Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus is the story of Victor Frankenstein, a young scientist who, during his studies at the university, discovers the principle behind life and how to apply this principle to give life to previously non-living matter. He creates a Being, but immediately upon seeing his deformed appearance, he feels revulsion and abandons his creation. The Being is left alone to wander in a world where every human being feels revolted by his appearance, considering him a monster and excluding him from society.

The story is a good example of the psychological processes associated with stigma, defined as the devaluation of a person as a consequence of an attribute that indicates that person is different from what is considered normal. People perceive stigma and experience very strong affective reactions. In the case of the Being created by Frankenstein, his deformed appearances makes people afraid and revolted, and they avoid or attack him, even his creator.

An important message of the book concerns the possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy associated with discrimination: the Being becomes angered by constant rejection and decides to take revenge on mankind, actually becoming the monster everyone thinks he is. As Percy Shelley wrote when describing the novel: "Treat a person ill, and he will become wicked".

Black like me is a very interesting read. You almost start the novel off on the wrong foot, questioning if he is really serious about his endeavor. The process he goes through is almost surreal, as I found myself really wondering what type of benefit he would recieve from doing all this. He dyes his skin and shaves his head in an attempt to be accepted into the black culture of the south. He seems to wobble during his balancing act of playing a black man in the beginning, but begins to achieve a sameness or feeling of comfortability with many individuals of the African American race.

You don't go into this book expecting sunshines and rainbows, and if you do you are headed for a disasterous awakening. The book was almost meant to shock you to a point of no return. This is an account of real life, and certain actions that are said an done to Griffin cannot be taken back. Yes...this is happening at a time where discrimination was more prevalent and in your face and yes this is happening in the South, but it still existed and it was Griffin's chance to tell the story. His story will be cemented in time, and will be viewable to all of those who pass it or give it a second glance.

While the visuals are there, it is sometimes hard to imagine the hate that he experiences in his travels. We can all say that we know what discrimination looks like, but to feel it is a different matter. Reading about someone getting the death glare is less painful than getting the death glare itself, but Griffin translated his feelings in the best way that he could. This makes the book hard to relate to at times, because you cannot really empathize to the extent that he may have wanted you to, but you can get the general idea.

The main point of the book was in fact to point out discrimination, but I feel like the parallel idea to the story is the idea of identity. He has an identity crisis at multiple times throughout the book, questioning who he is and where he fits into this society. He is a wolf in sheeps clothing and can't find a way to undress. Trying to be on both teams does not work to his advantage and puts him in a group all of his own. This tug-of-war between who he sees and who he is ultimately leads him to stop his experiment and change back to what he feels is who he really is.

I had always wanted to read this book, but had never gotten a chance to. In school it was offered to me, but I ended up with The Color Purple instead. Now that I have read it, I am glad that I did. This story is one that needed to be told, and it is one experiment that you don't get too see replicated often. Griffin got a chance to take on the South as its enemy, and survived. He knows what it is like to shed his skin and become a new person, and I think he was bettered for it. I could say lots more about the book, but it would take far too long. I would just recommend that people read it, so that they can have their own take on this interesting read.

Instead of an actual article or something of that nature I actually have to report an incidence that affects me personally...or rather my sister. My sister is 11 and goes to Meredith Middle School. For the most part it is a pretty diverse school for being in Iowa (granted it is in Des Moines). Anyways... She is 11 but she still understands the concept of discrimination, whether or not she understands the actual term. There is a group at her school called the "Sisters for Success" that gets the chance to go on field trips and do little fun projects as a group. It is sort of a club that recieves special priveleges if you are a member. My sister, naturally, wanted to join. Who wouldn't want to go on field trips? They turned her down because she was white. They told her that this was a group only for African American girls. Disappointed, she told me about it. I find this very interesting. I know that there is an understanding that groups should unite and band together to celebrate who they are, but she obviously wanted to join this group. From what she told me, it doesn't seem like they are actually doing this in the first place. They mostly just meet to be friendly, not necessarily to talk about race. I could just be bias (given that this did happen to my sister) but I feel like this is wrong. She is 11 and she does understand what is going on, but what are your thoughts on the subject? Is this type of thing a problem?

...also.. when we talked about this she said the most interesting/adorable thing she probably could have, "actually... I feel kinda bad for the boys....they don't have any sort of group for them."

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."