My thoughts on illegal immigration haven’t really changed. I’m still incredibly conflicted about my thoughts on it. I can understand both sides, and it’s definitely an issue that’s not being taken care of anytime soon. There is no easy solution to this incredibly complex issue.
We’re a country built on immigration. We are the melting pot, right? Our countries entire population is immigrants, aside from the few Native Americans that manage to survive our systematic killings. The massive influxes of immigrants from Europe in the late 19th and early 20th century is always taught in history classes, focusing on Ellis island and the eventual assimilation into American culture. In elementary school we were always encouraged to research our heritage. Everybody would proudly say they’re Polish, German, Irish etc. The melting pot theory was celebrated, and the combination of all these cultures created our American culture, all that happy nonsense. Immigrants would come to America on boats, trips could last a week to a month. Disease and malnutrition ran rampant. All the get to America in hopes of making better lives for themselves.
What’s so different about the illegal immigrants from Mexico or Central America? They risk rape, element exposure, and capture just to get here to most likely be homeless. They have intentions of working their hands to the bone, and most likely send that money to their families. They’re not working the system. You can’t work the system if you’re not a part of it. They do jobs that no one else wants, and they do it more effectively than their competition. If you pick up a Mexican outside of Lowes to build you a deck, they’ll do it cheaper and at the same caliber as an actual contractor.
I’ve heard people muttering about illegal immigrants and how they’re ruining our country, sucking up our welfare, blah blah blah. Which makes absolutely no sense because if you’re an illegal immigrant, you’re not looking to show up on the government’s radar. They don’t want to bring attention to themselves.
However, illegal immigrants are still here illegally. They’re not supposed to be here, and there is stigma about it. We don’t want to take the world’s poor people. The last thing a country needs is more destitute people. However, the migrant workers that pick our fruit in California are the reason we have produce. Otherwise fruit from across the country wouldn’t be affordable if they hadn’t hired migrant workers for less. The illegals who have fake social security cards and are legitimately employed they pay taxes out of their pay checks. However, the economy may not be able to support so many people. At the end of the day, as long as I can still buy my strawberries, I’m fine with illegal immigrants.

When I checked my email and saw that I email from Sam, I assumed it would be something else about the Haiti project. I was wrong, in this email Sam talked up his next, saying it was the greatest lecture of the year. I didn’t think too much about this email because Sam often says that next time is going to be a “really great class,” almost like the boy who cried wolf. This isn’t to say that his lectures aren’t good, but they had yet to blow my mind. This time, however, I saw that the lecture was entitled “Christian Invaders” and immediately got excited. I love learning about religion, and had high standards for this lecture. I was convinced nothing could top The Needy Penis.
As the lecture opened with the bit about coal China coming here to take it, I knew exactly where Sam was going with this lecture. It put everyone in the right mind set, someone coming to your home with intentions of taking what is rightfully yours, and if you didn’t give it up, then they’d take it by force. Even once they had the coal they still wouldn’t leave, maintaining a constant presence, reminding you of the fact they’re in control. When Sam posted the clicker question about whether I’d join the forces against the Chinese, I had to seriously think about it.
He then continued to play devil’s advocate, putting us in the shoes of the Iraqis. Stating the war in Iraq is about oil. He showed us videos of Christian fundamentalists, equivalent to the videos we’ve seen of the Jihad fundamentalist Muslim groups, and videos of American troops abusing their power. He painted a picture of the Iraqis living their lives just as we do, constantly pursuing happiness. Lives almost completely parallel, except for one big variable—war. That’s one thing that we in America know nothing about, being occupied. The fact that 29 civilians can die in order to kill one terrorist is despicable, but a fact of life for those in the Middle East.
This lecture brought to the forefront that in politics there are no right or wrong answers. Yes, I want the price of gas to go down. Do I want people to die for it? No. Are people going to continue to die for oil? Yes, at least until the wells run dry. As this “war” reaches it’s ten year mark, no one knows what the goal is. This brings us back to the clicker question. If this were to happen in the United States, would I join the opposition forces? No, I wouldn’t. it seems a fruitless battle. Realistically, It would make no difference. They’d still get the coal, and I would succeed in nothing more than to paint a target on myself.

