South Park has been the center of controversy for years. It is in its nature. In fact, I’m quite sure that the reason South Park was created was to bring up social and political issues, and poke fun of them. Being a fan of South Park, I think the show has a cleverness to it that many people miss when they watch it. Most people don’t see past some of the vulgarity or crudeness that is usually included in each episode. When you really sit down and watch South Park, it hits a lot of current issues in our world today in a hilariously satirical way. Yes, it pushes buttons, but I think it’s supposed to.

What I think is ironic is that the death threats against Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the creators of South Park) are the type of thing that the episode was exactly about. The two part episode brought back every celebrity or political figure that South Park has ever made fun of. During the episode, Tom Cruise and the other celebrities that have been the center of ridicule in the town of South Park want to harness Muhammad’s “special power” of not being able to be made fun of. Tom Cruise noted that Muhammad was the only person on this earth that was not able to be made fun of. When he found this out, he tried to harness that same power that Muhammad has. Clearly, Tom’s plan did not work when someone made fun of Tom Cruise and his “immunity” wore off. What the creators were saying with this episode is that no one can make fun of Muhammad, or everyone will flip out. And they did. The death threats against the creators are the exact thing that they were making fun of in the first place. They were making fun of those that actually take these things seriously and get offended.

I think the thing that is terrible is that Trey and Matt’s lives are in real danger. Recently an Islamic militant killed Theo Van Gogh, a Dutch filmmaker. Many reporters are comparing Trey and Matt to Theo, saying that they should have security around them at all times. Personally, I think it is a shame that an episode of a cartoon show could lead to something this ridiculous. South Park pokes fun at everyone and everything, and people that get offended really need to lighten up. If you think the show is offensive, don’t watch it. It’s as simple as that. South Park is constantly making fun of Catholics, Mormons, Jews, and every religion under the sun. Islam is actually the religion that the South Park guys make fun of the least. Why should Islam be exempt from the constant ridicule? If you watch South Park, you expect them to be offensive and that’s what makes the show great.

I think that question is really interesting because I feel like there would be a lot of different answers amongst guys. For the most part, I think that guys would say that they don’t think that they have to conform to the social norms of today’s society, but in reality I think that they conform without realizing it. I guess since I am a girl I can’t really say this for sure, but this is my guess. Clearly, there is a stereotype for guys to like sports and be athletic and manly and not too sensitive and the list goes on and on. For most guys, I think they are naturally just like that. They never had problems fitting in because they liked sports or they had something in common with all the other guys. I think that guys that are gay or guys that are metro or guys that just aren’t into sports probably had a really hard time. A lot of guys never really noticed the pressure to be that way because they felt like they were always like that. But what I think is funny is that a lot of dads try and get their sons to be into “boy things” from a very early age. Lots of dads wouldn’t want their sons playing with dolls and they always take them to the ball game or take them hunting or any other types of “manly” things. When you are brought up in a certain way, you are most likely going to act that way as you grow older. A boy with a dad that loves sports is most likely going to love sports, too because of the dads influence. So, in a way, boys most likely did feel society’s pressure at some point in their lives even if it was really early on.

In some ways, guys have it a little worse than girls. For girls, you can be girly, or you can be a tomboy. But if a guy has any “feminine” qualities, he’s gay or weird. We talked about this in my section today… if a guy does something that a girl usually does (like cry or be too sensitive) then he is considered weird. But a girl can be not very sensitive and never cry and it’s not really a big deal. I also feel like guys are really pressured to have sex. A guy is cool if he gets a lot of girls. If a guy isn’t really that big of a lady’s man or if he just doesn’t want to have sex until he is married, he might be considered weird or gay. And I think his friends probably rip on him for it. If a girl is a virgin for a long time, her friends won’t ridicule her for it (for the most part). So I think that in a lot of ways girls have to conform to certain things, but I definitely don’t think guys are free from that same pressure.

