Every time Sam or Laurie says something about the “lifers” they know, I always wonder about what kinds of things they talk about with them. It is literally impossible to fathom (for me at least) the idea of being in a place, in jail, and never being able to leave for the rest of my life. It is true that there is a negative connotation along with “lifers,” which in some respects makes sense because of course they did do something as terrible as committing murder, but it is so so interesting to get the other side of this by reading this inmate’s letter. It was an incredible eye-opening experience reading what this man had to say about compassion, and how it exists, and in full force, inside the walls of a prison that holds behind its walls the men we are all quick to stereotype. His letter speaks so much to the idea of humanity, which is what I think he’s trying to convene to us as his readers. Humanity runs deeper than the surface of who someone might seem to be, whether they are a murderer or a regular, average person walking down the street. It is indescribably heartwarming to read that story about the one man consoling the other because it truly demonstrates the person to person connection that exists on a deeper level between two human beings. I re-read this letter several times, because the insight that this man, who Sam wrote has never completed high school, has, and the intelligence and eloquence with which he wrote, was astounding to me. But I started to wonder, how unique of a case is he? Does he fit the mold of the average “lifer,” or is he instead the exception? And I also found myself wondering how his crime occurred and in what circumstance he killed another human being. And if he is sorry, and feels regret, or if he has simply accepted his fate. The complexity of this man was almost too much for me to fathom, and if I were ever face to face with him I am not sure I could stop myself from asking a million questions. This letter also made me feel a bit of sadness, because the stereotype of prisoners and just of prison in general is so opposite of what this man’s letter conveyed. All the movies and television shows I have seen portray prisoners as evil and cruel murderers who, if given the chance, would repeat their past offenses, but this man’s heartfelt letter paints the complete opposite picture. I wish that more people could read this and realize that not all people in prison are of the caliber that they are stereotyped to be.

I had mixed feelings after leaving this lecture. I mean, I get where Sam is coming from, I get what he is trying to do, but at the same time I didn’t really think it worked… at least not for me. I think in a class of over seven hundred people, it is nearly impossible to do the kind of simulation Sam was trying to do to make us all pretend we were Iraqi college students. I know for me personally, I really tried to get involved and invested in what he was saying, but I really didn’t find myself that convinced. I just feel sometimes like Sam has an agenda, and even though he says it time and time again that he’s not biased or not trying to shove any viewpoint down our throats, I kind of feel like he is. I would classify myself as a pretty liberal-minded person on pretty much all issues, so you’d think that I would positively respond to Sam’s lecture. But instead I found myself getting irritated that Sam really didn’t talk about September 11th, 2001. He was talking about the “Christian Invasion,” of Iraq, but even if oil was the reason, which I’m not denying it was, that we invaded Iraq, we had to respond somehow. Our country was brutally attacked and we responded. I couldn’t stand George W. Bush as our President and I in no way even supported his decisions, but I really found it irritating that Sam didn’t mention the role of 9/11 in his “Christina Invasion” lecture whatsoever. That being said, I found some of the things that Sam said interesting and really eye-opening. It was difficult for me to watch that video of the United States soldiers shooting and running over the car of the helpless Iraqis sitting on the side of the road. It literally looked like the soldiers were bullies, they were bored, and they wanted something to entertain them form their daily rounds. It was hard to watch and disgusting to watch. Yet like Sam said, this doesn’t mean that this is how all U.S. soldiers are, it clearly isn’t, my cousin is overseas at this moment and he is one of the most kind-hearted people I’ve ever met. But it’s what they, the Iraqi people, see, this cruelty, and that is so sad, and even more than sad it is dangerous. It’s eye-opening, most of the stuff Sam tells us about. But I really wonder how many people actually DO anything about what they see. It’s terrifying, upsetting stuff, to see the hatred between our two nations and our two polar opposite cultures. Yet, how many of the 700 plus students in this class are actually going to go out and make a difference about this? How many of us leave class and are still talking about it? I feel like this after many of Sam’s lectures. I want to be able to do something but… then I just get consumed with the everyday things on my to do list.

