I remember when Sam brought up his experience in visiting the "lifers" I was very intrigued on how these people continue to live their lives knowing they will never get out. A few people that I know haven’t been convicted for life without parole, and ever since they got incarcerated, I haven’t been in contact with them. I never wanted to. Therefore, I have never looked at the eyes of the "other." This letter fascinated me. I have been "for" the death penalty even being that I do want to work in the court system in the future. However I actually do feel that many criminals should be given a second chance and not be sent to prison right away. Some criminals are in there not because they killed someone, but because of them being framed, or conspiring to murder. In Japan, many criminals are given a second chance and the country actually has much lower crime rates than the United States does. Anyways, I strongly believe a person should be able to continue their life even if it is in prison for a hundred years. People change who they are in a matter for years regardless of where they are. This is why it does not surprise me that this "lifer" writing this letter speaks so eloquently with more wise and kind words of thought than from some "innocent" people I know. This letter really struck me. To know this man murdered someone, but then completely forget it as the letter goes on is incredible. All in all, this man is a human being, just like we are. Just like Sam has been teaching us in class about ethnocentrism and how to look at the other perspective, I felt I was doing just that while reading this letter. Seeing the media portray how prisoners really are totally blinds us and forces us to generalize them into this one big nasty group of people. They play the evil music and shows like “Americas Most Wanted” make it seem as if these people you would NOT want to be alone in a dark alley with. I have never doubted inmates learn more the more time they spend in prison. Just like this letter, the man explains his lesson of compassion in where it can be found in the most dreadful and of all places. This man has just taught me a lesson, this man who has murdered someone and who will spend the rest of his life in prison. HIS LIFE….like….he will never get out, never see his family, never have another job, never enjoy the things that we take for granted. However in some cases, just because he maybe in prison does not mean his life is over. Obviously this lifer is learning about life probably more than innocent people do every day because we are so caught up in our busy lives. For him to notice these little gestures and notions of compassion in a place where it so hard for anyone to, to me, is a beautiful thing. I give this dude much credit. This story really touched me and I actually would like to hear more personal stories of inmates. I believe many are sorry for what they have done and may not even deserve to be there as everyone might think. Hopefully, while being in prison, many will find the power to forgive themselves and the families to forgive them as well.

As a Christian with an open mind, I agree wholeheartedly with the lecture today. it is funny how much the media and propaganda truly entrances people into believing that we are the "good guys" in this war, when in all reality we are the ones doing the wrongdoing. The war in Iraq didn’t start because of September 11th ( because I am 100% certain that the government was behind the attacks on the World Trade Center, not Al-Qaeda, not Osama Bin Laden, and not anyone in Afghanistan or any middle Eastern country) "For any oil company, being in Iraq, is like being in FAO Schwartz". When I heard that line, I thought to myself that everything makes sense now. This war in Iraq was started as a "just" way of getting to their oil, so that we can profit from it. And when Sam says "Christian Invaders" he simply means that it is funny how the U.S. maintains a Christian ideology but does things to other countries that is un- Christian like in order to benefit. And FOX News, and every news station makes it seem like the Arabs, and the Muslims are the ones doing bad, when we are the ones that ruined their city. Today, Sam asked us to step into the footsteps of those in Middle Eastern countries. So I closed my eyes and actually envisioned myself as a Middle Eastern man. And I can honestly say that I was offended. They are doing to The Middle East, what they did to the Indians, all for a precious resource that can be found elsewhere. We are fighting an unjust war...soldiers are dying, for what??! Not for terror I will tell you that much, but for oil. And it disgusts me. The US government disgusts me. Especially when Bush or Palin says that it’s in Gods will that we have this war. The media (I will always contribute everything negative to the media) is also to blame. Sometimes we do have to step foot in the shoes of those that we consider “the enemy” and when you actually sit back and reflect on what is actually being done, you realize that we are the enemy, the we are too blind to realize it. Another example that really set it home for me was the Coal in China. If, by some strange time paradox the Chinese came to the United States, stole our coal, and instituted a military occupation in our country, I am sure a whole lot of Americans would be pissed off and want to do something about it, such as going to war. Instead we are on the other end and we have been lead to believe that Muslim’s are just crazy people who want to kill us. It seems to me like the fundamentalist Christians are trying to impose their religion on Muslims just as badly and the Muslim extremists wanted to impose Islam on us. And like Sam said, it is not all Christians, but the extremists. When groups are generalized to be one way people on the other side cannot see the reality of the situation. A large majority of Muslim’s are not bad, just like a large majority of Christians are not bad, but we have a way to generalize things to make it seem like this is the mindset of all people

