It is amazing to me how poetic and beautifully this prisoner writes about love. As I was reading the beginning about all of the conversation and the tv and space that he is confined to, I was brought back to a conversation from earlier in the semester.. I remember talking about the fact that prisoners do have decisions to make just like those of us who are not in prison. We have the choice to get out of bed and (most of us don't, but hey, whatever) if we really wanted to, we could spend hours pondering whether we should brush our teeth or our hair first, or if we want to watch tv, or if we want to go workout... we all, including prisoners, have the ability to make decisions to a certain extent. When I was reading the beginning of the article I couldn't help but think about that conversation we had in class.. However, as I continued to read on about what prison really has taken away from him, I also started to think that maybe it gave something back to this man.. that just sounds crazy. But I wonder if this man had the ability to love to this extent before prison. Before he didn't have restrictions set upon his personal pursuits, would he have been able to love a woman to this capacity? Would he have wrote about loving a woman the same way that he had in the end of the article? What he wrote about love, obviously it's enough to make romantic girls like me swoon, or say awwwwww because it tugs at our heartstrings. But would he have even realized without prison how important or self-fulfilling it is to have the love of a compassionate woman? .... Maybe he did write about love and appreciate his relationships the same way before prison, and well, in that case I guess I'm entirely wrong. But I don't know exactly why he is in prison, I don't know his past, and i don't know if he ever did long for love the way that he does now pre-prison. I just couldn't help but wonder if prison has given him this amazing ability to love, if it has given him something back..

Sam said it best in class when he said that the government is just one large system of bribery. There are so many visible examples of this today. Every campaign has to be funded in some way, shape or form. Without funds, there is no chance for competition against incumbents who already have a huge advantage. Oil industries make billions of dollars in profit each year. It only makes sense that in order to keep them on top and make sure that they have a say in policy making so that unfavorable legislation isn't passed that they help to fund campaigns for political figures in order for these favors. I'm not saying that it is necessarily right, but that is just the way it is. And, of course the government is going to keep supporting these billion dollars businesses not only because they contribute so much to the economy, but also because they provide the United Sates with highly sought after resources. That's what wars are all about : the struggle of each country to maintain/take resources for themselves. The United States is the richest country in the world. Americans live on a scale that isn't even imaginable to other countries (like the man from Haiti talked about in class on Wednesday). In order for Americans who own 2 sometimes 3 and 4 or even more cars to keep living the way that they are used to, the United States has to maintain the same amount of resources that it always has, no matter how bad it is for the environment etc. With all of that said, the government provides so many breaks and favorable legislation for the oil companies because senators and political figures need to find ways to fund their campaigns. The Oil industry is so rich that its in fact very smart of them to :bribe" the government. In addition to the need for campaigns to be funded, I make the point that in order for us to live the "American Dream" that so many of us are accustomed to, we must have a huge stake in natural resources.

When i first read that number, I didn't think it was that large either, until it was broken down in that way. That number is outrageous. It makes me wonder how many of these kids truly deserve to be in there. It makes me wonder what crime they committed that was so terrible that we can never forgive them. It also makes me wonder what kind of home they grew up in. We have been talking a lot about the invisible strings and how they shape things without us realizing it. Did some of these kids grow up in bad homes and get pulled into exactly what it is we can predict will happen according to the invisible strings? Why , when we are sentencing these kids, isn't that something that we take into consideration? The article was right when it talked about the fact that while these kids are in prison, they are not going to be taught to be better people. So why instead of just locking them up, don't we provide some form of help for the prisoners that did have bad home lives. It amazes me to think about the things that these children are missing out on. All of the things mentioned in the article like love, compassion, trust, getting their first apartment, having a relationship. I can't even begin to fathom what that must be like. Under the constitution, aren't we supposed to have these certain undeniable rights? Well, these kids committed crimes. So, are we saying that because they made a mistake they are not human beings that should be protected under the Constitution of the United States. What also struck me was the fact that the United States signed the act that was supposed to protect these children. Why do we trust our government? We think that we live in the best country in the world and democracy is the best etc. But, even in countries that we think are "third-world", or worse off than us, they are still not doing this to their children? This article has shed a lot of light on a situation that I would never even take the time to know about. Wow, is all i can say.. I can't believe our government, (Pennsylvania in particular, i grew up here!) is doing this to these children..

