My answer to this question is a simple one. Absolutely they should have rights to health care in the United States, regardless of whether they are "illegal" or not. Health care is a human right, not a privilege, not a gift, a right. When we are sick, we have the right to health. We have the right to curing our illness and continuing to live our lives. Your status as an immigrant in this country has no place in determining the level of health care you can receive. For the people who want to dictate this decision based on "paying taxes," I want to ask all of you to put yourself in the other person's shoes. You are from a country that has little opportunity to offer, a poor health care system, and doesn't meet what your are looking for in life. So what would you do? You would immigrate to a new country, regardless of what it took. If that meant doing so illegally, you would do it too. So, upon your arrival, you become sick with a curable illness, would you not want to be taken care of? You are damn right you would. You would hope that people in that nation would show some compassion to you, help your family out, and allow you to continue working towards success. We place so much emphasis on money and the "burden" it places on us that we forget to look at our neighbors as humans. Life is about happiness, not money. In order to have life, you have to be taken care of, you have to be healthy. I know that, at least for me, I have no problem paying more taxes if it means that I can help save somebodies life. I would hope they would do the same for me. There are a plethora of reasons why people have to stay "illegal" too. It isn't that they are lazy or like "skirting" the law, there are family relationships that could be in danger and the process itself I would imagine is extraordinarily expensive to go through. So for someone who doesn't want their family to be in danger, or can't find the means to become a "legal tax paying whatever," staying "illegal" is their only choice. There is no way we can't provide them the care they need. Now, I'm not saying they shouldn't try to take steps to becoming a legal immigrant, we just need to understand it isn't always as clear cut as we want to think it is. Like everything else in life, its messy. Lastly, I want to address the terminology "illegal immigrant." I hate it. People can't be illegal, there is no such thing as an illegal person. Their actions may be illegal, but when we refer to them as illegal immigrants I feel we are denoting that person as being "illegal.' I just feel we need to be more sensitive to the issues that drive all of us in life. The pursuit of life and happiness. We should extend health care to illegal immigrants because they have a right to it, just like all of us do.

I absolutely think that men feel the need to conform to societies pressures as much as women do, its just a different context. So women, women are expected to dress in a certain manner (whether it be scantily clad or modestly dressed), however, I would argue men are expected to conform in the way they dress too. They are expected to have sports team shirts and have "nice" clothes to go out in. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people discussing a big game, and a guy asking another where his jersey is...then calling him some form of derogatory name for not having one. I also can't tell you how many times I've been ripped on for wearing a T-shirt to the bar instead of a polo or dress shirt, my friend seem to think that brings down the quality of the group. Now, I'm not gonna pretend that societies expectations on men are greater than on women, that wouldn't be true. Women face a lot of pressure to look like the actresses they see on TV (the majority of which are attractive by the way), but when you look at the majority of guys portrayed on TV, they're allowed to be fat, or awkward or just an average guy. It says something about our expectations of what men can look like and what women should look like. But appearances are largely the expectations men need to live up to. All of those guys on TV that are fat, are macho in their own way. There is a stigma that men need to be tough, to be territorial, to like sports or cars and to be successful. That is a lot of pressure placed on men, some of us just aren't that tough (I've never been in a fight and I know I never will be), we aren't that into cars (I will admit I'm a huge sports fan), or maybe we aren't the "bread winners" in relationships. But its those expectations and demands that men feel they need to live up to, it might not always be about how a man looks, but his "appearance" certainly matters. What I will do is agree with the post from above mine, I will agree that this is an issue women might dwell on more. While each gender faces their own challenges in meeting societies expectations, I think it is that women focus on their need to fill those expectations for longer, and more intensely. I think most guys can want to meet those expectations, but come to terms with it a little faster and easier if they don't. I think that that is the reason most women feel as oppressed as they do about the expectations they face, and why men tend to accept those expectations a little bit better.

