After reading Peggy McIntosh’s “White Privilege and Male Privilege,” I realized that I have witnessed first had nearly all of the events she outlines.  Her point number seventeen, which was “I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color,” stood out to me the most.  I have been in numerous situations with other whites and have seen an African American eating with their mouths full, and a lot of the time I hear a comment relating the situation to their race and labeling that person uncivilized.  One particular situation was when I was in the movies with a friend.  About halfway into the movie, an African American got up and went to get food.  When he came back, he started eating it and making quite a loud noise in the process.  A man in the back yelled at him, “Go back to the jungle.”  I turned back to see who had made the comment, but could not distinguish in the darkened room.  The African American man finished his food and got up and left with a good hour left in the movie.  I remember thinking how loud the noise was, but after could only think about the offensive comment and what the man must have felt.  Ms. McIntosh certainly makes a good point here.

Point number twenty that Ms. McIntosh made also reminded me of a situation I had seen.  Here, she states, “I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.”  Earlier in the year 2007, Barack Obama announced his nomination for the President of the United States in 2008.  A well educated and young African American, he was looked upon by many as the first potential black president of the United States.  However, when Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware commented on him, he made a reference to Barack being one of a kind for his race: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man,” (Cnn.com).  Biden’s comment, although seemingly flattering, was a racist remark towards the rest of the African American population.  He singled out Barack out of an entire race and implied that he hadn’t seen anything like it before.  Here, too, Ms. McIntosh makes a credible point.

Don Imus made the biggest mistake of his 30-plus year career when he went on air and referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed ho’s.” Honestly, Mr. Imus should have learned better throughout his tenure. Not only was the comment extremely racist and sexist, but it was also broadcast to an audience on the radio and on television. His morning show was something many people tuned in to every morning, and because of that he should have known that anything he said was going to be magnified and discussed for weeks to come throughout the media. If he had been some new radio broadcaster who just went on the air for the first time, the story wouldn’t have been nearly as big as it was.

The reaction of the CBS and MSNBC to cancel his program was a direct result of the media coverage of the story. After the comment had been leaked to nearly all of the country by the media, sponsors had no choice but to start pulling their names from the show because of the public outcry to ban the show forever. It’s common sense that the sponsors would want to protect their names and try their best to not get involved in the story. Because of their withdrawals, along with a strong outcry mainly by people of color and women alike, MSNBC and CBS were left virtually no choice but to pull the plug on the three-plus decade old show. Even though the comment was wrong and Imus deserved a punishment for his actions, I think that the broadcasters should have taken into account how old the show was and out of respect should not have cancelled it. I believe that a suspension, and maybe even a fine, would have done just fine. But, because of the media, CBS and MSNBC had to react with a stiffer punishment resulting in Imus having to do time that didn’t fit the crime.

I believe that there should definitely be limits on free speech on radio waves, as well as on television. However, they should not interfere with criticism and debate. What Imus said, for example, was wrong. Imus could have just as easily said something along the lines of “The Rutgers women’s basketball team isn’t nearly as good as Tennessee and I believe strongly that they will lose the national championship.” That would have gotten the point across that he doesn’t think too highly of the team, without offending an entire race and sex. Comments such as “ho’s” are just as offensive to women as words that are degrading to races. That is just ignorant. The line should be drawn between what is acceptable and what isn’t. I believe that anything that refers to an entire people and offends them will always be crossing the line. Freedom of speech is only applicable when you can say what you want to say while respecting your audience. From this episode, we can learn what is acceptable to society and what we should think twice about saying on public radio. Hopefully now we can learn to say what’s on our minds without offending an entire race.

After watching the video of Richards’ outburst, I didn’t know what to say. At first, I couldn’t even distinguish if he was trying to be funny or if it was an actual outburst. After watching it a few more times, it became apparent that this wasn’t part of his act. It is unfortunate that he let his anger get the best of him and threw his entire career down the drain in a span of two minutes. I agree completely with the comment a man from the audience made when he said it was “uncalled for.” I realize that the men may have provoked him, but as a professional actor he should know what to do and understand the consequences of his actions. It is completely unnecessary to make those remarks and have the entire world view you as an unstable human being, when he could have let the man’s comments slide and address him after the show. As I watched the video, I notice there were a lot of African-Americans in the audience, even more reason for him not to make those racist comments. The comments were wrong on so many levels that wrong, stupid, racist, and illegal don’t even begin to describe them. I would have no problem with Richards yelling at the man or calling him on stage, as long as he left race out of it. No apology is acceptable in this situation. The fact of the matter is that if the situation presented itself again, he would act the same way. There is no way to apologize for dehumanizing remarks, and if he did apologize it was in an effort to salvage his tarnished image, not because he was sincere. Because of his unbelievably stupid and unjustifiable remarks, he has waved goodbye to his career forever.