Watching this video actually made me want to puke. I find it completely appalling that someone can actually think of something like this and put it on the market. Not only that... I cannot believe that people actually want to play this – especially women. I really cannot understand how that British woman can find the video game acceptable and not at all offensive. Rape is one of the most despicable things someone can do. What is next? Games where you are a slave owner and you have to whip all your slaves into shape so that they obey your every command? I realize that there are many “shoot em up” games out there where people are carrying guns and shooting people… but as far as I know most of them do not involve shooting innocent people. Usually when you are playing a video game like Call of Duty or Halo, you are shooting at people that are trying to shoot at you as well. They are war games where, yes, you have to kill people, but you are doing it for self-defense. Though these games are probably not the best thing for society, I think there is a huge difference between killing someone that is out to kill you as well, and raping an innocent teenage girl in the subway. It makes me absolutely sick.

I understand that Asian countries have very different views of women, but I really cannot say that this is okay just because of cultural differences. There is no way that this can be okay in my eyes. Yes, in some Asian countries, women are subservient and are not treated the same way as men, but I really think that this is taking things too far. This cultural difference reminded me of Disposable People when he was talking about Thailand. What he was saying about Thai Buddhism and views of women according to their religion made me sick. I feel terrible for the women that have to endure such treatment and think that they deserve it just because they are a woman. It breaks my heart. I feel like this video game is doing the same thing. If young boys are playing this game in Asian countries where women are already not as respected as men, what hope is there for women to become equal? I think this video game is much more than just people getting pleasure from torturing women. I think it is a terribly scary representation of the world we live in today. It really is just sad that people can find enjoyment from twisted sexual torture.

I realize that many people can make the argument that video games where people shoot others is terrible for society. And for the most part I agree. Maybe it seems stupid or hypocritical, but I think this new raping video game is much worse than those where you carry around a gun to shoot your enemies. All in all, violent video games are not good, but I think this one takes it over the line.

As a white person, I can’t really say much about how I would feel about the L.L. Bean photos, but I definitely know a few black people that have made comments on photos like that not being very real looking. Sure, there are definitely black people that dress that way… but like Sam said, those people are ones that fit in with the majority of society (or white society). It is almost the same thing as what we talked about with black people straightening their hair. Their hair is naturally kinked, but they try to conform with white culture and straighten their hair and follow along with the white outlook on beauty. I think that is what Sam was trying to say with the L.L. Bean catalog. There are many black people (probably those in the immersion stage) that would say that those black people that dress like the ones in the L.L. Bean catalog are “selling out” to white culture and not embracing their real heritage.

Also, I think that Sam was completely right about Jesse Jackson. I don’t think Sam was trying to say that Jesse Jackson isn’t a good person because he only reached out to black people. I think Sam really meant that Jesse Jackson is doing great things, and he is even reaching out towards other cultures, but in the end, he wants to help black people the most. I don’t think there is anything wrong with reaching out to people of your own culture (after all, you probably feel the most towards them). I think the point Sam was trying to make was that Jesse Jackson is doing great things, but he is not quite at the Humanitarian stage yet. It is perfectly human to want to help your own people, but once you get to the humanitarian stage, it’s all about the entire human race and not just your own.

In response to the question, “How can we win?” I would say we can win by all making it to the humanitarian stage. Ultimately, I think that would be the goal of the entire race relations issue. If everyone were at the humanitarian stage, then the whole race issue would almost be non-existent. Clearly though, this is a very large goal that will probably not be met any time soon. I think the point of this class is just to get us thinking about race and talking about it. Because without talking about it, no one would ever move through the stages and become better people for it. Clearly not everyone will make it to the humanitarian stage like Sam said, but I think just talking about things and getting them out in the open will make for a better society and better people.

Personally, I thought that everything Sam mentioned about “bleeding” was very interesting. It was something that I never really thought about before. Of course, being a girl, I’ve thought about my period (and I have to think about it constantly when I take my birth control pill every single day), but I never really thought about it being unfair that women can’t talk about it. I guess I always thought of it being just one of those things that are inappropriate to talk about. But then again, what isn’t? Especially now that everything has to be so politically correct. Almost the only thing you can talk about in public is the weather. But I always just put “bleeding” in a category with going to the bathroom. Nobody really talks about urinating or “the other one” either because it isn’t polite. But all of those things are natural. Everyone does them. When did peeing become something that is rude to talk about? It’s just as normal as eating or drinking. I guess I always thought it was kind of dumb that we can’t talk about those things, but that’s just the way it is. And I put periods in that same category.

