As long as there have been people on this planet, there has been war. As long as people remain, there will still be war. This is just how human nature unfolds. I feel that this video is trying to make it seem as though wars have been getting more prevalent or more intense over the course of time from 1000 AD. While it may be true that there has been a slight increase in wars and the number of dead resulting form them, let’s not go rushing to conclusions. The video starts at the year 1000, which was a time when the world was still not interconnected and events such as wars and battles were not always recorded. This means that there were probably many more conflicts that took place over this time, particularly in areas where cultures were wiped out or taken over, such as the native americans in north america. I’m sure they battled with each other all the time, but since the colonists were too busy steamrolling them they didn’t have time to ask them about their culture’s history. Another point to be made is that there were simply less people 1000 years back. Smaller amounts of people mean that less people were around to battle and do war with one another. Since populations has grown exponentially in recent years its no wonder that wars have gotten so much larger and more people have died, even though it would probably be about the same number of people percentage wise as way back in the year 1000. In terms of where these wars take place, it’s obvious they are in places where different societies and cultures are vying for power and resources over one another. This is why the conflicts and dominantly in Europe and Asia. These wars are fought to ensure a nation’s growth and to try to create an empire out of their culture. This creates much strife and conflict between nations with similar ideals, and since resources and finite battles tend to revolve around which powerhouse is getting the goods at the end of the day.

This article, the lectures discussing natural gas in class, and the movie we watched all help to illuminate what is really going on with the natural gas industry in our nation. The gas companies support politicians by giving them large funds during their campaigns to get in power, then when they are elected the companies are able to get whatever they request from the politicians they supported. This is a devious plan that allows the companies to allow their candidate a much greater chance of winning through funding to spill out more advertising and support for a specific candidate, which makes the public more likely to support that specific candidate over someone else. Then, once elected they are given benefits and breaks for having gotten that person elected. A perfect example of this is our state’s governor Tom Corbett. Corbett was highly supported by natural gas companies, and now has granted them many unconstitutional rights. He silently passed a bill that prevents the drilling companies from ever being sued for ground water and well contamination by victims of the rampant and often environmentally questionable drilling that has taken place. In his attempt to keep his supporting gas companies happy, Corbett has opted to not impose a severance tax on their work, which every other state in the country does and would eliminate the state debt in just a few years, and has instead opted to cut higher education, among other things. What he has done has been to basically keep the wealth accumulated through the drilling in the hands of the companies doing it, instead of handing it out to the people he is supposedly governing. What’s even worse about this is that the drilling was said to be to reduce reliance on foreign energy. Sure, we have been getting energy by using some of what has been drilled, but a significant percentage of what we have been producing has been exported to other countries, mainly China. This is just another case of people in power saying something to get the masses on their side, and then doing something else purely for their own benefit.

Up until Friday, I was almost entirely unaware of this situation in the military. I had heard of certain isolated incidents where service men and women would come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with PTSD or have suicidal thoughts, but I didn’t think that it was that large of an issue. It just blows my mind to see that we have lost more troops to suicide than in actual combat since we first invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. After thinking about the situation the troops are in over seas however, it becomes easier to realize where these thoughts come from. Over there they have to be on their guard every second of the day, and have to watch out for a suicidal enemy that will kill them given any opportunity. This constant state of paranoia can easily damage a person’s psyche and have lasting repercussions. The psychological warfare the soldiers deal with is only made worse when they have to perform multiple tour of duty under the same conditions. This easily could cause a person to feel hopeless and like there’s no point in living when they have to go into those conditions repeatedly. What may be the largest problem in the suicide debate is that these soldiers are taught to suppress all emotions and not to show weakness. The feelings that go through them during PTSD are buried because their training taught them that these feelings were weak and that they shouldn’t be having them. When they’re buried and ignored, that allows the pain and emotional suffering from the combat roles they’ve seen to fester and grow. Up until recently, there has been no real help from the military for people going through PTSD and most requests for help on the matter were seen as individuals who couldn’t make it in the military and their superior officers would doubt them. That may be one reason why it has taken so long for any type of help to arise on the matter. The most important thing this article and the video from class say to me is that we all need to help our returning soldiers to cope with what they have seen and to help rehabilitate them back into civilian life.