There are many sides that can be taken regarding this issue. Personally, I feel that all sex offenders should receive some sort of punishment for their actions. The degree of the punishment, however, should vary depending on the type of crime that was committed. For example, if their is an 18 or 19 year old male who has sexual relations with his 17 year old girlfriend, I think their should be a very light punishment, if any at all. However, if a 30 or 40 year old man decides to rape or molest a young child, I think he should receive the same punishment as those convicted of murder. These two scenarios do not merit the same punishment.
I strongly believe that sex offenders who have committed more severe sex crimes do not deserve any empathy and, furthermore, should very much be ostracized from communities. Doing something like that to a helpless young child is worst than murder, in my opinion. I must admit that I am somewhat biased because I have a young niece and care for her very much. As an uncle, I can say that if something like this happened close to home for me, I would strongly support a death penalty for the accused. Something like that has an effect on children and it is something they will never forget. It will scar them for the rest of their lives and cause them to be more insecure about their situation, as well as lose confidence in the world. I believe these criminals should get the 25-life or death sentence, and should be imprisoned without the possibility of parole.
The idea of attaching a scarlet letter or some sort of symbol on sexual predators that allows the community to see they have committed a crime is an interesting idea to me. I would agree with the decision to outcast certain members of the community who have proven in the past that they cannot handle someone’s trust and deserve to be scorned. At the very least, sexual offenders should be listed in a community so that they can see what kind of people are living next door, as it is now. In the case of the Scarlet Letter, I believe that Hester shouldn’t have been outcast from the community. Committing adultery is not nearly as bad as molestation. Although some may view it as immoral, it takes two to commit that crime. Molestation cases involve someone who decides to rape or molest someone else against their will. I do not think Hester should have worn the letter, but I would have no problem with sexual offenders wearing the red A on their chests.

This article really opened my eyes to how the internet has transformed our way of thinking. You can find nearly anything you want on the internet. The author eludes to this point when he refers to how having Youtube way back in the day would have made his break-dancing learning experience much easier: “If I had YouTube back in the early-eighties, perhaps I would’ve learned how to do the backspin and then the windmill (an advanced move) a lot faster.” This was probably the most significant quote to me. It truly represents how computers and the internet have revolutionized how we live our lives.

Personally, I have grown a liking to Youtube. This year, my junior year, was the first time I had ever heard of it. Had I known about it before, I would have used it to research videos for projects and used them in PowerPoint presentations, or to just incorporate technology into assignments. I do use it quite often now for recreational purposes. I like to look up sports clips and jet-flying the most. Any sports videos or clips I may have missed on TV, I find on Youtube. I also love watching jets. If I’m bored, I’ll look up some new tricks the F-16 has done or just sit in awe of the amazing power of the F-22. It seems like anything I’m in the mood for, Youtube seems to have a video for it. A lot of my friends have links in the AIM or MSN messenger profiles that link to Youtube. All the videos are different, yet I find myself clicking on all of them out of curiosity to see if it looks awesome. However, I also realize that basing everything you do on Youtube or the internet in general isn’t smart either. I believe in experiencing things for yourself and not just using the web to gain all of your knowledge. If you use new technology to help out your understanding of things IN ADDITION to your first-hand experiences, then you are in an ideal situation.

In today’s society, parents are so worried about a phrase in a book that they do not want their children to read that they are completely oblivious to the social lives of their children. If a parent wants to ban a book because the word “scrotum” is in it and they do not want their children exposed to that kind of literature at such a young age, then they should also be more engaged in their children’s lives outside of school if they are so worried. To think that their children are not exposed to that sort of language in lower and middle schools in today’s society is absolutely ridiculous. The media and other outside influences do so much more to shape how a child learns than does a novel in this day and age. Teachers, furthermore, are simply acting lazy when they say that they do not want to take five minutes out of their lesson to deal with the issue and teach their learners something about the human body. As the middle school librarian in New Jersey stated: “If I were a third- or fourth-grade teacher, I wouldn’t want to explain that.” I know if I were a parent, I would much rather have a teacher explaining that sort of thing to my child that one of their friends who wants to act “cool” by using that kind of language.

Banning and censoring novels on account of some of their text takes the meaning out of a book. Reading something that went through rigorous decontextualization and editing would prevent you from understanding what the author was trying to say. Instead of reading the author’s book, you’re reading a product of some company whose goal is to deprive novels of their true beauty and only show what they think is appropriate for their audiences. As the author of this article states, “Why is it that no one ever talks about banning the Odyssey? Is it because book-banners are afraid to read, much less criticize (and be wrong about) poetry?” I very much agree with this statement and believe that people will try to censor novels and books, but are afraid to touch poetry because of its “higher level of sophistication.” In essence, they are all pieces of writings that deserve equal opportunity to be published in their entirety.

