en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/764304 Comments by khs5027 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-health-care__trashed/#IDComment70020044 It is kind of difficult to respond to a video when the subject does not understand the question he is proposing. He says "immigrants" but does not actually specify the most important part of the issue. He says "should health Care be an equal right to everyone" well no probably. The issue of health care being an equal right to every body is a hard debate even without incorporating people who are not citizens of this country legally. The best example of how health care should be handled I feel comes from John Mackey the president of Whole Foods. I worked at Whole Foods it is the most friendly business when dealing with a local farmer and helping them and with trying to get affordable great organic foods to the consumer who desires them. What he wonders is why anyone expects to get health care at anything other than the cost currently provided for the CITIZENS of this country. The reason he proposes this is because other than water there is no other resource in our Nation provided to the citizens for virtually no cost. There is no tax that goes towards collecting money for people who can not feed their families, because simply, that's just not how thing work. Providing health care to everyone provides to many complications and really makes no sense because unlike food's desirability, people desire health care consistently on how they treat their bodies. I wonder what these people think providing health care to everyone is going to do to the desirability of being a doctor. Why would anyone want to go to medial school and work their ass off and maximize their intelligence to get paid like a state employee. It makes no sense, in order to have the best and brightest in the medical field there needs to be an incentive for the best and brightest to be there. Ignoring the fact that the gentleman in the video just blankly threw out the idea of health care for everyone. There is no reason to provide compensation for anyone who enters the country illegally. I think everyone who does enter this country illegal is fortunate, and that's great but they are not citizens and that's what it comes down to. I know people argue that this nation was built upon letting in everyone, but that really is not applicable today because we're not some rag tag collection of poor and exiled, we are the most powerful nation on earth. You do not become the most powerful nation on the planet by giving out hand outs or sharing the wealth, this nation is built on rewarding the people who work to the top and allwoing them to spend their resources on health care to preserve their legacy. Fri, 23 Apr 2010 23:30:30 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/what-about-health-care__trashed/#IDComment70020044 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/this-is-totally-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment66884420 I Don't really know how to react to this video. In response to Sam, I don't think anyone believes that violent video games are productive for society, but I don't think that means they are destructive. I think violent video games are actually appropriate because it is human nature to be violent and unleash violent tendencies. Just look at how much violence there is in the world. Plus a lot of violent video games have to deal with fighting for a noble cause, and violence is entrenched in our national culture. The real national past time is the NFL, a sport so fueled by violence most of the players have severe health problems down the line. I feel that there is something fundamentally different about Japanese culture that would allow something like this to be produced. Fri, 9 Apr 2010 22:11:27 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/this-is-totally-off-the-hook__trashed/#IDComment66884420 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/is-quality-the-question__trashed/#IDComment65690975 Affirmative Action is in essence trying to correct inequality, with inequality. The person in the video raises an interesting question. I think that the real issue is that this the perception that people in society could have. I believe that it is wrong that people should be given preference based on a perceived racial inequality, especially in schools when it is only based on race. There is already a system in place for most schools (including Penn State) to deal with inequality of social classes. This is done by comparing applicants within their own school districts and not by comparing them to people in higher or lower educational systems. For example I come from a a very well off school district, and therefore it is much harder to get into Penn State because I am being compared to people from my own district. I know people from other school districts with similar GPA's to people who got rejected by Penn State from my district who got a 1050 or so (out of 1600) while the same GPA and a 1300 doesn't qualify. That is already unfair enough without adding the arbitrary element of race into it. I believe that the best of the best should be the first accepted and that race or where you come from should not have any baring on it. Another problem is that affirmative action creates perceptions. In order to get into a medical position of importance you're likely going to have to be absolutely qualified, but people may not make that assumption. Affirmative Action creates the perception that the person of color treating you is not qualified for their job; even though they are. This perception could lead to a lack of business just because of an