With this question, I think we may have hit at one of the main problems in this country, and what could be viewed as a main purpose of the course. We need to see hypocrisies and misconduct by those in power. This question argues what many in this country have been saying for years. Should the United States be policing other countries, attempting to fix other countries’ problems and spending an obscene amount of money doing so, when the United States has many problems of its own that need to be addressed? The answer to me is sort of.
As the world’s largest superpower, the United States has some obligation to help other countries. The United States is not the perfect country, but an argument can be made that it’s better than the rest. The United States desired to be the world’s superpower and it needed to accept the responsibility of maintaining international order. It has clearly done so. The United States has been involved in many major conflicts over its history and continues to send aid to countries in need. Of course, it doesn’t do a flawless job of this and seems to selectively choose which countries to help. The United States rarely practices charity out of goodness. Almost every act is motivated by some form of expected reward, whether it is diplomacy or business interests. For example, the United States has been consistently giving money to Pakistan in hopes that the Pakistani government will not harbor al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden (How’d that money work out?).
Regardless, as the world’s leader, the United States needs to see peace and prosperity in every country. Of course, not too much prosperity because that would challenge the United States’ position as the world’s superpower. But a desire for peace and its own economic prosperity has motivated the United States to be involved militarily throughout the world. This can be seen as a good thing as most of the wars were fought against rulers who treated their citizens horribly. Many of those men are now out of power, meaning more people live in freedom, which of course is a good thing.
But the troubling part is how involved the United States is internationally. The military spending chart that Sam showed in class is crazy. The United States should not be spending as much as the next fourteen biggest spending countries. It needs to maintain a strong military just in case, but the amount spent now is absurd. With a military this large, it almost seems like US leaders feel the need to employ troops across the globe. This leads to the constant conflict the United States is always in. It’s a troubling thing to think of the money spent globally when considering how many people struggle with poverty and other things in America. With all the money spent, you would think the US is a perfect country where all citizens thrive. But as we know, this is hardly the case. The United States’ debt is currently a hot topic with people calling for massive cuts to the budget. Cuts to social security and Medicare would further hurt American citizens while the money spent overseas would remain unchanged. There is something fundamentally flawed about that.
It’s funny to me that in a country that looks down upon the Occupy movement, the United States does such a good job practicing it across the globe. According to the government, the United States had 860 military bases overseas in 2004. That number is likely low as the government has secret bases everywhere.
The number is staggering and needs to decrease. Maybe government officials should spend less time occupying other countries and more time paying attention to the Occupy movement on its own soil.

Then I think of my role as sports editor at the Daily Collegian when this all happened. I was supposed to coordinate coverage of the biggest news story to hit Penn State probably ever. I had never expected it to happen but it did. But because of my job, I had very little time to think about the situation. I simply had to react and ensure quality coverage.
This has been my dilemma. I haven’t really been able to stop and think about the situation until Thanksgiving break. It was then I realized that a large part of my world had actually crashed down around me. (I mean, I have a poster of Joe Paterno hanging in my bedroom.) But although my world had changed, I realized I was still here. I was still the same person. I simply had a different outlook on life.
I think this is what we all need to take out of it. We need to all realize that we should always do the right thing, particularly when the right thing is not the easy thing. This is immensely important especially when children are involved. They remain the most innocent, defenseless members of society. We need to ensure that our kids are safe. I think this will be the biggest thing to come of the scandal. People will be more aware of child abuse. I find it hard to believe any Penn Stater will ever ignore signs of child abuse now. It has become an issue close to our hearts.
But we also need to learn to simply do the right thing in all aspects of life. In seven months, I will become a school teacher in New Orleans. I imagine I will be faced with difficult decisions almost daily, many of which will involve kids. I know that this scandal will always be in the back of my mind. I think learning from this will help to make me a better man. A man that I expected Paterno and Sandusky and Curley and Schultz to be. They obviously failed. I hope other Penn Staters will succeed because of their failure.
I think I will also take a lesson from this that men are simply men. They are not more than that. There are very few gods walking among us. Although we may hold certain people to higher standards, it is unrealistic to expect mere mortals to be perfect all the time. Society has a tendency to elevate certain figures, whether it’s politicians, actors, athletes or coaches. These people are then said to do no wrong, only leaving us disappointed when they do. But we shouldn’t have these expectations in the first place. We all make mistakes. We just have to try to limit them. From this, we’ve learned not to deify coaches. One of the grand hypocrisies of this entire situation has been ESPN’s presentation of news. One day the talking heads rant about not idolizing Paterno and the dangers of doing so. The next day, they are praising Duke basketball coach Mike Krzyzewski for winning more games than anyone else and doing so honorably. That sounds familiar to me. ESPN, despite all its preaching, had not learned its own lesson.
But we must all learn. We cannot change the past but we can work toward a brighter future. We all must learn from this and never repeat the mistakes. It’s the only way good will come of this situation.

