The war in the Middle East is one that has been going on for more than half of my lifetime. When I first heard about it, I was in fourth grade and I did not really understand what was happening. As time went on, I came to find out that the war was our initial response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, at the World Trade Center and on the Pentagon. A few more years passed and I became aware of campaigns against blood for oil and began to realize that this was much more than just a war on terror. The war in the Middle East was a war of imperialism. It was a war for oil and dominance.
I feel as if Sam made several valid points during his lecture about the Christian invaders. While I do not agree with all of the points he was making, I must say that he has allowed me to look at the war from a different perspective. America is doing more than what our government wants us to believe. We have gone into these countries trying to topple already existing governments to put people that we support into positions of power, in the Middle East. I think it is great that we are combating terrorism; however, not all of our efforts are of good nature. We are currently trying, and have successfully captured oil wells and sites where the resource is abundant. We have taken control of the economic advantage of some Middle Eastern countries, which is much more than just fighting terrorists. Forcing regime changes has angered many of the people who live in this region and have caused some to commit acts of terrorism in retaliation. It makes me wonder if our efforts are stopping terrorism, or just provoking it.
On a side note, in some cases, what our soldiers are doing is actually for the greater good. We have helped countries such as Afghanistan remodel their governments in the shape of democracies which are better than the harsh dictators who controlled the country before. It is a shame, however, that the underlying intentions of these actions is to place someone in power who is willing to provide America unprecedented access to oil sources that are not ours. Sure, the citizens get more political power and representation, but it is not fair to them that we are stealing their resources. When analyzing the war from the perspective of someone living in the Middle East, America looks like the aggressor who invaded to wreak havoc on the public and the economy. If America is such a powerful and wealthy nation, we should be able to focus on fighting the terrorists and pay for the oil rather than stealing it.

If I was a victim that was trapped in silence, I am not sure exactly what it would take for me to speak out. Considering the circumstances of the children who were assaulted by Sandusky, their childhood was very different than my own and thus their mentalities would have been very different from my own when I was their age. I grew up in a middle to upper middle class neighborhood with a nice house, a pool, and enough toys to keep me happy and busy. My home life was very loving for the most part and everyone in my family looked out for everyone else. The children who were victimized in these atrocious acts committed by a charitable figurehead came from low-income areas with parents who were either not present in their lives, or who did not properly provide for their kids. When Sandusky came along with tons of gifts and promises to do great things for these underprivileged children, it is likely that the children looked up to him more than anyone else they had ever met. Here was this man, a total stranger, who allowed these kids to experience things that they would likely never have the opportunity to experience on their own. It would not come as a surprise to me if some of these children loved Sandusky more than they did their own parents, that is, until he began to take advantage of them. Of course it would be hard for these kids to tell anyone about what was happening to them. For kids who have never had anything nice in their lives, why would they want to lose all of that by telling someone that they felt uncomfortable with what was going on? For myself, on the other hand, my mom and dad had taught me to always speak up if anyone ever touched me in a way that made me feel uncomfortable, even if it was a member of my own family. They also told me never to trust strangers without the approval my parents. If I was in the situation that some of these children experienced, I would have told my parents the very first time that I felt uncomfortable with anything that was going on. My dad would have had a few words with whoever was bothering me and that would have been the end of it right then and there. My mom would likely follow up with a police report to have investigation for the other children involved. I would not feel bad about giving up Sandusky’s gifts because my dad has always looked out for me, taking me to professional sporting events and away on expensive vacations, and buying me nice things. I can completely understand why it took so long for these children to realize that what happened to them was wrong. It was partially because they did not want to believe it was wrong. The question going through their mind was likely, “How could this be bad if I’m getting all these great gifts that no one has ever gotten me before?” It took until these young boys grew into adults to look back and realize that they were actually taken advantage of.

