This is a very interesting question however it is hard to answer. I say that because the people that have money or are wealthy are mostly not the hardworkers. I mean they may have worked hard to get where they are or benefited from nepotism but they either no longer do the hard work because they can afford to pay someone else to do the back breaking work that is if we assume by hard work as physical labor. This also shows that the hard workers most likely do not have a lot of money. Because if they were wealthy then they would not settle for hard physical work or just hire someone that is desperate for money. Therefore it is hard to say. I think it would be great if everyone experienced hard physical labor and then try to move up in the world. I feel if everyone had a background with hard work then they could better appreciate the hard work that many illegal workers or some immigrants endure. I think also that may be if we (people already living in the united states) would all experience hard work then may be there would not be so many vacancies for jobs such as harvesting fruit from fruit farms as we saw rotting in class because Americans were above the idea of picking fruit.
Which brings up another point, Americans do not want to see illegal immigrants coming into the United States and taking OUR jobs, the problem is WE refuse to fill these positions such as harvesting fruit or other physical manual labor jobs. So may be we can all agree that not just immigrants with money that can take care of themselves deserve to be let into this country. There should be a balance of people that can take care of themselves but also let people in that may be lower income and give them an opportunity to make it in this country. Because while the wealthy rich people that come in can fend for their family and feed the economy through purchasing goods they do not contribute much to the physical work force side. I think it would be healthy for the United States to recognize that hard work is just as beneficial to the economy as wealth entering the economy. Although this hard work should be rewarded with fair wages because all though it may make it harder to compete with other companies if the workers are paid fairly at least the work is getting done because we all know that if poor or illegal workers were not willing to do the hard work Americans would not step up and do it. Therefore hard work and money are good together as well as seperate.

I do feel that men feel the need to conform to society's "man" image just as women feel they should act girlie or something. However being a man I feel the conformity comes from outside pressure. I am personally what I consider a sensitive guy and as a result I tend to hang out with girls over guys. Often I get comments like well you should like or know about sports or something along those lines. Or my friends that are girls are shocked when I say that I do not follow football, yes I just admitted that...I go to Penn State and I really do not care for football, sorry. I am perfectly happy and comfortable with myself and the fact that I do not know the first thing about cars or football etc. However I (like many other guys, I'm sure like some of my fellow sensitive guy friends I hang around with) I struggle with the pressure of others comments. I can see why men or women would want to conform to the "manly" or "girlie" stereotype because then you could easily fit in and not have to be interrogated to why you don't act like a "typical" guy or a "typical" girl. My friend (who is also a guy) and I were just talking about how we had been mistaken for gay in the past. The person's reasoning, "well you hang out with a lot of girls and you don't like football". At first I had a problem with this, but now I just laugh because if the only reason someone can come up with to denounce my gender or status as a man is based on getting to hangout with a bunch of cute girls and not watching football I think I'll manage. Once I realized I could be a sensitive guy and be accepted by some truly awesome friends I no longer felt the need to conform. I think guys and girls just need to be themselves (wow how cliche) but more importantly people need to accept people beyond these stereotypes and realize just because someone doesn't fit the "manly" description does not mean that they are less of a man. Also, a little off topic, but just want to clarify that I was not insulted when someone said I was gay, I just knew I that I wasn't and I was upset that people could not realize that not all straight men are "manly" and not all gay men are sensitive. I think if we all were just a little more open minded to the fact that sensitive guys and strong or powerful women are just as much of a man or woman as the "manly" or "girlie" ones, then we would suffer a lot less pressure to conform to the stereotypes.

