After listening to Sam’s lecture, the Christian invaders, my previous view on the war was changed. In the back of my mind, I have always known that one of the issues of the war was for oil. But I did not understand the specifics or facts relating to this claim. One of the everlasting themes of this class is empathy, putting yourself in the shoes of another and forget any connections with your past, instead just focus and understand through this new individual. Looking back on history, the United States have made numerous incursions in the middle east with poor results. We have caused massive destruction and sorrow for the innocent people living in the region, even though our argument was to build a better future. The truth of the matter is, multinational oil corporations have the power to lobby government actions. The gulf war was an example of one such action. Yes, the United States entered the war to defend against Kuwait, but it was also because the US had vested interest in Kuwaiti oil that would otherwise be taken from our control. When the genocides in Rwanada were occurring the United States took no action because we had no interest in the region. Sam also mentioned how one of the top ranking oil officials stated having Iraq is like being a kid in a candy store. These oil companies are so consumed in profits and now that oil is such a valuable commodity they are using national armies as their own. Just think what other lobbying by oil companies can do in the future when oil is even rarer.

Having empathy, there was no question why the people of the Middle East would be angry at the western world. Just like how the media only portrayed Penn Staters in a bad light after the scandal, so is their world media. The powerful few in the United States who caused the destruction in the region represents the entire US. If I were in their shoes my hatred for America would be the same. What was really shocking was the recent drone attack along the border of Pakistan. Even though the US stated the attack was to target key players in terrorism, it still killed 26 Pakistani soldiers. The general in charge would not even apologize. I completely understand Sam’s anger to this incident. If France was attacking someone in particular with a drone attack and it killed 26 Americans, the United States would be furious and an apology is the least that would arrive for the United States. Why can’t the US show the same respect to countries in the Middle East? Do we look down on them because they do not have the same infrastructure and stability as we do? We really need to point the fingers on us and the people with the most power to change our way of opinion on the rest of the world.

What lessons have I learned from the events that have occurred the past week? Well first and foremost, the media is a powerful tool that can have both positive and negative impacts on its viewers. Furthermore, the media has the power to shift the focus of crucial events and alter the initial issue at hand. For example, the deep-rooted issue was sexual abuse by a former Penn State coach. However, because of Penn State’s football reputation and its famous coach, the issue’s face was Joe Paterno. Without even investigating the entire story, the entire world media descended on State College and put blame on this man. Yes, Joe Paterno should have done more, but the main focus should be on the man who caused the sexual abuse.

Last week, right after the news from the board of directors was released there was a riot at Penn State. The media portrayed the entire Penn State community as a villain, stating how we are siding with sexual abuse. Obviously this is not true and the actions of a few were generalized for the entire student population. And because Penn State was in the national media, people began to believe the media without understanding the context behind our actions. Or again believing the actions of a few as the main message for the entire school. I also learned about empathy, Sam brought up the important point of media coverage in the Middle East. In a way, they are constantly in the same boat we are in last week. The Middle-East, have always shown in a violent light, but the matter of fact is, these actions does not represent the entire views of everyone. However, I never realized this connection without finally being in a position myself. Adding to what I mentioned earlier, the media is interested in the story if emotions and tempers are high. Recently, an article was released on Onward State featuring Anderson Cooper’s upcoming show about Penn State. I was surprised when the author wrote about how the producers were encouraging Penn State students to become emotional or angry. The producers were not interested in seeing Penn State students unite and calm during this tough event. And unfortunately, there will be students who are interested in the 15 min of fame and will follow what the producers have to say. They will become angry and emotional, and those students will be aired on national TV. And when this occurs, the cycle continues, how a group of Penn State students seem to represent the entire student population.

I also learned the bond we have at Penn State. The candle light vigil was a strong indication that we cared. It was inspiring to see the entire Old Main lawn filled with student on a Friday night, willing to spend sometime away from the usual festivities to reflect. However, the national news outlets failed to capture this sign of solidarity because it is not as interesting as the riots of days past.

