What have I learned from the scandal and how will what I have learned affect me? Looking back and reflecting on the past couple of weeks I have concluded that, yes I really did learn something. This tragedy really allowed me to explore my values and beliefs, and gave me a true sense of the meaning, family, friends, pride and loyalty. It also allowed me to evaluate what Penn State really means to me.
One of the most important things I learned this week is that Penn State truly is apart of my identity. When the news first broke out of this scandal, and Joe Paterno was fired I felt hurt and lost, and I was confused why I felt this way, I mean I wasn’t a victim so why should I be feeling hurt. But then in class, Sam hit it right on the dot, the reason I was feeling this way was because, as a student, Penn State becomes part of your identity, “You are Penn State”, and for a long time JoePa has defined Penn State, so when they take away JoePa it’s like they are taking away PennState, and when they take away Penn State it’s like they are taking away your identity. That’s why I was feeling lost and confused, because I felt that part of my identity had been taken away from me.
Not only did I learn that Penn State was a part of my identity, but also a part of my family. And I feel that as a family you stick together and support each other no matter what and I think that’s what Penn State did. Witnessing the Nebraska game made me proud to be a Penn Stater. The way that the students, the players from both PSU and Nebraska, the Alumni and the general fans behaved reaffirmed my belief that we can come out of this situation stronger and aware of who we are than before. We are Penn State, we are a family, and we are humans who make mistakes and make judgments based on our emotions. This situation made me learn that in the eyes of the media and the public, we are seemingly not allowed to react as humans. We are supposed react like robots that do not have emotions or memories. The media sees our reaction to this crisis as immature because they do not have personal feelings or fond memories of JoePa. The media sees this as an opportunity to watch a man who was considered to be above human fallacies fall to the rank of a common man. This has affected me more than I could ever imagine, it has changed my perception of Penn State, my identity and the media.

Why did I eat the second piece of Chocolate?
After watching the video on “modern” day slaves working on the cocoa plantation, I really felt shocked. Being an American citizen and living in America my whole life, the word slavery, has become sort of an archaic term for me. I didn’t really think that that kind of stuff really happened anymore. When I saw the video, I thought, how can the world really let something happen like this, why doesn’t somebody or some country step in and help.
After the feeling of shock though, I still ate the piece of chocolate, because the I felt that the slavery used to make that piece of chocolate had already happened, and by eating or not eating wouldn’t change how that piece of chocolate was made.
In discussion, it sort of bothered me that people agreed that something needed to be done about the slavery happening in the world, but then they weren’t really willing to do anything about it, especially if it meant spending more money. But the thing is the reason things are so cheap is because of slave labor, so if we stop slave labor, prices are going to have to go up so the workers can get paid.
I think the way to solve this solution is supply and demand. If as Americans (one of the world’s largest consumers of chocolate), demand fair trade chocolate, naturally (according to economics) fair trade chocolate will go into supply. But how do we get everyone to demand fair trade chocolate?
In class we discussed that one person can’t change the world, that’s why I think we have to start this change in somewhere much bigger than one person, like in a company or a business. My proposed solution would be for leading chocolate companies to come together, and start requiring fair trade chocolate, Yes, the price in chocolate would go up, and yes it may decrease sales in chocolate for a little bit. But is money what we really all we care about. I mean if really cared, about these slaves, then money wouldn’t me an issue. And its not like the price of chocolate would increase drastically, it would probably only increase by like 20 cents or so.
People are always saying that the world doesn’t revolve around money. Well so far all I have seen is that the world (especially America) really does revolve around money. Everything we ever do or vote on is really based on how much money we are spending and where money is being allocated. I think for this antislavery / fair-trade thing to manifest, Americans have to get over the fact the world shouldn’t revolve around money, and the we should care more for the people in the world then, what money lies in our pockets.

