My answer is yes. To me it seems natural that they should be able to be taken care of when they are ill. It seems natural to me that whenever anyone is ill or injured they should be assisted by whatever country they are in or by whatever people are near them. We are all fragile beings and if we do not aid others in their times of need, why should we expect that the system or others will aid us?

I will be the first person to admit that I do not know the economic implications of the different variations of health care plans, but I think that greed is likely to get in the way of what I perceive as a basic human right. So, I will take it a step further and say that not only should immigrants AND illegal immigrants be given access to necessary healthcare, but also visitors in the country. Travelling can be stressful enough without having to worry about what happens if you should get into an accident or some illness should set upon you.

I do understand that this would create more of a burden on hospitals and doctor’s offices, but I think if the efficiency of the health care system could be improved it may be feasible to extend health care to anyone in this country that needs it. I also think that if hospital staff had less responsibility to make sure people had insurance and could pay it would both reduce costs and increase interest for future doctors and nurses.

I watched the movie “Sicko” by Michael Moore because it was assigned for a class called Media and Democracy. While I am well aware that it was a very biased narrative of the issue of health care, I couldn’t help but be impressed when he visited England. I was impressed by the hospital he visited and the patients and health care professionals that he spoke with. He was literally laughed at when asking where people had to go to pay for the care they received in the hospital. The doctors he talked to spoke openly about how they would not want to work in a place where they had to worry about who they were treating and if they had money to pay for the care they received. I am sure there are negatives to the system they have in place there, but it just seemed right to me that they didn’t have to worry about the insurance or financial background of the patients they treated. I think the United States could definitely learn a few lessons from England’s health care system. This sort of turned into a rant about universal health care, but the point is that in my opinion I have no more of a right to good health care than a poor immigrant.

I had Sam as a professor for Soc 001 last year and 1/3rd of that class was designated to discuss the sociology of war. That class had sessions of only 50 minutes and not 1 hour and 15 minutes like Soc 119 so even though I had already heard most of the information of this lecture during that class it was not all in one sitting; it was spread out through at least 2 class periods. I think that in the single sitting, this lecture was more powerful, while at the same time, when it was spread out over a longer period of time, you were forced to think about it more than one time which I think could allow people to collect their thoughts between classes and make them think more overall.

I think it was a very interesting experience for me to be able to hear the lecture essentially for a second time. It allowed me to reconsider the ideas again after having more than a year to formulate and reevaluate my opinions of the war. My mind was not blown during the lecture because I already had thought about the situation through the eyes of an arab muslim.
This lecture and these ideas remind me of a song by Immortal Technique called “Bin Laden”. The song is about how the U.S. Government was responsible for 9/11, and I have not researched that enough to know whether or not there is truth in those claims, but the lyrics that I am reminded of are in the second verse:
They say the rebels in Iraq still fight for Saddam
But that's bullshit, I'll show you why it's totally wrong
Cuz if another country invaded the hood tonight
It'd be warfare through Harlem, and Washington Heights
I wouldn't be fightin' for Bush or White America's dream
I'd be fightin' for my people's survival and self-esteem
I wouldn't fight for racist churches from the south, my ni**a
I'd be fightin' to keep the occupation out, my ni**a

These lyrics are very powerful to me because they allow you to view the situation through the other perspective, just like Sam’s lecture. And besides that it is a very good song and a good artist with some interesting music and ideas.

I was also looking around during the lecture and trying to observe what some other people might have been thinking about what they were hearing and it seemed like people were paying better attention than usual(which doesn’t necessarily mean much, but they were being attentive from what I saw). It was just interesting to watch people’s expressions change when Sam said something particularly “controversial”. But overall it was a very interesting lecture and I think the poll at the end showed that people were paying attention enough to maybe have their eye’s opened if they weren’t already.

I think that the guy in the video makes a valid point about a potential issue that could easily develop due to an affirmative action program. It is very possible that through affirmative action, quotas, and nepotism many positions are not being filled by the best candidates. I think that in most cases if someone less qualified obtains the job, chances are there will be very little difference in the qualifications and their performance. Besides that, it is very difficult to know which candidate will actually be better act the job based on GPA, activities and the other information included on a resume. Even if one candidate has a much better resume, during the interview process one candidate might prove himself to be a much better fit for the job, and then the candidate with the better resume might claim, if the other candidate is a minority, that they were the victims of affirmative action.