So i thought that this post was pretty interesting, and the comments written above also spoke to my experiences with the revisioning stage. Like many of the rest of you , I too grew up in a predominantly white town. While we had asian students in my classes through elementary school, it wasn't until 5th grade that I really was awakened and began to revise myself. In fifth grade a new student moved to our town, and was going to be riding the bus with me. He was black (Well actually mixed races, his mom was white and his dad black, but people would lable him as black if they saw him). I still will never forget the fact that I told my friend (whom I had previously been sitting with), that I was excited to get to know him because he was black, and I had never had a black friend before. Wow, haha, still feels weird to think I said that. However, we became incredibly close. We've since gone our separate ways attending different colleges, but we became best friends.

I really got to understand what he was going through -- moving away from a home that used to offer some diversity, starting over in a new town which was predominantly white and not always friendly to differing races, and the prejudice that he faced from a school district with some ignorant children in it. I really used his experiences to revise myself, learn how i felt about races issues and how I could be better about it. I think I was fortunate to get the chance to entire the revisioning stage as early as I did, it has really shaped me to be who I am today.

I also think it is interesting to consider the LL Bean ads we looked at the other day, even though i know this isn't the appropriate blog i guess. My friend and his family were very successful, and honestly very wealthy. They were far better off than my family was growing up, and the always dressed in nice clothing -- such as what would be offered at LL Bean. In fact, my friends father always dressed very nicely, and him and my friend wore shorts all the time (which is why I was confused about that comment in class) because they saw no point in being hot. It just struck me as funny to realize that some people would call them a "white" black family. Yes there were "white" tendencies they had, but that was because my friends mom was white. My friend and his dad certainly held onto their black culture (my friend liked to have an afro and even corn-rowed it a few times), loved listening to what is categorized as "soul music" and enjoyed things that are typically labeled "black." But they were just themselves, they were bigger Philadelphia fans than anything, and would identify stronger with their love of the eagles and phillies than their color as an indicator.

Overall, my experiences helped me to enter revisioning, despite being in a poorly diverse town. I learned that labeling someone as a "white" black person is foolish, its just who they are, who they choose to be.

I think this was an interesting question to pose, especially the part about free tampons. First, I think that men are educated on the topic of a women's menstrual cycle in terms of what it is, what it entitles, and what happens to a women. What we aren't educated on are the intricacies of it. As someone who's been in a relationship for the past 3 years, I still can't figure things out about it. Like, I have no idea how my girlfriend can know she's getting her period soon, but can't tell exactly when it is happening. Its the way that a womens body communicates with her that is really an interesting concept about a woman's period. I don't think I'll ever forget the first time I asked my mom what a period was (I had heard about it on Home Improvement and I just asked). It wasnt an awkward conversation, but it was still something I couldn't get grasp. And then when we learned about sex-ed in elementary school, it was a huge day for us, yet the separated boys and girls to talk about the differences. It was interesting because we were all curious about each other, yet there was a clear line that boys were not to be around girls when they were told about their period (and the girls were taught by a woman and the guys a guy). It was interesting. But since then, and I think it happens when we grow up, I've learned more. I've been with my girlfriend long enough to know how she struggles with it, how it affects her entire life (makes her tired, makes her back hurt, everything), and its something I just can't relate to. It is a topic that is rarely talked about, but I think it is because of our lack of ability to relate, we just can't understand.
However, the free tampon issue...at first I was confused, why would they be free? It's a product, there are costs endured with the product, and thats it. But then I thought about it in terms of condoms (thank you persons post above) and it does make sense. There are always free condoms, but I do they it differs slightly. Condoms are given out to prevent the spread of diseases and prevent conception. Tampons are a personal choice, some girls (or guys if they had it) might like to use pads...I guess it all depends. I think that Thursdays class really gave better insight into was Sam was trying to say on Tuesday, and it really is a pretty unique topic to talk about. More power to you women out there who have to deal with it on a monthly basis, and know that while I can't personally relate to you, I wish you didn't have those physical pain struggles.

I think that this is a great question that can really get at the way we handle race related topics with anonymity. The question is right, when white people said something offensive or rude about people of a different color (and I did find it ironic those rude remarks tended to be only about black people, I am curious why white people tended to not say anything about brown people), there was definitely a small uproar from the large group of black students who sit in the front. I am not saying their response was wrong, I would have found those remarks to be offensive too. However, when the black and brown students said rude remarks about white people, there was only laughter.

