April 2010 Archives

Here's the link to the article and blog from CNN: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/28/dems-call-for-overturn-of-arizonas-immigration-law/

Since we mentioned this in class, I thought I should post an update about it. I saw other people have posted about it, but this article is talking about the federal government's response to the law.

Also, check out some of the comments posted on CNN's blog about it. Some of them are pretty unbelievable, but I guess that depends on what party ideology you identify with.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100428/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1831

 

I just got through reading this little slice of heaven and it is infuriating. Republican Tim James, who is in the gubernatorial race in Alabama appears in a campaign add where he promises to give the state's driver's license exam in English only. His reason?: it will be a cost-saving measure...um, ok? I fail to comprehend how getting rid of the existing non-English versions of the exam will cut costs. He goes on to say: "This is Alabama, we speak English. If you want to live here, learn it".

This topic always gets my blood boiling. I have been all over Mexico and I have yet to see an American make an attempt at speaking Spanish. Also, whenever people do make an effort at speaking English here in the U.S., they get discriminated against because they'll speak it with an accent. This happened to my mom the first time we went to Chicago in 2003. We were in an elevator at the Sears Tower and some people were being rude. My mom made a comment about it in English so that the men would understand, and I see an employee of the building give my mom a dirty look and rolled his eyes...My claws came out at that point. I said, "You got a problem there cheif?"...he denied he had a problem..."So why are you rolling your eyes? You think every Mexican that comes here doesn't understand English or speaks with a heavy accent? Are you that ignorant?" ...he profusely apologized and said I was right in calling him an ignorant moron. I doubt he was sincere but it gave me great pleasure to call him out in front of a large group of people. I've seen this type of crap all the time.

Not only do people have to speak English while they're here but they also have to speak it without an accent as well. Otherwise they're some kind of simpleton who don't know anything.

This proves the point I was trying to make yesterday in class while discussing Cassie's book Black Like Me. Although people are a little more open minded than what they once were, there are still a lot of places in this country, particularly the South, that continue to be overtly racist.  

What do you guys think of this idiot's campaign?

     "The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box" (pg. 252). Atticus Finch, one of the main characters from To Kill A Mockingbird, tells his children, Scout and Jem, this statement after the trial of Tom Robinson, who was convicted by a jury of his peers which consisted of white men, for supposedly raping a white woman. This quote underlies one of the main themes in the book, that resentment and prejudice are with us in every single situation, and these prejudices affect how we view situations and make judgments. Many aspects of this novel could be analyzed in terms of stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, but I will mention a few examples.

       To Kill A Mockingbird was written by Harper Lee, and it focuses on the Finch family, which consists of Atticus, Jeremy, and Jean Louise (also known as Scout). The main plot in the story involves Atticus defending a black man and enduring the criticism from the local townspeople. Another plot point is the children's fascination with their recluse neighbor, Arthur (Boo) Radley. At the end of the novel, Arthur Radley saves Jem and Scout from being murdered by a man who wants revenge on their father.  Jem constantly watches out for his sister, but the novel also focuses on him growing up and recognizing the racism and prejudice that surrounds him. Scout is much more oblivious to this racism, as she runs into a mob without concern for herself, proving that she is much more naïve about the world than her older brother. Aunt Alexandra is also another member of the family, who has certain prejudices concerning social class. She has issues with Scout spending time with people who are not similar to them in social status.

     This novel is a classic, and a must read for issues surrounding stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. Harper Lee makes many statements concerning issues with prejudice and discrimination, but the way in which it is done is very poignant. Atticus Finch is an excllent character to examine, and his speech to the jury is arguably one of the most powerful in the novel. I encourage anyone to read this book; it really is a great novel about human nature.

"This is the story of 1970s African-American action legend Black Dynamite. The Man killed his brother, pumped heroin into local orphanages, and flooded the ghetto with adulterated malt liquor. Black Dynamite was the one hero willing to fight The Man all the way from the blood-soaked city streets to the hallowed halls of the Honky House" - from IMDB.com

Before I begin, I would recommend this movie as a slightly inappropriate, but very funny movie.  Now, let's continue.  I watched this film over the weekend and found it to be VERY racially charged but also very funny.  It is done as a mockery of the '70s "black-foo" movies that were often poorly made, ripe with stereotypes, and of course - crime fighting kung foo. 