When Sam asked us to break up into partners and decide whether nepotism or affirmative action is a bigger problem (or something along those lines), I think that nepotism is a far greater problem due to how prevalent it is in our society. Affirmative action can certainly be unfair, but it has to have been involved in far less jobs being given to people than nepotism. I am looking for an internship for this summer and I know for a fact that one of the companies I was hoping to get a job with usually assigns all of their internships to the children and relatives of executives. So I have an example of getting left out because of nepotism, but not a similar story about affirmative action. I would also think that the statistics show that many people have had similar experiences with nepotism. Regardless of my opinions about the ethics of nepotism versus the ethics of affirmative action, I would argue that nepotism is a far greater problem because of how widespread it is.

I think sometimes in our society it can even be genuinely difficult to not be helped along by nepotism. I think nepotism is very responsible for ensuring that the social classes remain the same. If upper class people are going to keep giving jobs to their children and relatives then it will be extremely hard for lower or middle class people to be able to get good-paying and fulfilling jobs. This is one of the major facets of the system that encourages a financially tiered society. And it is frustrating to know that I do not even know what the next step is to try to stop it.

The reason that I enjoy this class is because of all of the different perspectives that I am able to at least partially experience both during class and during the discussion group. I think that Sam makes many very good points about menstruation being similar to racial issues and I do think that it is relevant. I rarely if ever thought about why women rarely talk about it. I do know a few girls who aren’t hesitant to say something about it and I now realize that this may be almost a form of rebellion from them because they feel constrained in what they are ‘supposed’ to say or not say about it. I am the same way about some issues that I feel particularly strong about so I think I am able to partially understand where they are coming from.

An example that I have about this is homophobia. I could tell during high school that a few of my friends were not very comfortable with homosexuality being expressed in public, so rather than be silent about it and let them remain comfortable with their prejudices, I began to make insinuations and comments that would make them uncomfortable just so they could see that there is very little difference in the actions or statements of gay and straight people. In their minds, gay or bisexual people were not to be associated with and I think that if one of their friends would have come out of the closet, they would have avoided that person and eventually stopped hanging out with them altogether. I think that now my friends are more open-minded and would initially be uncomfortable if one of their friends came out, but I think that they would be able to maintain their friendship with that person. I like to think that my challenging comments and seemingly inappropriate (from their point of view) comments had something to do with their open-mindedness.

I think that Sam does the same thing during his lectures; he challenges your views no matter what they may be and no matter what the topic. I think that this approach likely “puts some people off” in the sense that they may just shut down because he is discussing controversial issues, but I also think that it is likely that there were many people that were in the pre-awakening stage as he calls it that have now had to rethink some of their positions and their real reasons for them. I think ultimately this is what needs to happen to more people in order to make substantial progress in race relations. So I think it will end up being beneficial to many people to have alternate views and questions about some topics they may have took for granted before.

Coincidentally, I read the chapter in Laurie Mulvey’s book about white guilt last night so this is excellent timing for me for a post about guilt. I think the girl in the video’s point is exactly correct. The guilt is entirely based upon our knowledge. The cliché that “ignorance is bliss” applies here because if you are not aware of your connections, however close they are, to some of the atrocities and civil rights injustices that have been committed you would feel no guilt. If more high schools taught about or students researched the injustice that exists in our world we would have far fewer people thinking that the issues do not affect them. I think that this would revolutionarily alter race relations in the United States. If there was a Sam Richards in every high school many people would at least be more aware of the things that are going on in our nation and beyond. regardless of whether you agree with many of the things he is saying, he is at least shedding light on some issues that are covered up for many reasons.

But as far as the textbooks go I think one of the concerns when changing the textbooks for young children is whether or not the children are mature enough to handle it. It was difficult to handle the guilt during Sam’s lecture on Native Americans so I doubt it would be appropriate to have learned about those issues when I was 7 or 8 years old. I think the feeling of guilt is a complex one that children should not be exposed to before they must. I think it is more complex of an emotion than anger or happiness because I might even call it anger with one’s self. I think that to be angry with yourself before you can even begin to comprehend the convolution of the issues would be a potentially devastating force in a very young person’s life. Although I do not think many elementary school children would be ready; I would also caution teaching versions of history that mislead the kids. I think that could be equally harmful because younger kids absorb a great deal even before they can fully critique the information that is being given to them. This could lead to inadequate understanding of the situations that have led to this point in history. I think I would suggest history classes to be taught later in the curriculum to give students a chance to mature enough to begin to deal with these issues for themselves. Even with an “unbiased” textbook, if a teacher intentionally or unintentionally leads their students with a certain narrative about these issues, progress would be equally difficult to come by in the race relations arena.