Now that Sam mentions it though, I think it is really interesting that women are actually embarrassed about bleeding every month. Most women aren’t about to announce that they are on their period. My friends and I talk about it all the time… unless there is a guy around. Because they don’t want to hear about it. I never thought anything of it, though. Why would they want to hear about it… it’s really quite gross when you think about it. But then again… guys talk about pooping all the time when they’re just with each other. Even girls sometimes do, too. But if you notice, girls won’t talk about pooping in front of guys. Not to be too feministic or anything, but I think that sucks. My boyfriend always jokes around and says, “Girls don’t poop.” Where did that mentality come from? Clearly both men and women have always gone to the bathroom. Both number 1 and number 2. Why is it that some guys can’t wrap their heads around the fact that girls do it, too? I don’t mean to attack all guys… I just think it’s pretty interesting.

I think the fact that guys don’t like to talk about periods makes a lot more sense than guys not wanting to hear about girls pooping. I can understand their ignorance. It’s sort of like white people that are unaware of race issues. They don’t experience it, so they don’t understand it, and they’d rather not talk about it. So I agree with Sam. I don’t think that women should be silenced about it, but I don’t really blame the guys for not understanding. The whole “girls don’t poop” thing though…. Like really? Come on, guys. We all poop.

Reading this article, I found myself quite shocked at some of the actions taken at this school, but then I realized that I probably shouldn’t be shocked at all. Even if I myself (and the community around me for the most part) are generally okay with same sex couples, that doesn’t mean that everyone else is so tolerant. Things like this just plain should not be happening, but the reality of our world today is that these happenings will be occurring for years to come. I really think it is a shame that things like this actually still go on. Of course there will always be religious groups and anti-gay groups that rally against homosexuality, but I think it is terrible that school boards and other public figureheads are still not treating homosexuals fairly on an official stance.

It is one thing for some students to be shocked and uncomfortable with a gay couple publicly displaying their “gayness”, but for an entire school board to actually make it a rule that there are no same sex dates, it is a whole other story. I would really like to know the reasoning behind the school boards decisions. If their only answer is because it could make other students feel uncomfortable, then that is total BS. I’m not sure about everyone else (but I think for the most part I’m right), but at my prom, people were grinding all over each other and there were some making out in the middle of the dance floor. So shouldn’t these people not be allowed to attend prom if they are making people feel uncomfortable? “The school board said that it would not host the event due to ‘distractions to the educational process’”, says the article. Now, I’m no genius, but I’m pretty sure that prom is not really educational at all in the first place. Sure it is sponsored through the school, but I think that prom in itself IS a distraction to the educational process. People talk about prom in school for months before the actual event while they should be paying attention to their studies. And what exactly about prom is educational? Is it the part where you eat a nice dinner or the part where you dance all night? Or maybe it’s the part where you have fun without talking about schoolwork at all? If you ask me, the “distractions to the educational process” is the dumbest excuse I’ve ever heard. If you don’t want to let a lesbian couple come to prom, at least have a valid excuse for it.

This whole thing really is a shame. To be honest I think it is sort of weird that for most schools, tickets are bought in a set of two. Someone who wanted to go alone at my school wasn’t allowed to buy just one ticket. I know two girls at my school that aren’t homosexual at all that had to go to prom with one another because they didn’t have a date but they still wanted to go to prom. I really just don’t see why people can’t go solo or go with their same-sex partner. Why do other people care? It just doesn’t make much sense to me at all, and it is a shame that school boards can put these kinds of rules into place.