I also believe that children should be reading this sort of material in its fullness because it gives them a chance to expand their knowledge and learn these things so that later on in life they will not have to question what someone is saying because their parents would not allow them to read novels that contained some sort of “scrotum” language. The Catcher in the Rye is one of the greatest novels ever written, in my opinion. It also relates directly to teenagers like no other novel out there. To ban it from high school curriculums because of some language is absolutely ludicrous. It has such a powerful theme and many underlying ones that cannot be noticed unless it is read exactly how the author wrote it. I honestly do not understand why parents and teachers are so reluctant to teach their children about this kind of material, because they would be ignorant to think that their children will not, if they are not already, exposed to this sort of material in the real world. Books can do wonders for expanding a young one’s knowledge, but only if they are read in their entirety and how the author intended them to be read.

I believe that the fact that the shooter had two hours to roam around campus freely. The entire school should have been in lock-down. Between the two shooting in the dormitory and Norris Hall, the shooter had enough time to mail NBC pictures and videos of what he intended to do. There is no justifiable reason for the school to assume that the killer “left campus” after the first shooting. At the same time, it would have been extremely difficult for the administration to alert the entire school about the first shooting (although they attempted to contact the students through email). As a result, 32 innocent lives were taken that day at the Virginia Tech campus and many students and faculty were forced to live in fear throughout the day, until they got conformation that the killer was dead.

I also think that gun control should be stricter when it relates to weapons that are easily accessible to the public. Weapons such as semi-automatics, and all hand guns for that matter should not be readily available to whoever wants to but them. When the shooter purchased his weapons, there was no background check on him. As a result, the largest school shooting in history came true on April 16. Guns such as rifles and hunting guns should be more accessible to the public, because it is much more difficult to sneak in those types of weapons into schools and commit mass murder. Hunting is a sport, and although murder can be committed with them, it is far less likely because of their size and bulk. I agree 100% with the author that smaller weapons such as handguns should only be available to law enforcement, and at least be more difficult for the public to obtain them.

Lastly, I believe that the shooter should have been treated for his illnesses. Clearly, he was mentally unstable. Neighbors claim to have walked past him while he was playing basketball and attempted to greet him, but he would just ignore them and mutter things under his breath. Also, his English professor claimed that in his essays the killer said “alarming” things about his classmates. His teacher reported him to other faculty, as well as the police, and no action was taken because no crime had been committed. Do we really have to wait for 30+ people to die before we can take action? It was evident that he was mentally ill, and he should have received some sort of treatment for it. He claimed that the teachers had “left him no choice” but to commit mass murder. If action had been taken to treat him, the massacre at Virginia Tech could have been prevented.

The American Dream, something that drives people from all over the world to come to this country, is a central theme in F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby.  Nick Carraway is the voice of the novel, but surprisingly is not the main character.  The book centers around Jay Gatsby, a very wealthy young man living in a prestigious part of New York, West Egg.  Gatsby earned his money while working for a millionaire as a young boy.  Here, Jay is a perfect example of the result of the American Dream.  He started out as a relatively poor boy growing up in North Dakota, and ended up among the richest of the rich in West Egg.  However, the way he earned his money is not in concordance with the American Dream.  Here is where Fitzgerald exemplifies how the roaring 20’s had its own version of the dream: The Great American Dream.  In the 20’s, “get rich quick” was the motto by which many lived their lives.  This, in turn, compromised moral values and the idea that one must work hard to earn what they get.  Through several descriptions, Fitzgerald describes how hollow-minded individuals were during this decade and how money became the most important thing to have.  Gatsby’s methods of earning money after he moves into West Egg may be questionable, but he does not compare to the shallowness and corruptness demonstrated in Tom Buchanan’s character.  Tom is the epitome of corruption and greed in the 1920’s.  He cheats on his wife Daisy on a regular basis with Myrtle, and it is suggested that when Myrtle dies he finds another woman after Nick sees him in a jewelry store in New York:  “Just as I slowed up to avoid overtaking him he stopped and began frowning into the windows of a jewelry store…. Then he went into the jewelry store to buy a pearl necklace,” (178-179). 

During Jay’s funeral, only three guests show up to pay their respects.  After all the lavish parties Jay had thrown and all the gifts he had bought for complete strangers, only two of his guests attended his funeral.  This suggests the moral poverty that was so evident during this time period.  Jay achieved great success and was a wealthy man for the later part of his life, but managed to make only one friend.  This is also indicative of something that all the money in the world can’t buy, a true friend.  Jay used his parties in order to attract Daisy, someone he had loved for years and hoped to one day marry.  However, in the end, even she does not want to be with Gatsby and instead returns to her unfaithful husband, Tom.  The American Dream is the ultimate achievement for anyone who hopes to make something of themselves: going from poor to rich in a land where anything is possible.  The Great American Dream, however, is something that only was around during the time of Jay Gatsby.  The goal at the time was to get rich, period.  Moral values, friendship, and love were the only things that money couldn’t buy.