After watching the video, I was felt confident that Abercrombie discriminated against this poor woman at least in part due to her religious beliefs. But after seeing some of the responses on the blog and thinking more about the issue, I realize that the company was well within their rights to fire this woman based upon their dress code. I want to first make it explicitly clear that I think it was wrong that she asked about the dress code and was told that she would be allowed to wear her hijab and then was fired for wearing it. I think a solution for that issue would have been to have who ever told her she would be allowed to wear it consult with their boss(es) about the issue before responding to the question. Because the video made it seem like the local branch would have kept her employed if not for corporate stepping in and firing the employee, it seems unlikely that the local branch of Abercrombie and Fitch wanted this woman fired because of anti-Muslim sentiment. So I will repeat, from what I know, Abercrombie was within their rights to fire this employee for not complying with their dress code. I think it is an entirely separate issue whether or not their dress code itself violates any laws or the first amendment. I do not know nearly enough about wrongful termination law to even begin to guess whether or not there should have been exceptions made for this woman.

I also think that it is a very slippery slope if Abercrombie had allowed this woman to remain as an employee and continue to wear her hijab. If they had allowed this then they would then need to reasonably attempt to allow for other religious considerations. For instance some religions prohibit the use of electrical devices on certain days; this might make some of Abercrombie and Fitch’s cashiers unable to perform their jobs for days at a time. Should Abercrombie still be required to keep them employed if they are hired as cashiers but for 1 month out of the year they cannot use the electronic cash register? It would make very little sense to keep them employed for this month, but again I do not know the law so maybe they are required to keep them on the payroll for this time because it is a religious obligation.
Another natural result of enforcing complete cooperation with religious practices is the question of what constitutes a religion. If I create a religion with only a few of my neighbors, are our beliefs any less protected than those of practitioners of the Roman Catholic faith? I should hope not, so I think we all need to be aware of how complex of an issue this is before we see a story about a Muslim woman being fired for wearing her hijab and assuming it is discrimination.

“It’s not my place” that simple phrase engaged the class. Just after it was uttered (maybe a 3 second pause) I heard a collective inhale from class. That’s when I knew that the audience as a whole had just become much more interested in where this lecture was going. I think many people in class may have been borderline offended by the remark. I think that quite a number of people probably agreed with the speaker because they also would not have thought it was their place to say anything. I was very intrigued by how a 4 word phrase could almost instantly cause such a great reaction in so many people.
I think this same thinking can be applied to many aspects of life, and more specifically, life at Penn State. I think this same reaction could be witnessed on many weekends in the fall, especially toward the northeast corner of campus. During a football weekend, especially if it is a rivalry game, if an opposing fan were to yell, “Ohio State Rules”, I feel confident that you could witness the same collective inhale from the numerous Penn State fans. I think that this is a common reaction when someone is offended or shocked and I think the situations are fairly similar. I think that if the Ohio State fan yelled that and then Penn State fans were to start harassing them, very few people would speak up. I think that the majority of people would just laugh at the exchange. Many Ohio State fans have been verbally abused at Penn State and vice versa. Many of the people involved in these exchanges would likely claim to be just joking around, but I don’t know if you can write it off as just a joke. When you boil it all down, they were negatively judging each other based upon someone’s appearance only. They felt superior to someone not because of the color of their skin, but the color of their NCAA replica jersey. And even more to the point, the actor behind the counter in the video in class even commented on the female actress’ clothing as a reason for not serving her.
I am most certainly not trying to say that school rivalry is as big of an issue as racism, but I think that it is something to think about. I want to ask those of you out there who do not consider yourselves racist, but will make fun of a Michigan fan that walks by while tailgating; aren’t you being a bit hypocritical? I would say that you are and I am being fairly hypocritical now because I am sure that I have been guilty of laughing at opposing fans when they were getting snowballs thrown at them in the student section. And I am positive that I am not the only one that is guilty of that.

I have to primarily agree with Allan. I think he makes some very good points, many of them that I had never considered before. As far as I am concerned if you want to give full rights to a same-sex couple as a married couple it should be called marriage. To call it anything other than that is nothing less than segregation just as Allan said. It would return us to a “separate but equal” status which as history in the US has shown us is not acceptable.
Allan also illuminates some key points about how the “equal” civil unions are not providing all of the same benefits as opposite-sex marriages. I had heard a few stories about how some partners of same sex couples had not been able to see their injured or sick partners, but now that I hear that it is one of the major concerns of some same-sex couples it gives it a much more personal perpective.

