This is such a coincidence because we discussed this style of thinking toward education in my education theory and policy class. We discussed two theories—Functional and Conflict. The individuals who believe the same as Noam Chomsky are defined as Conflict Theorists. Conflict theorists believe that schools reproduce inequalities subconsciously (a hidden curriculum). Stratification seeps through the school and creates layers. Schools in this type of society will benefit the high status individuals as there is no social mobility. For example, a teacher would be more inclined to pick a student who is well dressed and well spoken to answer a question, giving no opportunities to the lower class students.

Just for the sake of defining the other side of the argument. Functional Theorists are individuals that support the theory that the education system prepares the students with a set of social norms to be a productive member of society including: independence, achievement, universalism, and specificity. They operate under the assumption that if everyone was socialized and became a productive member of society that the society as a whole would improve and ultimately prosper.

Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis are Conflict Theorists who support Noam Chomsky. They provide another look at the “hidden curriculum” and how it reproduces/reinforces the social inequality. They suggest that the school system promotes conformist students who submit to authority by attaching achievement and value on those students who display a submissive consciousness. Sir tired this by rewarding the students’ good behavior with a field trip. They link the traits that are learned in the classroom with the desirable traits in the work force. “Submission to authority” is a phrase identified by Bowles and Gintis to label students which encompasses various personality traits such as “consistent, identifies with school, punctual, dependable, externally motivated, and persistent.” Consciousness is defined as the “beliefs, values, self-concepts, types of solidarity and fragmentation, as well as modes of personal behavior and development” that are instilled within in person through social interaction with family and outside institutions such as the school.

Now that we all have some background on the two different viewpoints I believe that we as individuals can and need to weigh the pros and cons of each side. I personally disagree with Noam Chomsky and agree with the Functional Theorists. I mainly think this is so because I am a future teacher and I may have a bias lens toward education. I am a supporter of Functional Theory and believe that school is for socialization. As the society prospers, the schools create social cohesion. Each student obtains skills, beliefs and teachings to become a productive member of society. For instance, a student will get a great job because of their merit and hard work put forth in school and life no matter what class. I agree with functional perspectives in that there is no limit to society -- there is social mobility. Students can rise up!

I believe that this problem is just as prevalent in guys at it is in females. I feel that guys have the pressure to fit in and to be “manly.”

The need for guys to prove their "manhood" is a phenomenon that dates back to prehistoric times, when cavemen tried to be the strongest, the fastest, or the smartest. How did they do this? Taking risks, pushing around the little guy, forcing their way into positions of power … the list goes on. Examples of men acting like "real men" continue today, even though they take on a slightly different form. Many teen guys try as hard as they can to outdo one another, sometimes without even thinking about it.

They lift weights so they'll look stronger than other guys. They flaunt clothes, Jordans, cars, and other material things to show off their money and sense of style. They pick on the weaker kids to show their dominance over them. They pretend to be the most sexually experienced guys in school.

Why is this behavior so common? Why is it that males, especially teen guys, try so hard to show off? Despite many guys' claims that they're trying to impress the ladies (which, in itself, is an overly "masculine" response) many times I believe they're doing things just to impress other guys. I think the reason men do all this stuff—risk taking, driving fast, trying to impress girls, etc—is really for the approval of other men. Growing up, our fathers and brothers are the ones who put us down and call us 'sissies.' Guys learn how to be 'men' from other boys, so naturally, that's the approval they'll seek as they get older. Just like the girls in class talked about trying to impress other girls.

For example of trying to fit in and impress other guys: I feel awkward when I'm in the locker room and guys are bragging about how many girls they've slept with. Since I'm still a virgin, I often try to just slink into the corner and disappear in a sense so I don’t have to be “that kid.” It is not that I am so repulsing that no one has wanted to “do me” but it is rather a life choice I have made to refrain from sex until marriage. Yes, this is revered in the realm of religion but is often scoffed at in the world of “popular” guys.

This just exemplifies that what guys do they do for guys because most girls I know don’t find it appealing in a guy that he has this big long sex list. But it is a more “impressive” thing to have that resume of girls when conversing with other males, than it is with girls!

I see the validity of this issue but I see it as not the only issue with the census. Another debate will center on the definition of “home.” This coming census will be the largest count of the U.S. population with more immigrants and minorities than ever AND will be complicated further by the economic downturn and foreclosure crisis because many people are “doubling up” or otherwise living in temporary quarters.