This is an interesting question. Having been to theme parties, I personally think that they are lots of fun. It’s almost like a second Halloween celebration. Whether it is a Jersey Shore, 80s, or CEOs and Office Hoes theme, my friends and I always have a good time when we get to dress up. But I guess I never really thought about how racist some of the parties can be until my discussion group today.

Our TAs brought up a party that a few frats were throwing at a school in San Francisco. The party was called “Compton Cookout”, and the invitation was actually quite shocking. They poked fun at Black History Month by saying that in order to celebrate the occasion, they were throwing a cookout with fried chicken, watermelon, etc. where everyone would dress “black”. They gave a description of things to wear like baggy pants, XXXL shirts, chains, and hats for guys, and cheap, Baby Phat clothing for girls. People at the party were all white, but some of them painted their skin black. Now, I’ve heard of going to “ghetto” parties or “Bloods vs Crips” parties before that haven’t said anything about acting “black” persay… they just said to dress ghetto or wear red or blue. This Compton Cookout party has clearly crossed the line. Actually saying that this was a black party and acting out all the negative stereotypes associated with black people today is appalling. It is such a harsh generalization of the entire black community, and it wasn’t fair at all.

Some people in my discussion group were bringing up other theme parties that may be offensive. Someone mentioned that Italians might be offended by Jersey Shore parties where everyone dresses and acts like the people on the television show, Jersey Shore. While I’m sure there are some that are offended, I really think that this party is so much different than the Compton Cookout party. First of all, Jersey Shore parties make fun of the specific people on the show. People dress up as the characters and quote them and act like them. It is clear that people at Jersey Shore parties aren’t making fun of Italians in general; they are making fun of the self-proclaimed “guidos” on the show. Those people choose to act, dress, and talk that way, but black people cannot take off their skin. The severity of the problem with the Compton Cookout party is totally different than that of Jersey Shore parties.

For the most part, I think theme parties are harmless. It is only when people are calling out an entire race and making fun of the negative stereotypes that are associated with them that there is a problem. The generalizations of that party are much more extreme than other parties that I’ve gone to. Most of them are just themes so that people can dress up and have a good time dressing in a fun and outrageous way.

I don’t know about any other white people, but I was sort of insulted when he said that he thought a white person would think that he is a thug or a rapper or an athlete or some other stereotype linked with black people. I’m sure there are white people that do, but I personally do not think that way. I like to think that I don’t judge people solely on the color of their skin. If were to judge him just by looking at him, I would not assume that he is a thug. If asked to make an assessment after a few seconds, instead of looking at skin color, I focus more on how a person is dressed and the way they speak. His clothes are not “thuggish” so to speak. If he were wearing his pants down below his knees with backwards hat and a chain, then I might assume that he is the thug type. However, he is wearing pretty nice jeans with a decent shirt. When I look at him, I would just assume he is a middle to upper middle class kid at Penn State. At the same time, I wonder what black people would have to say about me. If they looked at me what would they think? Would they think I am just another rich white girl? When in reality I’m not very wealthy. Would they look at the color of my skin or the way I am dressed and the way I speak? I’m pretty curious as to what stereotypes they would attach to me. I’m sure some would label me with stereotypes, but I know that not all black people would think that way.

This is the sort of thing that bothers me about people that assume what other people think. He assumes that all white people think that black people look like thugs, when in reality, people are not judging you on the color of your skin, they are judging you on your entire appearance. This is the type of thing that we need to take responsibility for. If you wear clothes that make you look like a thug and if you speak like a thug, then you have to assume that people are going to think that you might actually be a thug. If I wear clothes that portray me in some sort of way, I can’t really blame others for making a mere observation. But you cannot just say that people are wrongly judging you because of the color of your skin. If I saw a white person wearing thug-like clothing, I wouldn’t think that they are any less than a thug than a black person dressed the same way. I really do not think that I judge people on the color of their skin alone. In all reality, it is so much more about what you are wearing and the way you speak. I’m sure that black people judge white people just as much as white people judge black people, and it’s kind of insulting when someone thinks that I would think a certain way about them, when in reality I’m thinking something completely different. This is the root of the whole problem... no one should assume anything about a person because of the color of their skin.

