I am sure that I would not react in that manner if I was in Basum’s position. I know this because I think that I probably reacted more strongly than he did in my current situation. When I first heard Sam talk about the twenty nine to one ratio, I was astounded. I would think that with the military power and technology that the United States of America posses that this number should be far lower. The United States military is the strongest and the most powerful in the entire world. Our defense budget is a number that most of us could not even read if it was written out in numerals. We pride ourselves on precision and being extremely accurate. How can we do all these things and still say that taking 29 innocent lives to 1 “bad guy” is acceptable. If these were American lives , this would not be even remotely close to acceptable. I know this because a common argument against the death penalty in America is that sometimes innocent people get executed and you cannot put a price on an innocent person’s life – no matter how many guilty murders the death penalty incapacitates. I wonder if this would be okay if we were only executing Iraqis?
If I were Basum I would be infuriated that the United States of America, its government, and the branches of its military find this ratio acceptable. If I were him, this ratio would be telling me that I am more or less indispensible and my life is worth nothing. If I were an Iraqi I would have no problem thinking that Americans are hypocritical. How can a nation founded on the principles that all men are created equal and that every man has unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness assert that killing 29 innocent civilians is acceptable as long as one “bad guy” is killed. I understand that mistakes happen. Our soldiers are human, they make mistakes and honest mistakes are forgivable. However, if the United States’ military was to bomb a building with 60 Iraqis in it and kill everyone. That should never be acceptable, even if two of those Iraqis were terrorists on America’s Most Wanted list. The twenty nine to one ratio is simply away for our military to cut corners. I am all for saving money in the war on terror, but taking the lives of innocent people is not the way to do this. If I were Basum I would be furious about the 29:1 ratio and I can say this without a doubt because I am an American and I am furious. I completely support our troops and military, but this just isn’t cool.

I would like to first off saying that I really think that Dave Matthew’s Band is amazing and one of the best bands around. I think that they kill it with most songs and Don’t Drink the Water is no exception. The song has been a favorite of mine for some time now, and I was very excited when Sam decided to play it in class. I think that the song has a very profound meaning when applied to the history of the United States of America and the Native Americans. Because Dave Matthews Band started in South Africa, not in America, I was always unsure if the song applied to the history of America or a history in South Africa or the rest of Africa maybe. However, after class I realize that it does not matter what the song was originally written about, rather what it can applied to. And it most certainly, without a doubt be applied to America’s longest and most expensive genocide of the Native Americans in the history of our world.

There are many different lyrics in the song Don’t Drink the Water by Dave Matthews Band that I think really hit the nail on the head. I think the verse about the horse and the boat leaving really brings the point of the song home. The lyric that reads: “Those hands once warmed here, will I have retired. I can breathe my own air, and I can sleep more soundly. Upon these poor souls, I’ll build heaven and call it mine, with you all dead, now.” These few lines, I feel at least, sum up the entire Don’t Drink the Water song in a short amount of time. They may not be originally intended to describe the United States of America’s history with the Native American tribes, but they describe that history very accurately. It was the mission of those who first settled this country to drive out the Native Americans from this land and while we may not agree with it today, we must accept what our forefathers chose to do and carried out. They effectively wiped out Native American peoples and cultures. Before whites arrived in America, Native American culture flourished throughout the entire nation and Native Americans lived in every area of the country. When white Europeans arrived, they decided since they thought of themselves as more sophisticated, they deserved the mineral rich land which now is the United States of America. Through this false sense of entitlement, the whites took it upon themselves to drive the Native Americans from their lands at all costs. The song Dave Matthews wrote attempts to draw our attention to the fact that we are only living on the land at the cost of millions of lives spilled by native Americans who were fighting to protect the land that they called home. Does this change whether or not we decide to live here? I don’t know. But it most certainly puts things in perspective.

While I understand Ernso’s concern about not wanting pictures of impoverished and starving children being used for advertisements of humanitarian efforts in places such as Haiti, I think they serve a very useful purpose. From what I understood from Thursday’s lecture, Ernso was opposed to organizations using these pictures because they send the wrong message. Ernso was saying that he felt that people watching the TV commercials or seeing the web ads at home would think that all people in Haiti want is a handout. He said that Haitians are a proud people and always have been, stemming back from their independence from France and their identity as the first black nation in the western hemisphere. I completely understand that. As someone who is proud myself, I empathize with the Haitian people. However, I think that while the Haitian people might want to rebuild the country on their own, and only accept help in the form of people helping them help themselves, I think that maybe it would be beneficial for Haitians to swallow their pride and take some money.
I think that helping Haitians help themselves is an extremely noble cause and is maybe the best way for them to rebuild their country. I completely agree with Ernso when he said, “If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime.” While I think Haitians need to be taught how to fish, they also need to have some fish to eat while they learn. The main goal of TV and web ads is to raise funds for the children they portray. They are trying to better the lives of the children, not only help them survive but help them get a proper education as well. I think that in time, their families will be able to work themselves out of the situation they are currently in, but that could take many generations. I don’t think that throwing money at Haiti helps anything, but I think investing in young Haitians education and other basic things, Haiti’s recovery would be sped up a great deal.
Another argument for not using children in the ads used to procure funds for Haiti may be that the children are being exploited. I completely would disagree with this argument. So long as the money is actually going to Haiti and benefiting these children, there is not the slightest bit of exploitation present. Other people might object to using the guilt factor to attract people to donate money. This argument may have some merit, but I think that in extreme cases, it is socially acceptable to use it in this scenario. I think that in extreme cases, appealing to people’s guilt is okay.

