First, I think its important not to single Obama out on this, it happens all over the place. What I mean is money that could be saving lives is going towards self promotion and building up an ego. I can speak from my own experience on this. Every time I spend money on something that isn't a necessity, I am aware that I am spending money on myself rather than putting it towards someone who might really need it. So I am right there with Obama in this regard. However when it comes to large amounts of money that could be saving millions of lives, excessive spending towards the ego, yes, he is a perfect example.
When I think of the people that could benefit from the money he is raising to promote himself I get angry. I'm angry that people are starving, I'm angry that Obama does have a good reason to raise and keep that much money, I'm angry that large amounts of people aren't talking about it, I'm angry at my own hypocrisy. Generally, I'm just angry at how unfair life can be. But then I ask myself: "Should life be fair?" and the overwhelming answer I get is "NO!". So I know that life shouldn't be and isn't fair, yet I continue to be angry at it and argue with it. I still want people to be well, I still want Obama to consider his greed, I still want me to consider my greed. This constant drama drives me crazy, but I'm also aware that this drama in my head is the way things are for me. Should I not be dramatic, should I be apathetic? Well I suppose it doesn't matter much what I should or should not be, however all I can say now is that I'm not apathetic and I'm not in complete alignment with the way things are in life, and I think this is what makes and keeps me human. (Here I am not trying to glorify being human, or give it as an excuse, just to further demonstrate reality.) In a roundabout way of finally answering this question after a long rant on arguing with what is I will say this: How does it make me feel? It makes me feel angry and frustrated! However, I do understand why I need to feel that way and I'm willing to dive into those feelings and work with them, I'm not afraid to argue with reality in order to experience being human.

I've always been put off by the same words that the speaker is using here, "bang" and "slam", but until he posed this question I had never examined why. I think that the question the speaker asks says a lot about how I've grown to receive, or should I say not receive, many men who I've been around. Subconsciously, I filter out men who would use words like this, however now I consciously see why I do it. Again, the speakers words ring a bell, "violence". Violence is so prevalent in the language of sex; "blow" "jerk" "screw". These words are all very forceful and convey a sense of dominance or control over the direction in which things are going. This language is a testament to the typical "male" perspective of dominating women. I've subconsciously filtered out men who use this language because on an even deeper level, I want to avoid violence, I want to avoid anyone who poses a threat to me.
In a female centered world I'm not sure the word sex would even still be used, except for in the dictionary (like how we use intercourse or penetration to describe sex). Sex might instead be called something like a siesta, it might have a new name that denotes that it is a time to take time, relax, and slowly enjoy and give joy and pleasure. The words used to describe it probably wouldn't have a dominating connotation to them either. They would probably convey a more equal and mutually responsible meaning and also hint at willingness to share and be open. I'm having a hard time even coming up with descriptive words for this because it is so far out of my norm to think in this light, and that makes me very very sad. However, I think I'm going to start making it a practice now so that I never catch myself saying something that doesn't agree with my values. I would be very interested in hearing a lesbian's perspective on this, if I had to guess I'd say that that person has already worked out a language that suits and benefits her.

As Americans, our appetite exceeds our means in many, many ways. Our consumption of food, energy, material items and space is a testament to our belief that we have the right--the entitlement-- to use up as much as we want if we believe we have earned it. "Earned", in this sense, is to say that we have gone through the schooling system, earned a degree in something that makes us money and have generally successfully navigated through the seas of economism in which our society swims. As stated before, the prize and payoff for this work may be flat screen television, a nice car, a large house, not to mention the beach house, and the ease that comes with being able to spend money on material things that aren't necessary to living comfortably. The problem with this "American Dream" is that there is a lack of accountability when it comes to the source of the items we use. Our economic and social system is based on abstractions, so too is it that our way of thinking about goods has become abstract. When I see a shirt that I want, am I thinking of the sweatshop, the person who made this, the pesticides in the cotton, the dye? Generally speaking the answer is no. Similarly, when I see a carrot, a house, a ticket for a plane ride, am I thinking of everything that that thing stands for, everything that it is, everything that went into getting it to me and all of the repercussions of my consumption of it? Most of the time, no, I don't think about it.... I've never had to. I believe that this abstraction is part of the reason why I am able to consume so much without really caring.
I think that we need to start by tackling the myth that we are entitled to consumption -- that if we work hard and make money we are entitled to a big house, as much food and "stuff" as we want and that we don't have to put thought into what made those resources available to us. The days of the typical "American Dream" are coming to an end. It won't be feasible for much longer for everyone to be able to pursue the conditioned dream, and I see this as a blessing. We won't be able to hide behind the dreams of those who conditioned us to pretend that we want nothing more than money and ease in our lives. When resources that make consumption without mindful contemplation on the sources of materials come to an end we will begin to, be forced to, dream our own dreams and ask the questions freely: "What do I TRULY want? What am I willing to put tangible (by hand) work into? What am I willing to form a relationship with in order to attain?"