When I checked my email and saw that I email from Sam, I assumed it would be something else about the Haiti project. I was wrong, in this email Sam talked up his next, saying it was the greatest lecture of the year. I didn’t think too much about this email because Sam often says that next time is going to be a “really great class,” almost like the boy who cried wolf. This isn’t to say that his lectures aren’t good, but they had yet to blow my mind. This time, however, I saw that the lecture was entitled “Christian Invaders” and immediately got excited. I love learning about religion, and had high standards for this lecture. I was convinced nothing could top The Needy Penis.
As the lecture opened with the bit about coal China coming here to take it, I knew exactly where Sam was going with this lecture. It put everyone in the right mind set, someone coming to your home with intentions of taking what is rightfully yours, and if you didn’t give it up, then they’d take it by force. Even once they had the coal they still wouldn’t leave, maintaining a constant presence, reminding you of the fact they’re in control. When Sam posted the clicker question about whether I’d join the forces against the Chinese, I had to seriously think about it.
He then continued to play devil’s advocate, putting us in the shoes of the Iraqis. Stating the war in Iraq is about oil. He showed us videos of Christian fundamentalists, equivalent to the videos we’ve seen of the Jihad fundamentalist Muslim groups, and videos of American troops abusing their power. He painted a picture of the Iraqis living their lives just as we do, constantly pursuing happiness. Lives almost completely parallel, except for one big variable—war. That’s one thing that we in America know nothing about, being occupied. The fact that 29 civilians can die in order to kill one terrorist is despicable, but a fact of life for those in the Middle East.
This lecture brought to the forefront that in politics there are no right or wrong answers. Yes, I want the price of gas to go down. Do I want people to die for it? No. Are people going to continue to die for oil? Yes, at least until the wells run dry. As this “war” reaches it’s ten year mark, no one knows what the goal is. This brings us back to the clicker question. If this were to happen in the United States, would I join the opposition forces? No, I wouldn’t. it seems a fruitless battle. Realistically, It would make no difference. They’d still get the coal, and I would succeed in nothing more than to paint a target on myself.

The ideas in this lecture weren’t exactly groundbreaking, but more that I’ve never thought about them myself. I had never envisioned myself living in a male-centered universe, but this lecture brought that picture very much to the forefront. I came to the realization that it is completely true. In almost everything I do as a female, is centered around men.
The example of dressing up to ridiculous extremes to go the frat parties was the most pressing. Tonight, when I put on my Friday’s best, which is usually quite minimal area coverage and will definitely not involve a jacket to protect against the 30 degree elements, I’ll keep this is mind. I would wear heels if I had a.) the ability to walk in them, especially when intoxicated or b.) the money to buy heels that can will inevitably just get ruined and doused in luke warm beer, sweat, and vomit. Never had I considered why I dressed that way. I surely don’t dress that way for myself, for it is impractical and vastly uncomfortable. I never realized that I dressed like this because everyone else did. Why did everyone else dress like this? Because they wouldn’t get into the party if dressed otherwise. Who runs the party? Men.
That brings us to the next point, at said parties the men are dressed down. A typical frat boy outfit is jeans and a polo or button up shirt. This reflects the standard of the male-centered universe in which I live. Girls are scantily clad in the 30 degree weather, and men are dressed for total comfort. This also reflects the reason I drink before I leave for parties, especially in winter. For one thing, it seems a lot warmer when I’m a few shots deep. It makes the walk to the party more bearable. It also makes the frat itself more bearable. Being rubbed up against on the dance floor isn’t a big deal if I barely register it’s happening.
This brings us to alcohol advertisements geared towards women. The colorful ones that show very pretty women, mostly surrounded my attractive men. Making women believe that alcohol will make them more desirable. To who? Men. Where are most of these advertisements marketed? Cosmo. which is like 40% advertisements for make-up, clothes, and other beauty products. To convince women that they need to be prettier. But for who? Men. The other 60% of the magazine is articles about how to be his fantasy and sex tips to help please him. They also add tips on masturbation occasionally. Judging by the amount of articles directed towards his pleasure, masturbation tips seem extremely necessary. No ones looking out for us, not even us.

The election of the first black president at face value would seem the state of race relations is improving. It shows that a majority of people would vote for a black president if his views matched theirs. It is probably the most significant concrete step the “racial movement.” A majority white nation elected a black president, and that should be significant for race relations, shouldn’t it? Maybe.
A lot more goes into the election of a president than race. Obama had many things going for him other than race. He’s undeniably charismatic and an attractive (just as Kennedy was) which is immensely important regardless of what some would say. He could have had a flawless resume, but if he couldn’t move a group, he would never have gotten elected. Mostly importantly though, he ran on the democratic ticket in the election that followed Bush, who was undeniably, by the end of his political career, vastly unpopular. The nation needed a change, which was exactly what Obama marketed. The fact that he was the democratic candidate played a major part in the election. I believe at this point in our countries history, that fact could overshadow any latent prejudice, which is what most white people experience.
In a clever effort, the republican party then enlisted a new candidate of their own after the democratic selected Obama over Clinton. They enlisted Sarah Palin as the McCain’s running partner, to harness the “women’s vote.” Obama still came out on top though, which says a lot about race and possibly feminism as well.
This doesn’t change the fact that there were people both voted for him and against him because he was black. Were there black republicans who voted for Obama because he was black? Without a doubt. There were also without a doubt a lot of white people who opposed him for the same reason. There were also the stupid people who said he wasn’t born in America. Take Westmoreland County for instance. It is a majority democratic county. It hasn’t voted republican in years. Then when a black candidate arises, suddenly they turn out republican. Westmoreland county is a distinctly white county, and historically democratic. I don’t believe the fact that it went red in the presidential election a coincidence.
Obama’s election might serve to bring the racial inequalities to the forefront, or at least bring more attention to them than previously. His election does show that the majority of people can look over racial boundaries. I feel like politics is way a very complicated, and very public system, it’s not the best indicator of racial progression because of all the other factors that go into it, but it definitely shows a step in the right direction.