I have never been in an interracial relationship. The only girls I have dated have been white, like me. However this does not mean that I am opposed to it. I do not hang out with many black girls at Penn State or in my hometown (there aren’t many at either location), so that is why I have never dated one. Also, I find myself being more attracted to white girls. Maybe that sounds bad to say, but I think that it is probably because of where I grew up. I grew up in a town that was more than ninety five percent white, so every single one of the girls that I saw when I was going through puberty was white. Those were the girls who I grew up being attracted to and I think that translates into now. This is not to say that I am not attracted to black girls, I just think that because of my past I am more likely to look for white girls. While I may personally choose to date within my own race, I do not disapprove of those who do and I actually applaud it. Much like how I feel about homosexuality, I think that people have a right to be attracted to whoever they choose, love that person, and spend the rest of their life with that person if they so choose. I also have a great deal of respect for anyone that has the courage to go out and date outside of their race. To me, it is very commendable because I know that many people will shoot dirty looks and them, or sometimes even hurtful comments. I know that they would experience this because I know some of my family would disapprove of an interracial relationship. I remember one time I was watching the movie U.S. Marshalls (the sequel to The Fugitive with Wesley Snipes [instead of Harrison Ford], Tommy Lee Jones and Robert Downey Jr.) with my grandfather. Wesley Snipes (who is black) has a white girlfriend in the movie and there is a scene where they make-out in a dressing room. My grandfather got very uncomfortable and tried to make a joke in poor taste saying, “What are we watching, black and white television?” This made me very angry and made me see that not everyone, especially conservatives in his generation are not very accepting of things that are different. Interracial relationships are different and therefore many people like my grandfather are scared by them and do not accept them. However, even with my grandfather’s attitude, I do not think my parents would be opposed to me dating someone outside of my race, and I know my siblings and cousins would be very accepting. But family approval would not stop me. In short, I think that interracial dating is perfectly fine. If you happen to be attracted to a member of a different race, I say go for it, do what makes you happy, and who am I to stop you even if I wanted to?

Whenever my friends come to visit Penn State, they always tell me how it seems like everyone is white and they want to know what percentage of students is white. Before this week, I really wasn’t sure and never bothered to look. To be honest I was surprised that the number was 78%. I thought it would be much higher than that. I am from a mostly homogeneous community in a suburb southwest of Philadelphia with whites making up 97% of our population. When I first came to Penn State, I really did not think it was drastically different from my hometown. I know the percentage of white students was lower than 97% but I would not expect 78%. When I found out the true percentage of white students I went on Wikipedia to look if that was close to the percentage of white United States citizens. The percentage I got from that was 74%. So while Penn State may seem to be extremely not diverse, it is not significantly different from the rest of the United States. I think that since many colleges boast of high diversity, we expect every college to be very diverse. Compared to other state universities Penn State does have a relatively high level of diversity. The University of Pittsburgh’s student population is 80% white, Kutztown University is made up of 85% white students and Shippensburg University has an 86% white population The University of Temple in Philadelphia, however is very diverse and made up 57% white students. Penn State also stacks up as close to other Big Ten schools. Ohio State University’s population is 78% white as well, Michigan State University has a 74% percentage of white students and Purdue University is 80% white. I think that the fact of the matter is that Penn State is not more homogenous than many people think and it compares favorably to other schools in Pennsylvania as well as other Big Ten schools, which are very similar to Penn State in other ways. Penn State’s level of diversity did not affect my decision to attend at all. When I was looking at colleges, diversity was a factor but not a deal breaker. But other schools I looked at such as University of Scranton, University of Delaware, and Villanova University all had similar or less levels of diversity than Penn State. I do think that this probably affects many other students. I am white but I think that many students that have other ethnicities may hesitate before coming to Penn State as opposed to a very diverse school like Temple because they will be in an even smaller minority than in the general population. In effect, this creates a circle effect and makes it harder for Penn State to become more diverse.