The distribution of wealth in our country has always been skewed towards the rich and higher classes. That being said, however, in recent times that distribution has become more and more shifted their way, primarily in the last 50 to 60 years. I’ll agree that there will always be differences in wealth throughout the classes, it just seems fair that if a person is willing to work harder than another they should be rewarded for their extra effort. Where this breaks down is in modern times, where the executives and CEOs of companies make more than most of their employees combined for the whole year. This mostly arises because the rich just want more, and are in such a good position they are able to get more and more with little resistance. This means that as they are getting richer, the middle class and lower are being hit by burdens caused by this. In recent times the upper class’s margin of wealth has skyrocketed and has been increasing due to reduced taxation on the wealthy, shady business practices, and a lack of ethics and morals. The charts we saw in class illustrate this, with the upper classes getting higher and higher profits, while everyone below them have had their incomes stagnate over time. This trend has reached a point where I believe it won’t be able to support itself without major opposition from the lower classes. How long it will take for them to realize this and rise up could range from years to decades. What will be guaranteed to happen will be that there will come a place in time when the practices of the extremely wealthy will no longer be tolerated by the lower classes and extreme action will be taken to shrink the divide between all the classes, should this disturbing trend continue. It’s still hard to believe that in America, where all people are supposed to be equal, such a dramatic divide exists and segregates groups of people solely on income. The problem with the wealthy is that they can influence those people who have power, which allows them to keep their wealth through powerful friends making the laws, all the while exploiting those beneath them.

This article brings up the interesting point that the number of people who are choosing to distance themselves from religion and switch to unaffiliated groups has increased over the past few decades. The article states in its title that religion will be driven toward extinction if this trend continues. This is highly unlikely, it is even admitted in the article itself, which means the title is most likely a ploy to get readers. The article delivers the facts that the amount of people switching their religious views has started to increase recently and that, mathematically, this will spell the end of major religions. That is, of course, assuming that this trend continues indefinitely which is rather unwise to assume. There will likely be some point that the effect will level off at, since it’s almost impossible to assume everyone will decide to switch to an agnostic / atheist point of view in the western world. There will still be some groups of people, who knows how big, that will continue to believe in their religion and will continue to practice it even in the face of the majority switching to a non-believing point of view. The article points out the trend for people to switch what their doing to that of what the majority is doing, a desire for people to fit into the collective mass that everyone around them belongs to. This is the same force that drives trends and various movements in society. You could also say that practicing religion has had this effect of people, as a majority of people would have a religion and so other people would try to fit in by practicing the same or a similar religion. Thus, with this change, all the followers that jumped onto the religion bandwagon would see that there are more and more people switching to a non-religious point of view, and like the sheep they are, follow along without thinking and coming to their own decision on the topic. Because of this, it is likely that religion will lose most of the people who count on others to make their decisions for them, but there will still be the people left in the religious community that aren’t affected by the decisions of the masses.

This was quite the bittersweet story told by M. It starts with the unfortunate events of his adolescence, culminating in his incarceration and life sentence. From these events it sounds like he was finally able to accept what happened that night and feel true regret for his actions. I personally feel that he shouldn’t be putting such extreme blame on himself. Sure, he was old enough to think for himself and try to decipher right from wrong, but on a deeper scale he was still a child growing up. At fourteen a person hasn’t developed all the reasoning and understanding that comes with age, and thus having to make such a large decision, like aiding in a possible murder, would be something that a fourteen year old just can’t completely comprehend. Now, that’s not saying what he did wasn’t blameless; he knew the possible outcomes and had opportunities to change them. Because he didn’t doesn’t mean he’s a bad or cowardly person, everyone makes mistakes, just sometimes we make those mistakes at such crucial times in our lives that they undermine everything we’ve worked for and define who we are. I feel as though people who have made true advancements towards rehabilitation in prison should be offered a second chance at some point in their lives. What this second chance is is completely up to you to decide. Most people would just say to let them free again, but there are other ways of giving people a way to repent for their sins. One such way is to guide the younger, newer members in the prison and try to redirect their lives and save them from the same fate of serving life. Through acts such as that, I believe a person can achieve at least some form of redemption for what they have brought upon the innocent people they harmed in the past. There is no way to ever feel forgiven for a crime such as murder, but by working to make yourself a better person, much like M, is a way to work towards becoming a good person once again despite the crimes you might have committed in the past.

There are many negatives that come from suddenly winning mass amounts of money through something such as the lottery. Being thrown over the course of a few days from one social class to another is more jarring than most people care to realize. Most people who win the lottery are from the lower classes, and thus being raised to the upper classes is a completely different environment from what they were accustomed to. Adjusting to their new reality can be quite hard, as the way they are treated and expected to act changes literally overnight through this new money. Their previous tastes and preferences for things such as sports and art are usually different from those of people in the upper class, as seen through various observations of social classes. Another problem these winners have is handling their money correctly. They don’t have the skills to correctly handle, spend, and invest their money. These skills are usually taught to those people who have money from the start and middle to upper class students usually develop and are taught these skills in school and from their parents. The people who win the lottery haven’t been taught these skills and are instead handed the money without having any idea how to responsibly handle it. These skills are critical when handling money, as being able to invest and save it allows a person to properly manage their funds and gain more from their money. Without these skills, what’s left for a person to do but to directly spend their money that they have just sitting around? Just having your money without parts of it in saving just makes a person question why it’s just sitting around and gives them a reason to spend it. What they spend it on is usually stuff that would appease a person of the lower class and makes them seem out of place in their new social settings. With this rapid spending comes a realization that the funds made through the lottery are finite, and that what they spent the money on isn’t going to make their lives any better.