ignorant assumption. I think it could set people of color back more in the long run than it would do to help them. Sat, 3 Apr 2010 03:25:13 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/04/is-quality-the-question__trashed/#IDComment65690975 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment64275644 I did not really know what to think when this video was played. I think it is mostly a bi-product of our society as a whole. If any little kid were to turn on the TV to any channel that analyzes celebrities and predominantly they would be white people. The thing is that in a predominately white society that is what is going to happen. In any circumstance, to a young kid, the majority is going to be represented more so than anything else, and that might not even be intentional. Sam had us watch the video again and said "watch the anguish in their face when they chose," the thing is, I saw no anguish in their faces, all I saw was the innocence of a child picking which doll he/she wants to play with accompanied by a smile. Sam asked this question because he wants us to read into the societal issues as a whole, but there was no anguish in these kids' faces because they do not understand the effects of their actions in picking the doll of an opposite race, race relations do not occur to them. It isn't like they're actively picking based on race, they are picking the doll based upon what they have been told and what dolls they have played with. This is a societal issue, not one based upon racism, but just ignorance. These kids only pick the white doll because it is what they've been told is the right thing to do by TV and media. If they had the mental maturity of someone who could recognize race socially they would not pick the white doll, they would pick the doll that looks most like them. The problem with the media doesn't seem like something that can be immediately solved. People raised their hands in class saying that the Barbies of a different race were uglier than the normal white barbie. I don't think this is intentionally done by the toy company but perhaps just a lack of sensitivity towards racial issues. It would probably be better if only black Americans and Asian Americans than the dolls would be more appealing to children of that racial group. The problem extends to how minorities are portrayed in the media and that is something that we as people need to correct. Educating black children in particular about how much pride they should have in their selves is important, and really this is something that should be told to all children. These children are way to young to have the burden of feeling inferior and we as a society need to make it known to them that they are perfectly fine in their own way and that nobody is perfect. Sat, 27 Mar 2010 00:40:29 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/those-damn-dolls__trashed/#IDComment64275644 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/women-and-sports__trashed/#IDComment63079730 The video was not really specific as to what she did to earn the job or whether she would be coaching men or not. I am assuming since CNN made such a big deal out of it that she is coaching the men's football team. Regardless of how qualified she is to coach a football team I do not think that a high school team would be able to respond to a woman as their coach. It of course is not the fault of the coach but more of a societal issue at hand. Even if she is the most qualified for the job I think that perceptions created by society would interfere with her ability to coach high school boys. Is it really fair to the boys on the team that they get coached by a woman while their competition is not, even if she is more than qualified, I feel like the perception would lead to them tuning her out at the first sign of trouble/struggles. The general public perception about women in the world of mens sports is that they are not as knowledgeable. Of course it is not the fault of these women but mostly of the society that paints them as ignorant. However, when dealing with kids who believe football is their life I think it is important to respect their opinions and present them with the ideal coach. Even if she is very qualified, does not mean she is going to be able to get the most out of the boys she coaches. Many of these kids might be depending on football to enhance their collegiate opportunities or even to earn a living and to leave that in the hands of someone who might stifle their growth basically for the perceptions that society has enforced upon them is more unfair to them than it is to the decision to not hiring a woman. Everything I wrote was basically with the idea of giving her the benefit of the doubt, and thinking that she was just as qualified to coach as anyone else. In reality I highly doubt even the most experienced of female football players would be the best applicants for a job involving mens football because it's a different game. Just like woman's basketball is a completely different game than man's because of the size and athleticism difference. It is a nice sociological statement by this high school but I feel like it is at the expense of optimal competitive play. It is similar in my opinion to ESPN forcing Doris Burke down the throats of NBA fans to the detriment of their TV ratings. I'm sure Doris Burke knows a lot about the woman's game, and is very talented, however she's never played professional Men's basketball, and is therefore no more qualified to talk about it than I am. Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:11:43 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/03/women-and-sports__trashed/#IDComment63079730 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment57718127 I find this debate fascinating because I can see both sides of the argument for and against keeping marriage between a man and a woman, while also not fully understanding what anyone who is not very religious is complaining about. I understand where the man in the video is coming from, and I think for anyone who does have a faith this is probably the most logical perspective; saying that gay couples should have all the rights that straight couples have without the ability to call their union a marriage is understandable. I come from the perspective of indifference, which is what I feel a lot of straight males my age would come from. I have no strong feelings on the subject because, to be honest, it has no effect on me. I think that if LGBTs want to have unions and want to call them marriages than there's no reason why they should not be able to do so. I do agree that perhaps for people who hold the term marriage in such high regard are trying to protect the original meaning of the word and that just because other people have defiled the "sanctity" of the institution does not mean the effort to uphold the sanctity should be ruled invalid. I find that this debate does shed light on how I perceive myself and my generation as a whole, at least from what I have experienced. I think a lot of people I know would share the same attitude that I do of believing that same sex couples should have the same right that straight couples do, but I also do not think I know to many straight males who will actively defend this belief. The problem with our age group as that we have opinions and beliefs but none of us are going to go out there and actually do anything about it or express them because it is just easier not to. When an issue is of importance and involves the freedoms of people, you need people who are not necessarily directly effected by the cause to come out and speak their mind so that it can be heard from someone who is not from the gay community and is not religious. After all a non partisan opinion is always the one that people pay attention to most. Sat, 20 Feb 2010 04:03:33 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/lgbt-class-question-four__trashed/#IDComment57718127 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment56587061 I really do not see how anyone could be anywhere but in the middle on the idea of freedom versus determinism. Those two things come into play in ever aspect of life. Even in professional sports individuals' efforts don't make a difference as much as a whole team. The best example would be Lebron James and how he by himself can not win a championship, even though he by most accounts is the player who would be most deserving of a championship. Lebron helps his team get to the playoffs every year and play to a level that they normally would not have been able to. Lebron does not choose his teammates or coach or anything, he was drafted into the situation he is in, just like people are put into the situation they are in. In sports what would happen is that the have nots would eventually be compensated artificially. For example I am a die hard New York Rangers fan and I currently have to watch a team that consistently tanked for about 6 straight years (the Pittsburgh Penguins) beat up on my beloved team because they were rewarded high draft picks for their perennial incompetence as an organization. The Rangers went through a stretch where they did not qualify for the playoffs for 7 straight years, but their fans still bought tickets and The Garden was still sold out every single night. The Penguins' fans abandoned their team essentially and were very close to being moved out of Pittsburgh until they were bailed out my former Penguin Mario Lemieux. Now everyone in Pittsburgh is back on the Pens bandwagon while people who like Rangers fans have nothing to show for their devotion to the team and everyone who abandoned their team was able to quickly to acquire some limited knowledge in order to rejoin as if nothing had ever happened. Both of these examples I feel represent the two aspects of the argument of freedom and determinism; they're both correct. This is the fundamental of life, there are haves and have nots and we as people are supposed to make do with whatever we can. I really like how Sam during the discussion about why African Americans are not to blame on average for the economic situations of their families (which obviously has to do, in relation to white people at least, with the 500 year head start they were not granted) but also that people who do not take advantage or "make decisions" to better their situation are responsible for the lack of upward mobility that they have experienced in their lives. What I was waiting for was for Sam to provide some sort of closure on the two lectures we spent discussing this societal issue. It is fairly apparent to me at least that people who are not white and who are not recent wealthy immigrants are on average at a severe disadvantage starting out. Sat, 13 Feb 2010 02:51:08 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/swinging-past-the-other-end-of-the-ideological-spectrum-on-the-way-to-the-intellectual-gray__trashed/#IDComment56587061 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55559445 I saw Avatar over my winter break with a few friends at around 1200am in IMAX. As we exited the theater my friend turned to me and said "Dude that kind of sucked....how can they expect me to root against the humans? I'm human." That pretty much summed up my feelings on Avatar in general, I could not help but root against the "Navi" or whatever because I didn't identify