I wasn't really surprised that the immigration policies are shaped by businesses, because it seems that most government decisions are shaped by corporate influence. Many times, like in the food and healthcare industry, it seems that the corporate world is the entity to blame for influencing government, and that their decisions are bad ones that are made for only selfish interest. However, I'm not quite sure that big business is really the only thing to blame for shaping immigration policies, or if it really is a bad decision. It's easy for us as students learning about the topic to think that big business should not be taking advantage of illegal immigrants and putting pressure on the government , but we as consumers are the ones who are shaping big business in some ways. In my international economics class, we recently watched a film about the Ethiopian coffee trade. A few governments, including the U.S. government allow corporations to unfairly buy the coffee from Ethiopians at a very low price, and then resell it for a much higher price. We can look at that and think the government and big business are in the wrong, but I think that if given the choice, most American consumers, especially students who frequently stay up studying all night, are happy with the cheap coffee prices the way they are, and wouldn't want our businesses to be buying coffee at a fair price from Ethiopians because then the price of coffee in America would go way up. It's the same for immigration. I'm sure some of our parents have illegal immigrants doing our landscaping, and many of the products we frequently use are at a chap price because immigrants are doing the work for a very small fee, like the farms we saw in class. There is also the question of if companies should be hiring illegal immigrants over American citizens, but at the same time, once minimum wage laws and taxes came into play, products and services once made and provided by illegal immigrants will become much more expensive. It's easy for American consumers to say that they would rather legal American citizens have the jobs or that they think its horrible for illegal immigrants to be exploited like this by big business or that the government should not be influenced by corporations, but its harder for them to agree to having much more expensive goods and services as a result of the changes.

I became interested in learning about Native Americans and life on the reservation last year when my friend took an alternative Spring Break to a reservation to learn about the effects of Mountain Top Removal and resulting chemical run-off on the Native Americans who lived there. I always knew that Native Americans were among the poorest minorities in the United States, but I did not know how bad it was or look into it at all until my friend went on that trip. I started to read as much as I could about the topic, but literature that really exposes the problems was hard to find and not very abundant. The more I learned, however, the more disheartened I became. To me, it was not just about the poverty, but also about the other problems. For example, the fact that on a few reservations there are high rates of obesity, which people would normally attribute to lifestyle, was caused by the food given to them on welfare, and the reason they were on welfare is because their land was taken from them and left them in poverty. It seems so unfair to me that one specific group of people is more subjected to obesity related diseases because they were forced into poverty. When Native Americans were brought up in my discussion group much earlier during the year, we talked about things like this. The response from a surprisingly large number of people in my discussion was that it was their fault that the Native Americans were poor. Many people said, if the run off from mountain top removal causes cancer and they have to be on welfare, why don't they just leave the reservation. Obviously, when a group of people is extremely impoverished and discriminated against, it is very hard to pick up and move into a mainstream community and buy/rent a home. I was really happy that we had a lecture devoted mostly to Native American life and how they have been forced into poverty and onto reservations, because maybe that got through to the people in my discussion group and to others like them. So many Americans are oblivious to the plight of Native Americans, and like some people in my discussion group, do not understand that their poverty is not entirely their fault, but is part of the consequences of the genocide. I also feel like even though I researched Native American history before, I learned a lot more in class, and the horrific nature of what we did to them set in more. I have never used the word genocide to describe what happened to them or heard anyone else use it before Soc 119, and using that word makes a lot of sense to me and really seems to convey the magnitude and large scale of what happened.