What has occurred here at this university is a true tragedy that will live in the hearts minds of Penn State students and alumnus for years to come. Thanks to the various news teams and newspaper agencies who are keeping track of the situation, the whole world knows of the horrors which one man managed to undertake on our very campus. His sick, disgusting, and lewd acts have sparked outcry not only amongst Americans, but from people all over the world. They blindly target us as defenders of child molestation and rape, despite the fact that it was the actions of just one man and several others who helped to cover up the situation. I am certain I am not alone in saying this, but as a current Penn State student, I am just as outraged as any non Penn Staters and I wish the absolute worst on this man for what he has done to corrupt these innocent, young, underprivileged children. No amount of prison sentences can ever correct the injustice which has occurred. Operating within the constraints of our legal system, we can only hope that Sandusky is never allowed to experience life on the outside of his cell ever again. Furthermore, I stand behind the school’s board of trustees and their decisions to make amends to the situation. Many students are upset about the decision to let Joe Paterno go, but the Board was entirely justified in their actions. This should not, however, be interpreted as Joe Paterno being directly involved in the molestation of children. He is not a sex offender. He did, however, fail to follow through with his moral obligation to do something. It does not matter who you are, or what position you have. Everyone has a responsibility to protect the welfare of every child on this planet. Let’s face the truth. If Joe Paterno had been a rookie coach with only five or ten years of experience, nobody would care that he was fired. There would probably be an overwhelming amount of support for the decision to fire him. It is sad that he could not be allowed to continue his legacy, but he should have taken more steps to fix the situation. Let’s say that you were a manager for a large corporation. One of the employees for whom you are directly responsible decides to steal money from a corporate account, and you are told about it. You report to your company CEO who tells you that he will handle the situation. Two months go by and your CEO does nothing about it. At that point, it is your moral responsibility to contact your board of directors and explain the situation to them so that this theft can be put to an end. If the board were to find out years later that you knew about it and you did not tell them, you can be certain that you will not be coming back to that office to work ever again. This hypothetical situation is not even close to the scale of the Sandusky scandal; yet, the outcome is virtually the same. The outsiders need to understand that we students are entirely against what has happened, and that the majority of us support the steps that are being taken to correct the situation.

When foreigners migrate from other countries, they usually come here without being able to speak English. Every day, thousands of Americans complain about how immigrants need to speak our language if they are going to live here. I have mixed feelings about this, as I know that I would try to learn the language of the foreign country I would be emigrating to; however, at the same time, we should not force people to learn a language that is entirely new to them if they do not want to. It would be to their benefit, on the other hand, if they actually made an effort to speak what the majority of the citizens of the country speak, which happens to be English in America. They can still be allowed to use their language with their families and in their households and communities and other speakers of their native tongue, but they really should learn, or at least make and attempt to learn English if they want to live here. We should be able to live in a country where we can all communicate with one another without too much difficulty. It would be much more feasible for immigrants to become bilingual than for current Americans to have to learn the languages of all the immigrants. It is not like there is one specific group of people who immigrate to America. People come from all over the world with dozens of languages and hundreds of dialects. They should be the ones to learn one additional language. If I were an immigrant in a foreign country that did not speak English, I would make it a top priority to learn the native language there so that I could feel like I am actually a part of this new society. Language is a very important part of communication. Without good communication between individuals it is nearly impossible to have a sense of belonging anywhere. I would hope that people pressured me in what would be my new home to learn their language. I want to be a part of their culture and share their experiences. If that did not matter then what is the point of immigrating to a new country? If it is just for work, then why would you not emigrate to an economical country that speaks your native language? Or, if you fled you home land because due to some form of turmoil, why not go to the most stable country where your language is already spoken? It just does not make any sense. It is human nature to want to fit in and be social. There is likely no better way to accomplish this than by speaking the language of the majority.

I think my race shapes how I view the world because I often tend to find myself in the middle of discussions regarding white and black people. I am Hispanic, and although I am considered a minority in the United States, I do not identify with black people. I also do not identify with white people either. It is strange how arguments and discussions often tend to separate the world into just black and white and ignore the in between. I do not sympathize with black minorities because I do not have to deal with the same issues that they deal with day in and day out; however, I am also not accustomed to the special “privilege” that white people have because I am not white. When it comes to issues of black and white, I find that I tend to take a neutral stance to listen to what both sides have to say. It becomes very apparent to a bystander that both groups of people will go to ridiculous and exaggerated extremes to prove a point. This constant back and forth bickering usually produces no beneficial outcome and just seems to make everyone involved upset. Occasionally I will contribute to the conversation after hearing what both sides have to say, and I find myself siding with whoever is making the most logical case. It is easy to lose track of facts when emotions are involved, and this can usually lead to people failing to hear any cases other than their own. As a neutral party, it is often tempting to try to be the mediator in these types of conflicts, but I usually find that the opinion of the outsider is not always welcome, especially when the opinion is one sided. This is something that cannot be helped. It is up to the white and black people to solve their own petty issues so that they can turn the focus on searching for equality for all races. Since black and white are the largest ethnic groups in America, it is easy for all of the other races to be overlooked. To those of us who have nothing better to do than wait for our issues to be addressed, we tend to notice the racism on both sides. It is far too common for blacks to claim that only whites can be racist. They tend not to notice when the roles are reversed and blacks discriminate just as much against white people, if not more than whites discriminate against them. It is no longer proper to blame the living white Americans for slavery because they are not the ones who forced black people to relocate and assume a life of servitude. Similarly, it is no longer acceptable for whites to treat blacks as second class citizens like their ancestors treated the slaves during the 1800s.