Do you think the Wall Street movement and the tea party are the same and why? I chose to answer this question for my blog because I really don’t know anything about these two parties, and I thought that this would be a perfect opportunity for me to learn about them.
From a little research, I learned that the occupy party is an organizational movement that is directed against social and economic inequalities in our government and society and it is a party that is recognized as a democratic party. The occupy Wall Street protest is specific movement within the party. The Wall Street protests are mainly “protesting social and economic inequality, corporate greed, corruption and influence over government—particularly from the financial services sector.” The Occupy Wall Street party disagrees with the fact that our countries wealth is very unequally distributed among the people. In class we learned that the top 1% of the American population controls about 40% of total wealth in the country and the top 10% controls 73% of the country’s wealth. That is an amazing statistic which clearly shows that wealth in America is clearly undistributed. This is the reason why the Occupy Wall Street slogan is "We are the 99%". “It refers to the difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.”
The Tea party is a party that corresponds with the Republican Party, and is a movement that “endorses reduced government spending, reduction of the national debt and federal budget deficit, and opposes taxes. This party also wishes to adhere to the ideals original constitution. The tea party feels that the government is spending too much of its people’s money and that American citizens don’t deserve to be taxed as such. The tea partiers get there name from a reference to the Boston Tea Party, a protest by colonists who objected to a British tax on tea in 1773.
Looking at these two parties, I feel that they are pretty similar. Both parties disagree on the fact that the government is being unfair with its accumulation of wealth, and is distributing it in a way neither party likes. Both parties also agree on the fact that “the people” should be more represented, and have more of a say of how and where the governments money is being spent. It seems to me that the only way the two parties differ is that the occupy party seems to focus on how the government distributes its wealth, whereas the tea party focuses on how the government is obtaining and spending its wealth (through taxes). But, if you think about it, this is the same thing, because the government is distributing its wealth to where they want to spend it. So really then, the only true difference is that one party is influenced by the Democratic Party and one by the Republican Party.

What makes this our land and if we came here to have a better life, why can’t others come here to do the same? I think this is a very good question because it really got me thinking about my views on immigration. I think many people tend to discriminate against illegal immigrants, saying things like “Oh, they are taking our jobs”, “they are cheapening our labor”, “you’re ruining American traditions, by bringing in your own”, or “if you can’t speak English, you shouldn’t come to our country”. When I hear these sorts of things, it kind of makes me a little upset because immigration is what our country today is founded on.

Looking back in history, we see that immigration along with hatred and dislike for immigrants has been around since the beginning of United States. For instance, after the Great Irish Famine (aka The Irish potato famine) of the 1840s, there was a surge of Irish immigrants coming to America, looking for a better life for them and their families. The people already living in America didn’t like this. Americans felt like the Irish people were stealing their jobs from beneath them; these immigrants were willing to work for less money. Just like some people feel like immigrants our doing today. Another example of discrimination against immigrants would be like during WWI, German Americans were discriminated against because of their ties to Germany, a Central Power or “the enemy”. Sort of like how Muslim people are discriminated against today because of terrorism and the War on Terror.

People say the main reason why they don’t like immigrants is because they are afraid of losing “American Traditions”, and they are afraid that these new immigrants aren’t assimilating to American culture. But what exactly is American culture? I mean isn’t America supposed to be the “the melting pot” of all cultures. So, then why are people afraid of new cultures coming in?

Being white, and coming from a white community, I think that in today’s society the main reason for discriminating against immigrants is that white people are afraid of becoming the minority. The white race has been the majority / most represented race since the beginning of the United States. But recently there has been an influx of nonwhite immigrants to America and I think white people are beginning to feel like their “white culture” or “European American culture” is being suppressed and dominated by other cultures, and they do not like it.

Sam said in class that in 30-40 years the white race will not be the dominate race anymore, and then asked white people how the felt about that. Some people said they didn’t have a problem with it, but others said they felt a little uncomfortable with it. I know for me, I felt a little uncomfortable because the “white” culture is all I really know, and the thought of being surrounded by the unknown (other cultures that I am not familiar with) sort of scares me.

