Americans have been led to believe that if someone wears a turban, looks Arab with a thick beard they automatically become suspicious of that person. This is a view that has damaged the social relationship with middle eastern countries and its citizens. The Jihad leaders have striven to make a point that all Muslims hate the United States and all Americans hate Muslims. they have corrupted middle east nations with these views which has brained washed any positive view of anything associated with the United States. Realistically, most Americans understand that not all Muslims are evil or Jihad. But Muslims who aren't associated with Jihad groups completely hate the Americans. The Jihad movement has an extremely strong presence in these nations and are able to influence these people who only know that Americans are coming for them. growing up, if my parents told me that Canadians are evil and want to kill every American, I would believe it and grow up anti-Canadian. I think this is exactly what is going on in these nations.
I also believe that not enough Americans are given exposure to those Muslims who completely condemn terrorism. These people are victims of the fears of Americans. They are not given enough exposure by the media but maybe partly because they are operating within boundaries of Jihad who will behead them if any anti-terrorists or Jihad movements takes place. Their society is shaped by many invisible strings that lead to how they act and conduct themselves. The point is, these groups do not represent a vast majority of Muslims in the middle east. For example, during the early stages in the war of Iraq, Iraqis embraced American soldiers. But when 90% of casualties are citizens, what are they supposed to think? When their country suddenly becomes full of outside Jihadist who come to combat Americans creating more chaos, what are they supposed to think? This war between Jihad and Western nations will never come to a close by going to war and don't see the two sides ever sitting to squash the beef. We will continue to see these terrorists acts conducted against the US and other Western nations. As long as humans fear something, war will inevitably remain part of society.

The "Cost of Empire" video was extremely educational about the military standpoint in the United States. Military spending consumes a significant portion of government spending even at economically unstable periods. If there was any period of time when the government was to reduce military spending, it would have to be now when our country is in enormous debt, in need of subsidies to provide jobs, and for officials to help its citizens at home. Obama's plan to increase the military budget came as a complete shock to me. His motive for "change" while running for office was included bringing is good portion of our troops and ending any war as quick as possible. This is a great example of how the invisible strings affects the operations of our daily lives. Obama must have convinced himself that the fact that he was president, he would have control. The study of sociology teaches us that our actions are shaped by forces and factors beyond our control. In other words, we do not have sole control of anything.
Military spending is an extreme problem that doesn't get attention. When we speak of our troops, we assume that most of them are only in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Libya. While this might stand true, we still have a large pool of troops around the world. The money isn't going to those three locations, we are funding an extreme military empire. I compare the American military view to the military board game called "risk;" where the main objective is to expand your military across the world as quickly as possible. So why aren't other countries countering? Who wants to face the big and bad Americans? No one. We have taken advantage of these corrupt governments who demand increasing compensation for Americans to build bases. All wars are fought for resources. People make decisions based on their fears. What government will deny America any resources when it is known that they have the biggest and most dangerous military unit. This gives Americans a strong sense of security, especially against terrorist who deeply stroke us on September 11th. We want a strong military, quite frankly, who doesn't? I think that the real question to be asked is; is all that spending necessary?

When it comes to war, females only become relevant when it comes to nursing. This a powerful testimony not only on the perspective of a woman but to everyone who has witnessed or been living during a war in their country. This powerful speech made imaginary put my self in the shoes of civilians whom are in the middle of a war. Honestly, it takes a very mentally strong individual to compromise their lives during this difficult period. We feel like the soldiers are those who deserve all the support during war, rightfully so but only to an extent. Soldiers go into knowing that they have the ability to fight and defend themselves. They are equipped with armor and gear to help them get through it if possible. What protection do civilians get other that a barrage of explosives and unpredictable times? In my book, any civilian who survived a war is also deserving of a medal. More innocent lives die from war than any other casualty which is horrifying. The media doesn't inform the public on the number of innocent lives taken but rather those of soldiers which is equally as important. Those who aren't directly impacted by war, can never explain the feelings of the people who are. A powerful speech like this one is a great way to explain what really goes on behind the scenes. We can't trust everything we take from the media because there is a remote possibility the information is a hundred percent true. In situations like this, primary sources are the most valid form of evidence.
The harsh reality is we are species of war. There is no mediation when in comes to putting an end to war completely, especially on a global scale. Our invisible strings and the sociological forces of life will not enable us to. There are two very compelling arguments to war that putting an end to it seems strange. After all, the purpose of war is to obtain peace for your loved ones and those to come in the future. This fact is what drives individuals as well as countries to engage in the terrible/neccesary action of war.