This video sheds light on the topic of education in a way that I had never thought about. I've been in school for most of my life and never really took the time to think about the process of going to school in itself and what it has done to me. I think that there was definitely some standardization that went on in schools when I was growing up, but I most certainly don't think it was to the same degree that it goes on in schools today. It seems to me like the only goal of many educational institutes is to "teach to the test" so that they don't lose money in grants from the state. Have they ever really taken a step back and thought about what this is doing to the children who are going to be our future leaders? I remember when I was in 5th grade I had to take my first PSSA test. It wasn't a big deal, we went over material for the test and I took it and passed with flying colors without much else even being said about that test. I actually never thought I would have to take a PSSA test again. However, fast forward to my 11th grade year when I was forced to take a class for an entire semester that focused solely on math PSSA problems. Then, for the other half of the semester, I had to take a class about Reading PSSA material. All of my teachers emphasized the importance of passing this test. We were told that if we didn't get a certain "grade" on this test certain privileges that we though were ours rightfully to begin with would be taken away. It was like the end of the world if we didn't do well on these stupid PSSA tests which I thought had nothing to do with measuring exactly how smart we are. I thought that they were useless. I look back on when I thought that I had to take a lot of standardized tests. But, I talked to my little brother just the other day who was forced to take PSSA's (with an emphasis on how important they are) in 5th, 6th, 8th, and 11th grades. AND there was a science section added to the test instead of just math and english. Rumor has it that PSSA tests will be taken in every grade now? I don't know.. but All of this standardization is crazy. It really does take away a student's ability to think that there is more than one right answer and be creative.The generation that we are standardizing will be us tomorrow. They will be in control of our world. Is this how we really want them growing up? However, I can see where standardization should be used to a certain degree. Of course we need some type of system that can effectively provide statistics/numbers about how well students are doing in school. There is a need in this world for a scale on which to measure how intellectual a person is because of the competitiveness of jobs. Employers aren't going to take the time to get to know every single person based on who they are, how capable they are of learning, if they are a good person in general, etc etc... No, they'll just set some standard that needs to be met in order to make the process more timely and easier on them. In order to do this they need to first set some "standard" that people can look to meet. Bottom line: Do i think we need standardization? Yes. Do I think we need it at the degree of which it currently is being implemented in society? NO.

I think that when many Americans read this article, they may be appalled at the fact that the government thinks they can control what we eat. They may be up in arms. Actually, when I first read the statement about the government telling us that we can or cannot eat big macs, I was kind of up in arms. The funny part about that is, I DON'T EVEN LIKE MCDONALDS! I was simply just offended that someone wanted to have so much control over me. Then, I got to thinking. As much as we don't realize it, the government already does control what our bodies consume. It may not be to the extent of saying "don't eat that big mac"; however, the FDA most certainly has control over what can actually be put on American shelves for consumers to buy. If we didn't have a system in place that regulated what we were allowed to put in our bodies, we could go back to the very first lecture that Sam gave us. Americans think that right now they have freedom over what they consume because the government isn't specifically saying "don't eat that big mac". However, "if we wanted to go outside in our yard and pick a plant that grows out of the ground, and smoke it" we can't. It is illegal for us to consume something that God put on this earth in the ground, but it's not illegal for us to go out to the nearest Mcdonalds and consume something that is almost entirely artificially made. (who knows what's actually in that stuff.... i'm not a fan of mcdonalds in any way, shape for form.) Basically what i'm saying I wouldn't be surprised if the government got to a point where they did control whether something was too unhealthy for us to consume or not. I believe that they already do it in some ways that Americans might not examine as closely. If the government is already putting limits on what we cannot consume, then why would it be offensive for them to suggest, or provide programs that promote a healthier lifestyle. The government is not saying that it is illegal not to breastfeed your children. They are simply promoting a program that may aid in the much debated about fight against childhood obesity.

able to fully understand the concept of freedom or state that they are truly free. I honeslty can't believe that there are people in the United State that brag about all of the freedoms that they have without considering what they are actually restricted to. In some aspects, we are the same as people who live in other countries that are less free. We all make decisions every day, wether they are large or small, we are all entitled to some form of freedom. However, none of us will ever truly be "free

It is truly amazing to me that only 30% of us actually do leave. It just makes me wonder about how many other things Americans have the freedom to do but don't take advantage of. I never would have thought that the number of people taking advantage of their freedoms was so low. This only leads me to wonder about other countries and the freedoms that they have or the freedoms that they lack. If those other countries who are "less free" than the United States can't do as much as we do, would they even participate in activities if they were free to do it? Would they take advantage of their freedoms or just simply let them go to waste as many Americans do? Freedom is such a complex idea. No one will ever be ."