I don’t think affirmative action “lowers” the quality of medical assistance, law advice or what ever field a person who receives affirmative action is giving. The whole purpose of affirmative action is to level the playing field. However I think that you are forgetting what Sam said in class. only 10 percent of employees are hired because of Affirmative Action. Of that, most of them are white women. Affirmative Action wasnt established because of African Africans and the racism that exists in the job place. It was established because of the sexism that exists in the job place, and after a while the racism part was added. So since mostly women are hired under affirmative action, in essence you are saying that "women are inferior" in a sense. I do not believe that people hired arent qualified or competent, because certain jobs require a level of competency. If a doctore is hired under affirmative action, they are not dimwitted, nor are they underqualifed. And in regards to the job market, there are many different factors that come into play when getting a job. Yea u can say " a person with a 3.9 has a better chance then a person with a 3.3" but I believe that is entirely not true. School is pretty much a regurgitation of facts to receive grades, and you learn the bulk of your studies when you experience internships and jobs. I took the comment abut that personal. Because I am graduating in May. I have a job lined up for a fortune 500 company. I didnt receive it because of Affirmative Action or because they had to fill a quota, I got hired because I was the best fit. Because no matter how stellar ones resume is, if they bomb the interview the 3.9 wont matter, if they are not multi dimensional, the 3.9 wont matter. I have a 3.3 GPA, and to say that someone with a higher gpa is more competent for a job than I am is not correct.

I am against Affirmative Action, but I am sure that it doesnt apply to me, because most of the people affected by it are women. Sometimes I do think about it, but then I realize the work ethic that I have and those feelings quickly subside. I am also against neoptism, because I do not feel that all people receive positions because of who they know, but because of their work ethic. To me it makes me feel like "why study, and pursue a job if I know that someone will get it before me because of who they know?"

And in regards to that gentemens comment, not EVERY employee is hired into healthcare through Affirmative Action, just like EVERY college student who is African American is admitted to PWIs because of Affirmative Action. And just because they got hired because of affirmative action doesnt mean that they are incompetent or that someone was turned away that was better. Qualifications is more than just what is on a resume.

As i watched the video, I paid attention to what Sam said in class. Sam did say that the video was going to be one of the disturbing videos in the class and after watching the video, I would have to agree. I found it shocking and sad that African American children chose the white doll over the black doll. Then when asked to to describe and explain why they would choose the white doll over the black doll and they responded by saying that the white doll was nice and they said the black doll was bad looking. Basically the concept they believed in was that the good doll was white and the bad doll was black. It was more shocking when, although the black doll was "bad", they said the black doll looked like the,. To me, I felt why would a child believe they are the bad doll and choose a doll that does not represent them.

Today, our society involves around media and many children are influence by it. Growing up, I would watch when my aunts brought dolls for my sister, or if I saw my cousins, their dolls would be White. Many minority kids believe that white looking dolls or looking white is good and considered beautiful. But as a child looks through a mirror and see that they are not white colored or looks like the doll they play with, they believe that they are ugly and considered a "bad doll." We need to have kids believe no matter what color, where your from, or what race your from, you dont have to feel ugly because you dont look like a doll that is advertise on t.v. Kids need to believe that we are all beautiful in side and outside no matter what we look like and where we are from. As I said in class, I truly believe that Disney plays a MAJOR role behind the "good doll, bad doll" theory. In most Disney cartoons, they play into the issue of race. Most princesses (Cinderella, Snow White, Belle etc. ) are White and have a Prince Charming to rescue them. And by the time they FINALLY decide to make a cartoon about an African American princess, it is STILL racist, because a) she isnt a princess for most of the movie, but a frog b) the cartoon takes place in the South and they make it seem so country. Like early Disney cartoons have succeeded to do, these cartoons formulate opinions in our childrens minds about whats good and whats bad, whats beautiful and whats ugly. Another example is Beauty and the Beast, where children will honestly believe what the movie was about if faced with a similar situation. Disney cartoons and other forms of media skew certain definitions, such as what is beautiful, and it then arises again when they reach adulthood, hence why sows like "Top Model" exist, formulating opinions in people heads that beauty has a specific criteria. The media has SUCH a stronghold on our children it is sickening.