I did eat the second piece of chocolate. Yes, I also watched the clip about modern Africans being enslaved for our benefit collecting coco beans. Sam said it was pretty much a guarantee that the piece of chocolate I am eating had traces of slave labor in it. Yes, it was hard to watch the story of the kids being hoodwinked into working for a plantation with no pay, also, seeing the beaten scars that reflected their failed escapes. Yet, Sam said, by refusing to eat the last chocolate you are refusing to eat chocolate from slave hands forever. The forever, is where I made the decision to consume the last piece. The moment after the clip, it was obvious that eating it would be difficult. But that is not the attitude I will have for the rest of my life. This may sound extremely selfish and inconsiderate. But one clip will not have the everlasting impact on me for life. Unfortunately, after a couple of weeks I would have forgotten about where chocolate comes from and eat some more. But it’s not that I have no soul, I do feel incredibly bad for the victims in these situations. How they were torn away from their families and brought into unfamiliar lands. I want to shift blame on someone else, such as the local governments but in all truth, it could be the fault of large corporations and ultimately money.

Essentially that is the problem with today’s society. We see so many misery and shame we become immune to it. There is no surprise or shock that can carry us into the month and years. In fact, I am sure many of the cloths we are wearing as well as the electronics have had slave hands in one process or another. We hear these stories, become enraged by them for a moment and then go with our lives. I think this is because we are missing the human connection. There is no bond between viewer and the people we saw in the story. However, if this had a person connection then things may be different. Another pessimistic way of looking at this is, change is hard to achieve. For example, Sam’s friend dedicated more than 10 years to prevent slaves in coco plantations. Sure Sam’s friend may have saved many, but there are many that are still enslaved. We want quick results, if results are slow and seem stagnant we become bored and forget about the atrocities altogether. And what about slavery in the textile and electronic markets? Most of the equipment we use may have a connection to slavery. But we are so accustomed to having these toys and cloths with us we are willing to turn a blind eye. After all, ignorance is bliss…

Disclaimer I am making a generalization. Obviously, there are Americans who are working the same dirty, painstaking jobs alongside immigrants, in this case Mexicans. And vice versa, there are Mexicans who refuse to work for low paying appalling condition jobs. But in general it’s our environment and its influences that prevents us from doing these jobs. Overall, America is the land of the plenty. Mostly when you see Mexicans at work there are people better off around them. In the beginning Mexicans or all immigrants were hired for their cheap later. And most of the Mexicans accepted it since they were sending the money back home. Where the American dollar was much stronger than the Peso. Home, in Mexico, their conditions were worse off. After all that is why they arrived in America. That is also why you don’t see a well off Mexican smuggling him or her over the river. Furthermore, Sam mentioned in class these Mexicans have the tenacity and drive to work hard in order to succeed. After all, coming into the United States illegally takes a lot of patience and risks. The Mexicans who do not possess as much drive and tenacity chooses to stay behind in Mexico. And like I said previously, these Mexicans do not understand the language and the only jobs they can apply for are undesirable jobs most Americans chose to ignore. Again, a generalization, but most Americans see the gold at the end of the tunnel, but are unwilling to work for it if it contains many obstacles.

Soon enough Americans becomes accustom in seeing Mexicans do work they themselves are reluctant to do. Again, most Americans cannot imagine the hardships these Mexican immigrants faced in their homeland. And if the work the Mexicans are doing is providing their families with food and shelter, why not take it. Eventually this idea becomes a stereotype; Mexicans mostly do hard work in conditions Americans try to avoid. And this idea is pass down from generation to generation, soon people do not want to associate themselves to average hardworking Mexicans by the jobs they are doing.

This is also what leads to the immigration debate Sam spoke about in class. Americans do not understand that they are the cause of the high unemployment rate. Without Mexicans working these jobs, our society would come to a halt. In fact, these workers are only trying to do an honest days work for the same reason Americans go to work: To raise a family and have success. The only difference is, Mexicans are able to work from the bottom of the pyramid in order to succeed, unlike most Americans.