Through out the film racial stereotypes are rampant with the main characters (all black) are pimps, prostitutes, drug dealers, and highly sexually active.  They all speak in jive and are attracted to lives of violence.  However, some of the most humorous parts go against the stereotypes that are played up in the movie.  In this scene, some of the main characters are in a cafe trying to figure out the scheme of "The Man" to bring down the black man. 

(Spoiler alert! This scene does reveal part of the plot... but... it's still worth it to see this movie)

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQM6QtBu4DA

So let's use this entry as a forum to discuss this scene.  Why is it so ridiculous and what makes it so funny?  Why would a director/actor/writer use the mockery of stereotypes as the plot to a film?

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2923821/Women-spend-three-years-shopping-in-lifetime.html

 

this article shows a few statistics on how often women shop. The average woman spends 3 years shopping in her lifetime, but why is this? It is interesting that this is something that is interesting to write about... women do seem to shop a lot, but what is the main reason for this? It is because women are told they need to shop, or is this because this is a bonding experience for them when they go out with other women? Is the materialistic culture the reason for the shopping, or just the stereotype, or mainly both? In the article they also divide up the time spent shopping for certain items. Could another reason that women shop so much be because they are responsible for carrying on the household i.e. buying clothes for the family, food to be cooked, cleaning supplies.
Men do stuff around the house too, and they do shop as well... but there doesn't seem to be a need or hype around it.

So I happened to flip on the Colbert Report the other day and I found this entertaining bit about how the Tea Parties are racist.

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/281750/april-20-2010/p-k--winsome---tea-party-consulting

For those of you that don't know, the "Tea Party Patriots" is a rallying group of Americans who come together for their 3 core values: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets.  But apparently, this movement is almost ENTIRELY white.  Colbert does an entertaining parody with Tim Meadows about how the Tea Party can make themselves seem less racist by hiring his "consulting firm".  As soon as I watched this I knew I needed to post about it, however I wasn't sure what to talk about until I thought more about the topic and got to wondering....

How often do you think racial tensions are eased in real life by staging or hiring out some "multicultural" faces.  For instance, a white presidential candidate might have a very publicized picture with a Middle Eastern person after waging war on a country from that region.  Does such a thing happen?  And how often?  Does it actually have a positive impact on their public image?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/bill-oreilly-lane-bryant_n_550279.html

So I was perusing Huffington Post as I do from time to time and I came across this segment from Papa Bear Bill O'Reilly about the Lane Bryant Plus-size lingerie ad controversy. I had no idea what this was all about, but I was intrigued (and not just by the provocative picture they had above the story). Evidently ABC would not air this ad during the 8pm family hour because they felt it was too riskay for the youth to be seeing. They were going to air it at 9 after the kiddies had gone to bed, though. Two pundits agreed with decision on O'Reilly factor, which is fair enough. But wait second...you know who gets to air their ads during that time slot? Victoria Secret. When asked why it was okay for Victoria Secret to air their ads, Fox & Friends Anchor, Gretchen Carlson said, ""Here's the thing--with plus-size models, you're going to get more cleavage. They're plus-size!...It's going to appear to be a little bit more over the line because you're getting more."I literally said wtf to my computer (the full thing not just the letters).

I'm going to break this down for you. Has anyone ever seen a Victoria's Secret catalog or a store, or a commercial  I'm pretty sure that there is plenty of cleavage in all of those things. In fact, I'm pretty sure they don't hire models who don't have cleavage. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure, though I'm surely not an expert, that Victoria Secret makes bras that accentuate cleavage. Gretchen your complaining about the plus-size woman's natural cleavage when Victoria secret is selling products, as modeled by women in their commercials, specifically designed to mimic the exact same thing. Yes, that's right, your points are not logical.