What stage of racial identity are you at and why? As a white person, I think I am at stage two. Growing up in a mostly white town, I don’t really think I got to stage two until I got to college. Before I came to University Park, I really didn’t give any thought to race, or of my self being white because I rarely saw anyone from the nonwhite community in my high school.
When I came to Penn State, I definitely saw began to see an “us” and “them”. Especially because I lived in Pennypacker Hall where a lot of minority freshman live. I began to see that there were a lot of differences between “white” culture and other cultures.
I know I am in state two because I am all about using political correctness. I know for me I would hate to make someone feel uncomfortable or offended because of their race. I know I am in stage two because I also tend to misuse racial signifiers. In class Sam used an example that a person in stage two will say “I was crossing the street and this Asian driver almost hit me”, where obviously the Asian description was not a needed part of the story, but when asked a question like “which T.A do you have?”, you feel really uncomfortable saying “oh the black one” or “the Hispanic one”. I think that this scenario totally fits my personality because I don’t feel comfortable singling people out based on a racial description. I think that stage two people are comfortable saying “oh that Asian guy almost hit me with his car” because they are not really singling out that person directly when they say Asian, but when they actually have to describe a specific person, like their T.A they feel uncomfortable because they are actually talking about a single individual.
I also think that I am starting to transition into stage three. Especially after having class for a about two months now, I am defiantly starting to see major inequalities within society, whether it’s through the way people act individually or how society acts in general. I can feel my self-starting to get upset / angry at the white community anytime I see these inequalities happening. For example, when he showed us that call back rates for jobs applications if color people were less than the call back rates of white people. I just kept on thinking “Hey white people what the hell is wrong with you!!” And then, I sort of start to feel the white guilt and I think to myself “if I was a different race, would I really be where I am now? How would my life be different if I was a person of color?” Then I start to feel like maybe I really have benefited from others racism, but just never realized it till now.

I found this article to be very interesting because, I am always wondering the same question “How can I be happy?” or “What makes me happy?”, but what I have learned from reading this is that, there is no actual answer for that because there is no true way to define happiness.
I think the quote that really hit home for me was “when doing a study of vacationers, the happiest people were the ones in the weeks leading up to a vacation. It was all about anticipation. Again, it looks like our brain rewards us more for working toward a goal than for actually arriving there.” This quote really got me thinking, and I realized that I think it’s true. When I think back to the time I took a trip to France, I was more excited in the waiting and anticipation for it than I was when I was actually there.
I also totally agreed with article when it said “that we experience only a brief moment of fleeting happiness when we achieve a goal before our minds look forward to the next conquest” and then we our back to living in anxiety striving to once again make that point of happiness. Reflecting back on my life I have found that I am most happy when there was no expectation for me to happy, it just happens naturally, like when I am hanging out with my friends or spending time with my sister.
After reading this article, I also realized that I too, sometimes set happiness as a goal. Like “if I get this job I’ll be happy” or “If I can get an A, I’ll be happy”, but looking back I realized that when these things did happen, I was only happy for a moment, because after that I had to immediately focus on my next exam or project that was coming up and end up right back in the unhappy state.
I think that in the world we are living in today, it is impossible for everyone to be happy, because I think as people we are always comparing ourselves to others, and there will be always be others that are better off than us, or seem more happy than us and I think that, when we see people appearing more happy than we are, that makes us sad and feel bad about ourselves. Again, looking back on my life I found I felt most happy when I hang out with my friends and family, because when I am with my friends and family, I am not comparing myself them or trying to be like them, I am just being myself.
Another thing that I found interesting is that freedom makes us unhappy, because sometimes too many choices cause anxiety. I think this is sort of true, I mean I agree with the fact that too many choices can cause an anxious feelings, but in the end, I feel like the reason why there are so many choices to choose from is because different thing make different people happy, and if we didn’t have that choice to pick what makes us happy, I don’t think anyone would be happy.