Throughout the past three weeks, many people – Penn Staters mostly – have asked themselves many questions. How does this happen? How do the victims feel? Who is responsible? Should this person be fired, etc? But the most important question is the simplest one. What did we learn from this situation? How will we better ourselves because of it? What can we do to solve the problem and make sure these things don’t happen again?
That’s the biggest thing we can think about and attempt to do at this point. Unfortunately, we can do nothing to change what happened. We can do nothing to erase these awful events from our university’s past. We can do nothing to change what happened to those boys. We can support them in any way they need and attempt to make their lives better, but we cannot do anything to change their experiences.
But what we all can do is never forget this event. I don’t think most of us will. It will always be there, somewhere lurking in the back of our minds. I know it is something I will never forget. I’ve felt in the center of this since the beginning through my different roles. Most basically, I am a Pennsylvania born and raised kid. Like many other in Pennsylvania – even those who did not go to the university – I have a strong natural bond to Penn State. Whenever my family gave me money on my birthdays as a child, my mom would say she would put it in my Penn State fund. When it came time to apply for college, I applied pretty much only to Penn State. I applied to other schools but never seriously considered them. When I was accepted to Penn State, I agreed to go there without ever even visiting the campus. Very simply, I was always destined to go to Penn State.
Along with that goes the admiration for Joe Paterno and all that is Penn State football. For as long as I can remember, I’ve watched every Penn State game on TV. I grew up watching dominant Jerry Sandusky-led defense. I’ve spent hours defending Joe Paterno. I’ve spent just as much time thinking about the incredible impact one many can have and how Paterno was one of the few good men in this twisted world.

As the person asking the question said, our justice system is based around the idea of being innocent until proven guilty. This is the beauty of the system. Men are presumed to be naturally good. Someone has to prove that you are evil or that you committed a wrong. We hold guilty verdicts to the highest possible standard — beyond a reasonable doubt. It is intentionally hard to convict people to prevent the government from simply throwing people in jail. We came up with these rights to protect the citizens from the government.
Yet what we need now is protection from ourselves. Society has become overrun with the need to pass judgment on people as soon as a scandal emerges. The Court of Public Opinion has taken the right to a speedy trial listed in the United States Constitution to an extreme. The public has an insatiable desire to proclaim a person innocent or guilty almost instantaneously. We are no longer patient enough to let the legal system run its course. The Court of Public Opinion does not wait for a courtroom to be open, does not wait for a judge to have free slot in his schedule, does not go through jury selection. Instead, we are all jurors — oftentimes uninformed jurors.
Because of busy lives and complex situations, it’s hard for anyone to be truly informed on an event. To make a judgment, a person must be well-versed in the subject, otherwise the judgment has very little value. Yet we are asked to give our opinion. If we don’t have one, someone will make one up for us or tell us how to think. Television media have become the main perpetrators of this. Because trials do not make for exciting TV, shows must emphasize the wild, rumor-filled preliminary stages of investigations. With 24 hours of program to fill, TV shows must rely on speculation. There simply are not enough facts to fill that much time. Instead, so-called journalists must speculate to entertain the audience, leading to misinformation. People like Nancy Grace have become rich and famous for engaging in this strategy. This is irresponsible on the part of the media and becomes more of a problem when every person is expected to have an opinion.
This has caused society to be afraid to simply say, “I don’t know.” Each person must offer an opinion. Who knows why? Maybe it’s just a way to talk to people. Maybe it’s just something people say to pass the time. But why do we have to ask each other, “What do you think?” What does it matter what I think? And why are we afraid to say “I don’t know?” Uncertainty sums up my feelings about the recent events at Penn State. I imagine others feel the same way. I simply do not know what to think. I do not know what to think about. I do not know what to do from here. But I shouldn’t have to have all the answers immediately. Over time, as more information surfaces, I will eventually formulate an opinion. But that opinion will be well thought out and not rushed. I’ll have an opinion that I won’t be ashamed of later and that I’ll likely stick to for a long time.
But for now, I don’t know.
I just wish more people would admit it.