I mean, I think that if you say nothing Sam has said all semester has made ANY difference, well in my opinion that’s kind of ridiculous. Sam has given us so much statistical and fact-based information, as well as things that are based on his own experiences and own opinions, that have been incredibly eye-opening. We all have a general idea of the inequalities between the different races in our country, but Sam provides actual facts and actual examples to back up these inequalities. The person who asked this question is a white male attending Penn State, so saying that nothing Sam has said all semester has made a difference is in a sense like saying you don’t care because you are well off and the trials and tribulations of people of color and people who don’t have the money to attend college don’t matter to you in the least. I wouldn’t say necessarily that my opinions have been changed, because at the start of this class I have always been someone who tries not to get stuck in the comfort of being a white member of a middle-class family, and to try to see the struggles and the inequalities many people face every day. My opinions thus have in a sense been reaffirmed, and the inclinations I’ve had about racial discrimination and racial inequalities have, if anything, been strengthened and I’ve learned even more than I already knew. Sure, sometimes the lectures can get long-winded, but what teacher doesn’t go off on tangents? One particular thing that Sam showed us was the video of the two young blonde girls who were in the singing group called “Prussian Blue,” and how at first they seem to be these sweet little children and then as the video progresses you learn that they are members of a White Supremacist family and their songs are all about hating everyone who isn’t a White Protestant. This made a HUGE difference to me, because of how young these girls are and already how much hatred has been ingrained in them—hatred based solely on the color of another person’s skin. How can this person say they haven’t learned anything, when right there they are seeing a real-life example of the hatred being brewed and being fueled in our country—a country that supposedly prides itself on the freedom and equality of all. Even on the lecture about affirmative action and nepotism, I learned more about what both terms actually mean, and that affirmative action actually benefits more women than it does for people of color. If all people in the United States were exposed to this fact then the whole connotation that goes along with affirmative action about being angry at people of color for “taking” white jobs, could be at least somewhat cured and maybe some of the inequalities would lessen. All in all, I have definitely learned a lot in this class thus far and my opinions have either been changed, as in the case with affirmative action, or strengthened as in the case of the severe inequalities that still do exist today in America.

Just because someone is hired because of affirmative action does not automatically mean they are under qualified for the position. White people especially get so hot and bothered about minorities getting jobs over them and in many cases pull the "affirmative action" card...when in reality there's a great chance that person was just more qualified, had a better interview, stronger resume, etc. Affirmative action doesn't give jobs to people who are black or brown just because of their skin tone, it helps those people who have what it takes, who have probably worked harder than their white counterpart, get a job that they might not have gotten otherwise because of their background and how they grew up. In terms of this question, and jobs allocated to people in hospitals, I mean really? Is that a serious question? I think the real question that needs to be asked is not about people who get jobs because of affirmative action, but instead about people in hospitals/the medical profession who get jobs because of who they know. It is much scarier, in my opinion, to think about a doctor who was taking care of me or someone i am close to who got their job because their uncle worked at the hospital and they were much less qualified than, for example, someone of color. Affirmative action is by no means a perfect system, it has a tendency to be unfair and has numerous flaws, but my question is, what else can we do? There is no perfect system, and for the time being affirmative action does what it can to help those people who are not born with a head start like most of us at Penn State have been. Also, as we learned in class, it isn't even people of color who benefit the most from affirmative action, it's women. So, this question about having unqualified people of color working in our hospitals, if you really believe that this is true then wouldn't we have to question every female working in a hospital? Maybe they all got their jobs based on something other than their abilities?? No, this would be an absurd assumption to make, and that's why I was annoyed at this question. I mean seriously, affirmative action isn't about givings jobs to unqualified people, it's about trying to make sure those people of color who have what it takes but weren't born with the step up that most of us were born with, can have an equal opportunity of landing a job as the white person sitting next to them. Until we can come up with something better, something more efficient, I think the idea of affirmative action is good and is completely necessary. We need it in order to help those people trying to rise from the bottom up.