After watching the video I have many mixed thoughts. My first thought is "Whats the big deal??" Yes, having a woman coach a male sport is great, but the way she got heralded for it is kinda superfluous. My freshman year of high school, the football coach was a female. No one really paid attention to it, because she knew what she was talking about and we were a winning team. No one ever gave her a hard time because she had a love for the game that is unmatched. Football is a complicated sport to learn and teach. But the community is heralding her as if she is an alien. She played football and has a love for the game. If one is passionate about something, then they should pursue it. You dont have to be a man to understand Xs and Os. This is a great breakthrough however. Women have now, more then ever become more transfixed in things that men have dominated. People like Danica Patrick, Michelle Wie, among others have broken the sexual barrier and made it more culturally acceptable to us. Who knows, soon we may have a female NFL coach, or female NBA coach.

And after thinking about it. I can understand why she is getting so much press. To me, coaching is a huge job, bigger then actually playing the game. It involves knowing the game inside and out, having a keen eye, and knowing your players very well. That’s what she plans to do. It takes time and practice and a lot of patience, but once you hit it there, it will be a monumental moment. I feel that regardless, she is going to get a lot of people watching her and following what she is doing because she’s a woman in a male dominated. However as fast as people are heralding her, If the team doesn’t have a successful season, they will definitely come down harder on her then a man, and the ones that were praising her will be the first to denounce her skills. The father of coaches will start to berate her, and then the question would arise if someone were to say a wrong remark out of anger of the team losing, would it be sexually charged statements. She has a lot to prove.

I am against the fact that she said that it is fair if people give her a hard time and such. I feel that it isn't fair to prejudge someone. Clearly if she was hired, it wasnt publicity , it is because she has an ability to coach football. It isnt fair that people would make someones life harder as they live their life.

As a person that loves Basketball, there are many things that are wrong with this. The first thing is that statistically, African Americans are better then Whites at basketball. A clear example is the NBA, where the last purely White icon in the NBA was Larry Bird. Keep in mind though, that the NBA is NOT a black league. And while there are players like David Lee and Chris Kaman, who are All-Stars in their own right, they do not match up to the stature of Larry Bird. Does this mean that th NBA is racist, NO....it just means that other players are marketable. Bird was a very marketable figure. Also, yes, the game has changed, due to the influence of hip-hop, hence tattoos and such. However, if a white player felt that they was uncomfortable then they wouldnt have played. However, the "tradition" of the game hasn't changed...the rules are the same, the premise (throw the ball in the basket) is the same as well. Flashy things (like dunks and crossovers) come with the times, where people get bored of the "old-school" style of play and want some flashiness. And players have adapted (an example is the dunk contest, something not "fundamental", but you have participants like Chris Andersen, Tom Chambers (who won once) and Brent Barry, who have participated). And one cannot say that players are not fundamental. The San Antonio Spurs play the MOST fundamental basketball in the League today. The con with playing fundamental basketball is that it is boring to watch. The lowest rated NBA finals in history were the ones the Spurs were in. However they get results.

With his comment about "players fighting in the stands (2004) and bringing guns to the arena", my question to you would be, "What if it was Kirk Keinrich or David Lee?" Just because one player does something, does NOT mean that the entire race has done it. And if you really want to look back at history, lets talk about each aspect. Kurt Rambis (Former LA Laker) got into so many fights in his career, Shawn Bradley as well. So to generalize a situation over a few incidents is wrong. He says that the NBA players are not good role models.....however...an athlete should NOT be a role model. I know it sounds a little far fetched, but an NBA player or any sports player are idolized but should NOT be seen as role models.