I think this is definitely an interesting topic, and also so impossible to pinpoint to just an issue of race. There are so many factors that go into a bureaucratic decision. When dealing with the subjective nature of bureaucracy, there are bound to be inequalities that can be rendered unfair. However since a bureaucracy is supposed to be seen as objective, the ones making a decision wouldn't likely admit to the subjective nature of what they do. Any person with power over another naturally has some sort of judgement or tendency to to act a certain way. Since we are human it would be impossible to treat another person from a subjective viewpoint. Whether this has to do directly with race is impossible to say. In this example (by the way the speaker never gave us the results of the experiment that was conducted) the person on the other end of the line could have had a bad experience with foreigners or maybe being a foreigner in another country or could have grown up in the south and have been particularly fond of people with southern accents. Maybe they had no order to what answers they gave, or maybe they were having a bad day. The possibilities are endless as to exactly what influenced the subjective responses that arose. Pinning it down to just race would be a huge jump to make.
As for what Sam was talking about in class, with the State College example and how renters are more likely to give contracts to white people, I think that it has to do with the king of the mountain situation. I noticed at dinner how obvious it is when people sit with other people that are just like them. Groups of Asians sat together, groups of black people sat together, groups of white people sat together, and I just noticed how strange it looked. It seemed to be that people just like to be around people who are like them, so on a larger scale a renter might like to rent to someone who is like them. Maybe a white renter will believe that a white person is more like them and therefore they know what they can expect out of them, in other words they trust that the know more about them. When it comes to someone who is from a different racial group, they are not as familiar with them and therefore do not know what to expect out of them. So it could be said that they don't trust the experience that they have with a person of that group, and therefore do not feel as comfortable renting to that person.

For me the question isn't why don't I like positive news... It's why don't I hear positive news? I like to abstain as best as I can from the news because I don't trust the motives of the stations that tell me that what they project is good important to know. I don't think that it is a coincidence that much of the news that I hear enforces feelings of fear, distrust, separation from others, anxiety, and an overall feeling of needing to protect myself and be safe. Often I am left with my trust for humanity weakened and questioning the good of people and my place among them. I think that there is a huge amount of fear and separation that stems from what the media chooses to show us. Fear keeps people small and closed, dependent on outside sources, and easier to control. Also, fear leads people to wanting to act to protect themselves. I can see this when I watch any commercial. The underlying message is fear (fear of not being attractive enough and being alone, fear of losing money and not being able to take care, fear of falling behind others, etc.) and how a product will protect you from fear. I think that the same thing might happen with the media. If the media portrays a world which is to be feared, trust is not put into other human beings, it is put into the government. If trust is put into media and the government, they stay in power.
To answer this question I think that it is not so much that people chose to only watch "bad news", it is that "bad news" is the only thing chosen to be shown by the media. Doing so keeps people fearful of each other, and people who are separated by fear are easier to control. So if the government wants a population that is easy to control, they can work through the media to weaken the bonds between the people. This seems radical to me when reflect on it, however I don't doubt the government in any way. Growing up with the media all around me, I can see how I came to this belief in the first place.

I think there is a fundamental misconception in the question 'why can't we JUST be human?' Being JUST human in itself means being committed to a life of judging and making stories. Humans innately judge for many reasons relating to survival. However humans are also great story tellers. We are literally walking story making machines. We observe and judge day in and day out and then we create a story to make sense of what we see. We make up stories about reality, about how the universe was created, about personal happenings in our lives, and all of that requires a certain amount of judging. Without our personal filters humans could not exist in the same way that we do today. Judging gives us the ability to choose what we want to believe and incorporate into our stories.
As stated before, the reality is that we humans judge, so why should it come as a surprise when we judge within our species? I think that we begin to run into messes when we judge our judgements as "bad" or that they shouldn't exist...i.e. that we shouldn't discriminate, note difference etc. Its in our fundamental make up as human beings to be able to discriminate and be judgmental. Not excepting that reality leads to frustration, anger and pain. When we say that we shouldn't classify and create stories about how to separate ourselves within our species, we argue with the truth which is that judging is in our make-up. So to answer the question "Why do we have to be Black, Asian, Hispanic....?" It's because we judge and separate and make stories... It's what we do!! It comes as no surprise to me that humans look at other humans, notice observations and judge and separate. We go through this process with many things in life. Without the ability to judge we would be lost, we wouldn't be human. I think that once we realize that our judgements aren't "bad" or "need to be changed" we will begin to move in a direction where we can live with and respect other people's judgements as they are without feeling a need to change them.