If my child was gay I would have a variety of feelings inside of me. Let me start by saying that I am in no way against people who are gay and I would never wish anything bad upon them. They should have the freedom to live their lives and do whatever they want, just like the rest of us, straight or not. If my child was gay, however, the strongest feeling I would have probably would be sadness. I would be sad and concerned for my child because I know that a large portion of society would not be willing to accept him or her simply based on his or her sexual orientation. My child would be faced with an immense amount of discrimination and harassment and would never be given a fair chance in life. In order to put this into perspective, I will describe my feelings for having a gay son or a gay daughter individually because it would honestly be quite different. If I had a son who was gay, I my next greatest emotion after sadness would probably be disappointment. I would not be disappointed in my son as a person, but as a man. As a man in the world today, it is your responsibility to do what all living things were meant to do, which is procreate. As of right now, it is not possible for two people of the same sex to reproduce, which means that my son would not be able to give me grandchildren. Sure, he could adopt a child, but it would not be the same as something that is the same flesh and blood as yourself. I would also feel somewhat uncomfortable with the fact that my son will likely bring other boys home that he is interested in. This is not something I would not tolerate, but it would definitely take some getting used to for me because it is not something I have ever been exposed to within my own home. It would be hard to know that my son is doing something that I myself do not agree with. This, however, would not stop me from accepting or loving him for who he is. This is my son and that is a shared bond that could never be broken under any circumstance. If I had a gay daughter, my feelings would be the same as for having a son who was gay except I would be slightly less disappointed. Girls usually marry into other families, but boys are supposed to carry on the family name by getting married and having children of their own. Regardless, I would be able to accept my children for who they are and love them unconditionally.

I think race plays a big role in the way we see criminals because of all of the stereotypes we have learned over time. People may claim not to be racist or discriminatory, but in the back of everyone’s minds, we all hold some stereotypes about others to be true. This negative thinking is what allows us to judge different types of criminals in many different ways as opposed to grouping them all together. This is why police officers often commit racial profiling without even realizing it. The racial profiling of today is not the same as it used to be. Initially, racial profiling was when a police officer (usually white) would pull over a minority driver simply because they are not white and happen to be passing through a predominately white area. In today’s day and age, racial profiling is committed by all races of police officers, and many will even pull over drivers of the same race. Rather than having no reason for it however, the stereotypes they have become accustomed to will make them believe that there is a reason to be suspicious. In an effort to combat profiling altogether, police officers will often call in a second squad car with a driver of a different ethnicity in order to counter the suspicions of profiling. But when both officers talk about the incident before walking up to the suspect, they will be easily persuaded to believe that the driver is suspect so some kind of criminal activity because they have also been acquainted with stereotypes.
When dealing with criminals, it is not that much different from the way police use profiling to pull people over. Facts have taught all of us that minorities such as blacks and Hispanics tend to be the ones populating most of our prisons and penitentiaries throughout America. When we look at different inmates and see a few white convicts sprinkled in with a vast number of minorities, we think to ourselves, “This guy must not be so bad. Look at all the black people and brown people he is surrounded by. Surely they have committed worse crimes than him.” This almost invokes a sense of sympathy for a criminal who we have absolutely no idea what got him locked up in the first place. We start to think of the reputation minorities have for being violent because there are so many of them in jail, and thus we spar little judgment when it comes to sending more minorities to prison for crimes they may or may not have committed. This is especially true when the other suspects are white. We automatically think that white people can’t be bad because there are so few of them in prison, therefore it must be the minority’s fault.

First off, I would like to start by saying that I was very surprised by the “Better to buy Local” article on the world in conversation website. I had no idea that such donations could be so stifling to a country who is in need of help. When I was going through the article I found myself with conflicting feelings. I understood what the author was trying to explain and his audience; however, if we are sending over thousands upon thousands of pairs of shoes to help clothe the needy, I do not understand how sending money to the shoe makers would allow them to undertake this task on their own. It seemed as if the author of the article was bashing selfless Americans who are trying to do something good for the rest of the world. What are the chances that the local Haitian shoe makers are going to be able to produce the same amount of shoes to help clothe poor families as Americans would be able to donate? Unless it takes them only a few minutes to make one pair of shoes, this just does not seem feasible. It would take the combined efforts of all shoe makers on Haiti to work around the clock for days or even weeks in order to provide the same amount of footwear. I understand the need to stimulate the economy and keep the money in circulation, but if we instead send money to allow shoemakers to continue doing what they would do anyway, it is likely that they will hoard the money for themselves and produce the same amount of shoes as they would produce normally. At the price of about seven dollars a pair, there are many Haitians who can’t afford to buy shoes in the first place. If we stop sending gifts of free shoes, there will be a large population of poor Haitians who will continue to walk barefoot because they have no money to buy shoes from the shoemakers. This article may as well tell everyone to stop sending aid altogether so that local entrepreneurs can make a living and improve the economy. Well, it just does not work like that. If we stop all aid, then Haiti will be right back where it was before all of the aid was started. Why should it be fair to send money to certain groups of individuals on the island and not others? Why not just send dollar bills to everyone on the island? We can’t do that because it will lead to inflation. The cost of living will rise while the conditions themselves remain unchanged. Maybe the best solution would be to send resources like tools and materials that agrarians and shoe makers and craftsmen can use to sustain their livelihood, and cut back on our donations of free goods. Haitians will be forced to search locally for their necessary products and producers will have an easier time producing more goods.