I can definitely see this man being the quintessential “white guy.” He could easily be any of my white friends’ fathers, that guy that was a boy scout troop leader or a baseball coach. Everything about him screams stereotypical white guy.
Most obviously is his appearance. He’s pasty, for one. There is no color to him what so ever. He’s also very straight laced as one would expect from the quintessential white guy. He’s clean shaven, as if he had shave almost directly before shooting this strange instructional video. Next I noticed his clothing, and how if I wanted to I could produce relatively the same outfit right out my step dad’s closet (whom I also consider to be very white). He’s a wearing a polo shirt, which is flawless, and has a logo embroidered on the chest, as if he had been given this shirt for being a part of some organization or as a work shirt. It is by definition a white collar shirt. Reflecting what stereotypical white people are, middle class office workers. His white collared shirt is tucked into his high waisted solid wash denim jeans, which are a staple in all “white adults” wardrobes. His high waisted jeans are held steady by a thin, solid black leather belt, fitted perfectly.
The subject matter of the video also adds to his image as white. He’s giving a promotional/ instructive video on a gun holster. The holster itself resembles a phanny pack that I’m sure his wife probably owes and takes to the supermarket or the park with her. His presentation is moderately monotone, and he moves minimally throughout the whole video. He keeps his hands in front of him for a good portion of the video, his poster is impeccable, back constantly straight, shoulders back, like he was once a soldier. It seems that he’s a police officer. I can’t image him having a worn in gun holster he keeps in his pants otherwise.
He’s made easily uncomfortable and is very proper. Such as the awkward pause when he says that people don’t usually stare at someone else’s “zipper” (not crotch) then awkward pause and cut to the next part of the video. He also makes it unnecessarily known multiple times when he’s about to put the holster that he’s wearing gym shorts underneath his jeans. Towards the end when he actually grabs the gun out of his pants, he says, very awkwardly “woah there it is…” (note, said while his hand was in his pants) then he pauses, and pulls the gun out of his pants. It’s clear he’s uncomfortable.
These seem to be generally “white” qualities. He made a video about a gun holster, while dressed in a white collar polo and solid light wash jeans. He’s made easily uncomfortable, making things seem more taboo than needed.

It seems a general trend that people who live in poverty tend to have more children. It’s something I see constantly. The trailer parks packed full of 5-6 people families per trailer. 4 children packed into a two bedroom house. Kids sleeping on the family couch instead of their beds because their rooms are too crowded. When the family clearly cannot financially handle children, why do they seem to insist on procreating like it’s their job? I’m speaking strictly about white poverty in relation to Thursdays lecture.
The way I see it there are many different ways to look at the roots of this issue, and the moral issues that surround them seem to match up pretty consistently: it is not right to have children if you cannot afford to support them. Yes, poor people deserve the joy of children, but do children deserve to be brought up in poverty? No. I believe it is safe to say that most of the time when poverty striken, children seem to come about without necessarily being planned.
People in poverty have more children in my humble opinion for three chief reasons. That is not to say that these can be applied to every poor family. Each case in relative, but logically I can deduce a few generalized reasons. The first is that, poor people cannot afford contraception. Without health insurance, woman cannot get relatively affordable birth control. Condoms are not cheap either. In cities and less rural areas, there are sexual health clinics that often give condoms away for free. White poverty however is typically found in rural areas, where the population density isn’t great enough for sexual health clinics. If you can’t afford contraception, don’t have sex. However, that is easier said than done when biologically, humans have a need for sex.
From a more Darwinian approach (and this does not necessarily reflect my personal opinion), the poor people are poor for a reason. There seems to be a general correlation between poverty (at least in the u.s.) and intelligence. This is not to say that there aren’t stupid rich people, or intelligent poor people. The majority it can be argued however aren’t the brightest crayons in the box. They might not be able to make the connection that they shouldn’t reproduce, or in the heat of the moment are less likely to make the connection that if there is no glove, there should be no love.
Lastly, there are those despicable human beings who have kids to receive more welfare. For every child you have you get more government sanctioned funds. This doesn’t happen often, but I’ve personally know people who had kids for chiefly that reason. Yes, they love their children, but their motives were not out of love. This is not right.
People of poverty shouldn’t have children for their children’s sake. But these things happen, and aren’t likely to change anytime soon.