There is obviously a double standard here beyond Gretchen's logic. We're okay with showing children Victoria secret commercials because they are consistent with society's view of what women in this country should be like. Airbrushed in angel wings and underwear with long legs, perfect skin, and perky boobs. Sure we can show that to our children because they already see it everywhere. The TV shows that are on during prime time play to the same theme (Desperate Housewives 8pm Sunday anyone?). Commercials, music videos, billboards, movies, etc all are in accord with this. It is our duty to socialize our children to have this image of beauty in their heads as they grow up. It is a message that Victoria Secret can convey, but Lane Bryant cannot. Just as it is a message that Megan Fox can convey but Gabourey Sidibe cannot.

Too much cleavage is not the reason. Cleavage is just fine when it is on a skinny woman. In my estimation, this ad punctured some schemas held by the executives at ABC. 'Wow, here are ladies who are not super thin models, but yet they are sexy underwear? Gee whiz, we got so used to looking at the exact same thing in a smaller size, it is as if we are taking note for the first time that this is somewhat provocative. Have we been objectifying the women in the Victoria Secret ads to the point where we've become desensitized to their actual personhood? This lingerie ad is making us restructure our schemas about lingerie models and it is dreadfully uncomfortable. We are becoming conscious of their womanhood. Sexuality, femininity and self-confidence, oh my! Darn it all, this is much too scandalous for the family hour. The masses don't want to be troubled with such personalization of woman sexuality. How will parents explain this to their children!? Give them Victoria Secret. It's much easier for mommy and daddy to say to their little girls and boys 'oh those aren't really women, they're just objects of America's lust for beauty'.

So yes, I actually think it was a matter of too much cleavage. No, not the cleavage accentuated by sexy lingerie, but rather the cleavage of a worldview, from comfortable objectification into uncomfortable personalization.   

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36739929

This is an interview that was done with Latino Civil Rights leader Janet Murguia regarding the recent immigration bill that was passed in Arizona. She talks about some of the negative consequences of this bill on the Latino population of Arizona. She argues that the passing of this bill will essentially legalize racial profiling in that if anyone is at all suspected of being in the country illegally, authorities will have the right to search their homes and/or personal possessions. It sounds that if one is of Latino decent, that is all the proof authorities need to, basically, remove your constitutional rights. I'm not all that familiar with this story, but it definitely sounds unconstitutional to me.

What do you guys think? Does it seem to you that racial profiling is inevitable through the passing of this bill? Does the bill need to be changed to better protect the rights of the Latino population in Arizona? If you have not already heard about the passing of this bill, I would imagine that it will be hard to avoid as it snowballs in the uproar it is causing.


Here are a couple more news clips regarding some of the details of this bill - They make it sound that people can be identified as "possible illegals" based on appearance only, including the type of SHOES a person wears.....Are you kidding me?! Is our country going backwards away from civil rights legislation? What the hell....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36735699

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36714961#36726296

Something tells me this bill will not be around for too long....

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2010/04/umd_facebook_ra.php

This is an article about a recent incident at the University of Minnesota-Duluth that involves blatantly racist comments posted on a wall-to-wall conversation on Facebook. The comments were between two white girls discussing the presence of a black girl in the room they were in. Before I go on, here are some of the horrible comments they were making:

"ewww a obabacare is in the room, i feel dirty, and unsafe. keep a eye on all of your valuables and dont make direct eye contact.... i just threw up in my mouth right now....,"

"were two white girls.. she already has her 'nigga' instinct to kill us and use us to her pleasure..."

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that these comments are pretty messed up. The girls claim that they were just joking around, but I don't know what kind of person actually thinks this is funny. And what the f***, why were they publicly posting a conversation like this on Facebook?! Do people not understand that ANYONE can go on Facebook and see what you say to other people? Also, if they were in the same room, why were they using Facebook to talk to each other?!.....I hate technology....

Anyway, what kind of punishment do you think they deserve? Is it even possible to punish somebody for something like this? What leads a person to believe it is okay to 1) make these comments in the first place, 2) post this comments on their PUBLIC Facebook page, and 3) think that there is nothing wrong with making comments like this open to all eyes?