There is no doubt that offering scholarships that are only available to white men is a controversial topic. I personally believe that it is very important to offer scholarships to minorities, however I think in an effort to do this, the majority gets overlooked. As a white male, the scholarship opportunities presented to me are very limited as opposed to a black or brown woman, a black or brown man, or even a white woman. While I do not argue that many times, minority students are more likely to need student loans in order to pay for college, it would be foolish to say that all white males can easily afford college. I am paying for college myself. Even though I come from a white, middle class family living in suburbia, my parents have four children and there is no way that they could put all of us through college (even though three of us qualified for at least partial scholarships from our respective colleges). As a result, I am taking out student loans to pay for my education at Penn State. The federal government does little to help, because my family income isnt low enough to qualify for any grant money, so instead I receive a whopping $5,500 in low-interest loans. The state government does even less to help, in fact, instead of helping they cut funding for state schools by fifty percent. The rest of the money comes from private loans that I obtain and pay back myself. I understand that there is no perfect way to distribute government scholarships, but the most efficient way is to go by family income. This makes sense because people with less money should be given aid to attend college if possible. But while my family might have money, I do not. No one argues that the governments system is perfect, but it does work. Unfortunately, it does not work for me. So I do not oppose a group that wants to help white males pay for college. Because I believe that I am living proof of what the man said. Just because I am white and a male, does not mean that I have enough money to pay the cost of rising tuition. Perhaps it is selfish of me to support a group giving scholarships to white males who need money because I am a white male that needs money, but that is not the only reason. I would like to think that if I was black, brown, purple, or orange, I would still support something that seems to be common sense to me. America is the land of supposed equal opportunity, and while we work to achieve equal opportunity for those that have endured inequality for so long, we cannot forget those who are in the majority, because majority is not synonymous with privileged.

I agree with Sam in saying that poor white people are certainly the lowest in society. I find myself even making jokes about them, such as redneck jokes or hick jokes. The fact of the matter is that white poor people are simply just not respected. Like Sam said, it is perfectly okay for anyone to make fun of this group without reprehension. I think this is because they themselves embrace the term redneck and like the video in class displayed participate in things like the “redneck games” in which they mock themselves. While Sam explained this as them thinking “well if you’re going to mock me, I’m going to turn around and embrace it, then it’s not insulting,” I think this is a correct reflection on the manner of thinking of the people in this society. I think that, while it is hard for us to say how an entire group of people thinks; I also think that by thinking this way, poor white people perpetuate the cycle of poverty in that culture. A sociological theory called the labeling theory can explain this. In short, it states “I’m not the person you think I am, I’m not the person I think I am, I’m the person you think I am.” In other words, the theory says that people in effect intentionally fit the mold that society creates for them. It means that poor white people are likely to become the image that the rest of society creates for them. There are two ways to combat this: to stop disrespecting poor white people, and for them to become an exception to the labeling theory.
I think that normally I feel more compassion for urban poor than rural poor. In my opinion, it is kind of color blind. It does not matter to me whether the person is black, white, brown, blue, green, red, or purple. I feel compassion for anyone that is unable to provide for themselves and their family. I think that because the media is more apt to portray urban poverty than rural poverty, that is what society sees. And because that is what society sees more of, we are more likely to associate poverty with urban poverty all the time. I don’t think I feel more compassion for those that suffer from poverty in an urban setting, rather I feel compassion for them more often because I am reminded of those instances of poverty more often by television, the media, and movies. However, that being said, I do not believe that either group is better or worse off than the other. I think that anyone that has to walk 10 miles to work, or sleep under a bridge deserves not only our compassion, but also deserves attention and an effort from those better off to help them.

I think that saying simplifying the reasons to why there are more blacks in the criminal justice system than whites to two very narrow choices is completely incorrect. As a Crime, Law, and Justice major having studied this issue, I can confidently say without reservation that this issue is far more complicated than Sam made it out to be in class. It may be easy to point the finger at the criminal justice system, which contains the police, courts, and corrections systems, or any other institution but there is much more to blame than one institution. The “problem” is our society, not our criminal justice system.

Racist police forces and higher concentration of police patrol both factor in to the overrepresented black population currently incarcerated, but they are only part of the larger “problem “. There were no statistics in class about white and black people getting arrested from the same community. As a sociologist, Sam is no doubt knowledgeable about Sociological Theory about Criminology. One of the main Criminological theories is called Social Disorganization Theory. This theory deals with why crime is more prevalent in urban areas. Since urban areas are heavily populated with minorities, it also explains the overrepresentation of minorities that are incarcerated. The theory cites several different characteristics of cities because of the constant change that they undergo that leads to more crime. These include: community fear, a siege mentality stemming from distrust, community change (not the type of change but rather the constant change is the factor), poverty concentration which results in limited lawful opportunity to succeed, and negativity stemming from a feeling of not being able to rely on police and neighbors. These factors coming together make urban areas a perfect breeding ground for criminal activity, but Sam did not mention this theory.