Well first of all, if women talked about it more then maybe men would know more about it… but to be honest my first choice for a topic of conversation with my guy friends would just not be about whether or not I’m bleeding at the time. Why do men need to know about it in the first place? It doesn’t affect them either way, their knowledge of the subject or lack thereof doesn’t make women bleed more or less often (excuse the graphic nature of that sentence). I mean seriously, men just really do not want to know about women’s menstrual cycles. I live in a house with seven girls, and we don’t go around discussing our periods for fun. Sure, it is definitely a much more accepted conversation amongst only girls rather than if boys are in the mix, and honestly I completely understand that. Men aren’t educated because one, they do not want to be, and two, because they simply do not need to be. Personally, as a girl, there was no way I was going to raise my hand in class when Sam asked what girls were “bleeding” at the time, even if I had been. I’m not an awkward person, I don’t get uncomfortable that easily, and I wasn’t all that uncomfortable when Sam was doing his period speech, but I just found it pretty much unnecessary. It has absolutely nothing to do with “Race and Ethnic Relations,” and I understand the idea of shock value to grab the class’s attention, but nonetheless I really found it strange and unnecessary for lack of a better word. And as for the comment in the video post about men talking about it more then it would not be as weird, I would have to disagree. As a general rule, (and I know there are exceptions but for the majority), men hate talking about women’s periods! It grosses them out, it is a taboo of sorts when it comes up in conversation. And I really can’t say I blame them. Talking about it more would just make more men feel more uncomfortable, and I really don’t think that one conversation versus twenty concerning the menstrual cycle of their female counterparts would make a man more comfortable with the subject of a female’s monthly “bleeding” (as Sam likes to call it). As for the “free tampons” comment, I’m not sure if that was a joke or meant seriously, but I’ll answer it nonetheless. No, there wouldn’t be free tampons if men needed them too. Men and women have a majority of the same needs, like food, shelter, water, shampoo, toothpaste, etc, and none of these things are even remotely free. Basically, I just found the period conversation a little bit annoying, for lack of a better word, and I’m a female, so I can’t even imagine what the males in the class were feeling. I was sitting with my friend, who is a guy, and he was completely disgusted and I really couldn’t blame him.

To be honest, the first reaction I had to reading this news story was, “can they really do that?” I was unaware that schools even had the power or the authority to make such a rash decision as forbidding a female student to wear a tuxedo and attend with her significant other that just happens to be another female as well. It brings up the whole notion that we, in Pennsylvania, especially those of us who have lived here our whole lives, are incredibly sheltered relative to schools in small towns in the south, such as the town in Mississippi that this article talks about. If this kind of ban happened in any school in Pennsylvania, or any northern state for that matter, I would be confident in saying that if a school even attempted to pull something like this, there would be an uproar of a much higher proportion than the one being written about. The most absurd part to me was the fact that the school said she was not allowed to wear a tuxedo. I mean, doesn’t this violate the entire freedom of expression portion of the Bill of Rights? How can a school tell a student she can not wear a tuxedo, and blatantly not even try to hide that the reason is because she is a lesbian? I realize that many schools do not allow students to wear skimpy outfits or shorts that are too short, but this is for practical reasons because of an inappropriate nature—and even these restrictions seem irritating to me. But how can a school tell one of their students she is not allowed to wear something because of the nature of her sexual orientation. It is so infuriating. Just when I thought that America was making some sort of progress towards rights for LGBTs, this kind of situation arises. It is disheartening and disappointing and it just really shows how long and how far our country really does need to come. Granted, we have come a long way in rights for LGBTs, and for minorities, in our country, but this type of small situation that probably happens much more frequently than we all even realize just shows how far we still need to go in order to reach actual equality for all people—a goal that at this point seems almost impossible and unattainable. Hopefully the ACLU can help this young girl to get her story out and to make people aware of the inequality and the discrimination that exists in this high school in Mississippi. As I said before, if something like this had happened in a Pennsylvania school, for example my high school that I went to, there would be an uproar and the Prom would never have been banned. The story would be at least state wide and there would be a huge fuss caused. It just shows the differences that still clearly exist between the North and the South in our seemingly not-united country.

