In light of recent events, there has been talk that it would be beneficial for the university, and the student body, to cancel State Patty’s Day. As Sam said in class, the media could catch wind of it and it would make us look just as bad, if not probably worse if the event is still held. The question is, how do you cancel an event that has grown to such immense size and notoriety. Even with the programs already in place, such as making it a day of service, the event has not gotten any smaller, but appears to have gotten bigger. More people come from out of town each year, and even if all the people from out of town were not invited, they would still come. These events usually start with some kind of Facebook event announcing it and then grows way out of proportion. Personally, I don’t think that trying to create an event would counteract State Patty’s. I personally don’t know if there is any clear way to stop it.
Even if we did find a way to stop it, what good would it really do? True, we wouldn’t get the original bad press of holding the event, but it wouldn’t really give us any good press. Also, even if the holiday is “officially” canceled, students will probably go out and drink all day anyways. The campus will be crawling with press waiting to expose the students who are drinking and will probably just cause more of a hassle for students. The press already knows when State Patty’s would be and will probably be waiting to catch students even if the holiday is canceled. True, less bad press would probably make it a little easier for us seniors to find employment, but with how bad the stigma is with the university I don’t see how it could get much worse. Also, the press is starting to turn around as we force them to see our perspective. They are reporting on positive events like the vigil and the fact that we have raised nearly half a million dollars for victims of sexual abuse and the support wall that students created. They just had a special on THON on the Big Ten Network and we will proudly and actively be promoting it and raising money up until THON weekend. Sine students see State Patty’s as a way to blow off steam from our busy schedules and fundraising efforts. It’s not fair that the media and the rest of the world are condemning the students when we were not the ones involved in this scandal, but this is the sad reality of the world that we live in.

Social media gets blamed for a lot of things: giving bullies a new playground, creating relationship drama, and causing distractions. However, social media cannot be blamed for the riot that happened and what was done. Throughout history, whenever a large group of people is angered, they have taken to the streets and rioted. People began causing riots since well before social media was created. Any time a large group of people is set off, they want to find a way to express themselves, and the individual becomes anonymous in the group so they feel more comfortable expressing their anger. They can be destructive and aggressive without being identified and they feel that they can away with things because they are part of a larger group. The problem with the riot that occurred the other night was that a small part of the larger group became destructive and violent. Up until those individuals decided to flip over the news van, the riot was not a riot, but a rally. People were just yelling and cheering for Joe Paterno and yelling about their particular feelings toward the board of trustees. They were controlled, and respecting the police forces that were out there to keep everybody safe. It was the few individuals, those who are usually trying to cause trouble, that cause a riot to turn into a rally.
That being said, social media is not completely blameless. By posting on websites like Twitter and Facebook, people were exposing these events to the entire world. At a time when the eyes of the world were upon us, we exposed the worst of ourselves. A lot of the time when the press gets information about what happens to us, it is because people have posted about it. These social media sites make it possible for people to expose the worst of themselves, but it does not cause people to make the decisions themselves. I think that rather than the social media sites being blamed for rioting, the technology that allows us access to these sites right away. I personally heard about everything with regards to what was going on from my friends’ texting me. People using their cell phones enabled the riot and caused it to get as big as it did. It is people texting and using their camera phones to take pictures and videos of what was going on. That causes people to find out more about it and the idea of being rowdy becomes more appealing. People begin to feel like it is much bigger than it is and that causes them to act out. It is people using their technology to access the social media sites and the few troublemakers that cause riots to be out of control, not the social media sites.