My story is kind of interesting. My race is Asian, yet my family moved to Canada and then ultimately to the United States when I was 7. Furthermore, my family in China was very well versed in western society. My grandpa was an English teacher in China and educated in a western college. So at a young age I was excited to meet new people and interact with them. When I was in Canada I tended to hang out with the native kids whether they where white or any other color. And when I moved to the United States, I lived in the suburbs and the majority of students in school were white. But by that time I related more towards the white kids in the community. This was due to the culture that I was immersed in, since it was a predominately white community. But based on my experience I feel all individual races share some of the same characteristics in terms of dealing with other races. Unless you have had prior engagements with other races, you tend to stick with the race you are currently in, until your comfort level allows you to expand. To expand on that, I don’t even think it is sticking with your own race, we say that because we believe we share something in common with your own race. A better description of that would be following in the steps of people that relates to you. For example, like previously stated, I shared more similarities to the white kids in school because that was the culture I was brought up in. So when choosing a race, I felt more comfortable with whites rather than other Asians. But I don’t think that changes the way I view the world.

But ultimately, I don’t believe a certain type of race can change your outlook on other races. It really depends on what you were taught and the experiences you had in life. For example, if you are born a certain race, but reside with the same race throughout life you may not think about or be necessary open to other races. Or on the other hand once you see someone of another race you may be outgoing and seek a conversation. A good friend of mine, he labels himself as a Hispanic. His father is of Mexican decent and mother is white. Even though he grew up in a white community he is relatively diverse due to the differences of his family. Furthermore, he visits Texas often where the rest of his family on his Dad’s side is mainly Hispanic. However, when talking to him about English people, he is often not a fan of them. This was due to a bad experience he had with a neighbor that was English. Yes, I know the English is not a race, but by being half Hispanic and White does not predispose him to not like them. It is a previous encounter that altered his view. Obviously, my friend would not ignore everyone that is English, but the idea of that one English family has ruined some of his immediate perception of English people.

After watching this short animation I am speechless. Even though I should not be surprised, this kind of spending has been going on for decades. Why are Americans so preoccupied with building up the “defense budget.” The only answer I can think of is it’s relationship to the Cold War. Obviously during that time, America was afraid of an all out war against a major world superpower. America wanted to make sure its military superiority is completely built up to destroy any of its enemies without trouble. But the cold war has gone and past.

Looking at the figures, the US spends trillions of dollars, more than any other world powers. Is it really necessary when most must of the other countries spend only a third? One reason is the United States constant inclination to police the world on all matters. Yet, the military does not become involved in humanitarian efforts or conflicts that actually affect the poorest of the poor. Furthermore, the United States is furious when other countries increase their military spending. And even though other countries increase their spending, its nowhere near how much the United States spends. This proves the hypocrisy that exists and I believe it has to do again with our mentality of policing the world. The true question lies with congress; are members of congress so dissociated from reality and spending, that they are unable to realize how much of the budget goes towards the military? Or are the special military interest groups with a stake in military funding controlling this course of action? I would have to say a little bit of both; the special interest groups are key in winning elections and contribute must of the campaign donations. Furthermore, most politicians do not experience the hardships and social programs that can be instituted with the money going towards military spending.

Looking at the healthcare example given in the video. One year of military spending constitutes healthcare for multiple years. That’s better quality of life for all Americans. How can we justify spending enormous amounts without taking care of our own citizens? I am not saying we should cut or even half the military spending we currently spend. Instead transfer only a couple of billions onto other services for the people. In relative terms, a couple of billion dollars does not matter in terms of the total military budget the United States include in its yearly bill. But like the graph showed, a couple of billions can help a great deal in terms of healthcare and many other social programs.

In the back of my mind I knew our military budget dwarfs every other country, but putting things in perspective and comparing it to the healthcare budget was a shock. What is even worse is the fact that military budgets are increasing almost every year. With the recent financial crises, budget cuts are not going to be in the military, but on programs were millions of Americans depend on.