The problem is that everyone has a different definition of “home.” I may have the definition of home as Leave it to Beaver where there is a father, mother, and two sons who all live under one roof and the father is in charge and the mother is the homemaker. The problem and reality of this is that most households today are not that way in the current twenty-first centenary and everyone has a different definition of “home.” Even Merriam Webster is vague and seems to be confused. Merriam Webster defines “home” as one's place of residence and the social unit formed by a family living together. Just to dig a little deeper “family” is defined as a group of individuals living under one roof and usually under one head and a group of people united by certain convictions or a common affiliation.

The census questionnaire asks for a count of all people who live and sleep in the household “most of the time,” but not those who are living away at college (such as us) or in the military or those who are living in a nursing home or who are in a jail, prison or detention facility. We and the rest of the list are counted separately from households. But we have a problem here…“Home” may have changed recently for those whose hardship leaves them little choice but to live with relatives or friends, however temporary that may be. “Home” for displaced residents of the Gulf Coast may be miles away from where they lived before the devastation that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita wrought in their communities. “Home” for some immigrants is in U.S. communities even though they are not legally residing in the United States. And “home” may be in a prison or detention center in a state far away from the inmate’s hometown residence. “Home” for us, college students, is not with our parents from late August to early May.

On the contrary, though, it is hard for the United States Government to accommodate everyone. It would be complex and practically impossible. I feel that they have to catch the majority of the nation and try to please the most amounts of people. You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can`t please all the people all of the time!

I believe it to be reverse racism. A black person can play the race card if they are insulted by a white person, but more often than not a white person gets blown off if they complain about a black person. In fact, if a white person complains that a black person called them a derogatory name, the white person still manages to be called a racist. It's really sad.
I really do not know why and have to hard evidence as to why jokes can be made about white people without it being taken offensively. Is it that the “white people haven’t suffered nearly enough? I personally believe that everyone at EVERY point in history EVERY religious group, race, gender, has gone through some sort of oppression. Personally I feel the holocaust was a worse fate for white people. The Holocaust was the systematic, bureaucratic, state-sponsored persecution and murder of approximately six million Jews by the Nazi regime. The Nazis, who came to power in Germany in January 1933, believed that Germans were "racially superior" and that the Jews, deemed "inferior," were an alien threat to the so-called German racial community.
And what irks me, are people of black descent, let’s say maybe a 13 year old person saying: oh yo we're oppressed, we're this, we're that, etc. This gets under my skin because: 1. you didn't go through slavery yourself, and most likely neither did your parents. 2. you were born in America the land of the free. 3. if you feel you're oppressed, just take a look at Obama. He is the president of the United States, the leader of the free world. .
By the way, I see a lot of people saying that slavery in America's past allows blacks to get away with things. That is trying to impose "white guilt." I think it was a dark day in our history. However, I'm not the one who owned slaves. My ancestors may have but I have no blood on my hands from this specific act. Like above you didn’t go through slavery, I didn’t own you. Also, how quickly we forget that African tribes were kidnapping members of other tribes and selling them to the white slave traders. Not completely the white man's fault that slavery happened.
Having the opinion that races (on average) are different isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What is dreadful, though, can be expressed very easily: treating people badly. If one treats people badly (and that includes treating people discriminatorily) solely on the basis of those people’s race, then one is appalling. I believe that we all need to just get over it and “forgive and forget.” Our ancestors may have been enemies but there is no reason that we have to be.

I just want to start out by saying that it is so amazing that this lady is a high school but I don’t believe that the members of the search committee were looking to make a political statement or even a big splash. I am pretty sure that they were trying to decide between twenty or so candidates with nice résumés, some of them probably long and impressive, of who wanted to be head football coach. I feel that it shouldn’t be big deal. If you think about it, women coach men in other things, like music. But football, of course, is the sport where men revel in testosterone-soaked behavior more than all the others combined. Crude isn't just tolerated in the locker room, it's virtually required--as are intimidation, maybe some physicality, and always some fear. This female coach looks like a sprinter, a stylish and attractive one at that, which is worth mentioning because what the coach looks like and how that relates to his (now her) ability to ride the herd of testosterone beasts is sometimes critical. Don’t get me wrong, I expect that she will do a stellar job and will have no trouble putting them into their place. It is safe to say both male and female coaches are capable of possessing all the qualities you want in a great coach: motivational, committed, knowledgeable and can lead by example. I personally do not have a preference but i think that the way a woman reacts to a woman is different than the way a woman reacts to a man. Whether one is better or worse I don’t think is for anyone to say because I think that it is different from person to person. As long as the man/women have played and know the sport I do not think that it is a problem. As for women coaching men's sports, that may be a problem unless you are Goldie Hawn. A woman may have a hard time gaining the respect of young men especially in sports like football and is she ready for all that's going to come: the scrutiny, the opinions, snide comments, political positions that will be attached to her very existence as a coach? This story is being way over publicized. I think it will be easier for her to be a victorious at her new job if she was not in such a media and country scope. She would be able to do her job more successfully without that scrutiny. In addition not everyone gets a story like this. Is it because a woman is entering a traditionally male dominated profession? Was the very first male elementary teacher or the first male nurse given a CNN segment and have a day named in their honor. I don’t believe so! They broke though the gender barrior and entered a predominantly woman dominated profession. Does the publication for breaking through the gender barrio not swing both ways? Why her? Why now?