First off, I would like to start by saying that I was very surprised by the “Better to buy Local” article on the world in conversation website. I had no idea that such donations could be so stifling to a country who is in need of help. When I was going through the article I found myself with conflicting feelings. I understood what the author was trying to explain and his audience; however, if we are sending over thousands upon thousands of pairs of shoes to help clothe the needy, I do not understand how sending money to the shoe makers would allow them to undertake this task on their own. It seemed as if the author of the article was bashing selfless Americans who are trying to do something good for the rest of the world. What are the chances that the local Haitian shoe makers are going to be able to produce the same amount of shoes to help clothe poor families as Americans would be able to donate? Unless it takes them only a few minutes to make one pair of shoes, this just does not seem feasible. It would take the combined efforts of all shoe makers on Haiti to work around the clock for days or even weeks in order to provide the same amount of footwear. I understand the need to stimulate the economy and keep the money in circulation, but if we instead send money to allow shoemakers to continue doing what they would do anyway, it is likely that they will hoard the money for themselves and produce the same amount of shoes as they would produce normally. At the price of about seven dollars a pair, there are many Haitians who can’t afford to buy shoes in the first place. If we stop sending gifts of free shoes, there will be a large population of poor Haitians who will continue to walk barefoot because they have no money to buy shoes from the shoemakers. This article may as well tell everyone to stop sending aid altogether so that local entrepreneurs can make a living and improve the economy. Well, it just does not work like that. If we stop all aid, then Haiti will be right back where it was before all of the aid was started. Why should it be fair to send money to certain groups of individuals on the island and not others? Why not just send dollar bills to everyone on the island? We can’t do that because it will lead to inflation. The cost of living will rise while the conditions themselves remain unchanged. Maybe the best solution would be to send resources like tools and materials that agrarians and shoe makers and craftsmen can use to sustain their livelihood, and cut back on our donations of free goods. Haitians will be forced to search locally for their necessary products and producers will have an easier time producing more goods.

I think a combination of both determinism and free will shape peoples’ lives in today’s society. If this was 50 to 100 years ago, I might have said it was mostly determinism due to the absurd amount of racism in America; however, in today’s day and age, it is definitely a combination of the two. For individual people, one condition may have more of an influence than the other, but generally speaking, everyone is affected by determinism and free will in some way. Determinism deals more with circumstantial situations, and depending on a person’s unique background, it will have a specific effect on that particular person. For example, a child living in Camden, NJ is much more likely to be faced with drugs, violence, and poor decisions than someone who lives in Beverly Hills, CA. It is not the child’s fault that he lives in a poor, rundown neighborhood. This is the lifestyle that he was born into. He can use his free will to make smart choices, like the decision to finish school and not get involved with gangs, but the option to completely remove himself from this situation is likely nonexistent. Where is he going to go? His parents can’t afford to live anywhere else, otherwise they would move out of Camden to provide a better life for him. This child is going to grow up facing a lot of adversity, and most of it will be in the form of peer pressure. Meanwhile, the child living in Beverly Hills is probably not going to be faced with the same hardships. Beverly Hills is a rich and respected township, which means it can afford to hire a well staffed police force to ensure a low crime rate, and hire some of the best educators in America to teach its students. This child can choose to associate himself with gangs and drugs, but even if it exists in such an affluent area, it is in no way similar to the culture of violence in Camden. These two nearly opposite circumstances can be argued as being the results of the choices of others, which in its own sense would suggest that determinism is nonexistent; however, in when looking in respect to the individual, we can clearly see that neither of these two children chose to be born into their lifestyles. This is just how it is. If it were possible to choose, then everyone would choose to be born in an affluent family. The fact that Camden is a poor area may be because many different previous residents made bad decisions, but we still can’t ignore the fact that the end result was in no way the doing of the child. Determinism has made it so that each child will be presented with two unique lifestyles that will each come with their own paths and choices.