I think affirmative action is way under studied. I think it is a very interesting topic because so many people get fired up about it and emotional whether they are defending it or bashing, yet it is hard to find anyone that can really explain it. I mean Sam described it as boosting those in the lowest class the poverty level. However I have always been told before that it was put in place to help minorities. And after that Sam tells us that the main benefactor of affirmative action is white women. And then goes on to explain that the second most benefiting group is people of color in the middle to upper classes. This was shocking but good to know the truth. I think if more people knew this both sides would feel differently. People that support it would begin to question why isn't the main benefactors lower class people of any race or color? And the people that are against it say it is discriminating or just for people of color would realize that they may be benefiting from affirmative action more than they thought.
A the far as the video question goes qualification should not be a factor. I mean yes I believe people applying for a job or to a college should have the required skill or knowledge and it should not just be a hand out for a poor person or anyone who is not white, but I don't think qualification is an issue. Like the example of the hospital and doctors, I think affirmative action should be their to help anyone that is poor and wants the chance to go to medical school or college, however just because they (a lower class/poor person) may get a boost to get into school affirmative action is not going to help them pass their exams or test out of certain requirements within the program. It just gives them the chance to rise out of their hole or trap they are in called poverty the rest is up to them and their knowledge to carry them through. For instance I am not 100% sure on this but President Obama didn't come from a rich family. He lived with his mother and grandparents and I don't know if he benefited from affirmative action, but I feel if his mother had a low enough income then I think he should have (again if he didn't). I don't believe affirmative action is the reason he is President, but it's possible that he got the boost from affirmative action that may have allowed him to go to college and pursue things that led him to that path. Whether you like or agree with President Obama you can't deny the fact that he is very intelligent. I mean before politics the guy was a professor so is he qualified? I would say so. Just because affrimative action helps people doesn't mean that all the people it helps are undeserving many are qualified for the thing they applied for. Unlike Nepotism which makes me wonder was George H W Bush's son really qualified to lead our country....?

I think men don't understand the menstrual cycle all that well is because it goes back to an early age. Our society both men and women have but sex and anything relating to sex in this "inappropriate taboo" category that is just better to not discuss. People are so uncomfortable with these topics that they just ignore them. I remember the first time my school stepped in to discuss our bodies and sex. I was in elementary school (5th grade) and they divided the class into boys and girls. The girls went down the hall with our female teacher and the guys stayed in the classroom with our male teacher. I remember thinking why our we divided up like this. In my young mind it seemed odd that girls and guys would have to split up to talk about something that was happening to all of us. I thought we are the same age and we are all growing up. I remember sitting in the classroom and there was an awkward silence (which was never the case in my class full of loud-mouths, including myself), but now that I look back I realize why we felt uncomfortable we were naive to the sex talk but our teacher was so nervous and uncomfortable that it made us all quiet and feel awkward. He passed out these small pamphlets and inside was a diagram of a penis. We all just stared at the picture and finally one of my classmates raised his hand and said, "what is this?" My teacher looked so uncomfortable and was speechless a good 5 minutes passed in silence and then my teacher said just pass the pamphlets back up to the front of the class and he said "who wants to go out for early recess?"
At the time extra recess seemed awesome, but now that I look back it makes me kinda of angry and unnerved. Because my teacher who was supposed to talk to us about what was happening to our bodies was our 5th grade science teacher. It's really disturbing to think that my science teacher could even answer the simple question of the diagram of the penis.
An hour later the girls came out for recess, some of them were crying and some were red in the face. And all the boys just stood their and stared at them and as curious little kids often do we ask questions. We asked the girls what happened/ Where were you all of recess? The one girl said " we learned how babies are made and watched a bay being born". My female teacher overheard the girl answer us and quickly cut her off and said "that's enough the boys don't need to hear about this they had their own talk just go play". Looking back this is really disturbing, because not only did I have no idea what happens to a girls body, but I didn't even know what was happening to my own the summer before I was going to middle school.
I feel teachers and parents should really start discussing sex and puberty to kids in elementary school. I know some people think its too young or they won't get it, but at least in elementary school I was open to listening because I was still at the stage where I was naive to the whole idea of sex and how it was a taboo in this society to talk about it. Because by the time I got to middle school and they didn't bring up sex until 8th grade my mind had already been polluted and shaped to tune out the subject and not talk about it because it "wasn't right or ok to discuss" that it was a private matter the people shouldn't talk about because it could be embarrassing or offensive.
So I think that the issue isn't that because its women that menstruate is why we don't feel comfortable talking about it. Its because from an early age the people we look up to, our role models, mentors are uncomfortable talking about sex related topics in general, which teaches us to feel uncomfortable about it as well and conditions us to keep it private- both what is happening to our bodies as well as girls' bodies.