I understand that you make the argument for free speech and that if someone is being discriminated against that you should stand up for them but not all of us were raised to say or just call out what we think just because we can. I can only speak for myself but I know I was raised under older ideology. I wasn’t raised in the sense that children are supposed to seen but not heard but similar to that. I was taught and still believe to this day that there are lots of places that it is better for people to just keep their opinion to themselves.
There are many situations in which one's opinion is welcomed. These include topics such as fashion, vacations, pets, gift buying, restaurants, movies and other forms of entertainment. Recently, however, I've realized how much people cross the line in giving unsolicited advice. For an example that is near and dear to our own hearts, several commentators and reporters have spoken of the need for Penn State Football Coach Joe Paterno to retire. As far as I know Coach Paterno never asked anyone's opinion concerning his career. At 83 years old, Paterno still seems to be one of the best coaches in college football. And, if Penn State is satisfied with him, is it anyone else's business whether he continues on as a coach no matter his age? Many might believe they have a justifiable excuse for "butting in" so to speak. That is if they don't say something this person will make a major life mistake. Even if this is true, is it not one's right to do with their life what they wish? If they are open to another's opinion, they will ask for it. And truthfully, if they haven't asked for an opinion, they are probably bound and determined to do or not do whatever it is you wish to give advice on. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule such as if one is self-destructing. Yet, even in this circumstance, one's advice can only go as far as the individual is willing to receive it.
Yes I understand you will sneer at me and say opinions are different than standing up for someone. I know but what good did those people do that stood in the bakery and fought with the owner. The people that were most effective were the people that said nothing and just simply left the business with OUT patronizing the store. There was no need for the people to stand and argue with the store owner causing a ruckus. Yes you may say you are taking a stand for what you believe in and exercising your free speech rights but just remember that we all were not raised to inject our opinion into everything and are not doing so today.

You have a really valid point about how do the poor people on the corner get the drugs. I defiantly see your point as to that most of those people are not and do not have the means to transport the drugs from other countries. I totally understand you point and mean you no disrespect but drugs are often made or grown at home by the user or dealer, made or grown in domestic labs or greenhouses, diverted (stolen or sold on) from legitimate sources such as chemists. These people on the street corner (whatever color they may be) may not have even legally bought those drugs and it could be even possible that they have a basement with pot growing in it or even a math lab behind the dumpster. According to KCI.org, the processing required to make methamphetamine from precursor substances is easier and more accessible than ever. There are literally thousands of recipes and information about making meth on the Internet. An investment of a few hundred dollars in over-the-counter medications and chemicals can produce thousands of dollars worth of methamphetamine. The drug can be made in a makeshift "lab" that can fit into a suit case or behind a dumpster. KCI.org also states that over-the-counter cold and asthma medications containing ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, red phosphorous, hydrochloric acid, drain cleaner, battery acid, lye, lantern fuel, and antifreeze are among the ingredients most commonly used. As you can see making a drug like meth requires that “poor person” very little and they make a HUGE profit from it. In addition around seventy percent of all new drugs introduced in the United States in the past twenty years have been derived from natural products, reports a study published in the March 23 issue of the Journal of Natural Products. The findings show that despite increasingly sophisticated techniques to design medications in the lab, Mother Nature is still the best drug designer. It doesn’t take the once again “poor person” on the corner too much capital to go out into he woods and pick a few leaves that the can grind up and sell. Plus we haven’t even addressed the selling of prescription drugs. Medline Plus.com states that twenty percent of people in the United States have used prescription drugs for nonmedical reasons. This is prescription drug abuse. It is a serious and growing problem. And not only do people often use them when not prescribed, the “poor person” on the street corner can sell these as well and a few too many of one drug and you can be flying high. Plus a 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health showed that among all youths aged twelve to seventeen; six percent had tried prescription drugs for recreational use in the last month. Yes some of the drugs are imported by rich people but some of them are easily attained or manufactured with very little cost.

