You would think in today’s world that men and women can do pretty much any job they wish to do. However, people often forget about the people who fall in between the cracks, such as those who are transgender. In this case, El’Jai is a man in every legal way possible, whether it is his driver’s license, birth certificate and at the Social Security office. My only question is why would anyone consider him female? He has had a sex change, making him a man. He grew up doing everything boys did, so what necessarily would make anyone consider him female in the first place?
The reason people react the way they do to situations like this is because as a society, we expect things to be black and white (not literally, but you get what I mean). You’re either a boy or a girl, Republican or Democrat, young or old, or any other typical category we expect people to fit into. While we may have made tremendous strides in diversity in our nation, being transgendered isn’t something we teach our children about. There is no stereotype of someone who is transgendered. While this may sound odd, stereotypes come from things that we see as “the norm” or socially acceptable. Being Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, black, white, brown, boy or girl and many more things all have stereotypes, since that’s what we see every day. In general, people don’t react well to change. Whenever something is different, we are quick to judge, such as in this case.
The person who fired El’Jai is clearly in the wrong. As the article says, NJ state law includes gender identity and expression as aspects that cannot be discriminated against in the hiring process, which only proves further that El’Jai was fired unjustly. Also, an employer wouldn’t ask a man if he’s had a vasectomy or a woman whether her tubes are tied or her boobs are fake, so why would asking El’Jai about any of his surgeries be alright to do? Obviously he performed his job to the best of his ability and that’s what the employer should be worried about. We obviously have many strides to make when it comes to gender acceptance.

Since oil came to America, our consumption has steadily increased. Today, no one in this entire nation could survive without the oil industry. It is just a fact of life at this point. While opinion polls may show that the public wants all of these tax subsidies oil companies receive eliminated, no one knows what would happen if this actually occurred. However, it’s probably guaranteed that this subsidy money the government keeps would not even be seen by the American public. Not that I advocate giving billions of dollars away to these companies. I’m just acknowledging the fact that this practice is not something new.
In class, we discussed how the government does not tell its citizens everything. While our nation is founded upon the principles of justice and honesty, it seems as if Americans never receive full, undisclosed honesty, something each individual feels like they deserve. For example, when Obama says he wants to cut $4 billion in subsidies to “Big Oil”, I honestly asked myself, “Who exactly is ‘Big Oil’?” Whenever the oil industry is mentioned in the news, this “Big Oil” term is thrown around as if only an idiot wouldn’t know what “big oil” constituted of. Maybe if someone wrote a list and put that on the news, this oil issue would make a lot more sense to the everyday citizen. This might make me sound like an ignorant person who never watches the news, but face it. The typical, everyday citizen is probably in the same boat with me.
Of course other politicians on the Hill chuckled when Obama brought up this plan. It’s almost as if saying that Obama wanted to make America a bald-eagle themed amusement park. It is not going to happen, and other politicians recognize this. API President Jack Gerard stated, “"They face two choices: One leads us forward and promotes jobs, investments, revenue and growth -- or one that takes us backward, threatening the progress we've made and closing the door on future opportunities." It’s apparent that the American Petroleum Institute would play to the American public by playing the “we’re creating more jobs” card. It’s what we like to hear in times like this.

As most people have posted, wealth is unevenly distributed and the division between the social classes is vast, especially in America. However, if this class has taught me anything, it’s that the land of the “free” might be one of the least free places of all. Yes, we get to elect the people we believe are most competent into government positions and positions of power. Yet that does not mean that every single human being in this nation is an honest, wholesome person. For example, I believe Sam mentioned something about how Penn State is handling these budget cuts and professors. He said how if they planned to fire some teachers, they would just increase the salary of the professors who teach large lectures (like Sam). Any professor whose salary was increased during times like these would obviously think, “Oh yeah I’m all for this.” I agree with psu2012. Anyone who would say the opposite is a liar.
Being college students, we all hope that we’ll be part of the elite one day (if not elite, at least upper middle class). In reality, that’s never the case. The people who are on top stay on top and pass this off to their children and their children’s children. We saw this in the graph shown in class the other day. The reason this cycle rarely breaks is because the wealthy obviously don’t want to bite the hand that feeds them. Not to say every single rich person is selfish, but that’s just the general trend (as we’ve seen on the graph).
On the global scale, the inequality of wealth helps keep Western countries, like ours, functioning at the rate they do. From the reading The Uses of Global Poverty: How Economic Inequality Benefits the West, Eglitis provides 11 logical explanations as to why global poverty is deeply rooted in our American way of life, such as the fact that poverty ensures Westerners get affordable goods and a disproportionate amount of resources come our way. I never realized half of these points until I read them in the book. It really makes me wonder that if the US and another poorer nation switched places, would we find this such an issue, or just accept it as the way of life? Just a thought.