I think that this happens for a few reasons. First, I think this relates back to our discussion in class that the worst thing you can say to a white person is that they are a racist -- slightly off color remarks at most white people will not offend them. I think that this is interesting because the things that white people can say to black and brown students can cut deep, it can hurt, because they're often embedded in things that are beyond their control (such as skin color that has had a negative impact on their quality of life years ago). The only way to really get a white persons nerves, to get at something that might resonate with them is to call them a racist (unless that person truly is, they might like it then). Saying something that isn't entirely true, and categorizes a person negatively hurts them, most people don't want to be or seem racist. As a white person we understand that all the races are equal, it hurts us to be told we don't believe that way.

Additionally, I think remarks made about white people where not as rude as the remarks made against the black and brown people. Say someone is a bench warmer, or that they can't dance is almost like poking fun at meaningless stereotypes. However, saying that a person is loud and annoying is hurtful. Those are hurtful stereotypes that can make a person really feel bad about themselves -- no one wants to be called loud and annoying.

I think that both of these reasons are why there was no reaction from the white people when rude remarks were made about them, and why there was a reaction from black and brown students when tings were said about them. Hopefully we can continue to be mature in our use of the text board, it could be a really useful tool as long as we don't act like middle school students.

Like the majority of others who are on this blog response, I think that to claim theme parties are only hosted by white people, and are used as a statement about other races is ridiculous. I find this blind accusation of racism to be farcical and flat out rude on several levels. First, to proclaim that only white kids hold themed parties is plain out stupid. While I have never been invited to a party held and partaken in largely by black or brown students, I would have an extremely difficult time believe they don't like to spice things up every once in a while with a creative or hilarious themed party.
Like the majority of others who are on this blog response, I think that to claim theme parties are only hosted by white people, and are used as a statement about other races is ridiculous. I find this blind accusation of racism to be farcical and flat out rude on several levels. First, to proclaim that only white kids hold themed parties is plain out stupid. While I have never been invited to a party held and partaken in largely by black or brown students, I would have an extremely difficult time believe they don't like to spice things up every once in a while with a creative or hilarious themed party.
Additionally, to say that any themed party is aimed at being disrespectful to students of a different color other than white is insulting. While some assholes out there may in fact have parties for this reason, they are the exception and not the rule. The only time we have ever had, or I have ever attended, themed parties, it has been based around some social commentary for the moment (ie making fun of Jersey Shore, which is a show a lot of us as students loved to watch), or around some major holiday (ie ugly christmas sweater party). I fail to see how either of these makes fun of any race? In fact, like other students have said, maybe the only possible offensive party would be a "gangsta" party -- by why are we assuming these parties are disrespecting the colored communities out there. There are plenty of white "gangsters" too. If those who do have parties must make fun of certain races, make fun of your own. Being a white student, I know I would have no problem attending at "white and nerdy" or "redneck" party, however, I would like to point out I would have no place taking part in any party that might be used to discriminate against another race. I like to have fun, not bring other people down.
In this post, the questioner asks "why do there have to be themes?" I would like to ask right back, why not? Themes make things exciting, fun, and different. It keeps the monotonous ritual we all usually indulge in of drinking entertaining. It is fun to dress up like you're from the 80's, fun to wear your bathing suit in April, fun to dress up like other countries for the beer Olympics. It keeps things interesting and fresh and gives everyone a chance to just have some fun with each other. I don't see this as offensive to anyone, and I know that our themed parties will not stop.
If you think this is something only white students do, try introducing it to people of other colors at their next parties. I firmly suspect everyone will enjoy it, and wont have any problem poking fun at ideas, not people.