The current media narrative wants the people to believe that the Occupy Wall Street and Tea Party movements are different. In fact, the media wants us to believe that they are polar opposites. On one side we have conservatives who border on intense libertarianism. On the other, we have socialists and communists who want to overthrow the entire system of capitalism. Of course, neither characterization is entirely true. The media is right that the movements are different. But the media also ignores the many similarities between the groups.
The differences are clear. The Tea Party movement rose largely after the election of Barack Obama, who for some reason not based in reality was seen as an incredibly liberal socialist. It is a conservative movement of people who were fed up by the insane amount of debt being run up by the government. Obama took most of the blame for this, despite much of the debt being accumulated under his predecessor George W. Bush. This led to accusations of the Tea Party being a racist group, which is an interesting yet entirely different conversation. Regardless of the timing of the Tea Party’s emergence, its two goals were clear: lower taxes and less government spending. Along the way, the Tea Party gained intense support as well as intense criticism for its draconian ideas. But there was little doubt in its effectiveness. The Tea Party was largely seen as a grassroots group started by a bunch of people who were simply mad at the system. It gained so much power and influence that Republican candidates in the 2010 midterm elections practically needed the Tea Party endorsement in order to win. This, of course, was not entirely true because of crash-and-burn Tea Party candidates like Christine O’Donnell. The unsuccessful candidates tended to be ones who were solely Tea Party-backed and lacked general Republican support. While the Tea Party was originally viewed as a grassroots movement of the people, it became more corporatized as it gained popularity. Tea Party-backed Congressman began gobbling up corporate money faster than other representatives, mainly because of the Tea Party’s staunch anti-tax stance, which would greatly benefit big business and its leaders. The Tea Party also lost its grassroots feeling when the Koch brothers became more involved. Wealthy businessmen, the Koch brothers have funded many Tea Party events and backed Tea Party candidates, in order to advance an anti-tax agenda and allow themselves to get richer.

This is the key reason where the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements differ. As it is still in its infancy, no corporate puppet masters have been revealed as the masterminds behind the Occupy Wall Street crowd. It’s quite possible none exist, as was the case at the beginning with the Tea Party. But as the Occupy Wall Street movement gains more popularity, a powerful supporter might emerge, although this is less likely since the Occupy Wall Street movement has taken a stand against corporations. The target of the angst is the other main difference between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements. While the Tea Party targeted government, Occupy Wall Street has targeted corporate greed. Citing a growing income and wealth inequality, Occupy Wall Street has demanded that corporations treat people more like, well, people. They simply demand higher salaries, more benefits and less corporate welfare. The strategy to get this to happen varies among protesters as some want the government to get involved while others hope the companies simply choose to act more morally. It is a demand that springs from the statistics about wealth ownership as well as rumors that corporations are sitting on loads of cash while unemployment remains high.
The target of each group’s anger is different, which is what the media focuses on. But the media should be focusing on the intersection between the two groups’ ideas. One side blames the government, the other blames the corporations. Yet no one points out that the actual problem is the influence of big business over the government and vice versa. The biggest problem with the system is the power businesses have over legislation through campaign donations and lucrative post-public service jobs. This is where the real issue lies. Both movements point out different sides of the issue but they should really unite under one banner to help eliminate cronyism and bribery in government. The Tea Party has been suckered in to thinking that there are true conservatives willing to run for office. Almost all conservatives are big government conservatives who want to control people’s lives and expand their power. This is true of almost every one and it is simply human nature. Government officials aren’t going to take office then vote to downsize the government and potentially eliminate their own jobs and jobs for their close friends. It simply is not logical. This is why the Tea Party needs to realize that simply voting for different candidates will not work. Also, corporations are not going to magically become moral entities. This is why the Occupy Wall Street people need to realize that they must try to change the system of campaign funding, along with corporate greed. The problem is obvious and the answers lie with both movements. But for true change to come about, the Occupy Wall Street protesters and Tea Partiers must realize that they are on the same team. They are part of the same ruled class. With cooperation between the two groups, maybe real change can be seen in this country.