When some says that the land we live on is “our” land, what are they implying? Well, usually the people that make a claim like this one; usually feel like the land belongs to them. In today’s world, anything that we paid for is considered ours. Therefore, because we pay money for a piece of land, or for a house that is on a piece of land, we can say that the land is ours. But, consider the fact that when the first European settlers came to this land, they called it “ours” even though they never paid for it. If coming to a knew place meant that you could claim it as yours, then every time I go someplace new, I can claim it as mine and say that I own it. Unfortunately for me, society no longer works that way, and I have to pay for something or have someone give it to me as a present in order for me to say that it is mine. As society changes, the way people define ownership changes. Ownership is based on economic status and whether or not you have the money to be able to call something “yours.” The fact that we now call land “ours” is a huge departure from the way the Native Americans used to talk about the land that we are now living on. In the mythology class that I am taking, we talked about when the Europeans came to North America and claimed it as their own. When the Europeans came they claimed their land as theirs, and they tried to buy land from some of the Native Americans. However, this went against what the Native Americans believed in. They believed that the Earth was sacred and belonged to divine power and that you could not call the land your own because you cannot own what belongs to the divine. They believed that the divine powers were the only ones who could call the land their own, and that they allowed the Native Americans to live there. That is a complete difference from how we call land “ours” today.
For the second part of the question, why can’t or won’t people come here to get a better life, I’m not sure. This could be a reflection of how are society has changed, and how it is no longer as easy to have “a good life” here in America anymore. America used to be called the land of opportunity, but in the current economic state, there is less opportunity for people. If the American people cannot make their dreams a reality, then why would other people think that they could? Unfortunately, America is no longer seen as the land of great opportunity and people realize this.

Everyday, you see people spending time with people of different color than their own. People tend to judge them and think that they are acting as a “poseur.” They think that the person is just trying to act like they are exactly like the rest of the group. But why do people assume this? Sure, there are some people who do just that. They try and act like they are a part of a certain group in order to attain some type of social status or acceptance, and they are trying desperately to fit in. One might even say that they don’t like the people that they are so they desperately try and fit in with this other group. But why does it have to be this way? Personally, I have hung out with people that have different colored skin or other different features from me, and I am not trying to be “one of them.” I just saw them as my friends. Last year, I lived with two girls of Asian descent and two black girls. I would go get dinner with my black roommates and some of their friends, just because they were my friends and I was hungry too. I wouldn’t try and act like them and be a copycat poseur. I would just be me, but I guess there are people who don’t understand why people spend time with people who are different from them.
I think that it is one of those cases, where because a few people do something, the rest of the world assumes that everyone else like them is the same. Therefore, the few people who actually are poseurs have set the rest of us up to look like we are poseurs. I don’t think that people who hang out in mixed crowds are poseurs. I think that they are just people who are trying to be friends with all kinds of people, and that they are just trying to be genuinely nice. I think that maybe the people who call others “poseurs” may actually be the real poseurs themselves. Maybe by calling others poseurs and making other people think that is a common thing, will make it stand out less when they act as a poseur. People will assume that it is something wrong with the racial group that they belong to as opposed to the truth, which is that they are the actual poseurs, and it is not everybody. I think that this is where many of societies problems come from. People assume that just because a few people of a certain race are one way, the rest of the world thinks that the entire race is that way. But they aren’t. Therefore assuming that a person is something is wrong, and just because I hang out with different colored people, does not make me a poseur.

The article about how we are wrong in defining happiness was definitely thought provoking, and actually made a lot of sense to me. When a person defines happiness today, it usually involves gaining an object or experience, or achieving some kind of state of being. But the problem is, that by definition, every time we get something we should be “happy” but we’re not. We just continue looking for the next thing that will make us happy. We as humans are never fully satisfied with what we have and are always looking for the next best thing to come around. When you get a computer that you have been saving your money for, you think you are happy with it until you see the new model, and then all of a sudden, your new computer is seen as being mediocre.
Also very rarely does the thing we are waiting for actually live up to our expectations. We get so excited anticipating a vacation or the release of a new product, that when it finally comes it cannot be nearly as good as we wanted it to be. I don’t know about you, but as amazing as my vacations are, they never quite live up to my expectations. Either the weather is off or somebody gets in trouble, but it’s the build up to event that is more exciting. Sometimes you can’t even find the thing that you think will make you happy.
People say that you need to find the thing that will make you happy. But how are you supposed to know what that thing is? It’s impossible. You can spend you life being so focused on the so-called “key to happiness” that you completely miss out on all of the things around you that actually can make you happy. Maybe you think that reaching a certain level in your career will make you happy, but you focus on that so much that you end up ignoring the relationship that is right there and could make you happy. And you never even know for sure if that thing will actually make you happy. It is all a never-ending game of what if. What if I did this differently, or chose to be with that person? Would I have been happier? It makes it impossible to make a decision about anything because you will always be questioning if you made the right choice and if you actually are happy.
This never-ending search for happiness is exhausting. It almost makes a person want to give up. I think that we should just stop looking for happiness in the future or in a specific thing, and just enjoy the moment we are living in. Besides, for all we know we could have achieved happiness and don’t even realize it.