Like the majority of others who are on this blog response, I think that to claim theme parties are only hosted by white people, and are used as a statement about other races is ridiculous. I find this blind accusation of racism to be farcical and flat out rude on several levels. First, to proclaim that only white kids hold themed parties is plain out stupid. While I have never been invited to a party held and partaken in largely by black or brown students, I would have an extremely difficult time believe they don't like to spice things up every once in a while with a creative or hilarious themed party.
Like the majority of others who are on this blog response, I think that to claim theme parties are only hosted by white people, and are used as a statement about other races is ridiculous. I find this blind accusation of racism to be farcical and flat out rude on several levels. First, to proclaim that only white kids hold themed parties is plain out stupid. While I have never been invited to a party held and partaken in largely by black or brown students, I would have an extremely difficult time believe they don't like to spice things up every once in a while with a creative or hilarious themed party.
Additionally, to say that any themed party is aimed at being disrespectful to students of a different color other than white is insulting. While some assholes out there may in fact have parties for this reason, they are the exception and not the rule. The only time we have ever had, or I have ever attended, themed parties, it has been based around some social commentary for the moment (ie making fun of Jersey Shore, which is a show a lot of us as students loved to watch), or around some major holiday (ie ugly christmas sweater party). I fail to see how either of these makes fun of any race? In fact, like other students have said, maybe the only possible offensive party would be a "gangsta" party -- by why are we assuming these parties are disrespecting the colored communities out there. There are plenty of white "gangsters" too. If those who do have parties must make fun of certain races, make fun of your own. Being a white student, I know I would have no problem attending at "white and nerdy" or "redneck" party, however, I would like to point out I would have no place taking part in any party that might be used to discriminate against another race. I like to have fun, not bring other people down.
In this post, the questioner asks "why do there have to be themes?" I would like to ask right back, why not? Themes make things exciting, fun, and different. It keeps the monotonous ritual we all usually indulge in of drinking entertaining. It is fun to dress up like you're from the 80's, fun to wear your bathing suit in April, fun to dress up like other countries for the beer Olympics. It keeps things interesting and fresh and gives everyone a chance to just have some fun with each other. I don't see this as offensive to anyone, and I know that our themed parties will not stop.
If you think this is something only white students do, try introducing it to people of other colors at their next parties. I firmly suspect everyone will enjoy it, and wont have any problem poking fun at ideas, not people.

Yesterday's class was one of the most influential classes I think we've had so far this semester. I was most affected by the experiment that we saw at the end of the class, and I completely agree with the two students who said they would have stood up to the cashier. It was powerful to see a shop owner acting in the way he did, and it is even more powerful to realize the amount of racial tension that some people feel. It is utterly disgusting to know that some people think and act in that way. We can all be citizens of the United States of America, regardless of color or creed. That is what the constitution calls for and what many Americans believe our nation is founded on, yet some ignorant individuals are quick to make judgments based on the color of a persons skin or their religious beliefs. It is disheartening and disgraceful to what and who we are as a country.

What I think is even more troublesome than the level of discrimination and blind "patriotism" in the United States is how few people stood up for the rights of a fellow human. IN the one students post he made a great point, we are always quick to say its "not our place" until something is happening to us. It is this shortsightedness and stupidity that has held us back as a nation and a people. It is ALWAYS your place to step in when you see the rights of another person being infringed upon, because if you don't, who will? Who will stand up for your own rights if they're infringed upon? I would hope that someone of a different religion, look, or creed would stand up for mine as I would stand up for theirs.

I understand the student who spoke out in class saying that he was brought up to not speak against other people in their place of work, it is their business after all. But, I think that the lesson went over his head. I think it is wrong to tell a shop owner they need longer hours, or better prices, or different ingredients if they chose to use the vendors and workers they have. Those are their choices. But some issues transcend the right of the owner to run his business, such issues like human and American rights.

When we can't take responsibility upon ourselves, and those of us in college now are supposed to be the "leaders of the next generation," then it is foolish to think that we have the opportunities we desire assured to us. It IS up to us to make a difference, to stand up for those who's voice isn't always heard, and to remind business owners, or racists, or discriminators that the very rights they feel entitled to are applicable to every American. We are the UNITED States of America, lets start acting like it.

I think that this was a really great flip-cam question. I like how you analyzed the fact that the system is a broken one, and one that we are quick to blame on things "beyond our control." The institution of marriage is a flawed one. The divorce rate hangs around 50 percent, and yet we still manage to deny a group of people, who I would be willing to bet on the aggregate, is more successful of maintaining a loving and caring relationship the right to be unionized in the eyes of the government? I think it is a travesty to deny a group of American citizens their right to the pursuit of happiness.