I think the guy in the video made a good point about Sam’s critique of the hypocrisy of religious opposition to gay marriage when they pick and choose which “sins” are actually sins. It is very true that most people do not follow the bible literally, but Sam’s point is still valid that it is at least somewhat hypocritical for people to be more passionate about when other people commit “sins” (be homo/bisexual) than when they commit “sins”. But again the guy in the video is exactly right in saying that many people (including many Christians) do not believe that drinking, adultery, etc are sins and therefore are not being hypocritical by doing those activities while holding beliefs that homosexuality is immoral.
While I do agree on that point, I think that the fact that marriage in this country was established as a religious institution no longer applies. And I think his statement that marriage is a religious institution is not entirely true. As Allan said you do not need a church to get married, so I do not understand how marriage is a religious institution in the same sense that confirmation and Ash Wednesday are religious. I understand that marriage has a very strong connection to many religions, but that fact remains that the government issues marriage licenses and can perform marriage ceremonies.
The fact of the matter is that in the United States, gay and lesbian couples have just as much right to the term marriage as any straight couple. I think that at this point those that want their opposite-sex “marriages” to be separate from gay couples should consider inventing a new term or phrase and begin using that, because they do not have a higher priority than anyone else for the term. I think that same sex couples that refuse to let their “right” to marriage between a man and a woman be tarnished by same-sex couples should consider using a different term if they do indeed think the ideas of same-sex and opposite sex marriages need to be separate. Might I suggest a term to indicate that you will not be linked to the “immoral” or “reprehensible” destruction of the concept of marriage? You can call your opposite-sex marriages Civil Unions so all will know that you do not wish to share the term marriage.

After reading many of the comments here it seems that some people have taken Sam's comments in many different ways. Some of the people seem to have gotten defensive because of Sam equating having your parents pay for college to skating through. While I think that it is much easier to make it through school if you are from a wealthy family, I think people are overreacting to what was said in class. It would be very rare and frankly it wouldn’t make much sense for someone from a wealthy family to make it through school without some help from your parents/guardians. It makes much more financial sense to essentially get a college loan from your parents as opposed to many of the banks and programs with high interest rates and potentially devastating debt. So I think the people that are seemingly defensive about things being handed to them on a silver platter, misunderstood Sam’s points regarding that. He even specified in class that everyone still had to do work to even be able to attend his class at Penn State.
I also think it is interesting to see how many people commented about how much help they did or did not get from their parents and others. I thought one of the major points of the lecture was to say that no one has any control over what family they are born into, which makes it somewhat ironic to me that people are commenting about how differently they started off. It just seems like yet another way people are separating themselves into groups or categories.
Last night I watched the movie “Into the Wild”. In this movie a recent college graduate from a very wealthy family gives up everything to just get away from civilization and connect with nature. In the movie he burns his money and goes through many different experiences while meeting some fascinating people along the way. The reason I bring up this movie, besides the fact that it is a great movie that people should see, is the recent graduate could have easily lived a “wonderful” life based on where he started in life. In other words he would have had very few obstacles to have a large salary and continue the wealth of his family, but he chose not to follow that path. It is a remarkable story in part because he essentially chose and strove for the exact opposite of what many people in society are trying to accomplish. If anyone reading this comment has not seen this movie, it is a great film and it ties in well with the most recent lectures from Sam.

I think it is very interesting how the census is influenced by the population and the population seems to follow the census. That indicates that no one really has a clue about race relations including me because we all just follow whatever seems to be widely accepted. It was also interesting to see the progression that the census has gone through in the years that it has been operational.
I think the best solution might be to just not provide any categories at all and to make you have to write in your ethnicity. Admittedly this would be more work for census workers, but I think it would be a step in the direction of equality, minor as it may be. I also liked the articles insight that most countries that do not have slavery backgrounds have only ethnicity and not ethnicity and race. I agree with the author that merely making these 2 separate categories seems to imply that there is some difference between the 2 words. I think the difference only exists as long as there are people who perceive there to be a difference in “races”. But I think until there are very, very few of these people we are dealing with a system which does little to stifle racism.
Getting back to the Census, I guess I still do not entirely understand why we cannot begin to phase out the ethnicity question altogether. I remember Sam said something in class related to the distribution of information to all citizens and it was cheaper to do if they knew they needed say %15 percent of the papers to be in another language, but I think this should be phased out altogether. Frankly, I do not know enough about the reasons to even know if that is plausible but I think from a strictly race relations standpoint, that would be one of the best things to happen.
That led me to think about when Sam was talking in class about the people from different ethnicities at the race table. He said that sometimes/ most of the time you see the white people take a step back and wait and see where the situation is going to go. I know that I would do that exact same thing in that situation, but it would not be because I didn’t want to say anything politically incorrect, it would be because I would be thoroughly confused why I was even at the table in the first place. I would not think that there was anything for me to say, because I think for the most part I do not think about skin color when I am living my life. It’s weird that not talking to each other about race brings about little change but at the same time the ultimate goal is for people to never even have to talk about race. So in order to correct the inequalities we have to talk about something that mainly racist people think about.