I just feel that he was wrong in his statement. If he IS serious about this league I can guarantee you it will not be successful, not because there are all-white players, but because a lot of the flashiness would be gone. This is 2010, not 1960. Get with the times.

Speechless....Astonished....Today's class was one of the most thought provoking classes that we have had all semester so far. The experiment that they performed, sending a Muslim actress into a bakery of actors in order to see how people would respond, was interesting to say the least. It was also very thought provoking In all honesty, I was surprised at how thirteen people advocated for the Muslim woman. My initial thoughts were that there would be a much lower number advocating for and against the woman and an even higher number of people who were complacent and would not speak up or voice their opinion. I believe that had everyone voiced their opinions, then there would have been a higher number of people advocating for the woman than those advocating against her. In regards to the student who said that it would not be "their place" to speak up and voice their opinion in this situation, I believe that they are wrong, to be blunt. It is in our rights to speak against injustices in the world. I disagree with the second video. It is in the first amendment that all Americans do have the right to a freedom of speech and we can say whatever we want, so long as we are not in violation of others' rights. This logic seems more basic though. Just because we have the right to say whatever we want whenever we want does not justify our speaking up in any situation. We should exercise our right to free speech when we see others encroaching on the rights of people unjustly. If we stand by and are complacent, like the twenty something people who just let the cashier blatantly discriminate against the Muslim, we are no better than the person who is discriminating. We should at least voice our opinion about the situation, even if we side end up siding with the cashier. Those who just are enabling the employee to do whatever he wants without regards to others. One thing that I must point out though is that even though I side with those who spoke out against the cashier, and I do believe what the cashier was doing was wrong, the cashier, or more importantly the owner of the store, does have the right the not serve people based on whatever criteria he sees fit. That is his right and though we may not agree with it, if we try to stop him, then we would be encroaching on his rights as store owner. I stand behind what I said in the video. It is a shame how our society is, that they say "It's not our place".....until it happens to them. When it happens to them they WANT EVERYBODY TO HELP. Sometimes you have to put yourself in their shoes. If you was that Muslim women, you WOULD want people to assist you. We are in a society where alot of people view things from the outside looking in, and never from the inside. If people actually think about how they would feel if they were to experience certain injustices, then this conversation wouldnt happen. If people would help the dark skinned brother, instead of not helping him, we wouldnt think anything about race. A prime example happened to me. I was walking from west back to my dorm in East. I didnt close my bookbag, so my bag was open. I must have walked past maybe 200 people on pollock road.....but it wasn't until someone I knew saw me for them to tell me that my bag was open. I wasnt sure if I dropped anything or not from the bag. But the principle is, "Its not my place" is such a cop out. If the US used that logic alot of bad things would've been different in this world.

Honestly, I am tired of this whole gay marriage debate. Before someone labels themselves as "Gay", realize that they are human beings and human beings have rights. In the Constitution, it says that we are entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", well isn't finding love leading to ones pursuit of happiness? As a Christian, I honestly do not see anything wrong with it, because if you want to judge someone because of sins that they have committed, then EVERYONE would be at the midst of Jesus Christ. Whether you lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery...a sin is a sin. Also, they took their mom away as if they were living in harsh conditions that enabled them to be in foster care. The children were happy, there were no psychological effects that the kids faced. Taking their mom away from them would make things WORST, does it not? What’s crazy about this story is that they would attempt to deport the mother from a two-parent family. The United States is trying so hard over the past few years to encourage two-parent families and spending millions of dollars on research that finds the benefits of having two parents in a family that are raising children in correlation with single parent households. However they’re still eagerly trying to deport her. Also, you can tell that the incident where the boys’ mother was getting arrested really upset her sons greatly. It’s ridiculous that the United States would rather deport this non-citizen mother than recognize a same-sex union, which would allow her to continue to live with her family and continue promoting such a healthy environment with two-parents. I am shocked and appalled at this. My views are like this because two of my family members are gay, none of us judge them. However when we are out, they get looks as if they are aliens or something...especially when my aunt goes to use the restroom. Honestly, the US needs to stop paying attention to this and focus on more pertinent things. Family is the one most important aspect of our society, and I feel that it is wrong to tear it apart.