Many factors contribute to the female view. Like all person opinions, it was first implanted in women during their youth and forever cemented as they mature into adulthood. For example, when I was growing up, many girls played with dolls, mainly Barbie. So at a young age, the reflection of what a girl/women looked like was skillfully implanted in young minds by toys. Furthermore, by playing with Barbie dolls, girls were joining with other girls and created a connection. This idea of fitting in with the rest of the girl population further enhanced their belief that the Barbie doll look was correct.

Like very child, they want to grow up as fast as they can. The easiest way to be classified as an adult begins by dressing up like one. And how do they know what to dress like? The dolls they played with years before. Furthermore, the media takes advantage of this urge to look more mature by coming out with rather inappropriate clothing for young girls, modeled by young girls having a great time. So in essence, the real girls living in reality believes the girls dressed on TV is the model image to strive and attain. The female view really exploded during a girl’s teenage years with the introduction of high school and magazines made just for them. High school is a competitive world where being in the trend can mean whether you have a seat at a lunch table. And where do these girls find the latest trends of their generation? On magazines similar to Cosmopolitan and Vogue. And these magazines portray women in a men’s image of how women should look regardless of body type. Furthermore, shows on Disney channel and Nickelodeon further display how young adults should dress and what makeup they should use.

And then we arrive to the college years. The college years are similar to the high school years. There is an urge to quickly fit in and belong in all the right groups. Also with college, there is a sense maturity that young women want to reach. With this added idea of looking older, clothing and makeup becomes sexier. And like I previously stated with the help of media and toys, sexier= less clothing.

The media has an enormous influence on how women perceive themselves, especially in TV or movie. Ironically, the actresses that play high school students are much older, in their mid 20s or early 30s. So in a sense, girls are unknowingly conforming to a generation above their own. And as more images of a certain type of women is portrayed in the media, despite all efforts we are going to see similar clothing worn by everyone—The Northface and a significant decrease in individuality, which must be respected.

First, I think the concept of the show is brilliant. And this experiment in the 21st century really showed how our perception is still dated but not forgotten. Comparing two similar individuals with similar clothing, stature and actions, with skin color being the only variable, the results were not surprising. In today’s society we are always taught about equality, but this idea becomes lost in the heat of the moment, like in the bike theft scenario. Both black and white individuals were confronted when they attempted to steal the bike chained to the bike rack. However, bystanders confronted the black individual harsher than the white individual. The tones changed and the bystanders were slightly quicker to act. When the white kid attempted to steal the chained bike, bystanders did question the individual, but they were slow to react. In a way they were surprised by the actions of the white kid.

Now obviously this experiment is not conclusive because of the wide range of variables. For example, was the group of individuals that confronted the black kid more inclined to step in when a crime was committed? Inversely, was the other group less likely to become involved? There is no sure fire way to predict general human tendencies in events like this. All humans are individuals and their rationale can be erratic and sometimes unexplained. Maybe some of these bystanders wanted to avoid direct confrontation and was planning to take action later down the road. There are so many other variables involved we cannot be certain racism is the factor at play. But this example can be linked to Sam’s previous example, of the African American women sending her kids to another district headlines. It depends on how the viewer perceived this action and is all the information there? In all honestly, the first reaction I came up with is racism. I may be correct in this assumption or I may be wrong. Unfortunately, as much as we try to become accepting of equality for all sometimes things like this slip when we least expect it, and when it does we make irrational judgments.

Now what did surprise me was when the attractive girl attempted to steal the bike. In this scenario it was the men who approached her the most. And even after she admitted in stealing the bike some men actually helped her and became accomplices. This occurred in numerous occasions and proved the power of sex. What were interesting were the women’s reactions. They were fixed on her actions rather than her looks. The women were quick to confront her about her actions. What was really shocking was when the family rode past her and the man gave her a hand in stealing the bike while only the wife questioned her actions.

So if you are an attractive girl, the chances of your crimes being overlooked are much higher than the black and white individual. In fact you may have yourself an accomplice in the process.

