Alright; before I delve into the debate over whether homosexuality is a natural occurrence based on one's genetic makeup, a simple choice against the natural order of things, or byproduct of the times and environment we live in, I would like to establish that I really don't know, don't care, and neither should you. This debate should not be over how this phenomenon has come about in our culture, but instead what we're going to do about it. The fact of the matter is, we're taking rights away from certain people for no good reason other than the demands of some religious nut-jobs from thousands of years ago. I could go into detail about how there are countless hypocrisies in your 'good books' that would not only condone homosexuality, but prove those who oppose them to be much worse people based on their own faith. Instead, I would like to say that nearly all of the lessons taught in these religions are so outdated, they barely apply at all. You might say: 'Wait! God has imparted undeniable wisdom upon us,' but no. Over the years there have been countless translations of the bible, the torah, and every other religious book to keep up with the times. Religious people make the claim that most of these changes are to account for non-literal lessons that are not meant to be taken directly as true. That is ridiculous. There are countless examples in the bible that are written to explicitly keep women down, but you choose to ignore those. Why draw the line at homosexuals?
Now as far as I'm concerned, it really doesn't matter why people are homosexual. I don't know, nor do I care, but for some reason, it's a deciding factor for basic human rights. Let's look at some examples of how homosexuality expresses itself in our culture. There are men who are attracted to other men alone, men who have sexual relations with other men, and men who can have simple relationships with other men. Where do you draw the line on this front? Looking at Sam's example in class, he established that it would not be out of the question to see him in a relationship with another man. This may not be because he is ultimately attracted to this other person, but instead because he wishes to share experiences with another human being that he relates to.
If it were up to me, I would change the laws so that these rights are not based on marriage (a ceremony that religious people claim to between a man and a woman alone). Instead, everyone will be able to unite with a civil union. Let the religions keep their marriages holy, but separate it from our country's system of law.

Getting offended based on what someone says about another person or group is ridiculous. Getting offended in general, is a bit ridiculous to me. Racist, prejudiced, mean jokes are funny because that's exactly what they are: jokes! If you can't laugh at the differences that make us all unique, you're going about your life all wrong. Stop being so easily offended, and shrug off whatever people assume about you based on preconceived notions of race, religion, or upbringing. Just because someone believes the group you are a part of acts a certain way, or believes a certain thing, doesn't mean they think that way about every single person that makes up that group. You are still an individual, and people understand that.
As for why the white person was called out instead of the asian, it's because he was white. A white man was interviewing the asians in the video, and white people are in charge of what goes on the air. The fact is, there are people of every race that find that video funny, even asians themselves. That girl can do nothing to convince me that she has never laughed at the expense of another group of people. Comedians that delve into racial issues and stereotypes are some of the funniest, and most intelligent entertainers. I can guarantee that most black and brown people that get offended by 'racist jokes' would still find Dave Chappelle funny, simple because his comedy often goes the other way around. This fact pushes the idea that many people in the class, especially those that spoke out against the video, are in the third stage.
My biggest complaint is: if the people actually in the video were not offended, who are you to say it is wrong!? At one point, one of the asians being interviewed flipped it around, and found humor in the white man's failure to understand what he meant by 'fighting' when it came to the football games. The interviewer couldn't get past the idea of fighting in a negative connotation, while the interviewee simple met the challenge between two teams. The whole situation is humorous, not because of the asians' lack of understanding, but because of the differences present between the two cultures.
I'm also very excited for the class when we discuss the ideas of comedy. In my opinion, there is really no line that should be left uncrossed. I personally find jokes about my own race funny, such as white people as being unable to handle any situation that involves race.

To me, the idea of the race table, and thoughts about it as discussed in this class are flawed. I don't look at the divisions between us as based solely on where a person came from, or the color of their skin, but instead based on the social group they are a part of. The problem is, we tend to assume that people of a certain race, religion, or background automatically become a part of one of these groups. I, for one, grew up in an area that was predominantly white. In my elementary school class of about 100 people, there were 2-3 black and brown students. Being in a suburb, everyone lived a similar lifestyle. Houses were spread apart, kids played township sponsored sports, and everyone attended school sponsored events. In this sense, we were all part of this social group. Being black or brown didn't change the views we held towards people, since they were part of this community. Where the line gets drawn, is when we look at other social groups, which could be established in other types of communities around the country. For instance, the social group one can imagine in a city environment is viewed as one that we would rather not be a part of. This group has lower income and typically lower success rates, but has nothing to do with the fact that is made up of mostly people of non-white descent. If we hold negative views about this culture, it is not because of predetermined notions of racial ideology, but simply how we feel about the social constructs that these groups exhibit. There are many white people that are also in this social group, and I do not imagine there is much difference between them and the minorities that are a part of the same group.