A United States that halts immigration is a United States that I do not want to live in. The beauty of this country is in its diversity. Many of us have always been taught that America was a grand melting pot and that’s what made it great. That was something I believed in elementary school when first exposed to the concept and it’s something I believe now. The beauty of the country rests in its diversity. While many other countries have homogeneous backgrounds and culture, the United States has an incredible mix of cultures. While many people in Italy are simply Italian, for example, people in the United States are Italian, Irish, Greek, Russian, Chinese, Australian, German Mexican, Brazilian and so on. This creates a pool of interesting cultures to choose from. We have a slight overarching American culture but each group individually still maintains its own culture. This exposes all the people to different ideas, foods, traditions and art. The culture of immigration previously openly embraced by the United States has greatly benefited the country throughout history.
If the United States banned immigration, I would assume they would also ban temporary immigration such as work visas and green cards. This would greatly reduce people’s experiences, particularly in college. I have greatly benefited from being exposed to international students in college. While I cannot afford to travel the globe to experience different cultures, I have been able to learn about other lands by talking to foreign exchange students. Penn State, while not the most diverse school, possesses a wide variety of international students. I have been fortunate enough to befriend students from Ecuador, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates. Through my conversations and interactions with these friends, I have been exposed to different customs and viewpoints. It has also caused me to examine cultural norms in America as they have questioned why Americans do things they way they do. These conversations are some of my most cherished experiences from college.
This same idea applies to general society. Without immigration, most people in the United States would not have experience any cultures outside of European ones. Such a mindset would be a reversal of the progress society has made. Globalization continues to dominate modern society as technology blurs the lines between countries and continents. This has led to an increase in international business and a pooling of resources. For many people, this system has proved beneficial. At the very least, boundaries between countries are being knocked down. This should theoretically lead to a more tolerant world. Increased interaction between cultures could only lead to more understanding. This is the path we are on. However, if the United States bans immigration, this progress would be halted. People would continue to live on their own islands, isolated from the rest of the world.

I feel as though I'm in Stage 5. Coming into the course, I would have guessed I was there but hearing Sam speak has reinforced my belief that I'm in Stage 5. However, I'm completely clueless as to what stage members of my family would be. I, like unfortunately everyone else, have that racist uncle. But as far as my immediate family is concerned, I 'm not sure we' have ever discussed race. It simply doesn't come up often. I would imagine my parents are about the same stage as me but I could be wrong. There is no reason for us to truly have the same beliefs.
Family members are in different stages simply because they are different people. While family members are often alike in many ways, they are not exactly the same. We all have different experiences and know different people. We are also likely to have different outlooks on the world based on those experiences.
It is true that family beliefs are often the biggest predictor of our view of the world. Political scientists have continually found that parents’ political affiliation greatly influences their children’s affiliation. If both parents are Democrats, their child is highly likely to be a Democrat and vice versa. If each parent affiliates with a different political party, their child is most likely to affiliate with the party of the parent who is most devoted and vocal about their beliefs. Other factors influence people’s beliefs like friends, school and religion. However, the beliefs of the parents remain the most important factor in determining a child’s beliefs.
If we apply the same logic to race relations, we would expect to see children at the same stage of racial identity as their parents. However, the stages of race do not seem to be something that can solely be taught and instilled on a person. There is more to it than just the teachings of your parents. Although parents may teach you a lot and help you move from one stage to another, they cannot automatically cause you to be at the same stage as them.
This is particularly true when dealing with families, which feature different generations. Particularly when dealing with issues of race, each generation has had a far different experience. Our generation’s parents grew up during or right after the civil rights movement in this country. During that time race was at the forefront of public dialog. It would have been very difficult to remain in Stage 1 when race was such a prevalent topic. When white people and people of color have separate facilities, it’s hard not to notice race as the racial differences were institutionalized. Younger generations have far different experiences because of the progress society has made in the last 50 years. We currently have a black president, although his race was such a large focal point that it would also be hard to remain in Stage 1 in modern day America. But more people in younger generations are more likely to move into the higher stages because of societal differences. Many young people don’t have the same beliefs about differences between races that our parents and grandparents may have had. We are simply more exposed to different races. It currently is not controversial to see a black man on television. Black characters are also moving past stereotypes. Stereotypes obviously still exist in entertainment media but the smartest writers move past them.
The other reason family members are not at the same stage is because of different personal experiences. While changing levels can be caused by society-wide events and actions, levels are also switched after a personal experience. In class Tuesday, Chenjerai talked about how small events in his life made him move through the stages of race. This happens to almost everybody on their journey through the stages of racial identity. We each have our own experiences and some are not shared with others. Family members come from different eras and have different experiences which explain why they are at different stages.