I feel the question of changing the history books is pretty obvious and unfortunate. The reason we learn history the way we do is because of the white guilt. I mean white is the majority in this country and the dominating group is going to right the rules. Think about our history as Americans from the late 1700s to 2008 we have had no other U.S president other than the "white guy". So when we teach our children about history of course we are going to sugar coat what happened. Of course the editors and education administrators know that slavery has to be mentioned since it was a big part of America's short history. However due to the "white guilt they are going to limit the topic because it is a always uncomfortable to talk about something very wrong that happened especially when your ancestors could have been involved. I mean I wonder how much students in germany learn about their history during Hitler's reign of power. They probably sugar coat it more than an American would. In this country we do the same with NAtive Americans. As Sam has mentioned in class, we feel guilty about what we did to the Native Americans and we sugar coat what happened to the Native Americans because the largest genocide in the western hemisphere can not be acknowledge because it would ruin the image of the United States. Our white guilt goes so far, that we deny this genocide and invented a holiday to celebrate how the settlers and native americans "got along". It is like we think if we shine some misconstrude positive light on these events then they will go away or at least not seem so bad and then the guilt will be lifted.
However this is the white majority perspective, not that all white people deny what has really happened in history but it's easier and less controversial to just go with the flow. But as a nation known as the "melting pot" rich in diversity we need to stir things up and get all these issuse out in the open. It is not that I think white people should have to apologize for what their ancestors did or other people of any color did in the past, but I think we still have white guilt because we avoid discussing these issues. I feel this white guilt will begin to diminish if just stop denying wrongs of the past and just acknowledge that these issue exist. Because like the Senator from West Virginia thinks that the issues our behind us and we can just forget about it. This only makes the guilt worse because we are now denying that their are any problems and everything is just fine. We can not get rid of white guilt if we don't accept and embrace the true past so that we can learn from it to better the future.

This was a real eye opener. I have never realized how predominately white shows such as the Bachelor and the Bachelorette are. I actually watched the season opener of the Bachelor this season, normally I have no interest in these reality shows, but it was on and actually kept my attention for the episode anyway. I remember when they introduced all the women and even though I never consciously said to myself where are the other races? Why are they not represented on the show?, I remember that after the first ten women made their entrance they all began to blend into the same person. I guess part of my confusion on keeping them separate is that many of the girls shared similar physical characteristics. Most of the women were of the same thin body type and basically the the same skin tone and personality wise, well they all seemed a little fake, rehearsed, and ridiculously flirty (but I mean what can you expect it is a "reality" show).
I found that the only way I could tell them apart at first was hair color and started to categorize them as the "blondes" and "brunnettes". I actually felt bad for the bachelor because it was hard for me to put a name with a face and I wasn't in charge of having to eliminate anyone.
Now that I think back number 1 it scares me that I didn't consciously acknowledge that many of the races had been left out and number 2 it scares me to think a show in today's diverse and accepting world would allow for this white dominated contestants and number 3 it scares me to think what kind of message does this send to women and girls of color as well as white women. Being a male I can't experience this first hand but it really has to make you have some kind of image complex or anger or some negative feeling when you watch all those contestants walk out to introduce themselves and one after another of these "image of beauty" women are all or mostly white. I understand the guy was white but wow talk about limiting his options based on appearance anyway and reinforcing the idea that white men should marry or date white women. I feel more Americans probably watch reality shows than pay attention to the news or read up on race relation topics or interracial relationships and this is becoming more accepting, but what knid of message is being conveyed when a white man only has white women choices? I think its time the ABC network consider what they air because these types of shows really impact peoples' lives and shape their views.
Personally, just based on looks alone I have found women of all colors, races, body type attractive (although personality can really make or break the deal), but it really concerns me to think how many people may watch these shows and never see a problem with at least the lack of choice for diversity. Again it is not just race, but all these women look the same "Model" look. I mean no wonder there are products out on the market for whiting skin cream and plastic surgery and anorexia. It's time we start to diversify are outlook on what it is to be beautiful so that there is not one single perfect model of beauty that the media portrays: the thin, white barbie doll look. Then may be some insecurities that some women may have will be lifted and the pressure of looking a certain way will lessen, so ( I know I sound cliche) they can be them self. I mean personally I'd much rather be with a confident girl that was happy with herself, than some "model" that was always unhappy with herself.