It just so happens that when we look at most social groups around the country, many groups are dominated by a single ethnic factor. There is an african-american culture that dominates one group, and other racial identifiers that dominate others. These factors have little to do with how you're born, and alot to do with how you are raised. To see this, we can look at the two major social groups dominated by white people. There is the classic suburban lifestyle of the north, and the group we think of when we say: southern people. Both have a majority of white people, yet contain very different social constructs.

Living in a community of little diversity allowed me the opportunity to look beyond the ideas of race being a social divider, since the minorities in my community were integrated into our social group so well. If I lived near a city, where people of color were a majority, I may feel much differently at this point in time.

I struggle with my my ideas and perspectives of war, as I believe everyone in the world should. Throughout time, powerful, and even not so powerful, civilizations use war to get the things they want. It is used to take over land in order to gain more natural resources, promote their own values, or just because they feel as though they have to. In America's case, we have contributed to all three of these types. Many claim, and Sam has pointed out, that we have involvement in the middle east to secure a stake in the oil that lies below it, a critical part of our economy. We may have additional motives for being there, but access to oil is a direct result of our occupation. We have invaded other countries to topple communism, and promote democracy (spreading our own values), and even invaded simply because we thought we needed to do good in the world. This is much of the case for our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, where we were able to overthrow, or eliminate leaders we deemed too dangerous to keep around.

I'm all for helping out the world when it's in need, but lets not pretend as though we're doing all we can, and Iraq and Afghanistan were the most threatening countries to the people living there. There are countless other places around the world where travesties are happening every day much worse than the aforementioned circumstances. The genocides in Sudan, child armies of Uganda and Sierra Leonne, and daily bombings in Somalia, all are places where major military help is needed, but we hold back, simply because there is nothing for the United States to gain out of the situation.

Were it up to me, I would keep large scale invasion and all occupations off the table, and instead use small combative forces where they are needed around the globe. In small teams, we can do so much to help those in need, with little cost to us as well as the land we are trying to help. Occupation in Iraq has destroyed any economy they hope to have had, even though we did the right thing by removing a cruel dictator. Small operations like those that took out Osama Bin Laden allow us to spread our influence with little repercussions and should be utilized more often.

While I do agree with many of the points that anti-war activists bring about, I do argue that we are a great nation that should help others instead of only ourselves. We are not a country of people in this together, but a world!

I can say that I don't hold any strong belief of whether homosexuality is genetic or a choice, and don't care at all. The idea that they can be prejudiced against because of it is ridiculous to me, especially because a religious based argument. I see no difference between this religious based bashing, and persecution of any religion in general. It's simply a difference of belief. Let alone the rest of the world, the United States was founded on the basis of church and state. Unless an argument can be made against it that agrees with the beliefs of those not part of your own religious cult, there is no argument to be made. It is immoral to claim the Bible, or God, as a backing for your hatful opposition.

Many religious people claim that marriage is only a religious based exercise, but that's not the case. Marriage is also the way two people in the United States can join together financially and legally. There are many laws that go along with this union, and it is unfair for those rights not to extend to all the people. It is one thing for a religion, or a religious person, to refuse to cater to these situations, but it is another for the government to take this into account.

I would also like to rant for a moment about this issue in the upcoming presidential election. I am not far left or far right, and would vote for someone of either party, even in the current race, but Rick Santorum tends to hold many beliefs that go against my previously stated points. He has even gone as far to say that he is against the separation of church and state (JFK's speech regarded it made him want to throw up). Even if the majority of people share the same religious affiliation as him, it is wrong to use this as a way to bring others down. As I previously stated, arguments used should not be based on religion. Instead, base them on a general moral guideline that applies to nearly everyone.

As for the actual photo in the video, I am not against the action at all, but the lengths it had taken (legs wrapped around) is a bit much. Like the man on the right, my reaction would be similar if it was heterosexual, probably even worse if it was a man with his legs wrapped around woman.