The American standard of living is obviously amongst the highest in the world. We’re bested only by Scandinavia, Japan, Canada, and Australia. Materially, we lead the pack, averaging the highest in material net worth, not necessarily income. As Sam had stated in class, the poorest of Americans are still better off the 97% of the world. I hadn’t known that before taking this class. Yes, I’d assumed it was better than most, but 97% is an overwhelming statistic. I know I’ve judged my peers, thinking that they spend money far too frivolously, having usually come from a family with less income. However, I have never thought about what the rest of the world’s condition is. To think that even I live better than 97% of the world was mind blowing.

I found the inmate in “Remember” inspiring. His time in prison has made him truly reflect and repent his crime. What struck me the most was how he went down the list of people he hasn’t been in contact with, most strikingly his wife. His mother is the only person who supports him. He is incapable of forming bonds with other inmates because they all end up leaving in the end, unlike him. He relives his crime daily, and is constantly reminded of it because it’s the one thing he remembers. He paints this picture of utter anguish. As I read this I felt myself go through an array of emotion. Does a man who killed someone really have a right to complain about his life in prison? At the same time I felt bad for him because he had reflected so deeply on his crime.
He’s clearly miserable. Considering he’s in prison isn’t that how it should be? He’s probably extremely depressed. As I was thinking about this, I wondered if they give antidepressants to prisoners. Obviously they give more intense psychiatric drugs to the psychotic serial killers, but what about the lesser offenders who are just having a hard time adjusting to the fact that their lives are over. So, like any reasonable college student, I googled it. I found that Bernard Madoff, a man who was convicted of 11 felonies, stole over 7.2 billion dollars on the stock market, and sentenced to 157 years in prison, was given antidepressants in prison. Apparently, it’s not uncommon for prisoners to be given antidepressants and medication for anxiety.
The question is, should they be given pills to make them feel better? They’re in prison. Obviously, they’re going to be unhappy. Prison isn’t supposed to be a happy place, but quite the opposite. Prisoners are convicted for a reason, punishment. Is it right for their problems to be medicated away? Making them feel better negates the purpose of prison. They’re in prison; they’re supposed to be miserable. Why should they be given medication to make their punishment more bearable? “Remember” however makes me sympathize with him, so I was conflicted.
The next question that came to me was, could withholding antidepressants to prisoners be construed as cruel and unusual punishment? At what point does the depression become crippling enough to be cruel and unusual? Obviously depression rates are higher with inmate populations than amongst people outside prison. Suicide in prison happens, and it happens often. Is being driven to that point too malicious? Prisoners shouldn’t be dehumanized. Is the fact they’re driven to this point reflect the faults in the prison system? Could medication be a band aid for the larger problem?

The confederate flag is not an unfamiliar symbol to me. South east of Pittsburgh, near the ridge line, where I live, its something I see it all the time. In fact, I can’t leave my house without seeing my neighbors red pickup truck with the confederate flag painted over the hood. To most, not necessarily all, it’s a symbol of the way they live, to others, it is a symbol of racism. If you’re white, some of them will blatantly tell you that. This of course does not all the white people in my area, but stereotypes do come from observations, and there are planty of stereotypical rednecks where I’m from, dressed in camouflage clothes and wearing work boots.
These rednecks, the ones that typically use the flag as a symbol of racism, don’t understand what the flag once stood for. They don’t understand that the Civil War was not about slavery, but was an economic issue. Slavery was an underlying cause, but was by no means the cause of the war. Most have no connection to the culture of the south considering they have never been outside of Pennsylvania. It has nothing to do with the culture of the south, and they have no idea what the phrase “The south will rise again,” would actually entail.
To me personally though, If I were to display a confederate flag it would not represent the south, racism, or a redneck lifestyle. It would represent keeping the spirit of rebellion alive. When I see the confederate flag, I never really analyzed what it meant. I always associated it with the “Rednecks” that fly it, paint it, and pin it anywhere they possibly can as a symbol of hatred and racism. Not everyone who has the confederate battle flying do it to symbolize racism especially considering those in the south who fly it to symbolize they’re distinctly southern culture. Those where I’m from, southern Pennsylvania, however have no need to fly a flag symbolizing southern culture. They have misconstrued the true symbolism of the Confederate Flag to a base meaning of slavery, based on propaganda that the Civil War was over slavery.
This is not to say that all Northerners who fly the Confederate flag know, or even care what it truly means. Some just have the flag displayed to symbolize what they believe to be the redneck culture with which they live, just as the southerners display it to represent their southern culture, somehow to Confederate flag became a northern symbol of the redneck lifestyle. Most people fly the flag harmlessly, just being proud of the way they live, with no malicious intentions. That doesn’t change the fact that others still display it with intent of making a terrible statement.