I know this doesn't sound like it belongs here by the title, but I think it has some important points to make. Last night, South Park was censored by Comedy Central (Viacom) for attempting to depict Muhammad (the prophet of Islam forbidden to be shown). His image was censored as well as any his name being bleeped out and the end message (ironically the end message was supposed to refer to what fear and terror does to our freedom). Do we really have free speech in this country? The episode was censored beyond what the creators allowed due to threats from one Muslim group. Also ironic is the fact that the show depicted Muhammad once before prior to 9/11, but now it's not allowed? 

The book that I read was pretty complicated to discuss in class.  The novel talks about the lives of six people, two teenagers, and the adults that are in their lives.  It goes back and forth between the past, present, and future.  Within each of those chapters the author gives different points of view for each character. 

The story is about a school shooting.  It discusses the events that lead to the shooting, the shooting itself, and then the trial of the boy who shot the nine students and one teacher that day.

When I first started reading the book and then writing the report I was thinking that I would write about the in-groups and out-groups of high school and how when you are part of the out-group, which the boy shooter was, it could drive him to the extreme, in his case, the shooting.  But it wasn't only him who felt as if he was in the out-group and felt pressure but Josie, the young female in the novel, who was in the in-group had put a lot of pressures on herself.  Which in the end we find out the outcome of what she was going through, and how that played out during the school shooting. 

Then I found an article we had read about stigmatization, which everyone can relate to on some level at some point in their lives.  So I found that would be the concentration of my report, along with in-groups and out-groups. 

I thought that it was important to the story hearing all the points of views of each character, you find out a lot of the contributing factors of their behaviors in relation to one another and how it affects each of the characters.  I really enjoyed this book, it doesn't based off a specific school shooting but it definitely gives insight into the bullying that goes on and how important certain friendships and relationships are.  The novel also gives insight to suicide and mental health and how someone can hide those things from the world.  But that there are a few people who recognize the truth in others.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36648454/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

There has been recent lawsuits against a christian club on the campus of Hastings in San Francisco.  A homosexual student wanted to join the Christian club, but wasn't allowed membership due to their sexual orientation. 

"A federal judge threw out the Christian group's lawsuit claiming its First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise had been violated, a decision that was upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a two-sentence opinion in 2004."

There have been heated debates on if this should be allowed or not between the people in power.  There have been previous rulings on interracial dating beliefs.  There has been past troubles with the Christian Legal Society and them having members join, who didn't, at least what they thought, have the same beliefs as their own. 

Their are many arguments in the article for both sides.  I think that if someone is a Christiam they should be able to join the group, especially if they are a college funded group, people who go to that college should join.  In not having members of the college join, who do believe in the Christian faith, they are creating discrimination on the campus, and it is letting students discriminate against one another based on either race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18034102/ns/us_news-life/

 

This is the first time in the Georgia's high school history that they will be haivng a non-segregated prom.  Both the white and black students in the school have had unofficial separated proms.  The four senior students that were in office (two white and two black), discussed this idea with the principal at the begininning of the year to change  this schools legacy.  The theme for this years prom was "breakaway."

"Everybody says that's just how it's always been. It's just the way of this very small town," said James Hall, a 17-year-old black student who is the senior class president.

"But it's time for a change."

This is showing to be more difficult than what the students have planned.  There has been talk around the school that some white students are still going to throw a competing prom.  This is still a big year for the school, this was the first year that their homecoming court wasn't segregated, and they all voted for one, mixed-race, homecoming queen.  The principle has been showing a lot of support for the students in hope that on April 1st, for the first non-segregated prom, will be a success. 

I had just wrote another blog about the resegregation in schools, so I thought this was a good change and puts a positive spin on what some students are doing to integrate the school.  This was sort of their own impact project on their town in hopes to bring everybody together instead of looking at their differences.  If it doesn't work, that might be worse for the students who were trying hard to bring the class together.  This might create more of an in-group/out-group effect between the students.  Some of the students might be labeled more on the base of what "side" they are really on within the school.  But if this works, that would be a great step for the students and the town.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36660242/ns/us_news-washington_post//

 

This article discusses the semi-recent resegregation in two Mississippi schools.  In Tylertown Mississippi, a predominately black town, there has been a majority of white students throughout the years moving to the Salem school district,  a predominately white town.  Where Tylertown is looked at as the "black school" and Salem the "white school."  That idea really hit home here in teh Cedar Valley, where in waterloo, East and West are split into the "white" and "black" schools, with the intention that the "white" school is better than the other. 