When I saw the picture in class, of the couple on the date, and the women was dressed in a short skirt and high heels, while the man was wearing comfortable sneakers, jeans and a polo, it really made me wonder that maybe this really is a male centered society that we live in, and that women really are looking at the world through then lens of a man.
Girls dress up when they go out, because I think that is the expected standard in our society today. Women dress the way they do to try and get boys attention. I think women put a lot of pressure themselves to look nice when they go out because we’ve been taught by media, television, and society that men tend to focus on a women’s appearance when looking for women, not their personality. But women on the other hand, tend not to focus on looks when looking for men, so men don’t feel as much pressure to dress up, and be uncomfortable.
For example, I know when I go out to party, I really do feel the need to dress up, for boys to notice me because I have been in situations, where if I am just wearing jeans a t-shirt, and the other girls are dressed as skanks, the boys were more likely to hang out with the other girls than me.
But I don’t believe that men are purely to blame for women having to dress up uncomfortably to get their attention. I think it’s mostly the media putting these images in our head, of what men like to see. When women watch T.V or read magazines, they always see that girls who dress in skanky outfits get the men that they want, so then its put into our head, that in order to attract men, we have to dress skanky.
Women dress up to get men’s attention, but I think when women go outside in 10 degree weather, with practically no clothes on is not necessary. This is when I draw the line. I mean, there are still ways for women to dress warmly and still have a sexy appeal to men. But then why do women still do this. I think it’s because of competition. I think women like to compete against each other, of who can look the most skanky, and who can get the most men attracted to them.
On the contrary though, it’s not just men putting pressure on women. I think the roles can reverse. Think about all the ads in television or magazines about natural male enhancement and body building. These are all images that present this idea of a “perfect” body for a woman.
I don’t think that these pressures to dress and look “sexy” for the opposite sex are a bad thing though. I think it’s natural. Women want to get men’s attention, and men want to get women’s attention. We see it all the time in nature. For example, like how birds move their feathers or flaunt colors in certain ways to get their mates attention. But, I do think that maybe we have taken this “sexy” look to the extreme, because I don’t think girls should have to torture themselves, in order to be more attractive.

I don’t think your race determines your drug use. I think drug use, is solely based on your surroundings, environment, how you were brought up, and personal choice. Race, is a genetic thing, and genetics do not tell you whether or not you will be a drug user.
I think it’s your environment, background, and upbringing that determine your drug usage. If you are around drugs when you are younger and are exposed to them, you are probably more likely to use or sell drugs when you are older. So if a person is brought up in a community that has a high drug abuse rate, than that person is more likely to drugs, than a person who is not. For example, if a child’s parent does drugs, then that child is more likely to also do drugs later in life, because when a kid sees his parent’s dong something, he thinks it okay to do it too.
But, it is not just the home environment that affects a kid’s decision to do drugs; there is also a social factor involved. Kids may start to do drugs because of social pressures and desires. Children are always trying to fit in and be accepted in there social group, and if drugs are presented to them in a way to make them feel acknowledged in there social surroundings, they will probably start using the drugs. Kids may also start doing drugs to gain attention with in there social group, or to feel acknowledged or by a certain age group.
Furthermore, I think that education plays a big role in whether one does drugs or not. If you are not educated on the harmful effects of drugs, or what they can do to you, I think that that person is more likely to say yes to drugs than a person who is educated, and knows more about drugs they are using.
But it’s not just determinism that decides if you do drugs or not. There is also free choice, because when dealing with drugs, you always have the option to say no. I think though, that environmental factors heavily effect whether what your choice will actually be, but in the end its ultimately up to you and only you, if you do drugs.
Your race does not determine if you do drugs or not. I think that uncontrolled variables such as environment and surroundings are the things that heavily influence your decision to do drugs. Just because more white people do drugs, than non-white people, doesn’t mean that because you are white you are more likely to drugs. In other words, just because two variables are highly correlated does not mean that one causes the other.

