I've grown to learn about Noam Chomsky from psychology classes in high school, so I felt somewhat prepared to hear what he had to say in this video. Do i necessarily agree with everything the man has to say? No. Am I able to understand his general stance and main points? Yes. His view of the education system is clearly up for debate, and I agree with parts, but disagree with other areas that he mentions. I feel like when he mentioned that there are some teachers that stimulate thought and get away with it, this is where Sam may have gotten his inspiration from. Putting all of the political jargon aside, his rationale makes sense. It's only a matter of listening to what he's saying from an unbiased perspective as a normal student in college. A lot of his ideas depend on one's level of individual conformity and comprehension in the classroom. I agree that in school, it's a matter of learning how to conform in order to progress through the school years. And those who disagree with the conformity end up being "behavior problems." And it does make sense to me that at the elite universities there is more obedience and conformity because some of these people at these prestigious schools are there because of how they did the "stupid assignments" and followed a specific route that hasn't changed much. I mainly disagree with Noam, in the area that schools help you learn stupidity. Obviously not everyone in the classroom has the same motives and intentions, either to be obedient or to follow a predetermined path, meaning some will not care, some will follow suit or some will begin to question things and think more outside the box of what's acceptable. I am unsure of his link between obedience and free thinking or exploration. I agree that being completely obedient prevents being free thinking but to me this does not make much sense holistically. In school, either high school or here at Penn State, I have been obedient to professors but I've also challenged normal thought. I've questioned material, teaching practices and other classroom behaviors. And I feel like the typical college student would act in a similar manner to me. I give Noam credit because he is an intelligent man, challenging controversial mainstream issues. Authority, obedience and free thinking can exist in one arena, think about Penn State or any High School. The pure forms of authority and obedience are evident in the lower ranks of schooling, and free thinking is more prevalent in higher education and graduate school programs where you are able to explore new research and topics. A good example of this is how I have to follow strict guidelines when writing my honors thesis, but the actual content of the thesis is up to my exploration and my liking because it's an addition to knowledge.

After reading Sam's initial post and the attached article, it became clear to me that I would probably, under extenuating circumstances, avenge the death of a close loved one. Obviously it would depend on how that loved one was killed, and by whom. I do not think I would go as far as sacrificing myself to a suicide bombing, but I would risk inevitable jail time or the death sentence. I would not feel comfortable killing others who weren't behind the death of a loved one, which is why I would take personal revenge to the one or few people that were responsible.

I feel that Sam's point during this lecture was properly portrayed in the video. The fact that as Muslim Arabs, we were forced to think differently or out of our normal capacity. As Muslim Arabs, we saw our "American or Christian" thoughts and actions portrayed in an entirely different manner. Some things do get lost in translation, or in this case, across religious views. It all boils down to ignorance of other's religions and greed. The USA clearly wants oil, and when discussing these motives, they use wrong words to describe their actions which is why the Muslim Arabs see the Americans in a negative manner.

I agree that the realization of people whether they are the consumers or the businesses who somehow are indirectly involved with slave-made product is indeed the first step. Understanding is important in this situation because many people don't think much about why one price is so much cheaper compared to another. The second step doesn't necessarily have to be a boycott or an outlaw style action step. It could be geared towards spreading awareness to chocolate companies and maybe thinking of ideas to avoid or prevent slave made products from entering our markets. But in this step, one also needs to understand capitalism and how a low price normally beats out moral values in most situations as this was also mentioned in our class discussion.
This blog post and the article in the New York Times do wonders in explaining why China is gaining ground, or even surpassing the United States of America as a world power. What is one of the most important things needed for global expansion? Communication and more specifically language. Some can argue that many Europeans, South Americans, Africans and Asians are learning to speak English at a younger age which in their minds is a way to diversify themselves and be more beneficial in the job markets. To me, language is essential and the more you know the more of an asset you could be either to a company or to your family or even in your neighborhood. Mandarin is being learned more throughout the world because China's power is growing substantially throughout the world just as the United States and Great Britain did with the English language. In the United States, Spanish is present in many elementary, grade and high schools which helps students out in college, or in regions that more Hispanics are living in. We learned previously from another blog that the birth rates for Hispanics in the United States are increasing tremendously. It is important to understand the Spanish language for means of communication, understanding culture and other reasons. China clearly has the most people in the planet, and anywhere their citizens immigrate to they will bring their language, culture and customs. It is also important to think about India here too. Their population is growing; they are also a BRIC country like China, meaning their global power in the business world is increasing as well. Regardless, as other countries are gaining power and prestige in the global arena, it is important to be able to speak their language so you can stay ahead of the curve. It really can only help if you learn more, especially at a younger age. But it's important to note that just because Americans don't know how to speak some of the many languages in India or China, does not mean they are doomed. It is simply a measure to predict the global trends of which countries have influence on others in areas like business, politics and culture.

I agree that the realization of people whether they are the consumers, or the businesses who somehow are indirectly involved with slave-made product is indeed the first step. Understanding is important in this situation because many people don't think much about why one price is so much cheaper compared to another. The second step doesn't necessarily have to be a boycott or an outlaw style action step. It could be geared towards spreading awareness to chocolate companies and maybe thinking of ideas to avoid or prevent slave made products from entering our markets. But in this step, one also needs to understand capitalism and how a low price normally beats out moral values in most situations as this was also mentioned in our class discussion.