In the article, they discuss that there has been some recent legal actions taking place.  They are investigating into the "segregation" for reasons based on race.  They are also looking into whether minority students are being treated differently than the white students in the schools.  They go on discussing how resegregation has been a recurrent trend since the 1980's. 

In this school district, they ahve had separate homecoming courts based on race and proms have been been separated based on race in the past as well. 

After reading the article I couldn't believe that this is still going on.  I have heard of having the better schools and that being based on race, which is still shocking to me, but the idea of having separate homecoming courts and proms within a school surprised me, even though it is in the south. This article both stigmatizes the black people in that town and the white people.  In recent news, the white people in these towns have been labeled the "hillbillies of Mississippi."  There has been a lot of negative press towards the white people in this town and they have all been greatly stigmatized. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18rich.htm

This op-ed in the NY Times could not be a better summation of the recent Confederate History Month controversy. Admittedly, I do skim the news for this kind of op-ed piece that argues in favor of acknowledging that slavery did happen and that it was a fundamental reason for the civil war. Call me biased if you must. It is a guilty pleasure to read things with which I agree.

There are many opportunities in this article to ask the question 'why?'. These are questions I have been asking myself for quite some time, and luckily I have chosen the right field of study to get such questions at least partially answered.

• Why are some so adamant about denying that slavery had a big role in the Civil War and the makeup of the Confederacy?
• Was the confederacy good for anyone besides the wealthy plantation owners?
• If John Lewis doesn't have evidence that someone called him an N-word, does that mean there's no longer racism in this country?
• If it was only spittle rather than a full spit that was aimed at Emmanuel Cleaver, does that mean that there's no longer racism in this country?
• Is racism over in this country because we're fine with homophobic slurs against white, not black congressmen?
  
• If this Tea Party movement is not against the rights and liberties of minority groups, shouldn't there be more minority groups represented in the Tea Party?
• What is with the gun fixation?
• If a mob of African Americans were carrying side arms would people be ok with that?
  
• What is with the militia fixation?
• If African Americans were forming a militia would people be ok with that?
  
• What is with the Sarah Palin fixation?
• What is with the Glenn Beck fixation?
  
• Was Michael Steele not fired because he was black?
• Was Michael Steele hired because he was black?
• Does having a party that has 0 African American Congressman and 0 African American Governors think that race is not an issue because it has Michael Steele as the RNC chair, only appointed after Obama's campaign? 
  
• Has too much been made about the issues of African Americans like 52% of the Tea Party protesters feel?
• Can one man be a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a Nazi all at the same time?
• Do people know what it means to be a socialist, a communist, a fascist, and a Nazi?
  
• If the American flag acts as a prime for conservatism, is someone who is wearing a shirt with an American flag pattern really that conservative or is it just the salience talking?
• Could the American flag also act as a prime for racial bias?
  
• Is it wrong to be prejudiced against other people who might be prejudiced?
• Can one be prejudiced against an entire news network? cough cough Fox News cough
  

Ok, my inquisitiveness and deep seated biases are out in the ether. I beg the indulgence of the public for the automaticity of my cognitive mechanisms, they are after all hard-wired and it would be futile to attempt to alter what God hath bestowed.

If someone has some answers, I would very much appreciate it. 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/04/13/hague.karadzic.trial/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html?hpt=T2

"In the absence of gay people being able to legally marry in most jurisdictions, this is a step to rectify a gross inequity," said David Smith, an executive at the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay rights group. "Because without gay marriage, much more inequities exist. It should be applauded."

It is always nice to find something like this in the midst of all the civil unrest that the news presents. This is a definitely major step in equal rights in the U.S., and while we still have a distance to go yet, in the meantime, thank you Mr. President!

