freedom and want to see it destroyed" - and support for the global War on Terror rises as it is seen as a force of righteous to rid the world of tyranny. More importantly, videos like this dehumanize the people represented in them and make them acceptable casualties of conflict in a "better to strike first before they have the chance to" mentality. Videos like this and other propaganda are altogether to effective and to often believed and the goals of those who produce them can be achieved with the backing of the people who believe them. All too often unfortunately the path to the end goal have terrible costs in terms of lives claimed and damages caused. Fri, 22 Apr 2011 20:30:03 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/19/what-americans-fear/#IDComment145207719 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment143211673 The fact that the United States spends the most money out of any country in the world should really come as no big surprise. We have a massive army: huge manpower, hundreds if not thousands of advanced weapons systems that must be maintained and wars being fought as well as bases in other countries. I think the question that arises is is a military of this size with a budget as large as it is really necessary for our country's safety, survival and well being? I feel that our military budget is not only much larger than it needs to be but is also ultimately hurting our country. $663 billion is a huge amount of money, especially when considering that it is the military budget proposed for single year for the United States. I was unaware that the Obama administration had been raising this budget but due to the recent invasion and military action in Libya it's not too big of a shock. What I think is most unfortunate about a budge this size is that a large portion of this money could be saved if we would cut some of the unnecessary military spending and could then be put to much better use. But we have adopted a very childish "You have what I want so I'm going to take it" attitude with foreign oil and we need to military to help in its acquisition. One can make the argument that we need foreign oil and therefore we need to maintain our military but I move that this shouldn't be the focus. Yes, we rely upon foreign oil but rather than gathering more oil we should be cutting back on our oil usage. If we cut even of a fraction of the yearly amount spent on our military we could start to develop alternative and public transportation that would decrease oil demand and continue to lower the amount of money spent to ensure access to foreign oil. As this progresses more money could be spent developing our infrastructure and helping out citizens, our own and in other countries. Rather than pretending that there is an evil group that wants to murder every US citizen and only our military can protect us why don't we instead assist our citizens by building up helpful government-funded programs and infrastructure? The need to cut back on oil usage aside, there is absolutely money in the military budget that could be cut and instead put to use in ways that will actually help the US rather than be spent fighting another war. Fri, 15 Apr 2011 20:32:13 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/11/the-cost-of-empire-soc-001-blog/#IDComment143211673 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/women-and-war/#IDComment141121458 Definitely a moving speech on a side of war less seen, less heard, and less thought about. While we should not overlook the soldiers who fight and who die and who are emotionally scarred by all the aspects of war it is important that we do not forget that war affects not only these mostly male soldiers but women too. I think it's too easy being removed from war as we all are to forget that the bombs and missiles exploding on the news are real and the toll they take is human life. And, as Zaina Salbi noted, much of the death toll is civilian and mostly women and children. I agree with Zaina that women as well as men, combatants and non combatants must all be a part of the negotiating table if we are to establish any sort of lasting peace. It is necessary to look at all views to fully understand any situation and who better to ask than those who have lived through the situation, especially with something as deadly and destructive as war? I could sit here and speak of what it is like to live through a war in a war zone, knowing that with each falling bomb someone I know, someone I love, or even I might die. I would say that it's necessary for a soldier to forget that he is killing human beings in order for him to be able to do so but I think he also sacrifices a piece of his humanity by being able to pull the trigger. The most powerful piece of the speech for me was the quote about the woman who was most scared, after all the she and her children had been through, that her children would grow up with hate in their hearts. We often equate strength with being able to fight through a war in this type of macho bravado sense but I think that it is more difficult to live through what Zaina described some of these people going through and being able to say "No, I will not continue the violence" and to hope that one's children will refuse to pick up a gun in the first place either. This, to me, is the true strength required of anyone who faces war, especially civilians. Just as importantly it highlights the fact that we all share one planet together; our differences are not and should not be enough for one to desire to kill another person. For us to survive as a species, for our world to survive, we must be willing to put aside our differences, invite all parties to the negotiating table and figure a cure for war that is best for everyone involved in the present and for the future. Sat, 9 Apr 2011 00:06:59 