This is very interesting and true. I’ve always thought about this. When the tsunami hit in India, or whenever there is some type of disaster, we report the story for a couple days and then move onto another issue. When 9/11 happened, something that affected a lot of the people in the United States, it was on the news for months. It is interesting how we as a society do not sympathize as much when we are not directly involved with the situation. When we are removed, we say “oh that is awful” and then move on with our lives.

I am torn up about this subject. I am fortunate enough to have always had healthcare and never had to worry about if I could afford to see the doctor. I do think there needs to be some sort of self responsibility. For example, I worked very hard through college to be able to find a job this summer and my company will pay for my healthcare. My parents also work hard for their healthcare benefits. I realize there are people who are not as fortunate as myself, but I do not think that it should be given out for free.

I saw the episode in question and I also saw the one after that. I thought it was interesting how on the second episode they kind of made fun of themselves and bleeped out the word “Mohammed” as to directly not insult anyone at all. South Park is a series that makes fun of every race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. and pokes fun at the idea of political correctness.
I think it is a little extreme for a group to come out and threaten the writers like that. All they are doing is creating a series that pokes fun at the world we live in today. By no means do the writers mean harm or malice, they are just trying to make people laugh.
For example, they make fun of Jews all the time on the show. I myself am Jewish but laugh along with all the jokes they have. I know that it is just for fun and they make fun of every group just as much as Jews. There are constantly black jokes, hick jokes, middle-America jokes, gay jokes, and the list goes on and on.
I think as a society we have become too sensitive to the political correctness issue. There is no reason that we have to sit here and criticize everything that everyone says, whether it be judgmental or not.
The writers are just doing their jobs, writing a series that entertains those who can appreciate its humor. At the beginning of every episode there is a blatant disclaimer that if you will be offended by any of the jokes, that you probably shouldn’t watch the show. Many celebrities are even made fun of and you do not see them threatening the show like that.
I also think it is funny how they blacked out the image of Mohammed but they do not black out the image of Moses, Jesus, Buddha, or any other religious characters on the show. They even showed Buddha snorting lines of cocaine several times. Apparently these extremists have not seen how the show makes fun of everyone, not just Muslims. I’m sure people who worship Buddha were not happy at all about how he was portrayed. I still don’t understand why Moses is drawn as a glowing triangle, but I go along with it and appreciate the humor for what it is worth.
So to appease everyone, it seems that the writers have pretty much given a big “eff-you” to these extremists by bleeping it out. It’s almost like them saying, “We’re sorry you couldn’t appreciate our humor so we are going to desensitize everything about our show to make you happy.” I think that is almost worse in a way.

I also agree. Most Muslims do not hold the radical beliefs that we hear about on the news and are very rational, peaceful people. You always hear about the extremists because they are the ones who are causing the most upset, whether it be by force or movement. It is a shame that the general population comes to the thought that all Muslims must be violent or terrorists just because a few individuals hold these extremist beliefs. I have no doubt there are many Muslims and Muslim-Americans who hold the same sentiments towards Osama Bin Laden that a white American holds.

The war in the Middle East, especially the war between Israel and the Palestinians is mostly religious based. Israel claims it is their land because that’s where the Zionist movement occurred and they were kicked out by force before they could claim it as their own so it is rightfully theirs. However, the Palestinians also believe it is their homeland. It has become a bloody and long-lasting war and I’m curious to see if there will ever be a resolution between the two countries. I also find it interesting that the United States is not really engaging in this war, and are letting the Israelis defend for themselves.

I think that men have to conform to society just as much as women do, although the pressure is not as publicized as it is for women. Men are also bombarded with advertisements and role models who are physically fit and attractive. There are a countless number of workout/body enhancement products out on the market that cater to this need. Men can shrug it off as trying to ‘be fit’, but in reality they are just trying to fit in with what is portrayed as the ideal man in society.
Magazines and television are constantly displaying pieces detailing the most eligible bachelor, or sexiest man in America. I think we are exposed to the same amount of pressure that women are. We may not have to use makeup but there are other comparables, such as physical physique, skin conditions, etc.
I can say as a gay male, the pressure is held to an even higher standard. I am constantly judged by peers and friends on how I act, walk, talk, dress … everything you can imagine. After all is said and done, it’s really hard to not think you have to walk around like you’re on some type of pedestal for the world to see. There is a reason people think gay men are so pretentious. Then we have to envy the models and movie stars just like everyone else, trying to have their abs or their hair. You have to make the best with what you have and be proud about yourself.
No one wants to be the average Joe that is displayed on TV because it is seen as unattractive. Who would want to be friends with someone who had a receeding hairline, beer-gut, and bad skin? We can sit here and say that beauty lies within but when it really comes down to it, that’s just an idealistic thought. You’re not going to bump into that average Joe at Starbucks and want to flirt or start up a conversation with him. That’s not what is seen as attractive. But if that average Joe suddenly had long locks of hair, a ripped physique, and gorgeous tanned skin, you would be bending over backwards trying to check him out.
The standards of beauty for women may be more publicized, but I truly think men have it just as hard, and are not willing to talk about it. Men have their pride and dignity first, and as it has become apparent through history, a man who shows his emotions or feelings is seen as feminine or below his peers. We have this glass floor set before us that really prohibits an amazing and awesome exchange of ideas and attitudes between peers.