with them. The main problem with Avatar is it just isn't well written or developed. The script almost seems like it wasn't finished when production started, for example the mineral that us humans are supposed to be coveting is given the unfortunate name "Unobtanium" (HOW WILL WE OBTAIN THE UNOBTANIUMABLE!!!????) which sounds like something a screenwriter would put in to fill but with the intention of going back and, you know, rereading what he's written so he could find a suitable replacement that doesn't sound quite so insultingly dumb. The ideas and themes behind Avatar are so simplistic and obvious it really doesn't take any dissecting. It borrows from several other films including Dances with Wolves and Pocahantas with little to no shame. "White Americans bad! Native people are good! War and military are evil! Science is great!" It's all pretty basic and childish, and the story is pretty dumb and certainly doesn't make it seem like James Cameron thinks much of his audience. That being said it really seems like David Brooks has taken upon himself to out-stupid Cameron. Brooks does not seem to grasp that the fact that the main character is white is merely a formality, it doesn't matter to Cameron, it doesn't matter to the people paying to see Avatar, it actually only matters to him. Only someone so sarcastic and self-righteous enough to pick on something so trivial in great scheme of the giant piece of crap that is Avatar would inadvertently sound more racist than anything James Cameron might have included in his silly story. Brooks doesn't bother to see the movie for its blatantly obvious black and white message; about how Americans (or United Statesians) need to feel guilty about the treatment of Native Americans when people first started colonizing The United States. Avatar screams allegory for our past until the audience can't hear anything else, it has nothing to do with the story of a white man teaching natives (who Brooks and his unrivaled racial sensitivity deemed more inferior than any human in the film or James Cameron probably to us as humans or "white men") of how awesome it is to be white. As far as I see it Brooks' argument basically is as simple as a casting issue. What if the main character was cast as a black male? It wouldn't really change anything about Cameron's film, would it? There would still be the same implied guilt the audience should feel about the way their country was founded, to imply that there's a racist element underneath everything else is to give this movie more credit for its depth than it deserves. Sat, 6 Feb 2010 02:11:13 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/02/avatar-and-the-white-mans-burden__trashed/#IDComment55559445 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-s__trashed/#IDComment55270577 Kurt Schramm = khs5027 Thu, 4 Feb 2010 02:38:49 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/last-name-begins-with-s__trashed/#IDComment55270577 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/haitis-calamity__trashed/#IDComment53494110 I grew up in a Catholic home and during this time my family attended church regularly. At some point in my mid teens I had an epiphany and realized that I do not really see a reason to believe in a god or anything like that, it just seems pointless to me. That being said I don't think I can take the tragedy in Haiti as anything other than additional reinforcement of my beliefs. I can not really see it as something that is supposed to remind me of how I need to appreciate everything I have and how lucky I am, or as some kind of reminder from God about insignificant my problems are. In fact I think it makes any less to think of a God as someone who would use a tragedy like this to absolve humanity of its sins than it does to believe that one man should die horribly for the sins of his peers. Tragedies like the earthquake in Haiti and Hurricane Katrina serve as stand alone reminders. They are reminders that all the stuff that we as average college age kids deal with with girls or friends or school and all that crap, are really meaningless and that very few people although they think their problems are significant, have any idea what real tragedy is. Unfortunately it does take things like this for us to realize how lucky we truly have it. There is suffering every day in the world, the likes of which we probably could not even comprehend, but since we do not hear or see it we are not forced to think about it. The tragedy in Haiti is everywhere you look and you can not avoid, people need to know about it. Back to God, I don't think it makes sense to say that any God worth worshiping would punishing hundreds of thousands of people just to prove a point about how ever crappy you think your life is there are people suffering on an unimaginable level. When presented with a grand tragedy it makes sense to look for an explanation that is something more reasonable than there is no explanation, at least no more than whatever specific physical events in the Earth set the earthquake in motion. I think that to think that a God who would likely have control over all events like this, would allow such a tragedy to not only occur but to use it as a lesson, is more morbid than living in a world with no god at all. I personally think the idea of worshiping something is supposed to care and love people, while simultaneously using its people to send a message to appreciate everything, is depressing. I much prefer to live with the perspective that things happen at random and without purpose, and they are unavoidable. Sat, 23 Jan 2010 02:48:26 +0000 https://www.racerelationsproject.org/2010/01/haitis-calamity__trashed/#IDComment53494110