Inequality has always been a phenomenon throughout the history of human kind. We all believe in the American value that summarizes that your position in life is dependent of how hard you work. You can become anything you want as long as you work hard at it; Really? The position we are put in, in society significantly bears a constraint on this optimistic American view. As Sam demonstrated in class, it is significantly hard to socially and financially move from the very bottom all the way to the top. This puts in perspective that we may all have the same level of extreme motivation but where we fall in society has a huge constraint on where we will ultimately end up due to the impact of continued inequality. For example, the former president of the United States, George W Bush, had the luxury of coming from a wealthy family and a father who was a former president. Automatically, you know and assume that his life, no matter how hard you work, will be drastically different from yours based on the invisible string theory. This arises the relationship between power and inequality. As Sam has repeatedly mentioned in class; those with power act on their own best interest. The wealthiest individuals usually those who assume power, are more likely to create policies that benefit themselves or individuals close to them, further widening the inequality gap. I have come to realize this is just a way of life. But I think that a country like the United States of America is structured in a way that gives individuals more of an opportunity to shrink the inequality gap. Or are we led to believe this fact? Even if this were true, people that live in less fortunate families are more likely to become in the same socio-economic reality because the invisible strings that guide them lead them towards it. From afar, we feel like it’s because they are failures and choose not to exceed but indeed it’s much deeper than that. We do not choose to do anything. Our actions are reflected upon how our environment shapes us to be.

I think the actions of most individuals are based on self-willed incentives. How will this task benefit me in the future or even now? Although most of us are aware of the actions needed to be taken to achieve a particular goal beneficial to us and our communities, we tend to defer the situation for someone else to resolve. For example, as discussed in class, funding for the educational system has been threatened to significantly decrease as of next year. In these types of situations, the majority of students are uneducated on what actions to take on these issues. the system is portrayed in a way that there is nothing we can can do about it, giving all the power to government officials who significantly benefit from it. State governments are not seeing the value these proceeds are having on the educational system. As discussed in class, the "free rider" approach by individuals in society, has been a major catalyst for state funding in educational system to be cut. Apart from the current financial crisis this country is hoping to successfully come out of, I think the minimal percentage of student participation in political issues that directly affect our lives are surging the incentive of the governor to cut these budgets. Student involvement in voting, and many other political issues that directly affect our lives has seen a huge downfall. The main reason of this societal behavior is the free rider effect. We all assume that someone else is in better position to take care of this issue so we tend to ignore the issue until the circumstances become worse and directly impacts our livelihood. Society is belt in a way that leaders are essential. In situations such as these that present huge potential for our invisible strings shaping us to become free riders, we need someone who can emotionally and consequentially make someone aware of the particular dilemma in order to get and adverse free rider response from individuals. Every individual is guilty of this fact. That is human nature. We are built to act in the best interest of ourselves and our believes and this is excessively evident when individuals assume high position of power. Leaders do not become leaders without the example of leaders.

Zach Wahl has an extremely moving and valid assertion of the topic of homosexual couples raising kids. In every case of a new experiment or a sudden change in the values of society causes a lot of debate. The main reason being that human beings live with paradigms, a natural state of rejection towards new ideas. I personally have not had the opportunity to think about this issue until now because quite frankly, in my perspective, the answer to this question is direct. I think that the fact that i have not really thought about this issue is a testament that homosexual couples are capable of raising children as well as or even better that straight couples. Zach Wahls is a phenomenal representative of this topic. I do not look at him and say he is lesser of a person because he was raised by two gay couples, but rather a positive individual to society, well educated individual, and someone with a very bright future. This is evidence that we should not discriminate on same sex couples who have ambitions of raising children. What makes the incapable? If we can come up with a more compelling argument other than "because they are gay" or "because their children will become gay," we should not eliminate them from raising children.

Everyone in society has their own personal beliefs and views rightfully so. Everyone also has the right to be treated equally when it comes to social issues until otherwise. Penalizing a homogeneous group in society strictly because of the sexual orientation or race is a characteristic of injustice sanctions. America is currently in a revolution on pertaining to this topic. They are slowly beginning to accept the homosexuality concept but at an extremely faster pace than countries around the world. This is a very sensitive issue especially due to the fact that it directly involves religious views. Within the United States, I believe that homosexuality will be prevalent as we have already began to accept their ability efficiently raise children. However, we may never see this revolution globally unless the rest of the world adopts our political system.

As human beings, we tend to illusion the things that will satisfy us and believe will make us happy. Money brings more opportunity for happiness and power in which human beings want. Everyday humans have a set mission to eventually become wealthy which will lead to happiness. We work all our lives to be able to support our loved ones, pay bills, give to the unfortunate, and any other endeavors we may pursue with our money. Money certainly to an extent brings a level of security that humans are able to live freely and as well as help relief some societal stresses that may be attached to finances. I believe that individuals who are raised in a considerably poor home are those who strongly believe money brings extreme happiness. They live in a society where money will cure all of their stressful anxieties. So the need for more to achieve a degree of happiness is high. Those who grow up in middle class families tend to live more comfortable and their desire for more money to create happiness is less of a discrepancy than the poor. Those who live in considerably rich families have an extremely different sociological structure that gauges happiness. In fact, most people who have been fortunate enough to be rich believe that the level of financial safety has nothing to do with happiness. This is a completely different perception than the poor who think different. Ultimately, the amount of money you have and how much is traced to happiness depends on your societal environment. For example, I grew up with a family in the middle class but I did not feel as fortunate as other kids who grew up in the higher middle class level. I learned to appreciate money much more and the things that involved money we did scarcely because of that fact. But I wasn't sad because of that fact. I still was a happy individual because I learned to adapt to society and things that were considered fun in that society. From that stand point, it is hard to put the basis of happiness on one particular factor. On the other hand, I believe that the people who constantly struggle to pay bills, eat food, acquire shelter, produce for family, etc are correct when they believe money brings happiness. You have to be out in this situation to understand it. But humans have a unique ability to adapt and get by. It is natural that we find our niche on happiness no matter the circumstances.