There is no single way to win or lose in this hypothetical situation. You have to understand that the reason for the outlandish depictions that Sam creates is to show the levels of both the Black and Brown people and the White people. At different stages, people react to race issues differently, have one perception compared to another and that's what Sam is trying to point out. Understanding these differences is important because that's the first thing that we as a society can do is try to understand everyone else and where conflicts arise from and why there are disagreements. It's not a competition, nobody wins or loses but those with the most knowledge and understanding of the stages of people involving race and ethnicity are certainly at an advantage.

Cutting off welfare from those in need would probably have adverse effects. It would limit the potential for improvement of those who are in need. The results would cause more problems in the long run since the resources would either be nonexistent or severely limited. I think you are looking at welfare from the wrong perspective. Those who are on welfare or get food stamps or some other assistance like that, aren't on it because they want to, it's more of a means for survival and a way to support a family. Because of that welfare is needed to change the cycle so the next generation of those on welfare learn how to live a "normal" life without assistance. Although there are cases where people are lazy and are taking advantage of welfare for the wrong reasons.

I like this guy's question mainly because I can understand where he is coming from as I have wondered about similar issues myself. First of all, I don't think affirmative action will impact the quality of a job done whether it's in law or medicine. Affirmative Action is simply a means to level the playing field in order to represent an underrepresented minority. That doesn't mean a person who may have benefited from Affirmative Action necessarily will get a job if his or her skills are not up to par. It just means they are getting their foot in the door to meet the requirements for whatever profession they choose to pursue. Just because someone benefiting from Affirmative Action may have lower test scores or a lower GPA does not mean they aren't fit for their prospective job. The degree is the important part, and like Sam said "C's earn degrees." I believe nepotism is a true problem in these types of situations however. I am a business major and this is evident through out the year around job fair time and when internships are being discussed. Of course those who are more well off are going to have more connections through which they might be able to get a job over someone more deserving. This not only limits the people who are just as qualified as the person with more connections but it also limits the applicants for the same position. I understand that in business there is a general theory that "it is not what you know but who you know" and this is a problem. It is creating another gap or bridge in the job market, separating those with connections from those without. But it is also good to know that hard work and determination along with personal skills will typically be the recipe for a job. Whether or not it's a job that is your ideal choice or not is a different story because who knows, someone could get a job that they don't deserve because of who they know, then again one can get a job out of pure merit. The good thing about this is that those who may end up getting a job over someone more deserving could either perform well or under perform which could cause for their firing or removal from that position. And normally with getting raises, benefits, and promotions, they are not from who you know but from how you are in the work place based on efficiency, work ethic and results. That is of course if there is corruption which is a radical viewpoint. Nepotism is also a way for people to get their foot in the door though because if they cannot handle the position, they will be replaced unless the company is corrupt like i mentioned before.

After watching this video, reading through some of the previous comments and taking into account what Sam mentioned in class in the past few weeks, it is clear that there is a problem with how people label themselves. Right now for the United States of America, it is more important to understand the racial and ethnic makeup of the population than to aggravate people based off of their word choice on the census form. As it was mentioned in the video clip, the United States of America is a cultural melting pot with many races and different ethnic backgrounds. So labeling people could cause a problem or two. It is wrong to leave people out in this census, even if other are offended that some couple thousand or more people still refer to themselves as Negro. The main point is to accurately measure the population, not to cause a stir over the labeling process or word choice. It becomes more difficult with people who have a mixed background, as well as those who are Hispanic but do not tie their roots back to Spain. I was also curious about the definition of African American. In class we learned it as those who can trace their roots back to slavery in the US. But from this clip, it seems that the general population interprets it as, being black and born in the United States (like the man who claimed he was African American even though his parents were both from Honduras. Another example would be a black person from Brazil who could trace their roots to Brazilian slavery. If they moved to the USA, how would they categorize themselves? Black Hispanic? Or if they were born in the USA but their parents moved from Brazil and could also tie their roots to slavery in Brazil, would they be considered African American Hispanics? As our country is becoming more and more diverse, it is important to educate people how to identify themselves. There's nothing wrong with not knowing how to label another because who knows where they can tie their ancestry to, some to Asia, some to Native Americans, some to slavery and some to Spain. It is important to understand this in order to gauge the information for future censuses. I'm unsure if there is a clear answer to this because one shouldn't feel obligated to check a box to describe themselves, but there should be an easier way to describe your race and your heritage. I would suggest something that would show where the individual was born/where they live now, and where their parents and grandparents were born/where they lived most recently. That's probably not the best idea because it doesn't count for those who are adopted but it is a decent way to understand race and ethnicity better because some people may be left out if a box doesn't really apply to them.

This article and blog post by Sam didn't really spark much concern in my mind for a few reasons. The fact that even with the number of white births teetering around the 50% line does not mean that white people are becoming obsolete. Even if minorities' births break the 50% threshold, it does not make me worry because the white population will still be the majority. When compared to all other ethnic categories, yes, white people will be in the minority. Until 2050 or the predicted year happens when being white is the minority compared to being Hispanic or black etc. there is not much to worry about. We are in a global world and as a society we are becoming better educated and better prepared to face adversity. In other words, this didn't really bother me at all.