I absolutely agree with the statements set forth by Sam in class regarding the fact that Americans are not free. Every single American has the ability to travel outside of the United States and go to places anywhere in the world. In fact, many Americans set goals to travel around the world to many different places, but how many Americans actually do leave the country? 30% of Americans actually have passports which enable them to leave the country. 100% of us have the ablity or are "free" to leave the country whenever we want.

I absolutely agree with the way that Sam handled presenting this entire situation to the class during lecture. At first I absolutely agree with the way that Sam handled presenting this entire situation to the class during lecture. At first, it is easy for all of us to think like "oh my god. are they nuts?! of course a five year old child isn't going to intentionally take someone's life. He had no idea what the gun could actually do. He has no idea what it means to actually take a human life, and who knows if he even knew if the gun was a real or a fake in the first place. the police are crazy, the school shouldn't have suspended him, and the father is the one who is actually to blame. Get him to take a safety course and stop leaving dangerous things in his car for his son to just pick up and play with" I agreed with that first reaction. However, when he brought it back up in the next lecture, and started to explain some of the reasoning behind the fact that the little kid was arrested, it made even more sense. His argument was that institutions are rational... and so are people. When they say that the little kid "got arrested", it probably wasn't a normal arrest. Yes, he was probably "taken downtown" but he probably was not put into handcuffs or treated coldly. He actually probably had no idea what was going on in the first place. The police had to arrest the little kid because there was a law that was broken. There is no exception to the law. If there were exceptions, it would be very hard to draw the line between what is a crime and what is not, and I just think that things would get sloppy. How do you punish one five year old boy for bringing a gun to school that he didn't know was real, and not punish another five year old who brought a gun that looks exactly the same except his really is a toy? If there were exceptions to the law, and people weren't rational, it would be unbelievably hard to keep order in this country. Basically my point is that I entirely agree with the way that Sam presented this situation to us. Yes, it seems crazy to arrest a five year old kid that probably had no real idea what his actions would cause. But Yes, they also HAD to arrest him because the law has to be rational, and apply to everyone, or else things would just get way too complicated.

Looking at the situation through a sociological lens and adjacently with the first few lectures given by Sam, this is clearly a case in which someone THINKS that they are free. This person, or anyone who has not taken a class with Sam for that matter, might look at the things listed in the article and proclaim their gratitude for the freedom that they THINK that they have. What do I mean by this? Before soc 001, I too THOUGHT that i was free. I was entirely unaware of the "strings" that are attached to my life and actions that almost predetermine what I am going to do without my knowledge. There are things that influenced my decisions and actions my entire life that I hadn't realized before taking this sociology class. Every single one of the freedoms listed in the article can be coined a freedom. However, every single "freedom" listed can also be broken down in such a way that can really get a person to thinking that they are not actually making a single decision to do participate in that "freedom" voluntarily or by themselves. Let me break some down for you:

"to shower when I want, take a bath, swim in a pool"
can you really shower/bath WHENEVER you want? can you swim in a pool whenever you want? in whomever's pool you want? or are there rules/regs/customs in society that influence your decision of where and when to take a shower or swim in a pool?

"to get up and check the fridge"
to get up? you were TAUGHT how to get up, taught that checking the fridge is what you do when you're hungry, but someone taught you that you need to eat; you never made the decision or not wether it is right for you or not to eat, someone else made that decision for you.

"to take a walk to the cornerstone"
someone also had to teach you how to walk ; involuntary

"to get a haircut whenever I want"
do hair salons close? you have to follow society's customs of when a hair salon should be open. unless you are cutting your own hair (not advisable) or you have someone else do it for you. but in that case, the other person has to be available for you, it is ultimately their decision to cut your hair.

-- I won't go any further because at this point I hope that you would've have understood what I was saying already. NO ACTION that we take in this life is entirely free. In my opinion, the most common misconception is for people to think that they are free when they are actually not. I wandered around for eighteen years of my life harping about freedom and the choices that I have to do the things that I want in my life. It is not until we realize that we are not actually free, and we understand the strings that pull us toward certain decisions/acts that we get closer to being free. No one will ever be entirely free. But by better understanding the things that shape our lives and the choices we make, we may make better/different decisions instead of leaning towards the destiny of where these invisible strings want us to go in our lives.