Now, I realize that we can't force churches to perform marriage ceremonies on gay or lesbian or whatever they might be couples; they're a private organization that has every right to make their own choices. They don't want to support gay marriage? Fine. Here we come justices of the piece. They're right to perform marriage ceremonies is equal to the one that lies with the churches, and they are supposed to be acting in the best interest of the American people. I fail to see why we aren't allowing people to live the life they want, and grant them the title that they seek: marriage.

Okay, so lets suppose that things stay the way they are now, no gay marriage. Why the hell don't we have civil unions in tact? Yes, I firmly support whatever title the government can come to that will allow gay couples the rights that they deserve and seek. I understand that the title of marriage means a lot to them, but I also think they would be willing to make an immediate compromise to ensure that they are protected from the system working against them because they are not legally bonded. It is just ignorant of us as a whole to deny them their equal chance to a happy life.

I have a cousin who is getting married in a few months. She's a Catholic , just like me, but her fiance is agnostic at best. Yet, because they are a man and a woman, they can be united in a church. Something about that just seems hypocritical and flawed to me. Now, granted, they love each other and I am positive they will have a fantastic life together, and they have every right to a marriage in a church like my cousin dreamed of growing up. But so do gay couples. They have a right to a ceremony they can take pride in and remember forever. It is the biggest day of their lives, too.

One of my most powerful experiences with marriage and the civil union issue is through a different close cousin of mine. He was married, in a church, and started on a life together with his wife. Well, less than two years later things fell apart, and they have since divorced each other and gone their separate ways. Says something about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a women huh? Well, some of his coworkers are lesbians, and they love each other deeply. They have been together for over ten years, consecutively, and live a happy and harmonious life. Yet, because they are not a man and a woman, they are not entitled to the right or ability to solidify their union, marriage, whatever and make it permanent. That just doesn’t make sense to me. I don’t think gays would be reducing the “sanctity of marriage,” but rather increase its strength and legitimacy among individuals who truly love themselves. Gay couples aren’t responsible for the divorce rate. Straight couples are.

Dude, I completely understand you. I too am from Lancaster County, and I grew up there my entire life before coming to school at Penn State. Luckily, my family moved to Lancaster from Long Island just before they had me, so they are not so deeply rooted in Republican politics or the Lancaster way of life. My mother is a Democrat and my dad is a Republican, so I got a fair shake at both before I was old enough to really know where I stand. And, like yourself, I came out on the Blue end of the spectrum, and was proud to talk about it with my family during election seasons. Like your uncles, my dad has issues fully comprehending the health care bill, and as much as I love him, it's stupid. My brother, his son, would benefit immensely from a bill providing low cost health insurance because he acts as a subcontractor -- this causes him to need to purchase his own private insurance and boy does he pay for it. So, when he gets his information from our staunch republican neighbor our our republican uncle sill on the island, its tough to deal with. It's even tougher to get him to moderate to the middle from his "conservative" values.

Now, what really surprised me about this weeks classes, was how much I learned about myself. Like I said, I come down on the left. I have always considered myself a democrat, and always considered myself a liberal. After learning about Sam's position on the issue, I know I have to moderate. I have always been the guy who wouldn't back down in a political conversation about Liberal vs Conservative. I always thought we could pin it on life circumstances -- people need help. They don't get a fair shot at things. I am fortunate to be in the position I am in because I came from a decent enough home environment. However, I have come to realize I was passing the buck. When Obama talked about education, he said we need to stop passing the buck. We need to stop blaming others, and be the ones to turn off the TV. We can't blame it all on others. It is far too easy to blame it on a life situation.

This is what made me want to moderate. While I will never consider myself conservative, and I firmly believe a quote I once heard on The West Wing "Not everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps," people have the option to make the most of their situation. This is what they need to do. Yes, not all starting lines are the same. Yes, people need and deserve help because of their life circumstances. But no, it is not enough to blame it on the situation and passively wait for assistance. Seek out that assistance, and make the best of what you have. You might be surprised by the results. I know that this lecture isn't entirely going to change the way I talk politics, or even the way I look at what the political agenda should be, it certainly has made me more aware that I should trend towards the middle. Life is a combination of events and circumstances. Maximize your potential by asking for help, and trying as hard as you can.