Prejudices as seen in situations like those explained by Sam yesterday are everywhere! In the job market, loan applications, and social environments, people are judged by the color of their skin, and how we feel they are going to perform or act, based on what we think we know about that group. I am white, and therefor at an advantage in these kinds of situations, but I can still see what goes on in the background. I'm sure I even take part in these decisions without knowing it. When deciding who you want to work with, be friends with, or be part of any social activity with, a picture of the person is painted in your mind before you get the whole story about this person. Where I strongly disagree with others, including Sam, is the idea of having affirmative action as a way of leveling the playing field. In this one particular situation, it may be able to do just that, but I see this phenomenon as being very far away from a racial issue. There is more to this than whether a person has a certain skin tone, or different sounding name. It is everything about a first impression that contributes to how we view people, and make decisions about it. This is a part of life, and cannot be fixed through extra rules or regulations. If you feel as though it is unjust, you can make your own decision to look past these issues, but it is not that easy. Features and actions of a person that guide our decision making processes about them have a wide variety of elements. In an interview this could be the person's weight, how they dress, how they speak, what their hobbies are, where they are from, or even what color hair they have. Simply based on the interviewers own personal history with people that fit these categories, a predetermined notion of how good of a fit this person with be in the given situation is evaluated. To fix this effectively with a rule similar to affirmative action, there would have to be a boost for anyone who's colored, overweight, bald, with a southern accent, or has a big nose. This, of course, is ridiculous. There's no way to control the situation effectively for anyone but yourself. If you want to make a difference take a little bit of extra time to appreciate people for who they are, and not who you think they are. It can go a long way!

Let me start by saying that I grew up in a household that was influenced by one Christian parent, and one Jewish Parent. Neither are very religious, but both have a strong belief in a higher power, and give this being credit of our existence. Like most people in the world, I was likely to follow in these footsteps, and have their beliefs shape my own, but as I grew older I was able to analyze the situation for myself. I have come to the point where I am fairly certain that there is no supreme being. This does not go only as far as to say that we were not created in His image, but additionally, He did not put these historical events in place.

The fact of the matter is, scientists have not only discovered with the utmost certainty that we developed from 'lower' forms, but have unfolded nearly every mystery of life in the universe there is to find. They have even created contraptions that mimic the conditions of prehistoric earth, and wound up creating complex amino acids. The fucking building blocks of all life on earth. If that doesn't prove it's possible, I don't know what does; but I digress.

As for this meaning of life, or life energy, why is it that we feel deserving of some bigger role in the grand scheme of things. After all we're just a bunch of talking monkeys. Do the non-talking monkeys in the wild play some part in the unfolding of the universe? NO. It's just by chance that we came about in this universe, and we're here for such a miniscule amount of time in comparison.

The reason we have all of these questions, argue over why we're here, and debate over why we're here, is because we have consciousness. If you're conscious is struggling to get over the idea that you mean nothing, consider your meaning on life is to just be happy. Everything anyone does ever, is to participate in the idea of happiness. When you help others, or learn something new, you are happy. All your plans are put in action just so you can feel happy at some later point in time. Some people don't know what will make them happy, which is why people make decisions differently then others. Don't spend your life doing something that you think will make your 'Creator' happy, it will be no use! You're here for no reason whatsoever for a small amount of time. Just be happy, because if you are, there's nothing else you can desire.