Another theory Sam failed to mention is the Concentric Zones Theory. This theory relates to the neighborhood structure of urban areas. It states that the factory and business district is typically in the middle of the city, then moving outward comes a zone of transition, then working class homes, then management homes, then upper class homes in the suburbs and beyond. The theory states that most crime occurs in these areas called zones of transitions, where businesses end and residential areas begin. Because of the volumes and different types of people passing through these zones make it a good for criminals such as thieves, pimps, gamblers, and drug dealers. Proof for this theory can be found even in State College, where most crime occurs in the alleys between College and Beaver Ave (while I do not have statistics to back that up, I have been told so by professors that are also involved in the community criminal justice system here). In fact, there are countless of other sociological theories or reasons I could bring up why crime in cities is more prevalent or at least more easily detected.

While no one can deny that racism is out there, to argue (or lecture) on racism in the Criminal Justice System, without presenting or even acknowledging the hundreds of years of theories that have been made about the subject is very irresponsible. I am not saying that I can answer the question why there minorities are overrepresented in prison, but I am saying that simplifying it is, for lack of a better word, ignorant.

Like Sam said in class, many Americans immediately associate liberal to Democrat and conservative to Republican. However, in the truest sense of the word, neither liberals nor conservatives have an automatic political party affiliation. The core liberal ideology is that there is a need for government to solve problems, whereas conservatives champion empowering an individual to solve his or her own problem. Liberals also advocate larger government while conservatives call for a small limited government with limited power. Sam classified himself as conservative because he believes in empowering individuals to succeed and solve his or her problems. This brings to my mind a Chinese proverb that goes like this: “Give a man a fish, feed him for that day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” I believe this perfectly describes the tension between liberal and conservative policies.

I would definitely classify myself as a conservative. I believe that teaching a man to fish, and feeding him for the rest of his life is much more practical than simply handing him a fish and feeding him for a day. I think that our government gives out too many fish. Since we provide so many social welfare and other social programs, we are simply feeding the people who benefit from these programs for a day. Instead of handing out so many fish, we should teach these people to fish. We need to spend more money on providing education for these people. This means completely re-vamping our education system to provide people in economically depressed school districts with the same kind of education that students in wealthy school districts receive.

I am also considering myself a conservative because I believe that our government is far too involved in my life it should be. Our Founding Fathers were very wary of government and designed ours accordingly. They equipped the Constitution with a Bill of Rights that guaranteed us certain freedoms that I believe should never be taken away. More than a few examples of the Bill of Rights coming under fire from liberals in recent years can be found. But I think the most egregious and overlooked is the expansion of the Federal government. The 10th Amendment to our Constitution reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This states that if it is not in the Constitution, the federal government has no power and the matter should be left to the states or the people (I would prefer the people). Recent legislation including the infamous health care bill and the government takeover of the college loan system are clear violations of this amendment.

I think it is a very good point that white comedians are held to a higher standard than comedians of color when it comes to making jokes about race. However, I have no explanation for this other than the fact that people are sometimes just too sensitive. Before beginning this blog I spent about an hour of searching youtube clips of racist stand up routines before writing this and I would like to first say, that although I am no expert in the field, I would not classify most of the material I found as racist at all. One undeniable truth about humans is that we are all different. In my opinion, pointing out these differences, as long as it is all in good fun is not racist at all. Differences are funny. Stereotypes and generalizations can be funny. And when what many people call racism is presented in such a way that it is not derogatory, hurtful, and meant to draw laughs from all groups of people, is funny. Maybe I found most of the routines I watched when I searched racist standup comedy on youtube to be very funny, and so did the audiences. When I found jokes about white people being crazy because they will go anywhere on the planet to play with crazy animals but not going to Oakland for fear of getting shot, I laughed. I laughed when I heard the Indian comedian joking about how cheap and funny Chinese vendors were. I laughed when I found jokes about blacks being loud in the movie theatre, or loving fried chicken (the latter joke was made by Dave Chapelle, a black comedian). I laughed when Bill Maher joked about President Obama not being a real black president because he didnt go into a meeting packing heat and shooting oil reps in the foot (literally). I think that as long as a joke is not derogatory, there is no reason why we all cant laugh at each other. We are all different. We need to learn to not only laugh at each other but laugh at ourselves. I am a white Irish-Catholic, but some of the jokes that I laugh the most at are those directed towards people like me. I think political correctness has driven us to lose our ability to laugh at things that could be funny. Now we are trained to label them as racist immediately and not appreciate them for what they really are, something to laugh about that.