http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-richards21nov21,0,6832175.story?coll=la-home-entertainment
http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/20/kramers-racist-tirade-caught-on-tape/
"Well, you interrupted me, pal. That's what happens when you interrupt the white man." Thats one of the racial remarks Michael Richards said durring his performence at the laugh factory this weekend. I found the vidoe on the internet and alot of articles about it and one of the things that suprised me was that he apologized and said he didn;t know why he even said it and that hes not even racist. I hate to break it to you, but when your pissed off and feel threatened infront of a croud, your real character comes out, and you can;t hide it anymore. Its just how people react to stress, and he cracked and now he is trying to cover it up and not make it seem so bad. The thing that shocked me was the quote "didn't you know?" that he said right after the quote above, this bring the rest of society in, implying that white people are more important and that they should be highly respected, and thats jsut not true.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Thursday, October 26, 2006
When I sat out and observed other people in society I didn't really notice any social problems where I was but I did start to notice the changes from things that used to be social problems but aren't really anymore. For example, on campus I noticed the people on campus and how incredibly independent everyone was, including women. In the past women weren't able to go to most colleges - I know there were exceptions - let alone did they walk around as confident as they do today. Another thing I noticed was people in relationships that were walking around with their significant others, holding hands and whatnot, but one thing I noticed was that it wasn't the men walking with the women or vice versa. In the people I saw they just walked hand in hand together, not one person more dominant or controlling, were in before men seemed to be "walking" their girlfriends. I know not in all cases, but it made me think about all the progress that has been made socially.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prison5oct05,1,1451030.story?coll=la-headlines-California&ctrack=1&cset=true
This article is about the overcrowding of California's prisons. On this past Wednesday Gov. Schwarzenegger declared that it is now a state of emergency. In hopes to solve the problem, the governor plans to transfer inmates to various prisons in different states including Oklahoma, Indiana, Arizona and Tennessee.
This seems like an ineffective way to solve the problem, since you can only get a few of the prisoners out, but there are still more coming in. And, who decides what prisoners are going to get transferred? The good ones? Or the ones that cause trouble. It seems like either way is going to be bias. In the article it said that some of these inmates are living triple bunks and that they have even begun to convert gyms and other normally uninhabital rooms into cells. If they have been doing that for a while, then they have been aware of the issue for some time, so why wait until we are in some state of emergent to do anything about it? For example, if you are running out of gas, its a good idea to get some more before you completely run out, otherwise you will be in more trouble than you were in the beginning. Sure, its not the same as prison space, but the same type of logic applies.
It also seems to be a convenient time to be bringing this up, since the gov. Is running for re-election, he wants to make people happy, and get more votes. Like we were talking about in class, people want to feel safe, and if he can somehow appeal to our want of safeness and security, then he will receive more votes. Since he is in the place of power to begin with, he is able not to say, "well I am doing something to fix this crisis." The other cannidates can say what they intend to do, but the gov. Can get the ball rolling and have something more to show for it, and this can help his campaign as well.
This article is about the overcrowding of California's prisons. On this past Wednesday Gov. Schwarzenegger declared that it is now a state of emergency. In hopes to solve the problem, the governor plans to transfer inmates to various prisons in different states including Oklahoma, Indiana, Arizona and Tennessee.
This seems like an ineffective way to solve the problem, since you can only get a few of the prisoners out, but there are still more coming in. And, who decides what prisoners are going to get transferred? The good ones? Or the ones that cause trouble. It seems like either way is going to be bias. In the article it said that some of these inmates are living triple bunks and that they have even begun to convert gyms and other normally uninhabital rooms into cells. If they have been doing that for a while, then they have been aware of the issue for some time, so why wait until we are in some state of emergent to do anything about it? For example, if you are running out of gas, its a good idea to get some more before you completely run out, otherwise you will be in more trouble than you were in the beginning. Sure, its not the same as prison space, but the same type of logic applies.
It also seems to be a convenient time to be bringing this up, since the gov. Is running for re-election, he wants to make people happy, and get more votes. Like we were talking about in class, people want to feel safe, and if he can somehow appeal to our want of safeness and security, then he will receive more votes. Since he is in the place of power to begin with, he is able not to say, "well I am doing something to fix this crisis." The other cannidates can say what they intend to do, but the gov. Can get the ball rolling and have something more to show for it, and this can help his campaign as well.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-outlook10sep10,1,2732188.column?coll=la-news-politics-national
Last week the La times had an article about the public's cry against political parties. Eversince the lats 1800s there has been a trend where politicians vote according to their party. Many Congress members running for re-election have been claiming more of an independent approach. This way appealing to what the public wants. Many of these have been of the Republican party, mainly to separate themselves from President Bush. Cannidates want to bridge the party gap in hope for more cooperation.
I think that this is great for our political process because it seems that a majority of problems that arrise dealing with congress tend to be with political party identification. The fact that politicians are responding to the public's outcry is hopeful in the sence that maybe we do still have more of a say in what is going on in Washington. Most poeple (especially my age) do not opt to vote because they feel that the politicians are not listening to them. This proves that they are at least listening somewhat. Besides, poeple do not always vote with the parties they are most affiliated with.(at least they shouldn't)This will also make people become more acitve in the political process since they won't be able to say, "Well I am Republican, so I will automatically vote for the Republican canidate" or cause.
Last week the La times had an article about the public's cry against political parties. Eversince the lats 1800s there has been a trend where politicians vote according to their party. Many Congress members running for re-election have been claiming more of an independent approach. This way appealing to what the public wants. Many of these have been of the Republican party, mainly to separate themselves from President Bush. Cannidates want to bridge the party gap in hope for more cooperation.
I think that this is great for our political process because it seems that a majority of problems that arrise dealing with congress tend to be with political party identification. The fact that politicians are responding to the public's outcry is hopeful in the sence that maybe we do still have more of a say in what is going on in Washington. Most poeple (especially my age) do not opt to vote because they feel that the politicians are not listening to them. This proves that they are at least listening somewhat. Besides, poeple do not always vote with the parties they are most affiliated with.(at least they shouldn't)This will also make people become more acitve in the political process since they won't be able to say, "Well I am Republican, so I will automatically vote for the Republican canidate" or cause.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)