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/04/03/women-and-war/#IDComment141121458 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139146305 I'm very much inclined to agree with Sam's beliefs on the distribution of wealth. I agree wholeheartedly that if Person A wants to work harder than Person B to make more money and to achieve more "success" then that is his or her prerogative. Person B, though more realistically People B, shouldn't complain over the fact that Person/People A have more money. As Sam has said though this is no longer entirely an accurate representation of the truth. People with money are either being voted into power or contributing enough to campaign funding that their ideologies are those that are being voted into law following a sort of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" method. And as Sam said in class, people will want to make their own situations better for as little cost to themselves as is possible. This system can eventually only lead to widespread poverty and/or some sort or revolution or even a complete collapse. The problem arises because the people with the money want to keep as much of it as is possible and this means lowered tax rates for the wealthy and either increased tax rates for the lower classes or budgetary cuts and de-funding of helpful programs. In some cases all of these happen. However, the lower classes only have so much money, especially when our country's wealth is so unequally spread. No governmental programs can be funded when the people without the majority of the wealth are being taxed the hardest. If the programs and infrastructure and systems cost, say, $10billion per year and the tax base only earns $7billion per year then it is not possible for everything to function. The real shame is that people making these decisions - behind the scenes or not - seem not to realize that they're very negatively affecting non-upper class lives. Moreover, if this trend continues all the programs that the wealthy rely on, infrastructure maintenance for example, will fall apart. They are shooting themselves in the foot in the long-term to achieve more short-term wealth than they could ever use. An underlying issue in this whole scenario is the prevalence and power of corporate news in this country. It falls back to those in power wanting to retain their power and benefits: why would these news sources report on the incredibly unfair distribution of wealth when those who pull the strings are enjoying upper class status? If no problem is reported on then why would people be inclined to look for it or believe it when they do hear about it from another source? Instead we get to hear about what celebrities got DUI's while the people in power sip vintage cognac in one of their mansions. I believe that we can only get back on the right economic track if there are major changes made regarding the wealth distribution and how it is managed and maintained. Fri, 1 Apr 2011 16:39:51 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/30/so-what-your-take-on-those-inequality-classes/#IDComment139146305 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135673724 This is so moving and beautiful a speech that I hope that not a single person would have been able to bring him or herself to vote to prevent same-sex marriage from being allowed after listening to it. I have never taken issue with the idea of same-sex marriage but this video compels me even more towards recognizing it as something that needs to be allowed. Zach is quite obviously doing well for himself and, paraphrasing what he said, the sexual orientation of his parents has in no way affected who he is as a person - aside from most likely making him more accepting of LGBT people and families. After watching this video and the video in class the other day it really hit me how idiotic and ignorant the idea of "homosexuality destroying the American family" truly is. If anything I think exactly the opposite is true, especially after seeing how much paperwork and how many hoops gay couples need to jump through in order to bring children into their families. Straight people - not just married couples or boyfriends and girlfriends but even random strangers - need only to have sex and the chance is there to produce offspring. Gay couples on the other hand must go through the long and arduous process of all that is required - paperwork, background checks, etc - to adopt children. It is not possible for a gay person to come home to hear "I adopted a kid...surprise!" and I firmly believe that his creates a tighter family bond. Gay parents are forced to really examine themselves and to prepare for bringing a child into the family, not something that all straight parents are ready to do or may do at all. The argument that gay parents will negatively affect their children is equally as ignorant. Many people still believe that straight people should have a stranglehold on bringing children into families. Throughout history humans have been raised almost exclusively by straight parent(s), including those who committed terrible crimes and deeds. Bearing that in mind, why shouldn't LGBT couples be allowed to start families, specifically to bring children into their families? I think that two adults with stable jobs in a committed and loving relationship is exactly the kind of couple who should be raising children, regardless of sexual orientation. In no way is it possible for gay parents to "turn their children gay" or any such nonsense. LGBT parents will only affect their children's attitudes on homosexuality by making them more accepting of other LGBT people. We need to be willing to accept people's differences in order to advance on any meaningful level in our society and as a species. As is evidence in Zach Wahl's speech, acceptance of same-sex marriages and allowing LGBT families to expand to