The media is continuously having affect by rationalizing our judgment on things that are rare and less likely to happen. It is a natural reaction by human beings to exhibit extra caution on their children when news comes out that there might be a child kidnapper on the loose in the community. Every parent needs a sense of security regardless of the probability their fears may indeed happen to them. A parent might never live with themselves if they send their seven year old to walk anywhere alone knowing that there is a child abductor in the area. The fast and widespread flow of information in this generation has rationalized our behavior to a large extent we necessarily aren't aware of. Earlier generations did not have the benefit of mass media as we do today. The rationale in which they made their decisions is different from today's generation but would have been similar if circumstances where exactly the same. With the strength of media to influence our decisions, the act of one individual can significantly bring changes. Human beings tend to unknowingly attach the act of one individual to everyone else. We tend not to understand the odds as we should. As shown in the video, the act of one individual out of thousands has caused deliberate chaos which in fact shouldn't to the extent that it does. The odds that the same thing could happen to your child is very very slim but we interpret it as the odds are extremely high.
Similarly, it can be assured that the act of one or several individuals out of millions, caused the many households to advice their kids never to talk to strangers. Growing up, I was instructed never to talk to strangers in fear of maltreatment. The fact is over 90% of the strangers you walk past everyday have no intent of harming you. But the action of one person that was a stranger to a victim has labeled the name "stranger" as dangerous to society. It is interesting to understand that we base our decisions on what we know. The media has a huge influence in extremely rationalizing our decisions to unnecessary heights. Human beings need a feeling of security. Everything we do in life is for the sole purpose of security no matter what the situation is. We need a level of comfort which rationalizes our decisions instantly.

I think this is great example of the sociological behavior within a given society. American citizens are brought up in a society where the perception of 'freedom' is widespread and is unarguably everyone's right to have. Every United States citizen has the ability to go obtain a passport at the United States Embassy but the majority of Americans choose not to. This proves how really 'un-free' we really put the American mind negates that possibility by assuming that it is a decision of choice, or it proves how 'free' we are to not go get a passport. No matter what, the limit to our freedom is based upon the characteristics of society as a whole which impacts our individual decisions.
According to the article, the attractive recreational areas, the beautiful beaches, the big cities, along with the negative perceptions we have against other countries limits our interest in traveling abroad. America is so big that traveling within is a vacation in it self bringing a satisfying new diverse experience. This is also an example of the forces around us that shape our decisions. So if everyone is absolutely free to do anything they want, especially in a nation that prides themselves on having this unique ability, why won't more Americans obtain passports in order to explore the amazing features on earth? Its much bigger than any individual person. Its all about the limits we have within a system and how we adjust our behavior as a result in order to fit in the system.
The invisible strings from the American society is such that doesn't put an emphasis on leaving the country. It is all part of culture. Most Americans work throughout their lives and only get a limited amount of vacation time than other cultures with higher cross-country traveling rates. The sociological context of society limits our freedom to make certain decisions no matter how free we think we are. Human beings have the candid ability to naturally fit within any culture they are uncontrollably brought into. We are never completely free form the time we arrive in earth and till the time we leave earth. We will always live with constraints, and the experiences we through in life will determine if we belong in a particular type of society.

The invisible strings are at strike again. It is completely natural for human beings to act in a manner that is completely accepted by society and this is an example of it. If I were in the shoes of the individuals in the elevator, and completely unaware of the experiment, I would have slowly turned around myself. I am not indicating that if everyone jumped off a bridge I will be right behind but in simple societal scenarios like this, it is part of our nature to fit in. For example, what if the individual in the elevator was abroad and in that particular culture, they face the back of the elevator while its moving. The natural reaction is to slowly turn around and not look dumb. We as individuals have a tendency to care about what people or society think. We do not want to be outcasts in a lavish way. The societal perception of that has shaped us to make decisions the way we do.
I think that conformity is the main building block of a distinct society. Without individuals having the ability to conform with one another, society will be chaotic. Individualism will be the new society and that seems almost impossible. We as human beings need one another. Those who outcast themselves from society do not live very long so therefore, they do not have the ability to impact society in anyway unless everyone becomes an outcast. The combination of our invisible strings and our urge to "group think" has unknowingly shaped our lives the way it is. It is an interesting phenominon and very difficult to explain. As free as we may consider ourselves to be, it is societies "invisible strings" controlling our every move.