I understand why people in Iraq would be infuriated by the war in Iraq. If another country stole resources from America and greatly benefited from them and left us in poverty, Americans would be in outrage and, we would probably declare a war on them.
I also can see why many Iraqis would think that Christians/Americans are terrible people, because the media is twisted and biased for them in the same way that it is for us. If all they see every day is negative images of Christian Americans hurting their civilians and denouncing their religion, of course they would see us as radical extremists who want to ruin their way of life. From what has been shown to Americans, many Americans feel the exact same way about Muslims from the Middle East.
I do think, however, that before someone commits an act of "terrorism", which I feel can be loosely defined as killing or hurting civilians to instill fear, that person must be as informed as absolutely possible. With that being said, I believe that if Iraqis that want to kill many American citizens, they must do research from all angles, and try to understand first. Killing multiple innocent people is a big enough deal that ignorance cannot be an excuse. And by looking beyond the media and propaganda, I do not think it would be terribly hard to see that not all American citizens denounce the Muslim religion and want to kill Iraqis. Just as we looked at the war from a different angle in class and saw where the Iraqis must be coming from and how they must see us, they could do the same thing and see that killing innocent civilians doesn't make it any better. For example, 9-11 just made Americans more angry at Muslims from the Middle East and gave Americans reasons to perpetuate their stereotypes and fear. So yes, I do blame terrorists. And by saying that I blame terrorists, I mean that I also blame the American government and military for willingly and knowingly bombing Iraqi civilians. I think that both parties are at fault, and in each case, terrorism is not acceptable. I know that modern day warfare is more like guerilla warfare now and that its very hard to not kill civilians, but I know that the American military does their best to minimize how many civilians are hurt or killed. When Iraqis come to America for the sole purpose of killing American civilians, I don't think there can be an excuse. They are not trying to minimize civilian deaths, and even though I feel that the Americans are at fault in this war, the civilians did not declare it.

Girls dressing up to go out in really uncomfortable clothes is just as bizarre as any other trend we have been socialized to do. If you think about it, everything we do is constructed in some way by our social context and what we have been socialized to do by our environment. I do think that this socialization is more degrading than others however. When I think about it, it does make me uncomfortable to know that all of the boys at a party have just thrown on jeans and a tshirt and messed up their hair on the way out whereas girls are wearing little to no clothes, high heels, have spent an hour on their hair, and are wearing make up. Make up is one of the most interesting social constructs to me, because I wonder if boys would "look better" with make up like girls do, and why we even think girls look better with make up on in the first place. What's probably the most interesting though, is that we have been socialized to dress and look this way to such an extent that we actually like it. It's become a social activity for girls to get ready together. While girls drink together before we go out, we get dressed up in short skirts and high heels, and do each other's make up and hair. For the most part, we love borrowing other girls' clothes, and we even read about hairstyles and make up techniques in magazines. In a female center world where girls didn't wear make up and heels but boys did, it would be interesting to see if they would get ready together and primp each other too. I for one, know that I did not just come up with the idea to wear tight clothing and high heels when I go out and spend a lot of money on make up and hair products, but I do have a good time getting dressed up with my friends. It would be cool to go out in a sweatshirt and sweatpants, but at this point I'd kind of rather dress up and look to what the media thinks is looking good. I would definitely not dress in just sweats if other girls were still socialized to wear short skirts, because I would feel like the ugliest girl in the room. I think that this trend won't stop unless it stops collectively with all girls, because girls always want to out do each other. Ironic thing is, I'm about to go out for tonight and I'm wearing semi-uncomfortable jeans, a tight tube top, and heels. I also spent about an hour on my hair and make up. That time probably could have been spent doing something else a lot more productive, but for now, I'm going to follow the social construct.

When I first saw this video last year, a lot of the people who also saw it surprisingly brushed it off. I watched it in another soc class, and I heard a lot of people in the class talking about how well duh, they're going to pick the white doll because they see white people more often. However, even if that is the case, which I don't think it always is, it still doesn't make sense. They weren't asked to just pick a doll. They were asked which one was bad. If a small child is asked which is a better, nicer doll, I would actually expect them to pick whatever race their mom was. I would think that at this point in their lives, at three or four years old, their mom is the best example of a nice person, and therefore they would choose the doll that matched her race. I do not believe that every kid asked to pick a doll had a white mother, so clearly my theory isn't true and there is something much deeper rooted inside them. It's easy to say that the messages come from the media and the fact that there are more white dolls in toy stores than black dolls, but again, that can't explain why the children thought the black doll was "bad." It would only explain thinking that the black doll was different, or less common. Also, it's not like these children are exposed to shows like Cops or other tv shows that portray darker people getting in trouble with the law. These children are probably not exposed to that much on TV, and have definitely not started a serious race conversation. It really disturbs and surprises me that the children didn't pick the doll that had the same color as their family, because for a child that age, family is the most positive influence on them. I know that it is a common stereotype that brown and black people are the ones in the bad neighborhoods, and the ones committing all the crimes, but I firmly believe that there is no way that these children are familiar with these stereotypes at all. Wherever these messages are coming from, they need to be stopped, because there is no reason for young children to feel a sense of shame or self hatred when they don't even know who they are yet.