PS: I think you are probably right and was mostly “playing Devil’s advocate” but it is interesting to think of from another perspective. :-)

Why I believe that homosexuality is wrong because the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. A few verses stating so are as follows. Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Also in Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their blood guiltiness is upon them. " In Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper." Finally the one Sam used in class 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God." Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. But, just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Thanks to the help of Sam in class we all know that homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin. It needs to be dealt with, like all other sins, the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again. As a Christian, I should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as I do for any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, I and you both should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. However, this does not mean that I am supposed to approve of their sin. I don't compromise witnessing for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.

Sam was very passionate about how he felt about the obstacles in life and the lack there of for some people. He told us that we need to be in the middle to be intellectual. That the obstacles in our lives are from the choices we make and are predestined/“out of our hands.” I personally believe that it is more heavily weighing on the own personal choices that get you where you are today. As John McCain states in his book Character is Destiny, “It is your character, and your character alone, that will make your life happy or unhappy. That is all that really passes for destiny. And you choose it. No one else can give it to you or deny it to you. No rival can steal it from you. And no friend can give it to you. Others can encourage you to make the right choices or discourage you. But you choose.” The hard part is it not only effects you but your immediate surroundings, including but not limited to your family. I find this to be very prevalent in my life today. As my brother and I were growing up my parents were happily married and money was never a problem as my Dad worked for Penn State and Mom stayed home with us kids. As for college, my dad being a Penn State employee, tuition would have all but covered by the University itself. BUT! And a big but it is! When I was in eleventh grade my father decided to make a choice that directly affected the entire family. He chose to have an affair with this secretary and ultimately have a child with her. To make a long story short he ended up getting fired over the incident in July before I started here at PSU. Because of his choice my parents have now since split and my mother works and so does my father but it takes the two of them together to make what he used to make by himself at Penn State. This has affected my mother because she is now on her own and have a full time job and it has affected my brother and I because we no longer have a tuition break and have to worry about how and where the money for tuition and yearbooks and stuff like that comes from. Because of that choice made by one person we as a whole have become burdened. Not only does my dad have to worry about helping me pay for college but has to worry about raising a baby and we all have to continue attempting to mend the broken relationships. So Sam, don’t stand up there and tell me that choices cannot make effect your life! One decision has changed my family’s life forever!

Farming was once the chief way of life in nearly every country. People cannot live without food, and nearly all their food comes from crops and animals raised on farms. Many other materials such as cotton and wool also come from plants and animals raised on farms. Not many people farm for a living any more, but farming remains the most important occupation in the world.
Prior to the twentieth century, the typical American family lived on a small farm. They raised hogs, cattle, sheep, chickens, and planted corn, fruits, garden vegetables, hay, and wheat. Everyone worked long and hard, but the results were often meager. Families barely harvested enough food for themselves. This situation began to change during the last half of the 1800's and it changed remarkably in the next century.
Scientific methods and labor-saving machinery have made farming increasingly productive. The development of improved plant varieties and fertilizers has helped double and even triple the yields of some major crops. Scientific livestock care and breeding have helped increase the amount of meat and products that animals produce. At the same time, the use of tractors and other modern farm equipment has sharply reduced the need for farm labor.
As farming has become less important as a way of life in the United States, it has become more important as a business enterprise. Today's successful farmers are expert not just in agriculture but also proficient in accounting, marketing, and finance. Farms that are not run in a businesslike fashion have great difficulty surviving.
Without those government subsidies that Sam so blatantly bashed, the chief way of life is gone in our country and we become totally dependent on imported food. That is all fine and dandy except what happens if our loving importers have a beef with us and poisons our food or cuts off the supply. We will be left all alone without any food because we have been lazy enough to let the work of raising food to slip out of our fingers and to be controlled by a potential enemy.
The commodities market by itself will never guarantee farmers a price that will cover their costs, because it cannot correct itself in the ways other market sectors can. Deregulating this market further—which is what eliminating subsidies would entail—will not and cannot defend the existence of small- to medium-sized family farms, either in the US or abroad. Small family farms are the backbone of a community, a nation, and of society as a whole. A landscape of family farms is settled, balanced and stable, and generally sustainable. It's the natural shape of society on the land. Such communities aggregate into strong and secure nations