I find it interesting looking back on my childhood memories and noticing how perceptive yet innocent I was. I used to look on the backs of my Barbies and other plastic toys and read the "Made in China" label, yet I was so confused by it. I'd ask myself why all of my toys said "Made in China" or "Made in Taiwan" on them somewhere. Was it some kind of code for something? Did all toys have to have this? What was the point of ruining my Barbie's plastic skin with this label? It even became a sort of game between my best friend and I; China or Taiwan, guess where the Barbie is from. I wonder if I ever asked my parents what the label meant. I wonder if they knew that the story went deeper than the fact that it was simply just made in China-- that it was made in a sweat shop by someone who was as young as their daughter? And that by buying this product for me they were saying yes to the exploitation of another human being. (I'm not trying to blame my parents, I know exactly where they were coming from, since it is where I'm at now). I think that if I had been exposed when I was young to the truth that someone my age was being horribly mistreated just so I could have my Barbie doll, I would have softened, opened up, and allowed my sense of justice to guide me. However, I was never exposed and so I relaxed into silencing my questions about where things came from and why and I began trusting "higher powers" that allowed me to have my possessions. Years and years later, I am now struggling to get out of the habits I have formed around consuming. I'm struggling to stop neglecting the relationship I have with the things I own, and more importantly neglecting my relationship with the world.
Growth is an important word for me to keep in mind when I think about the wounds of the world that I contribute to. When I heard about the factory farming conditions that animals live in, I became a vegetarian immediately and cut meat out of my life on the spot. Removing meat from my life was an area of growth that was easy for me to transition into. In other words I was a natural vegetarian. Cutting imported goods that come from sweat shops out of my life is a more challenging area of growth. In other words, I am not a natural mindful consumer, so it takes practice. Until recently in my life I hadn't had to think critically about where my "stuff" comes from. I had the things I had, and that was as far as I thought about it. However when my awareness expanded, and I was challenged be mindful about the sources of my "stuff" I felt overwhelmed. I still feel overwhelmed. It is an incredible challenge for me to imagine where this desk came from, this computer, this notebook and to try and guess which of these were made in sweat shops. Would I be able to get along in my work if I were to have said no to buying/using them? Even more challenging is refusing to buy clothes that are made in China.
POSSIBLE SOLUTION? : Developing a Practice
Since I did not grow up with the practice of having a relationship with the sources of my "stuff" it is very new and challenging now. When I learn a new skill that I am not a natural at, I tend to falter and stumble at the beginning. For instance, the other day my friend tried to teach me how to play a game that I hated at first. However as I practiced and did it longer, I learned how to make it work and how to actually have fun with it. Although I wasn't a natural, as I stuck with it, it became easier. The same thing can apply to being mindful about consuming. Although I was a natural vegetarian, I am not a natural mindful consumer. However, I still feel emotionally and mentally attached to the cause of being a mindful consumer. Therefore, it makes sense for me to develop the skill and practice of examining the sources of what I buy. Since I am still learning this skill it has been very uncomfortable, I've faltered, and even I've considered giving up. However I will not feel like I am aligned with my values until I begin to say yes more often to humanity, and no more often to economism. So like learning how to play a game, with practice I will begin to say no to sweat shop, "Made in China" items with ease and I will find true joy saying yes to more humane production practices.
WHAT'S THE HANG-UP?
Unlike learning how to play a game, learning how to be a mindful consumer impacts other people's lives. It seems urgent for me to change... and fast!... when I hear about the conditions of the sweat shops. However since I am not a natural, I need practice and time in order to develop a habit. This is where I'd like to make a generalization and answer the question about why more people don't act on the issue of sweat shops. I believe that a large portion of the population really does want to stop supporting sweat shops, but it feels overwhelming because of how wrapped up we are in it. When something seems overwhelming to me, I tend to withdraw and second guess what I am doing, so I don't find it unlikely that there are others who may react the same way. I believe this may be a reason why some don't even consider trying to change their habits even though their hearts are being called to the cause. The bravery and compassion exist, however mentally it doesn't make sense since we are swimming in a sea of consumerism.

soc119