I think that sometimes it is selfish or careless for people in poverty to have a lot of children. To bring a child into the world that you can not support is never a good idea, but everyone has different ideas of what supporting means. Clearly, Tammy came from a family with 21 other children, but she is alive with food, shelter, and a job raising children of her own. We might not feel that she was adequately supported by her parents, but their idea of support may have been to make sure they stay alive. However, if Tammy's parents had 22 children and had to go on welfare to support them, that seems a bit selfish to me. Welfare is the government's money that can be spent on other things, so it doesn't make sense for parents that need to be on welfare to support children to keep having more and more children. However, in Tammy's case, she only had two children, and although she couldn't support them well enough for them to be able to easily get a college education, they were in livable conditions. I don't think its fair to say that people living in poverty shouldn't be able to have any children, because children are often the most important people in parents' lives, and to deny children to people who don't have a lot of money seems like a denial of the right to pursuit happiness. I also don't think it's plausible to put a limit on how many children people are allowed to have based on their income, because every situation is different and people should be able to make their own decisions about family planning. I think that there are only two instances when having children is really selfish. One is when bringing a child into the world is dangerous to the child, like if the parent is addicted to drugs, or doesn't have enough money or shelter to keep their child alive. The second situation is if the family already has children that they can support, but then brings another child into the world that they can only support with welfare. Those are two times when I do believe its selfish to have children, but I don't think that impoverished people having children is selfish in general, because everyone has a right to have a family.
We're all quick to judge and have opinions about what would and wouldn't help our country and economy and problems, but I don't know how much validity there is to someone like me declaring what is or is not selfish in the realm of family planning. There are extenuating circumstances in every situation, and nobody can ever know how each child will affect a family or persevere. I am sure that some children will be born into poverty and against all odds, make it to college, get a great job, and be able to support their families, and it will actually work out for the better, but other children will not get a good education, not have strong drive, and not be successful. It all depends on the parents, the children, and the situation.

I think the government should be able to make statements about nutrition and things that affect the American citizens paying more for taxes, especially when it comes to food, since we have quite an obesity problem in America. However, the corporate world has so much weight on the government that it could get very dangerous. For example, there used to be something called the Imitation Rule, so that if a food was processed, defined as anything that has been altered in any way since it was harvested or butchered or baked, it would have to be labeled as imitation. So, for instance, a loaf of bread that has a ton of chemicals in it wouldn't be labeled as Low Carb 7 grain bread, but instead, labeled as Imitation Bread. This way, people wouldn't consume the processed food, even if its cheaper, because let's face it, who wants to eat imitation food? When this rule was in effect, the "imitation food" hardly left the shelfs so the companies made real food. When corporations found out that it was so much cheaper to make mostly imitation food, they leaned on Congress enough for them to change the rule, and now, our supermarkets are inundated with food that really isn't food, just imitation. This is why I think it would be very helpful if the government could make statements and laws about our health, but I can't trust that the government would actually say anything that is true or useful to anyone but big corporations. I don't want to be cynical, but that's all of the examples the government has shown us so far. And that makes sense, because of the way elected officials are voted in. Until the system of lobbying and corporations governing the government changes, I don't think the government should make too many statements about our health. If the government would say that Big Macs shouldn't be eaten, that would be awesome, because they really shouldn't, but the economy may suffer if McDonald's fires everyone, and the government can't have that, so I'm not really sure what we can do about that.