Obviously there's alot of the Shaman story to take in, and many facets to it that must be addressed. The fact that Sam was 'completely cured' calls the question of what physically happened to his body. Additionally, what did this Shaman use, and how did he know to use it. If he was called to this certain plant, as Sam claims he had been, where did this knowledge come from. Also brought up was the idea of hallucinogenics being used to access information on a spiritual level.
Sam's injury, a common one, is one that does no major damage to the body, but simply brings about a great amount of pain, due to the excessive use of the ankle in everyday life. To cure this injury in advanced countries, doctors will administer shots of cortisone, which is essentially adrenaline, or painkillers. This masks the pain, and allows the injured site to be used, and healed over time. It is clear that Sam lost pain the morning after his injury, after receiving a topical ointment. Topical ointments take a long time to absorb into the body, and explain a delay in recovery. Medicines like cortisone, and nearly all other painkillers originate from plants that are found around the world, a great portion of those being in the rainforest of South America.
The Shaman knew exactly what to give Sam, most likely due to the fact that he was 120 years old, and has seen people in pain due to muscle and tendon injuries countless times. He knew what to use because he had used it before on many occasions, resulting in less pain. This experience was most likely passed onto him from previous Shaman before him. Similar to a student learning medicine from a trained doctor.
Entering a spirit world, as Sam and the Shaman claim is the case, can be explained as well. The brain is a very powerful machine, that has the capability to process information in a way that no one has the ability to even understand. Through meditation and drug use, the mind can be kicked into an 'overdrive' which will allow the user to process information at unfathomable rates. Even under this influence the user will not understand what is going on. This can be confused for some kind of spirit world, especially be people who do not understand the workings of the human brain, particularly people in less advanced civilizations such as the Shaman of the Amazon.
I cannot completely discount the idea of a spirit world, just as I cannot discount the idea of Christianity being 100% true. All that I can say for sure, is that everything experienced by Sam, the Shaman, and hallucinogenic drug users, is that the things that happen, and the information that is learned can be explained without such ideas. Don't credit an unknown topic to some spirit, god, or faith, simply because you don't understand it's complexity.

Interracial dating, as well as interracial families, to me, are just like any other non-interracial family. Their children take traits form each of the parents, and become a mix of the two. I do have to admit that I am more attracted to people of my own race, but never find myself unattracted to someone simply based on their race. I have dated women of another race, but it seems as though there is a much smaller percentage of people I find attractive, when compared to the white population. This could be due to the environment I was brought up in, an area of lower diversity, where all media chooses certain white women as the pinnacle of beauty, but I think it lies more in my genetic makeup. There is a reason there are such distinctions between races. Throughout modern history, people of similar races would create families much more often than interracial couples would. In addition to sort of class system that had been in place, people are generally more attracted to people that share similar genetic makeups.
As for the question in class regarding the taking of sperm from someone of another race, I would be opposed to my wife taking it for one simple reason: my children, already laking my genes, would have another distinction from myself. People tend to be friends, and have better relationships with people of their own race, and that is simply because they are more similar based solely on their genetic makeup. I feel as though a child of my own race would share a better connection with me not because of their upbringing, but because of genetics and the influence of the world around them.
For adoption, I would be open to a child of any race, but feel similar to way I feel about an artificial pregnancy. A child of another race may not have as strong a connection to me as would a white child. In my opinion, no child deserves to be adopted more so than another would, so there would be little to sway me in adopting a child from another country.

Since November, students at this university have been able to take a look at nearly every angle in the large scheme of things concerning an investigation of this magnitude. This initial shock, the earliest opinions, the administration's reaction, and the media's coverage all contributed to how I view not only the people involved in the situation, but also the others that viewed the situation whether they were on one side or the other.
During the initial shock of the accusations, I had the first hand experience, as did everyone associated with penn state. I did my best view it objectively as anyone would that was not too close to the situation, yet it was difficult not to side with Joe Paterno. Peers around me contributed to my idea that the closer one is the a rough situation, the more difficult it is to stray from the though of that establishment being anything but infallible. I may have outgrown this thought just a bit, but it still holds true for the loudest voices here. Most tend to live under the illusion of the dystopian penn state community, which impels to nurture and guide in a positive manner, but fails to offer a global view.
The media's coverage taught me that people will do whatever it takes to not only lay the blame on another person, but also do so in an attempt to avoid the true root of the problem. The problem wasn't the way the situation was handled by a single person, but in the trust we give to so many people whom we barely even know. Sandusky, a friend, family member, and superior to many was given the benefit of the doubt in countless situations, a mistake that could easily be made by anyone, even those in the media. It is now my assumption that all people are scared by the fact that this could not only happen to anyone, but has happened to countless people close to them as we discussed in class. The fact that sexual abuse is so widespread, so close to everyone, yet so horrible to think about, makes it a topic that is rarely discussed.
The death of Paterno, the most recent development in the whole situation, tends to humble people a bit. Death, a topic on the same level of uncomfortability (not a real word; I know), has caused the outspokenness of previous loudmouths to be brought down a bit for the better. Laying blame on someone who had at one point become such an icon to so many, seems irrelevant after they have passed. Personal reflection, in my opinion, is the only way to bring something positive about the whole situation. Arguing, telling others, or even listening to others and their opinions will have little impact at this point. It is time now to take your own thoughts, and incorporate them into a new outlook on future situations.