I think this lecture brought out a good point that I had never considered. I have never really fully understood affirmative action or the biased job application process, but I now understand why it was put into place for the reason we discussed that people may pick a person for there name because it sounds "white" instead of the content of the resume. However I don't think all employers who do this do it consciously.
So back to the question: "Do I think that a black person or a person of color who is in charge would pick a white person or a person of color?" Personally think that there is a good chance a person of color may pick a white person over another person of color. I don't believe this because I think white people are better than or superior in any way to people of color. I feel this way because of what Sam has said time and time again "It's good to be white". As we have seen with the prison and criminal record data in class, white people can more easily get away with something or a lesser punishment and no explanation seems as correct as there skin color. I think people of color recognize this advantage white people seem to have in this country. Although it is unfair it is happening. So, if I were a person of color and was running a business or hiring people I may want to have at least a few white people as employees for the best interest of business competition. I am not saying a company with white people on the team can not be a successful company or business, but I am suggesting that some business owners that are not white may be able to use the unjust white favoring system to their advantage. Because for many businesses pleasing as many people as possible is going to increase your customers or clients. And since the population majority is white than it may be good to have white people on your staff to represent your company and appeal to a larger audience that may subconsciously be more comfortable or trusting of a white person.
I don't mean this to sound insensitive because I would personally hire a person based on their credentials and would probably cover their names to eliminate any possibility of subconscious biased toward any race. However as a white person I would also (depending on what my company was about) want to have a diverse staff to also appeal to customers of color. Therefore, I feel a boss of color may want not only "black and brown" workers, but also some white people as well to again appeal to a wider audience and opportunity to expand the business.

Personally, I don't see the connection between sexual orientation/preference and adopting a child. Not to mention a difference between lesbian and gay couples adopting. I will admit that about 5 years ago if someone asked me this question I would have felt a little uncomfortable with gay and lesbian couples adopting children, however if you would have asked my reason for it, I had none. I think I, like many people feel uncomfortable with things that challenge standard procedure. When I picture a family I of course picture mine, so therefore I consider a standard family a mother father and a sibling. However, I heard what Sam said years ago which changed my opinion to fully support gay/lesbian couples to adopt children. That is, heterosexual couples can have accidents or unwanted children, but gay/lesbian couples obviously can not get pregnant from sexual acts. Therefore, if a gay or lesbian couple adopt children then they must really want that child or children. I mean, I love my parents and wouldn't want to change how I grew up, but if I were up for adoption and my perspective parents were a gay or lesbian couple versus a hateful unstable heterosexual couple and I had any say in the matter I can imagine that I would gladly pick the gay or lesbian couple to raise me. I feel I could be more assured that they would want me and love me.
But to get back to the specific question: Gay versus Lesbian adoption, I really don't see a difference. I have heard people say that "I would be more comfortable with two women adopting a child than two men." The only reason that I can think why some people my prefer two women over two men adopting is the "maternal instinct" and at first it seems that traditionally women and children go hand-in-hand, but personally I know some single fathers that have done a great job raising their children in to what society would probably agree turned out to be normal young adults. This really proved to me that men can raise a child just as well as a women. It just comes back to the individuals' personality and if they have a good head on their shoulders if they really want or care about children, that to me is all you need that idea of want.
Again, if a child has a couple that really wants them and loves them and loves each other than they should be allowed to adopt them. Shouldn't that be how the adoption agency selects the appropriate parents? Shouldn't it be based on a stable couple in a healthy, loving relationship that wants children and not just because a couple consists of a male and a female.
I think we need to get the idea out of our heads that a family or parents have to be a man and a woman (just like marriage) and focus more on what will best benefit the well-being of the child on a case by case basis. Then I think there will be more support for gay/lesbian adoption.