The article about how we are wrong in defining happiness was definitely thought provoking, and actually made a lot of sense to me. When a person defines happiness today, it usually involves gaining an object or experience, or achieving some kind of state of being. But the problem is, that by definition, every time we get something we should be happy but were not. We just continue looking for the next thing that will make us happy. We as humans are never fully satisfied with what we have and are always looking for the next best thing to come around. When you get a computer that you have been saving your money for, you think you are happy with it until you see the new model, and then all of a sudden, your new computer is seen as being mediocre.

When I saw this week’s question it made me think, not only why don’t men sacrifice their comfort, but also why do women sacrifice their comfort when they dress. Every time I go out with my friends, my girls and I are dressed up in heels, short skirts, dresses, skinny jeans or tight tops while my guy friends are in jeans and a shirt, usually wearing sneakers. I never really thought about it before, but why do we, the women, always dress up while they never do? As I was considering this question, I began to think about the myths I have read for my comparative literature class from ancient times. All of those myths are about the divine, and even in those myths, they don’t discuss what they male divinities wore, but they talk about what the female divinities wore. Dating back to ancient times, it seems that women dressed up more than men did. This makes sense being as most societies around the world have had patriarchal social structures with the men being the dominant sex. For most of history, men have set the standard for the way political systems are set up, how we dress, and every single aspect of society. It’s like Sam and Laurie said in class, we live in a male centered world. Everything that happens is centered on how they want things to be. I think that part of the problem is that we have all been living in this kind of society for so long, that nobody even questions it. At the same time, it is hard to imagine what a woman centered world would look like. In our minds, we know what we are attracted to, but the concept for the ideal man has been formed in this male centered world that we live in. If we lived in a woman centered society, would we think that the men dressing up in our outfits would be attractive while we just go out in whatever’s the most comfortable. I can’t say for sure because I’m so used to thinking about who or what is attractive based on the society in which we live. I know that from my perspective now, a man wearing the clothes that us women wear is not attractive to me, but if that was a norm than I probably would be attracted to it. I think that the way we dress is and what kinds of clothes we find attractive is based on society’s norms. Until, society changes, or men decide that they want to be the ones who dress up, things will probably never change. So until that day comes, I’ll just keep wearing my heels and mini skirts.

The way that the US is currently aiding foreign countries is not truly effective. They give the money to the governments and the wealthy in the hopes that the money will make it too the people, and the stipulation that they governments will use US products to help the country making sure that in the end we are the ones who truly benefit from this transaction. There has to be a better way for us to help other countries that actually helps the people. Part of the problem is that the money we send helps make the rich get richer and the poor stay the same or get poorer. One way to fix this would be to talk to the actual people who are in need. In the Haiti project, we are talking to the people that need the help and are finding out what their need really are. This can help us to figure out how to best help the people in need of the aid. This is clearly not the most feasible way to aid other people, but it would help us to realize who really needs the help and how they need help.
The next step after finding out what the people need is to figure out how best to help them. Giving large amounts of money to the government is ineffective in most cases. The US is unable to see if they are actually using it as they are supposed to and only the slightest amount of money may be going to those in need while the rest goes towards making the upper class more comfortable and powerful. A better idea would be to microfinance when we give countries financial aid. By giving them smaller amounts of money, we could have a better idea where the money is going and make sure that it does go where it is supposed to. Also, we can help by giving the people things that they need instead of just money. I don’t mean that we should see who needs sewing machines or mixers for their businesses, but what areas need electricity or a way to get clean, running water. If the US could maybe put in generators or a system to install water in people’s homes, instead of just donating money to the cause, it would be much more effective. I personally don’t know how feasible this is on such a large scale, but it is effective on a smaller scale. In relation to the Haiti project, by buying the items they need and having them pay us back over time, it will make them gain bigger profits and enhance their lives. If doing something like this would enhance their lives than maybe something similar on a larger scale would help so many others. Micro financing could be a more effective way for the US to use their foreign aid.