include children is entirely necessary and will serve to sew a stronger moral fiber into American families. Thu, 17 Mar 2011 20:59:24 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/15/lgbt-families-theres-a-lot-of-fear-out-there/#IDComment135673724 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/01/lighting-our-way/#IDComment132466230 We've all experienced the draining effect that both the winter's cold and its darker days produce. Although most of us haven't had an experience as intense as the people in the video I think that we would all remark that we feel a bit more sapped of energy during the winter as compared to the other three seasons. Cold, lack of sunlight and a lack of the vibrant colors of spring, summer and autumn all weigh down and affect how we act. Forgetting for a second the effect that darkness has, I think a big part of the reason that people become more lethargic and depressed during the winter is due to the decreased amount of outdoor activities possible. Even just the ability to be outside without bundling up is a nice feeling. Unfortunately people's minds take over and their general depression leads to a decreased desire for any activity. However, as the people of Helsinki showed, there are ways of making this situation manageable. The addition of the specialized lamps is an easy way to not entirely erase the problem but to definitely decrease the effects of winter. The people in the video said that the lamps have an incredibly noticeable positive effect during the dark days. More importantly, I think that it was an incredibly novel and genius idea to introduce the Season of Lights idea into Helsinki's yearly activities during the winter. Quite obviously the winter cold and darkness affect the moods, behaviors and actions of the residents of the city. Not only do the lights add to the brightness of the city but I think more importantly the Season of Lights provides an outlet for expression. In a way it is a challenge to fight and to overcome the darkness. They have taken something that affects people in a physiological manner and tweaked the circumstances - added their own invisible strings - in order to make the situation more tolerable. The light artists are forced to come up with new and creative ways to light up the city. After the set up has been completed the residents are lucky enough to live in a city that has effectively been turned into an art gallery. The Season of Lights changes how people view and react to the facets of winter living, thereby using sociology to help address the problem. Fri, 4 Mar 2011 21:06:56 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/03/01/lighting-our-way/#IDComment132466230 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130641707 I think that most everyone can see that our educational system is, at the very best, faltering and in certain cases is flat out failing the students and people who it claims to teach - a shame of incredible magnitude. The reason that the educational system is doing so poorly is due to what we are taught without any teacher or administrator or any one else really being conscious of it: we are taught that there is one way to do things properly, one and only one correct answer to any given question. The problem with this, however, is that it's simply not true or applicable in life in which most 'questions' or more accurately situations that we are presented with can have many possible solutions, one of which is not necessarily any better than the others. Thinking back through history to examine some of the greatest minds that we know of, it was not so much because they were necessarily smarter than the rest of us but instead that they had a unique way of viewing questions that most other people lacked. True genius, in my opinion, does not stem from the ability to pound through the same method or methods that have been used before to achieve an answer. Instead it is the ability of a person, like Einstein or Newton, who is capable to viewing the question through a new lens, something that our educational system lacks. Like the one excerpt in the Intersections book stated, from our earliest introduction into academia we are taught to be students in our educational system. Moreover, we are set up for our life's path at a young age, very young when considering how old people are living to be now. I grew up in rural Pennsylvania and without it even being discussed it was fairly well assumed and pushed on us that we had three options after high school: work on a farm (assuming you had a connection to one), go to college, or join the military. Being unsure of exactly what I wanted to do post-graduation I remember speaking to my guidance counselor. Without even asking she said "Have you started applying to colleges?" "I don't know if I really want to go to college." Instead of discussing it with me she laughed a bit and then proceeded to tell me that I needed to hand in this paperwork by this date, etc. etc. I think that this illustrates all to well one of the major problems of our educational system: students are afforded very few options based on his or her family's socioeconomic situation and performance in school. I think the true shame is that many people who are talented in a host of ways that don't fit in with our academic system are cast aside or over-looked or regarded as unintelligent. People who could provide a different, maybe better, answer to a problem or question are too often cast aside for some idiotic reason such as not performing well in math class. I think we need to re-evaluate our definition of what it is to be intelligent and work on organizing our educational system to better fit this new and improved idea. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 17:28:44 +0000 http://www.worldinconversation.org/2011/02/21/rethinking-education/#IDComment130641707