When I first watched this video post, I thought to myself that it is a legitimate point to make—and it is—but then I started thinking more about it and there are other ways to look at this. First of all, we all know that to be “politically correct” there are television ads, magazine ads, etc. that include people of color in relative proportion to white people because of the upcoming cultural need to represent all races and all people. And I agree, there should be a representation of all people because our country, and our world, is incredibly diverse, beyond which what many of us realize. However, for something like the Bachelor (or the Bachelorette), let’s be honest, it’s reality TV so it’s already pretty fake and probably scripted (although I like to tell myself it’s real life). So, if ABC producers etc. chose to include people of color solely on the fact to meet some sort of quota or on the basis of political correctness, well this would just further the inauthentic nature of the show. In general, the percentage of interracial marriages is low in the United States, and this can be for a number of reasons. We talked about in class on LGBT day the idea of “sexual attraction” and “attraction” in general. Many times, this idea of “attraction” has a face, and many times that face has a color, or a race. People often have a “type” of person they are attracted to, whether that be blonde, brunette, red head, white, black, Asian, Native American, blue eyes, green eyes, etc. So, it could simply be the case that before the show the ABC producers sit down with the up and coming Bachelor or Bachelorette and ask them to describe their “perfect” match. Remember, for those of you who don’t watch the program, (and I have to admit I am an at-times addicted viewer), the ultimate goal of the experience is a culmination in marriage. So, using this season of the Bachelor as an example, let’s just assume that Jake (the most recent Bachelor) said that he is mostly attracted to white women with lighter colored hair. Well, that could first of all explain the lack of women of color in the pool of bachelorettes, and then could additionally explain why three out of the remaining four women had light colored hair and why the eventual winter had blonde hair. Other people in their responses brought up legitimate points about other reality television shows such as For the Love of Ray Jay, Flavor Flave, I Love New York, and Tila Tequila. All of these shows are centered on people of color, and while there is the occasional white participant in the pool of people “looking for love,” the majority of “contestants,” for lack of a better word, are of the same race/color of the person the show is centered around. In terms of the question that heads this video post, “Are whites the only people willing to humiliate themselves?,” no, they’re not. I think it matters less about what color we are and more that there are people, of all races and all backgrounds, who are willing to go on TV and make a fool of themselves, regardless of their ethnicity.

I think there are two ways to respond to this question. The first is on a general level, my thinking as to why the general public doesn’t seem to care all that much, and the second is on a person level, why I myself am guilty of forgetting the genocide committed against Native Americans and the utter poverty that most live in today. So first off, in terms of generally, the fact of the matter is that we just really aren’t confronted with it. Native Americans, due in large part to genocide and to white people pushing them off of their own land, are a very small minority in today’s society and in today’s world. We go to Penn State, a campus with over 40,000 people, and maybe I’m not looking hard enough but I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw someone who was Native American (at least to my own eyes and my own perceptions). If something doesn’t directly affect us, if we’re not confronted by it full in the face, then it’s incredibly difficult to care because we are just all guilty of simply forgetfulness. Some people, on the other hand, are from a different class all together. Some people are not only guilty of ignorance and obliviousness, but some people are fully aware and believe that it’s just “evolution,” that is the way things have happened and that there is nothing wrong with it—so these people are obviously not upset or affected because they believe it is the right state of things. On a more personal level, I sincerely wish that this problem affected me more, but I’m not sure how to make that happen. It’s hard, when I get wrapped up in the daily grind of things, of going to classes, studying for exams, going to the gym, hanging out with my roommates, or whatever, to remember how lucky I am and to realize that across this country there are many people, in this case Native Americans, living in utter poverty and struggling to get by each consecutive day. The problem is awareness. But how do we fix that? How can we make people care, make people more upset? That’s the million dollar question. In class this past week I was appalled at the facts and figures Sam gave us about the genocide and now current living conditions of Native Americans. But then I left class, and by the next day the thought had left my mind and I had forgotten. Awareness needs to be raised in order for things to change in society because we can’t expect people to want to help anyone else if they don’t even know about the problems in the first place. This class is one way to at least get people thinking. It’s a class of roughly 700 people, and out of those 700 only a handful will care enough to go further, to try to help. But that handful is a few more than there were 3 days ago—and that’s a start. In order for people to care they first have to know, and that, in my opinion, is the root of the problem.