I think that one of the best ways that we could help support the entrepreneurs and community projects in Haiti, would be to buy the materials and technology here in the United States, and send it to Haiti. Then the entrepreneurs and community projects could microfinance their businesses and pay us back in smaller increments over time. By doing this, we can know that they are getting things that they really need and are not just getting other stuff with the money we send them. It’s like the story of the beggar. If you give him money he will go to the pub and buy liquor instead of a meal. But, if you give him a fishing pole and a hook, he can learn to fish and learn to support himself. It’s like Sam said in class, when money is given to the leadership in struggling countries, there is no guarantee that it will get to the people in a constructive way. By sending them the materials and having them pay us back, we can be assured that they are putting them to good use.
Also, by doing this we are giving them an opportunity to have some extra spending money. People like Cloren and Figaro would be able to move to bigger spaces and potentially higher a few more employees over time. Figaro would also be able to send her children to school without it being as much of a financial burden. We would be sending over a large enough amount of material or technology that they could pay us back in smaller increments. Therefore, they could sell just as many goods, if not more, and be able to have some more money to put towards the bigger things they need or their hopes for their businesses or families. This would also help the community projects because it would allow them the opportunity to offer more space and job availability to more Haitians who want to participate in the Incubator. This idea would essentially take away some of the financial burden that these people and programs are facing, while making them more successful.
Part of the problem is that the projects need money. They need money to be able to buy the spaces where they are housed. They also need money to pay the entrepreneurs in the projects and to buy more locations so that more people can be involved. The problem is that donating money doesn’t always work and it’s not necessarily fiscally responsible (nor am I sure if this is even possible) to buy the space and donate them to the projects. On this issue, I’m not sure if there even is a clear-cut answer to this dilemma.

I think that in today’s world, it is impossible to say that things happen strictly because of free will or determinism. I think that you need to put the two concepts together in order to understand why people end up in their respective circumstances. Take people who are currently unemployed right now because of the economy. Determinists will look at their situation and say that it’s not their fault. Those people didn’t choose to get laid off, rather it happened because the economy is in turmoil and that is beyond their control. These people were laid off; they couldn’t have done anything about it. They would explain their inability to find a new job the same way. They would blame the inability to find a new job on the state of the economy and the job market, forces beyond their control, rather than on a person’s laziness or lack of effort in trying to find a job. Those on the free will side of the argument, would say that a person chose to go into a profession knowing the risks of being laid off, and that they chose not to work hard enough to avoid being laid off. They would also argue that a person’s current unemployment is the consequence of previous choices. They would also say that a person who has yet to find a new job has made choices that led them to that position and that they are making choices that are preventing them from finding a new job. For instance, they might say that a person is choosing to look for jobs that either do not exist or are not a good fit.
In my opinion, both those who strongly agree with free will and those who strongly agree with determinism are wrong. It is the combination of free will and determinism that causes people’s reality. Does a person choose to go into a career of their choosing? Yes. Can the economy, which a person does not have control over, affect whether a person keeps their job? Yes. Can the economy and the job market make it difficult for an unemployed person to get a new job? Yes. Do people choose to be lazy and not put in enough effort to find a new job? Yes. These questions represent both free will and determinism and it is the interaction of the two concepts that causes a person to get to where they are today. A person may choose a career, but what happens to the economy during their career is beyond their control. A person looking for a job may be lazy, but they might also be looking for a job at a time when there isn’t one available. It truly is a combination of free will and determinism that shape a person’s present reality.