Here's a link to a video about the U.S. Census: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36101466#36101466

The problem is people are having difficulty filling out the form when they have to choose a "box" or group to identify with. One of the newscasters shares his family's stories. Also, the statistics about Hispanics are interesting too.

What should be done about this issue? How should we address it?

 

I came across the following article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36449471/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts about a man named Albert Snyder. His 20 year old son was killed in Iraq four years ago and now he is in a legal battle against the Westboro Baptist Church. Church members picketed his son's funeral with signs reading "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" and "You're Going to Hell". The church, which is mostly comprised of the Phelps family, has targeted several soldier funerals and claim that "military deaths are the work of a wrathful God who punishes the United States for tolerating homosexuality." This is completely perposterous to most people, but the question becomes: When do we draw the line when it comes to freedom of speech? It is illegal for someone to yell "Fire!" in a public place, but it is perfectly legal to express such hatred towards others because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, and the like. I have a serious problem with this. Next week the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether or not the actions of the Westboro Baptist Church are protected by the first ammendment. What do you guys think? Where do we draw the line in terms of freedom of speech?

"For seven years, her husband taunted, threatened and thrashed her, she says. After she filed for divorce, he struck again, throwing enough acid on her face to destroy her left eye."

"A few people are completely and utterly blind to race: children with a rare genetic disorder known as Williams syndrome, according to findings published in the journal Current Biology."

http://www.hulu.com/watch/141560/saturday-night-live-ruff-rugger-and-roker


This is a clip from Saturday Night Live this past weekend that I think is a funny example of a stereotype consistent vs inconsistent Al Roker. I realize this clip is meant to be funny, but I think it raises a few interesting questions as well: How would a stereotype consistent African American news reporter (doesn't necessarily have to be Al Roker or a weatherman) be received by viewers? Or even just a news reporter that speaks in a way consistent with their ethnicity? I've always noticed with African American news reporters that they tend to display themselves as stereotype inconsistent, but what if they didn't? How would people react? You could even say the same thing about Barack Obama or other highly regarded social figures. How much of a role do you think stereotype inconsistency plays into the acceptance of some minority figures by the white community?

This is a clip from Saturday Night Live this past weekend that I think is a funny example of a stereotype consistent vs inconsistent Al Roker. I realize this clip is meant to be funny, but I think it raises a few interesting questions as well: How would a stereotype consistent African American news reporter (doesn't necessarily have to be Al Roker or a weatherman) be received by viewers? Or even just a news reporter that speaks in a way consistent with their ethnicity? I've always noticed with African American news reporters that they tend to display themselves as stereotype inconsistent, but what if they didn't? How would people react? You could even say the same thing about Barack Obama or other highly regarded social figures. How much of a role do you think stereotype inconsistency plays into the acceptance of some minority figures by the white community?

This is a short article about the tea party movement that's been happening that found some surprising (or maybe not) findings about people in support of the movement. The study found that people who think the government has done too much to support blacks are also more likely to support the tea party.

This is an article from Huffington Post about Mike Huckabee comparing gay marriage to drug use and calling same-sex adoption experimentation. He says that by approving of same-sex marriage, we are just accommodating every behavioral pattern and would lead to support of incest and drug use. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecmSh8oKzr0

 

I recently watched Australia, and was very supprised by the content of the movie.  The trailer that I just linked makes it look like a love story that happens to take place in Australia, but that is really a second story line. Without giving away to much, the film is told from the perspective of a mixed race child, and the main story line is about race relations in Australia before and during WWII.  It is very simmilar to the way we treated Native Americans here.  The film is very long, but it provides a great social commentary on how the aboriginal people of Australia were treated.

In talking about stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, I think it is very important to include the stigmatization of obesity in the conversation. This article captures well the complexity of the issue and a suggestion for a way forward. Katz makes the point that the stigmatization of individuals with obesity remains socially acceptable, a luxury which very few other stigmas enjoy. The reason for this is the automatic attribution of personal responsibility associated with persons who are obese. Labels of lazy and lacking will power clash wholly with the American values of individualism and work ethic, so it stands to reason that obesity is on the front line of stigmatizing conditions in this country. 