Wow....this article is shocking to say the least. I actually grew up on welfare, and not because my mom couldn't find a job, or used it just to raise her personal income a bit, but because she was a single mom with 2 children (at the time). Before someone can call someone an animal, they have to sit back and reflect on why they are there. I am from the Bronx NY where a lot of people receive welfare pension. However you cannot place us in this one category without asking yourself how we got there. Sure, there are people that abuse the system, using welfare checks as a means of "free money" thus meaning that they can stay on the couch all day. Some people use their "welfare checks" on things that are not pertinent to their well being, like jeredletorocks uncle using his towards an escalade. These people place a cloud over welfare because people believe that anyone can just waltz up to a welfare line and get free money. Then you have those, like mom, who NEEDs welfare to get through her daily life, who used to live from check to check and lived within her means. It pisses me off that people would abuse the system, but we live in America where abuse of any help does run rampant. However, it is key to realize that there are many different types of "welfare" such as foster care checks, SSI, and even disability checks. These three examples to me is considered "welfare" because they assist to the "welfare" of a person or people. However once people realize that "I can get free money every month or 2 weeks", they would try and ring the wash cloth for all that it has. So to the animal comment, I believe the REAL animals are the ones who abuse such a good thing, because it ruins it for those that actually need it. It's like "The Boy Who Cried Wolf", you continue to ask for assistance when you don't need it, however when you do need it, you wont get helped. So I believe that the people that abuse the system will have whats coming to them. But to generalize all people on welfare will not solve anything, it will just add on to the problem. A way you can assist is by publicizing some of the assistance programs that can help people on welfare find a job. If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. If you teach a man to fish he will eat forever and never be hungry.

This is great that you discuss the movie Avatar. During Christmas break I said I wouldn't see Avatar because it is a slightly racist movie. What proceeded was a long, two day discussion about it. Here is why I think that the movie is slightly racist, hence why I agree with the author. In the movie the White man saves a primitive species...how many times have we seen this(Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai) where a white guy manages to get himself accepted into a closed society of people of color and eventually becomes its "leader"?? White man flips seamlessly between his white world and the more compelling primitive world, again very familiar. The makeup of the defectors are kind of suspect. The closing scenes show almost every single bad human to be white men. Certainly no women, and few if any Latinos, Asians or Blacks is kind of peculiar. Last but not least...Worst of all the real story of the film is not the taking of the precious metal from the tribe, or about the taking of oil from Iraq, or about the stripping of the rain forest. It's about the James Cameron mining our uncertainties about race in order to make an insane amount of money. This kind of maneuver will blow up your emotions whether you realize it or not, and most people will never how completely they have been manipulated by this film. They see the graphics and the 3D effects and they become mystified. Avatar is simply a fantasy about race.Some see it as a love story, and since every movie has a hidden meaning, this aspect of the movie was more evident. While reading this article about the White Messiah, I couldn't help to just nod in agreeance. Like Dances With Wolves, the "natives" depended on the white man to give them assistance. And ones way to refute my statement could be that our generation hasn't seen "Dances With Wolves" to even draw comparisons to Avatar. My answer would be to see the movie and see how eerily similar it is to the movie.

It is hard to not see the movie on a racial standpoint, because I do a lot of reading and seen many pieces of media. However after thinking about everything the term "racist" shouldn't be used so loosely. In this day and age the "Terms" we use are very important. To say that a movie is "racist" means that it portrays the humans (white people) who are trying to kill the Indigenous ppl (indians) as heroes. Its all about whose side the storyline sets you up to take. If you end up rooting for the Indigenous ppl who are justly trying to protect their land...then its simply creating an awareness of the importance of humanity. The.storyline plays on race, which is obvious. There is nothing wrong with that so long as it doesnt support the argument of the oppressor (such as last of the Mohicans). So whose side does the movie support? That is a question that I would like answered.