I don't believe lieutenant governor Andre Bauer meant to literally say people on welfare are the equivalent to stray animals, but wow what a statement. I mean, its one thing if I or another student or even Sam called people on welfare animals, but to be a political figure and think that would be an acceptable comparison or statement makes me ask the question, "Are you really qualified to be a lieutenant governor? " Every politician should know there are just times you censor yourself. This incident was definitely more than a slip of the tongue. A slip of the tongue would have been a questionable phrase that he would have immediately corrected or apologized for or fond some other creative politician-like way to detach himself from the comment. However, he went on to explain and defend this comment and dig himself a deeper grave with more animal comparisons that made little sense like, if you feed them then the problem will worsen because they'll just breed. Good luck with trying to win the state's highest seat now.
Even though the lieutenant governor may have just committed political suicide, I can understand why he made the statement. I think he was referring to people on welfare that take advantage of the system, like sing their children as an excuse to collect more money and for those lazy people out there that would rather just "milk" the system instead of looking for a job. However, there are people on welfare that truly need it and are truly grateful to have it available to them and it's great to know we live in a country that has a safety net, that who knows one of us may need some day or have already used it. This is where the Andre Bauer messed-up. He went with a stereotype of people on welfare and just basically called them all lazy, ungrateful, greedy animals and that is understandably why so many people are so offended and I'm sure if could communicate with animals many of them would be offended as well. This just goes to show that even people/leaders in the public eye, people that represent us and shape our lives through laws aren't perfect and may give in to believing stereotypes. This is scary because they may be basing political decisions off of stereotypes. I mean, nobody is perfect and I will say I'm glad to see a politician that is thinking for him/herself and having an original thought, but when you do it in such an insensitive manner it just goes to show how ignorant toward people you can be by stereotyping them. Personally he would not get my vote for governor.
Instead of pointing fingers and calling every welfare user an animal, why not try explaining as a political figure what you plan to do to discourage people from taking advantage of the system and how to improve it for those that truly need it. As Sam said the majority of people on welfare are children, so how about addressing what can be done to improve the lives of children...ya know your future votes!

I am glad to see the U.S. Census is concerned representing people on how they recognize themselves and not limit people to a few general races to identify with. However, where does it stop? The issue is "Negro" is still on the Census because more than 56,000 people identify with that word as describing their race. I can appreciate this, but now other people find this word offensive. So may be for the sake of keeping it clear and less confusing may be the Census Bureau should only put the races on based on what is politically correct. For example, "Negro" is no longer a politically correct term so remove it from the choices. Now you might say well what about those 56,000 people that identify themselves as "Negro"? Some of these people will either find a similar word to identify with may be black or African American and those that don't could select other. I know this seems insensitive, but the fact of the matter is you can't please everyone and that goes for every race. If we tried to take the growing population of the United States and accommodate every individuals personal word association to describe their race it would be a nightmare. And then do we leave all these races separate or do we begin to combine like terms. I mean for example, let's say a white person seriously considers themself a "cracker" (I don't mean to offend anyone, I am just using an extreme to make a point) and then let's say that this white person refuses to mark down white as their race and insists to only identify with "cracker". Do we then add "cracker" as a separate race category on the census for fear of that person or group of people will mark other instead? Basically, like a said before you can't please everyone and you have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise the Census isn't serving its purpose of representing/counting the population of different races. If we add too many races it would be just as bad as limiting the Census category to White, Black, and Other.
So again, I applaud the Census Bureau for trying to give people the opportunity to identify themselves as specifically as possible and not lump everyone into a few generic categories, however if we stick to politically correct terms it may limit the number of people that our offended by these outdated terms, because lets face it there are a good many terms to describe different races that were merely created for negative associations like to segregate racial groups and empower certain races. Hopefully removing these outdated terms will get us a little closer to burying some stereotypes and eliminating racism. In this case it may be better to go with majority rules. If 56,000 people identify as "Negro", but if 60,000 or 2 million people are offended by this term then is it really worth keeping it on the Census if it is only going to deeply upset many people? I think not.