Based on the stages discussed in class, I would say that society is stuck on Stage 2. Overall, race is noticed and very obvious to people in this country. People may not be one hundred percent sure what other people’s races are, but it remains hard to hide skin tone. When people are predominantly of a different race, it is usually obvious. As it is the largest part of the body, skin tone is the most noticeable physical characteristic. Because of this, American society is very aware of race. Race has long been an issue that people focus on. Almost everyone in this country is aware that different races exist. While we may not encounter different races every day in our lives, we still have seen enough images to know that different skin tones exist. The media attempts to fill in the gaps of our knowledge by showing us areas and cultures that we are not a part of. Even if we do not encounter racial differences on a daily basis, we are most likely aware of different races.

But the main reason American society remains stuck in Stage 2 is that the American people have not really figured out a way to deal with the racial differences. Most people in American society seem to act like the Stage 2 example in class. He was uncomfortable approaching and talking about every person of a different race. He wasn’t sure how to point out people of different races without being offensive. He wasn’t sure how to describe the differences in the skin tone or in clothing without being offensive. He likely would not have offended the person of the other race but he still remained fearful that he would somehow use an inappropriate term.

A combination of ignorance, inexperience in dealing with race issues, and a desire to be liked seems to lead many people to be stuck in Stage 2. Despite its prominence, people have not figured out what to call the different races and when it is appropriate to distinguish races. Living in a diverse culture presents challenges because it is hard to tell what nationality a person is. Americans are often guilty of labeling all Asians as Chinese for example. Racial terms have evolved so much over the years that it is often hard for people to keep up with the proper terminology. For example, past words for black people have included colored, Negro and the current African American. This constant changing often makes it hard for people to follow along.

There is no guidebook to tell white people how to act and what to call people of different races. They are forced to learn through trial and error. This provides the awkward moments often seen during Stage 2. Because of the different paths people can take after Stage 2, much of society remains stagnant at the awkward stage. The combination of people learning about race issues, becoming racist, and avoiding racial risks causes the aggregate of society to remain stuck in Stage 2.

Racial disparities clearly exist as shown in education and economic statistics in class. But society is unsure how to address these issues, showing how it remains stuck in Stage2.

The question of gay inequalities being diminished before racial inequalities is an incredibly interesting one and greatly depends on the angle that you approach the question from.
When viewed strictly from a rights point of view, racial minorities seem to have a slight advantage currently. The progress made in the last century has essentially given racial minorities equal standing as everyone else in the eyes of the law. The same cannot be said for homosexual people. Obviously, in most states, gay people may still not get legally married. What the government has to do with marriage, I’ll never quite understand but that’s a conversation for a different day. To me, the bigger issue is the fact that being gay is still a legal reason to be able to fire someone in some states. That seems like a far greater injustice that someone could actually be fired for harmless actions in their personal life that affect no one than it would be to not be able to get married in the eyes of the law. Without government consent (and who really needs it), many gay people have declared their devotion to another person for the rest of their lives. But to have your career taken away from you because you happen to be attracted to people of the same sex is absurd. Obviously, this country has eliminated firing someone for being a different race, so minorities have an advantage in this aspect currently.
From a rights standpoint, gay people have probably had more historically. Assuming they were white, gay people could always vote. They didn’t have to go to different schools or restaurants or water fountains. They could own land. Mainly because it’s hard to simply point out a gay person by looking at him, gays likely have experienced less society-wide discrimination. If a gay person was not out or very open about their sexuality, they likely did not experience much discrimination. Obviously, it’s hard to hide race. Racial minorities obviously experienced all of the above hardships at times throughout history. Like gays are experiencing now, interracial marriages were banned for far too long in this country.
From a societal views standpoint, it’s hard for me to pinpoint which group has it better currently or who will be viewed as completely equal by everyone sooner. The United States seemed to turn a corner with the landslide election of Barack Obama in 2008. It finally showed that we were capable of trusting a black person to lead the country. However, incredible racism followed his election including the incessant questioning of his birth certificate. Obviously, racism still exists in many aspects of society, as the statistics presented in class often show. But I’d like to think society as a whole is progressing in equality.
It’s also easy to see progress on the gay rights front. Legalizing gay marriage (or simply, marriage for everyone) in New York obviously represented a huge step for the movement. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell also marked another tremendous milestone for gay rights. However, many people still are appalled by the idea of homosexuality.
Going forward, it’s hard to predict which group’s inequalities will be diminished sooner. Logically it makes sense to think that gay inequalities will be reduced sooner. Simply by looking at someone it is much easier to tell their race than their sexuality. While people may be more uncomfortable with homosexuality, the invisible strings that lead to subtle racism will continue to exist. As long as the media continues to portray minorities the way it does now, racial minorities will likely experience inequality for longer.