I see where he is coming from by saying that marriage was a religious institution here in the United States and that we shouldn’t continue to break it even more so than it has been broken. However, I disagree. First of all, marriage was a religious institution. This is very true, but we aren’t talking about being married in a religious way. If you want to be married in a religious way, that is completely up to the church that is or is not marrying you. The constitution says that there is a separation of church and state. This means that if you are legally married, it means nothing in a religious way. If you are married by a priest or minister or some figurehead of religion, then it is a religious marriage. If you go to city hall and are married by a judge, it has nothing to do with religion. For example, my parents were married in a church by a priest and they had a marriage license. They were married religiously and through the state. Now, they are divorced according to the state. However, according to the church, they are still married. My parents never got an annulment.

This is why I don’t agree with the statement made. We can no longer use the excuse of religion when talking about something being legal or illegal. Religion has nothing to do with the law. Period. That’s why so many people get married that don’t have a religious bone in their bodies. It is perfectly fine for people to be married by the state without having any type of religious affiliation whatsoever.

Also, what he was saying about “breaking down marriage further” is rather offensive. Who is to say that two men couldn’t have a much better marriage than a man and a woman. I don’t exactly have the facts to back this up, but I would bet that in some cases the two men or two women that are married would be less likely to end up divorced than the man and woman. The fact is that marriage is already taken less seriously than it was in the past. The rates of divorce are ever increasing. People are getting married on a whim happens more and more often each year. It happens, and there isn’t much we can do about it. So I agree that we should try to fix the problems of people getting married when they’re drunk in Vegas or other stupid reasons to get married; I just don’t see a way that we could ever even begin to regulate that. People are going to continue to get divorced and weaken the institution of marriage. Even if we tried to fix that problem, I don’t think that it will happen any time in the future.

I really enjoyed Sam's lecture the other day for a few reasons. First of all, I think he was saying some things that I've always sort of thought, but not on the same level as he said. I've always been in the middle when it comes to the political scene, and I was glad to hear Sam say that the only way to be intellectual was to be in the middle. A lot of people feel very strongly about their political views and often think that someone in the middle is only in the middle because they can't make up their mind. This may be true for some, but in my case, I truly believe that the only thing that's right is right in the middle. Everything Sam said is true. People to the far left need to understand that the government cannot help everyone and make everyone equal simply because we are all Americans. Its a simple (however sad) truth that some people will just be dealt a bad hand. And in a lot of cases, the government will not be able to do much to help that certain person. On the other hand, people to the far right need to realize that, while people always have choices, there are not always fair opportunities for people. Just because someone was born into unfortunate situations and hasn't ended up where they want to be, does not mean that they are lazy and don't deserve a fair shot. Someone who was born into a bad community and a had less than mediocre education, may have had to work even harder than someone who was given the opportunity to succeed right from birth.

When Sam showed the Oprah video about the kids swapping schools, I was astounded. I felt absolutely terrible for the kids that had to go to a school that was so sub-par. How is anyone that went to that school going to be able to advance in life? From elementary school, teachers did not expect much from the kids, and so the curriculum was dumbed-down. Therefore, every single student was short-handed. What happens when they get to college, or even if they get to college? They won't be half as prepared as the students from the good school, and will be far more likely to fail. It really is a shame that public schools are so different in their curriculum, short-handing so many students that may have had the potential to do great things.

But when we look at outside factors that shape choices of these kids, we do have to take into account free will. A lot of the kids in the bad school will just give up. Although they were not given great opportunities, they have some slight chance to do well. If they really try and they work hard, they could probably get into college. But once they got there, they would have to study twice as hard as someone who has a good foundation in their education. They will probably have to get a job to pay for school, while someone whose parents are paying for school won't have to. Although they are not at the same starting line, they could end up at the same finish line with the right choices.

When you look at things this way, you have to think that peoples choices have almost everything to do with what was given to them. This is why being in the middle (politically) is the only thing that makes sense.