I think people who are athletic have very similar characteristics. To me, there are two sides to being athletic, a physical side and a personality side. Physically, I think an athletic person should have agility, endurance, and hand-eye coordination. Personality wise, I think an athletic person must have determination and dedication, with good team work and leadership skills.
The other day in class, we talked about whether or not your race makes you a good athletic person. I don’t think your race actually makes you an athletic person, but I think if you are and athletic person, your race may biologically give you an advantage in certain sports.
For example, in class it was stated that black or African American people tend to have longer legs, and are typically taller than other races. This doesn’t mean that just because you’re black you will be athletic, but if a black person is athletic, there height or long legs may give them an advantage in certain sports. I believe that anyone can be athletic as long as they have the resources and the determination to so.
Being good at a certain sport also, does not depend solely on your race either. I think it depends on your resources. If you have the proper training, and equipment to do a certain sport, you will probably be better at that sport than a person who doesn’t. Take ice hockey for example. It is said that white people are generally better at hockey, but that is not due to their race. Being good at ice-hockey, probably means you live where there is ice available, which is typically at colder climate areas. White people just happen to live more in colder climate areas than other races do, so that’s why generally white people are better at ice hockey than others. It’s their resources not there race.
“What characteristics do I have that give me disadvantages, or advantages in the sports I play?” This question really got me thinking. I play soccer and am also in the marching band. In both activities you need strong legs, agility, endurance, team leadership’s skills, hand/feet - eye coordination, and dedication. I know for me, hand-eye coordination isn’t one of my strongest skills. This sort of gives me a disadvantage when I am trying to spin my flag, and march at the same time to a certain spot, but as an athlete I have the determination, and hard work ethic to try and improve my skill, and over the years it has.
One advantage that I think I have in the sports is that I have long legs and good endurance. Having long legs and being tall gives me an advantage because it enables me to run faster, and endurance gives me the ability run faster longer. This skill was very useful for me when I played soccer, because I became a very essential player on my team.

“Instead of black, white, American, Hispanic, Asian or ect., Why can’t we all just be human?” Well, we are all “just human”. To me, humanity is a species not a race, so we really are all “just human”. Our race is just a subdivision of our human species. Just like a German Shepard is a division of the dog species. And besides, why would you want to be called “just human?” Your race is part of who you are, it is part of what makes you you! Why would you want to erase that away?
To me, race is very important; it shows us part of who you are, where you come from, it represents your ancestors and your history. And I think everyone’s history very important. History creates the future, it’s what we learn from to be able to move forward and survive. Our past defines the present and I think that if we labeled the human species as just all one race, we would lose some of that important history that defines us today. Eventually though, I think one day we will all truly be one race because globalization and intermixing is inevitable, but even then, I think our heritage and our roots are an extremely vital part of who and what we are today.
I think when people say, “Why can’t we all just be human”, they really mean “why can’t we all just be treated equal”. I mean think about it, if we all lived in a perfect world, where everyone respected each other and thought as everyone as equals, I don’t think this idea of “only one human race” would be of issue. When people say “just one human race” they really just want everyone to be treated and viewed the same by all people.
I like to think of it like a box of crayons. In a box of crayons, everyone is a different color, but they are all still just crayons. There are no red crayons trying to be green crayons or blue crayons attacking purple crayons for not being blue, they are all just crayons, living peacefully together in the rainbow of life, there is no color being favored over another color; they are all just equally there and happy to be who they are. But I think as humans, we sometimes see other colors as bad or favor certain colors, and then start to discriminate or stereotype against other crayons that are different. And then, that’s when people start to say “Why does there have to be good crayons or bad crayons, why do we have to all be different colors? Can’t we all just be crayons?”
Of course you can all be just crayons, but it’s not the label, color or the race that has to change, it the way that people think about these colors that have to change. I mean if we took off all the color labels on the crayons and just wrote the word “crayon” on them, all the colors would be hard to keep track of. When we looked down on the rainbow of life, we wouldn’t be able to say which crayon made which marking on the piece of paper, our history would become hard to define, and our story would no longer be unique or part of who we are, because everyone would have the same story. Everyone would “just be crayons”.