After listening to the Haiti project representative and reading on the Soc 119 website, the project is about understanding what these new Haitian entrepreneurs are trying to do and how difficult it is for them to expand. Before I start focusing into the specific entrepreneurs, I have some questions about the project in general. Why was Haiti chosen as the destination to look into? And are these videos being shown on micro-lending sites to foster financial help?

The first video I watched was on Clorene Blaise’s clothing shop. As we all know Haiti is a relatively impoverished nation situated between larger nations on either side; which are far more advanced and endowed. Clorene showed great determination starting her own business in a very difficult financial time, not only for her, but the rest of the world. In the video, Sam mentioned that bringing raw resources to Haiti is expensive due to middlemen. Furthermore, Clorene does not necessary have the best equipment or resources flourish her business. In Sam’s question, he wanted us to think about non-traditional ways to help people like Clorene. There are many multinational aid agencies out there whose primary purpose is to stimulate growth in developing nations. But, because these aid organizations are so large, there are a lot of middlemen like I said previously. The key would be keeping organizations small, and these organizations can purchase the resources needed by new entrepreneurs directly. One of the most effective aid strategies is micro lending. Individuals are lending money to other trusted individuals in need. This eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy and costs. Also, individual lenders can chose which business to invest in. Granted, this would not make the investor enormously wealthy in a short period of time, but it does make a world of difference to hardworking people like Clorene. These new entrepreneurs are not looking for free handouts; they want to construct a successful business on their own. They just need a little help from us.

The next video I watched was Figaro’s pastry shop. Figaro had similar difficulties shared with Clorene. One major issue faced by both women is the cost of raw materials to be used for their business. Almost all the resources must be shipped to Haiti from other countries. This obviously will increase their cost and also their sales price. When people like Clorene and Figaro have to increase their prices in order to maintain their business, it also puts them in a disadvantage. Bigger companies can charge less for the same products and drive business away from these Haitian women. In America, a similar case can be found between local farms and corporate farms. Clorene and Figaro must have some incentive to sell their products and make a living without bigger and well-established business driving them away. However, in today’s day and age, this paradox is starting to appear all too often. The way I see it, micro lending can definitely make a huge difference in developing countries with strong desires to compete and lift their nation out of poverty.

In general, I definitely agree that SAT scores rise as family incomes increase. Again generally speaking, SAT is the first step in enrolling in a great college, which can provide the foundation for the rest of your life (i.e. getting a great job based on the reputation of a school or getting into a great graduate program based on connections). Families with higher incomes unquestionably want their children to continue the success and lifestyle they have worked for, and the most straightforward way to reach this goal is with a good education and connections.

Higher income families have more resources, so they can afford to pay for prep courses and individualized tutoring. In today’s age of capitalism, Kaplan, Princeton Review and the likes have developed a market specialized in bringing great test results to it’s students. Even more so, if you have the funds, instructors can come to you and tailor their tutoring to help boost your specific weakness on the SATs. With all this going for the student with the higher income family, there is an unmistakable shift in balance with SAT scores.

What is even more surprising is the fact that some classes offer incredibly expensive, yet sure fire ways to gain good scores on SATs. For example, many international students in their home countries have programs where instructors teach students tricks even without understanding the questions. This allows students to deduce the answers to questions based on how the question is written or set up. Test prep is relatively new and an untapped market, so it makes sense that professionals can invest time and effort into beating the testing system. But like I said earlier, if your family has the funds available why not take the opportunities and give your kids the best possible start to a great college career.

Another factor that contributes to the rise of SAT scores in higher income families is the personal determination of students who want to have a privileged life. As I had mentioned earlier, living in a higher income family exposes you to certain styles of living. And generally, most people continue to hope for that lifestyle in their lives when they become independent and living away from their family. This requires a high SAT score to get into college, achieve a degree, which then opens the door for better jobs.

The original purpose of the SAT’s was to even the playing field for all students. However, it is human nature for us to compete with each other and rise above the rest. The better-funded schools and parents will inevitably give their children an edge to compete for a privileged life. Ironically, Sam said in the first day of class, why are we so focused and institutionalized in a set path? Why is there only one method in determining aptitude? We are all going to die eventually…