On the other hand, Katz makes the argument that obesity as a condition should not be fought for with the same tolerance as other stigmatizing conditions. The fact of the matter is, obesity is a problem when it comes to health. Risks for heart disease and diabetes increase significantly when one is overweight, so it is costly for the individual as well as the larger society in terms of medical costs.

The thing I liked about this article the most was that Katz argued against the customary practice of blaming the individual for their obesity. Instead he implicated the way society has become an enabler for such a condition. Modern conveniences, availability of food (not the healthy kind), and entertainment sources enjoyed passively all interact with individual body types and genetics to create the problem. The take home message is that anti-fat biases should be discouraged, but obesity as an issue should be treated as a public health emergency.

Do you think that such obesity is a condition that should be stigmatized like it is? How is obesity as a stigmatized condition different from other stigmatizing conditions? Should anti-fat bias be reigned in with regard to its widespread social acceptability?
     
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/do-we-need-a-fattitude-ad_b_509572.html

This article on msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36208200/ns/us_news-washington_post/ immediately caught my eye. Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) of Virginia recently declared April as Confederate History Month. Various civil rights groups have expressed outrage over the governor's move, and I think rightfully so. Gov. McDonnell's defense was that it is a means of promoting tourism in the state. Seriously?? You have got to be kidding.

This also brings to mind the issue with the Confederate flag. I know driving through the south I have sometimes seen people displaying the Confederate flag as if it is something to be proud of. I once asked someone why they didn't view the flag as being a problem and their response was that the flag symbolized southern tradition and not racism. Aren't those one in the same though? To me they are.

What do you guys think? 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/05/constance-mcmillen-fake-p_n_525856.html

 

above is a link to an article talking about a girl who was not allowed to take her girlfriend to prom. The prom was canceled when they found out she wanted to do this, but she fought for it to stay and the prom happened anyway. Her and only a few people showed up to the prom. Apparently, the rest of the school attended a "secret" prom which she was not invited to.
What do people think about this? School is already a place where people feel insecure about themselves, but this sort of thing is only adding to the feeling of being out-of-place. Should this have been totally ignored, or was this really an issue?

She said that she had a great time at prom, but how is her transition back into school going to be?

March Madness just finished, but I came across this article regarding racism: http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-race040410 

 

Here's a short section from the article:

"Even though the race issue isn't discussed in polite company, it's been the subject of hushed conversations at the Final Four and will be obvious to anyone in attendance or tuning in at home. The subject is so taboo that even Larry Bird bristles when it's brought up."

 

What do people think about this issue? We have talked about it before, but I was interested in the issue being so "charged" that people don't even want to discuss it.

This is a link to an article discussing protesters of the health care bill shouting derogatory remarks at U.S. Rep. John Lewis (who is African-American) and openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank. I think this is yet another example that racism/prejudice is still very prevalent and people will stoop to extremely low levels when they disagree with something. It reminds me of the book I read for class (Nigger by Randall Kennedy) and all the cases where people use the word in the heat of disagreement.

This is a link to an article discussing protesters of the health care bill shouting derogatory remarks at U.S. Rep. John Lewis (who is African-American) and openly-gay Rep. Barney Frank. I think this is yet another example that racism/prejudice is still very prevalent and people will stoop to extremely low levels when they disagree with something. It reminds me of the book I read for class (Nigger by Randall Kennedy) and all the cases where people use the word in the heat of disagreement.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/03/31/2010-03-31_somethings_queer_with_census__gays.html

You may have already heard about this, but this is an article about a movement for the U.S. Census to include responses for single gay individuals. This year's census had an option for homosexual married couples, but that was it. Does it surprise you that the U.S. Census, one of the most organized and expensive survey organizations, doesn't include something so socially salient on their survey? Shouldn't this be something that was identified as missing before the census was even close to being sent out?

In addition to this, the article talks about transgendered individuals being identified on the census. This year transgender individuals were told to check "male" or "female" according to which sex they most identified. They argue that a separate box should be included for this question. This is something that has, from my knowledge, hasn't been included on any other survey's I've come across. Do you agree with adding this box to the "Sex" question on the census? Is this something that would then need to be included on other official surveys or demographic forms?