First off, I have to say that the animation in this video is as brilliant as the point Sir Ken Robinson is trying to get across, props to whoever did that. In regards to the video, there are so many things I could talk about dealing with the subject matter that a ballpark of 350 words just couldn’t do it justice, so we’ll see what I can do here. I completely agree with the fact that the way we are learning and scored on such learning is in a form right now that doesn’t facilitate understanding as it should. There is a great tie-in to class in that grades, in particular GPA, aren’t the best way of measuring intelligence and knowledge. Classes today are taught in a way that focuses students of tests and exams to define their level of understanding of the subject material. This leads to classes that are basically taught solely around these tests, whether they’re exams and finals in the class or ones to come later like the MCATs or GREs. Being taught like this doesn’t allow students to question and think for themselves, instead it rewards those who memorize exactly what they’re required to to score well on these tests. A perfect example of this actually occurred to me. I was taking a biology course at our fine university and all of the weight of the course outside of the lab came from a handful of major exams throughout the semester. Point made, right? Not yet. The bank of test questions for each exam was handed out before each one, and despite being over 100 questions long, it still allowed students to just memorize the answers when they finally figured them out. So instead of learning through readings or listening to a professor teach and then thinking about what they’ve been taught, people in this class were just able to just look up the required information to successfully fill out the test bank, then were able to do well on the multiple choice test. Sadly, this is how many of our classes operate and will continue to do so unless dramatic changes occur and a push towards less standardized learning occurs, which would be a pretty big stone to pass.

There has been and always will be arguing between the left and right side of the aisle. Usually it is over important issues, like taxation and foreign relationships. This, however, has gotten to the point of ridiculousness. We can agree that there will always be two sides to an issues, and that there will never be a time when everyone will agree the same way on a social problem, but making such a big issue about breast feeding just seems like a ploy for attention. Breast feeding is a private issue that most people feel uncomfortable talking about, which doesn’t make much sense under scrutiny. Any woman who gives birth will have to make a decision regarding it, and a large percentage of women do in fact decide to have children. Because of this, it doesn’t make much sense for this to be such a private issue when most people will have to deal with it at some point in their lives. It’s much like when people try not to talk about sex when other issues arise, it tends to make people feel awkward and uncomfortable even though pretty much everyone engages in it or makes a conscious decision over it. To not be able to talk about these issues with people is one large reason that they end up being such hot and intense issues in the first place. People just can’t keep to themselves and develop their own opinions, then spout them off when the social chance finally arises sometime in the future. These issues need to be discussed regularly so that informed opinions can be formed, or at least discussed instead of people holding firm to their own long-developed beliefs. The republicans in this article seems to think that, even though there is starting to be empirical evidence for the support of it, breast feeding should be something that every woman has to decide for themselves and shouldn’t be informed from outside sources that could sway their opinions. The first lady is only trying to help out women who decided to breast feed, she isn’t combating women who don’t breast feed, only aiding those who choose to.

When people say that Americans don’t travel as much as other societies, they are generally referring to the other developed nations, usually those in Europe. There are many factors and limitations that affect the thinking of Americans when considering travel that many people don’t realize or don’t connect with each other that comes into play when deciding whether or not to visit another country. First of all, there are many more geological barriers between Americans and the diverse cultures seen around the world. The United States takes up the entire space between the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast, generally isolating it from all countries but Canada and Mexico. This means that air travel is almost always required, even to get to those two connected countries, as most people don’t live close enough to the borders to just drive to them. The country is simply so large that the amount of travel time daunts most people, as they realize they will at least need to schedule a flight. This is the opposite of Europe, where from any country you could easily drive to another; it’s roughly like driving from state to state in the United States. Even Britain is now connected to continental Europe now with a bridge for driving across, so they can now visit those countries without having to fly. Another large reason for why Americans don’t travel is the expense. As stated above, air travel is usually imperative in these expeditions, and flights aren’t cheap. The cost factor is enough to keep the majority of Americans where they are, working just to make ends meet. The Americans that do have enough money, and time, to travel must also make another decision. They could choose to travel abroad, or they could choose to travel somewhere within the country. The latter is an enticing choice for people, as it is usually cheaper than traveling around the world. Also, since our country is so diverse, many people travel around it just to experience the different areas and subcultures within, which isn’t something they should be judged for instead of traveling for foreign nations. Another reason traveling in the country is appealing is that there is no currency exchange to deal with, or language barrier which people have to deal with. These factors help to make people decide to travel within the states, instead of traveling around to other countries and making that statistic of traveling Americans look any better.