I think that determinism has played a huge part in my life, and in a good way. I'm currently pursuing a double major and a double minor, and I honestly believe I have this opportunity almost entirely because of determinism. I live in New York in one of the best school district areas in the state. Every teacher in New York has to have their masters, so the schools start out pretty well, but then my district is one of the best. Since it's such a great district, my town is very expensive to live in, and the taxes and homeowner taxes are very high. Luckily for me, my parents have enough money to live in such an area. Since my school was so good, there were tons of Advanced Placement classes offered, and I was taught well enough to take a bunch of them and succeed in them. Because of the Advanced Placement classes, I came into Penn State with 36 credits, and had the choice of graduating early, or pursuing more than one degree. My parents are paying for college completely, and they said I could stay the whole four years, so I decided to take a double major and double minor. Again, since my parents are paying for everything (tuition, rent, food) I don't have to have a job. Money from my summer jobs is enough for me to buy any unnecessary things like alcohol, new clothes, etc, so I have a lot more time to work on my studies and get involved. I've gotten involved with a lot of organizations--I'm currently on a Morale committee for THON, I'm a mentor in the business school, and I'm working my way up the ranks in the Penn State Marketing Association, while taking 18 or more credits a semester, and maintaining a 3.85 GPA. I could look at this and say it's because I'm driven and a hard worker, which is true, but it's not the full reason. If I had to have a job, there's no way I could do half of the things I do, so I really have to owe a lot of my successes in college to the fact that my parents have money and they're willing to spend it on my education. I think another reason why my parents having money will help me go further is that I have all of the necessary business professional/casual outfits and things like that. When I first started going to networking events and career fairs, my mom took me to banana republic and bought me a suit, a few sweaters, blouses, shoes, etc. My parents even paid for my portfolio and other expenses like resume paper. Most people I know, who are struggling to even pay for tuition and food, are not going to spend the extra money on something silly like resume paper, but I know that my resume will stand out more than someone's on computer paper, and that really isn't fair or happening because I deserve it. One of my friends really wanted to get an internship this summer, but is paying for college completely on his own, and couldn't afford to buy a suit. He also didn't even know where or how to buy a suit, because he had never been to a formal event that required a suit in his life. He is not any less driven than I am, or smarter than I am, but I'm much more likely to get an internship because I have the right clothes for a career fair. Determinism definitely isn't fair, but there doesn't seem like much we can do about it, and I'm just lucky that I came out on the good side of it.

I want so badly to believe that later on in life, generations and generations in the future, race will no longer be an issue, and everyone will understand that we really are not so much different from one another. However, I have some doubts in my mind. I'm sure that even people in our class, even when they were presented by facts, still believe that biologically, each race is different. I think that once all of the racist generations die out, there will finally be no issue of race, but I can't see that happening, just because of how people take after their parents. I have friends that are my age, twenty year olds, that firmly believe that white people are superior to other races, especially black people. I can actually directly quote one kid I know saying "Black people are INFERIOR to white people." If that kind of racism still exists in people my age, it will continue for so many future generations. His family will probably have a little bit of racism, and even if his children are not extreme racists, they will still think of race as an issue, and think that different races are different biologically. I also feel that since some people feel that they have been so wronged by other races, and can't let go of a grudge (maybe rightly so) and people so desperately want to hang on to their own cultures, there may always be some kind of self induced segregation. And to add to that, I don't know that there will always be racism, but I think that there will always be some kind of observance, and noting, that people of different colors are different. If you think about just little kids, a white kid and a black kid that look at each other, they know that there skin colors are different. And even if their teacher or their parents tell them that we are all the same on the inside, maybe not every single child would buy that, and the children would not necessarily grow up to hate each other, or even think badly of one another at all, but they would still think that each other are different. And that subtle knowledge that the other child is unlike you, that means that there is still an issue of race. I know that we have been making big moves, (heck, our president is mixed race!) but there are still so many people in America that did not vote for Obama, just because he was black. And even if someday the score is settled between blacks and whites, I unfortunately believe that there will always be some other race that doesn't fit in well with the rest of them. Until the day that we are so intermixed that we are all just different shades of brown, there will always be at least a slight issue of race. And who knows, with our environmental crisis, we might not even be on this planet long enough for that to happen.

Although everyone should have the right to say and believe whatever they would like, it is important for people in such public leadership roles to choose what they say very carefully. Yes, there is no rule saying the governor cannot express a bigger connection to people of one religion, but he has put the non-Christians of Alabama in a very uncomfortable state.

I completely understand if the non-Christians of Alabama are now sitting around thinking, "Well, the governor is definitely looking out for his brothers and sisters, the Christians. But what about me?" This must be especially upsetting to those non-Christians who voted for and supported Governor Bentley and now feel, in a way, inferior to other citizens.

However, as much as I understand the discomfort felt by non-Christian Alabama residents, Governor Bentley never outright said anything derogatory about non-Christians. The statement can be taken in many different ways, and to play devils advocate, he could have meant, "I naturally feel closer to Christians because we share the same faith, and I wish I felt just as close to every other citizen of Alabama." If this is what he meant, he's not pressuring the citizens to convert, and he is not trying to neglect non-Christians.

There are a few potential meanings to Governor Bentley's statement, and the liberal media definitely interpreted it one way and ran with it, with a fairly aggressive attack. So I guess its safe to say that maybe the liberal media has gone a little crazy, but haven't we all?