"The launch -- the last scheduled one in darkness for NASA's fading shuttle program -- helped set a record for the most women in space at the same time. Three women are aboard Discovery, and another is already at the space station, making for an unprecedented foursome."

"PORTLAND - About two dozen women marched topless from Longfellow Square to Tommy's Park this afternoon in an effort to erase what they see as a double standard on male and female nudity."

"U.S. forces in Afghanistan are using a controversial tool in their efforts to hold the ground recently captured from the Taliban. It is the work of civilian anthropologists and other social science researchers, who advise military commanders on how to win the hearts and minds of local people"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MRWqlf_8M8

 

This video comes from a supposed organization/church. Along with this video there are many other videos from the same guy preaching hate against gays. A lot of controversy has risen from the videos, because it is questionable if this is a joke or real. It is hard to say for sure, because the videos contain "humor" like referring to things such as back door or get on your knees, but then there is a full website dedicated to his "organization".

Do you think this is real, or not? I encourage people to look at his website that they show at the beginning of the video. If you think it is real, what are the implications? such as religion and how he is trying to "change" gays to straight. If you think it is fake, how is it that this type of thing is funny? what are the implications of this side?

"On February 4, the Fair Housing Justice Center (FHJC) announced the filing of a federal race discrimination lawsuit against a real estate broker, Amelia Lewis, and two housing cooperatives, Silver Beach Gardens Corporation and Edgewater Park Owners Cooperative, Inc., located in the Throgs Neck area of the Bronx, New York."

http://www.nationalfairhousing.org/


     Okay, So I'm not a Realtor, but I have worked in way too many sales jobs already to keep my head above water as a poor student.  I also know that in the last few years if you have to sell your house, GOD BLESS YA, cause its gonna' take awhile.

      With this in mind, how do things like this EVER happen?  Is it really possible that this is some kind of accident?  Lets see, with a name like the "Silver Beach Gardens Corporation", one might assume that this neighborhood co-op is composed of some pretty damn nice places.  Now, to have the means to purchase a nice joint you've either got to make a boat load of money, OR your parents made a boat load and gave you a good share of it.

     Regardless, lets assume that most of these people actually earned their money, which as research has shown over and over how education and income share a strong correlation.  This means that many of these folks must have gone to college, and were required to take some of the same courses you were.

     You'd think that SOME of these folks would think to themselves "Hey, you know what, our neighborhood is flippin pale, I wonder why that is?" 

OR maybe this is not the case, maybe it was a simple oversight, due to an antiquated protocol that overlooks such things.  But really?  Its safe to assume that many of these folks had to get the same 3 letters of recommendation from current owners to be able to purchase THEIR place, so doesn't that mean that this place is solely inhabited by all the "cool kids" from high school that still wear their "Senior Keg 1992" t-shirt while mowing the lawn?

This whole thing perplexes me...and I'm not sure how to best address this sort of issue?  I mean, what are you going to do, enforce affirmative action for buying homes?

Jeesh.... 

 

 

"Anti-abortion groups are targeting black audiences with the message that abortion is a form of "ethnic cleansing." But as many point out, this strategy ignores the real needs of all women."

http://jezebel.com/5483679/womb-lynching-on-the-anti+choice-targeting-of-african+american-women
















     When I heard this spot on the radio the other day, I immediately thought about the situation we discussed in class about the adjunct professor that was fired for using the "N" word.  According to our class discussion, one of the main reasons we believed this action was taken was because of the instructors' inability to recognize the history and the true meaning embodied by that sort of language.

      This use of the word "lynching" regarding African American children seems to do the same thing.  Though I think all of us would like to see the number of abortions performed each year decrease, it seems the groups using this sort of language are also disregarding the historical and contextual meaning the word "lynching" has.

     Media coverage over the last few years (even as recent as last month) has shown time after time how even a noose hung in a tree or a campus building incites fear, resentment, and anger amongst those who understand its meaning.

     No matter what side of the abortion issue you find yourself, I think this kind of use of language proves ineffective for its intention...