I think this is a very interesting and pertinent question. I have always been curious about this myself. I am not sure what other countries have implemented not having a welfare program. In my personal opinion, I think a country could be perfectly sustainable without welfare. People who fall down on their luck might have to work a little harder to make sure that does not happen to them or they might make sure that they create savings for a period when they might not be unemployed.
However, the argument could be made that welfare is needed to help those who are in need. There are some people who are at the bottom and have no way of getting up without the welfare. Sometimes we hear that people are abusing welfare and are using it to pay for their cable bill. These are people who obviously do not need welfare but are abusing the system and of course it is made public.
Social programs, if implemented correctly, can be beneficial to society. But we hear the negatives often because there are many who are opposed to this. They can benefit people who need the assistance. These people who benefit from the programs greatly appreciate the assistance.
I think that the welfare program was first established to be a short term solution for people who are going through hardships. It was not designed to enable people to get used to living on the small amount of money, and keeping the poor poor. Instead of being a short term crutch, people have used this money as their means to live on. They should instead be using it to get resources they need to find a job, which would be the long term solution to their problem.
Overall it is difficult for me to decide if we should do away with welfare, though, because I’ve fortunately never been in a situation where I had to depend on the government or someone else for my survival. I’m sure many of the people that receive welfare use it in the way that it is intended for, so it would really be a shame to take that away from these people. I read a statistic from an earlier blog post that stated that only 5% of the welfare beneficiaries are able-bodied males. There is this preconceived notion that people who get welfare have the ability to work, but choose instead to get “free money” from the government to live off of. Statistically this is not the case. I think instead of posing the question of if we should get rid of welfare or not, or if welfare is a positive part of our society, we should ask how we can improve the existing system so that we are helping those who truly need help, and helping them by pushing them to find a better long term solution to stop the cycle.

I think this is extremely interesting and something that we do not often think about. Throughout the course of history, this problem happens time and time again. Cultures become extinct as they assimilate into the majority and with that, go their customs and languages. It can be traced back to the bible times, when there were empires from Egypt or Italy, and even further. As these large powers overtook smaller nations, they wiped out the individualism and put their own customs in place.
As the world changes and becomes more modern, cultures either grow into what is happening or risk becoming extinct. They are forced to develop or be left behind. With them goes their individuality and stories that can only be expressed in their native language. As these cultures are essentially “left in the dust”, so are their stories, contributions, and learnings.
We often forget that where we come from as a society, came from the cultures before us. Without their influences, the world would be dramatically different than what it is today. Although American society is not directly related to the Egyptians, because of their developments, we are able to live the lives we live.
Granted there really isn’t much anyone can do about it. This is how the world operates and has operated for thousands of years. Societies become extinct and a part of history and new ones develop from the ones that exist. This is just how it works and how things evolve. Nothing can stay forever, everything is always changing
It is interesting to relate this to the story of the Tower of Babble and how it is theorized that all these languages were formed. In this story, there were many people trying to build a tower and there was a communication problem that caused the tower to fall. Because of this, God gave everyone their own language so they could not communicate as the tower fell. Naturally, the version I am telling of this story is off because I am not well-versed. But that is the basic gist of the story. Could it be possible that the languages are gradually going back to one distinct language that we will see in a few thousand years? That would be interesting to see.
Perhaps one day, all the languages will roll-up and transform into a new language with elements from each. English with Spanish and some Chinese here and there. Who knows? It’s possible.
I do think its great that before this woman died, she was studied and her words were recorded. At least there is a record of this language and of what it meant to these people. It may be lost, but never forgotten.

I think that Sam made a great argument at class for gay marriage but people who do not believe in it are always going to have their reasons to be against gay marriage. There are certain people you can sway, but the majority of extreme right-wing will not change their stance. They continuously go back to the religion issue and that remains their only defense. To them marriage is a religious institution defined by the church as being between a man or a woman and until the wording in the bible is changed, I don’t think these people will change their minds.

I completely agree with what she is saying and I think it is a great question. I believe that sexuality is a continuum and people fall differently within the spectrum. With that being said, I do not believe that you can either be purely heterosexual or purely homosexual; I think that you sway more side than the other.
Is there such a thing as being bisexual? Yes and no. Like I said before, you can be skewed to one side, but not pinpointed in the middle. The idea of bisexuality goes back to ancient times when Roman and Greek men used to have sexual relationships with each other in bathhouses. It was normal to them to have wives and then ‘play on the side.’