In closing, this article doesn’t really mean anything, except for a prediction of what could possibly happen in the future. But as Kosmin also said, “Religious fervor waxes and wanes in unpredictable ways.” So what says that the opposite of what this article predicts won’t happen?

As we have discussed in class, religion and spirituality are not the same thing. While this article reports the rise in “unaffiliated” people, that does not necessarily mean that all of humanity will lose spirituality, which is what I believe this article was trying to imply. When Barry Kosmin said, "Religion relies on human beings. They aren't rational or predictable according to the laws of physics”, I really think that this argument could be fought either way. Most of the time, people turn to religion is because they need a higher power to turn to in times of peril or loss. Bad things are always going to happen, whether they are natural disasters, death, etc., so human beings will always be turning to religion.
Social networking is also completely irrelevant to this topic. In the video, the man says that if your virtual friends are unaffiliated and don’t go to religious services, then you are more likely not to as well. While we do discuss “invisible strings” in class, religion is important to many people, who often make their own choices about whether they go to church or not.

While I would consider myself a Catholic, I spent most of my childhood not understanding what being a Catholic (or Christian) really meant. I was more focused on how I could get out of CCD, which I’m sure most of you Catholics out there can relate to. However, once my best friend passed away, I saw so many aspects of religion that I never saw before. The way religion can bring people together, whether it is praying for a common cause or looking to a higher power for solace. One thing I also learned was that you cannot apply a mathematical equation to religion. Even if they used specific facts from countries’ consensus, one cannot put a quantity on religion. It is a personal choice and an individually made choice at that.

My uncle often must make decisions on whether same sex couples wishing to adopt can actually go through the adoption process. He says that what makes same sex couples special is the fact that they clearly go out of their way to make the best impression possible. He also says that since gay couples just can’t have sex and get pregnant (whether accidentally or on purpose), the decision to decide to parent is made wholeheartedly and has been fully considered by each person in the relationship.
Zach is right that he says family is “based on the commitment we make to one another.” Whether straight parents or gay parents, a true family has more than genetics in common. In fact, some true families don’t even have that. Real families are based on love, support, the ability to pass along tradition and continue to spread those ideals throughout generations, so if a couple (same sex or straight) can do that, I don’t see what the issue is.

When I first watched this video, I was blown away by Zach’s obvious skill behind the podium. It’s hard to believe that Zach and I are the same age. He seems incredibly well spoken and knows how to relate to others who may have very different beliefs than him, which is more difficult than one can imagine.
While I am from a “traditional” family, I have had first hand experience with same sex families. My mom has been an elementary school nurse since 2000 and my uncle is a social worker in my country back home. Throughout their careers, I’m sure both of them have experienced several different family situations. However, both have often said that they cannot tell which children are from same sex families and which are not. It’s mostly when they meet the parents that they obviously learn of this fact. My mom says that these parents are often the most prompt when it comes to picking up their sick child from school, sending certain signed papers back to school and being more involved overall in their child’s life. Not to say that this isn’t true for heterosexual parents, but my mom has said that it is something she has noticed throughout the years.

I’m curious to see how people from other areas with this same issue respond to it. Maybe they have other strategies to teach the people of Helsinki. However, I do think that the sun lamps definitely work. Even if they only work for a limited amount of time, any source of bright light is beneficial to one’s mood and well-being.

The way one feels reflects in one’s actions. If you are angry, you’ll be mean to others. If you are happy, you’ll send out your good vibes.
It also does not help how freezing cold it probably is in Helsinki. During the winter, people are usually lead a more sedentary life. Here at Penn State, even if it is freezing cold out, people can usually deal with the cold as long as the sun is out. When the temperature goes about 50 degrees, you see people walking around campus in t-shirts, as if it were already spring. Sunlight improves the mentality of the entire campus.