If the society we currently live in is unwelcoming to the LGBT community, then shouldn’t we encourage adoption by gay couples? What better way to help integrate LGBTs, including gay couples, into the community by giving them the same rights as all couples, no matter their sexual orientation. The society we live in will never be welcoming if we set the example of denying gay and lesbian couples the right to adopt and provide a home for a child that otherwise would not have one. With time comes acceptance, and with time people who are opposed to gay adoption will eventually learn to accept it as part of society. Society will never reach the point of homosexuals admitting their sexual orientation without hesitation if we continue to put restraints and create rules that deny them their basic rights. Two gay men are physically unable to conceive a child, and if we deny them the right to adopt then they will be unequal to other people in our society because they will be unable to raise a child in their home simply due to the fact that they are attracted to members of the same sex. This message of inequality, of people living in our country not having the same rights as other people, will only fuel the discrimination and fuel the negative view towards homosexuals. Integration is what will fuel acceptance, not simply waiting around for society to right itself and to finally be accepting of people of all kinds. On the subject of children with gay parents being teased in school, being teased in school is pretty much inevitable. If you’re not being ridiculed because of your parents, maybe you will be because of what you wear, who you hang out with, or how you do in your classes. Some children are even teased because they only have one “mommy,” a mother who might be divorced or no longer together with the father of their child. Should we start denying women who have no man in their life the ability to adopt a child? It shouldn’t matter what sexual-orientation category the couple is who want to adopt, but rather we should focus on what kind of parents they would be. By all means, if a gay couple comes into an adoption agency and gives off an unstable, unloving vibe, then they should be carefully scrutinized for adoption. The same rules, though, should apply to a heterosexual couple. It’s about the child, the baby, toddler, or even older kid who is going to live with these people who want to adopt them. It is about finding a caring, loving home for a child who otherwise would not have one, whether their parents are gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, or something else. In my opinion, the only way society will be ready to accept gay couples adopting, is by plunging society head first into the issue itself.

Reading this, sadly I wasn’t as surprised as I wish I would have been. Surprised, yes, that a politician was dumb enough to make such a public comment associating people on welfare with animals, but surprised that this is a thought someone in our country is having? Not at all. Additionally, before knowing what political affiliation this politician is, I immediately made the assumption that he was a Republican—maybe an assumption I shouldn’t have made necessarily, but nonetheless if I’m being honest that was the first thought that entered my mind. Unfortunately, I’m fairly certain that this comparison between people on welfare and animals has occurred to many Americans, whether they have vocalized this statement or not, which is another sad thing to think about. Bauer’s comments are completely absurd. When he says, “Because they breed! You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce.” What then, does Bauer suggest? To simply let the people of this country who are on welfare to just starve? To fend for themselves which would undoubtedly fuel things such as stealing and illegal means of obtaining food and/or money? It is unfathomable to me what kind of person sees helping others as “facilitating the problem.” If Bauer is such an authority on people on welfare that he can deem them to be animals, then I would love to hear his thoughts on how to better the situation of people that are below the poverty line, especially of children. Like Sam said, children are the largest group of people on welfare. Yes, let’s blame the children who have been born into poverty for the fact that they need money and need handouts in order to survive. It’s ridiculous. However, although I find Bauer’s comments completely irrational, I can’t say I’m unhappy that he made them. If anything, it is my hope that his comments will have the reverse effect that he might originally have intended. Attention has been brought now to the subject of people on welfare, who are the farthest thing from being “animals.” So, perhaps because of Bauer’s choice of words and the uproar is has undoubtedly caused among particularly Democrats, this issue will now come into light in our national playing field. Perhaps more attention will be given to those people under the poverty line that desperately need our help, and maybe more programs will come forward in order to give them the aid they require and hopefully move more people, especially children, out of poverty. Finally, I found it incredibly hypocritical that Bauer feels that welfare recipients should submit to drug tests and attend parent-teacher conferences if they have children in school. Do we subject animals to drug tests or said parent-teacher conferences? Of course not. If Bauer intends to treat people on welfare and view them as nothing more than animals, then he needs to be consistent. If he doesn’t want to “give an animal or a person ample food supply,” if he wants to take away their basic needs, then he has no right to require other things of them in the meantime.