It's funny, I've never really thought that war was more prevalent in recent times than it has been in the past. We think of the past as extremely violent, but really its easy to forget how destructful our wars have become. War has evolved from men standing in lines and fighting to something that is much more horrifying, something that involves death on a massive scale. It makes you question how advances in technology have changed how nations view war, and the willingness to enter into it. Of course the massive explosion during the 1900's hundreds, with World War 1 and World war 2. But there were some time periods that seemed to be surprisingly violent throughout the world.Europe appeared to explode in the 1800's, and although I know little about European history, Europe was definitely engaged in more wars than the majority of other countries seen. It makes you think about how easily nations of power go to war, which is essentially what Europe was and always has been made up of.

Throughout history, many of our wars have been for clear cut causes. It's easier to be willing to give up your life if it's for a specific cause. World War 2 and WW1 were against a clearly aggressive German nation that was sweeping through Europe. The Civil War was fought by the North (partially) in order to abolish slavery, the Revolutionary War was fought to gain independence from England. However, beginning with Vietnam and Korea, this started to change. These wars seemed avoidable and unnecessary. There was no legitimate cause for fighting, no noble idealism. Soldiers began to see war's ugliness even more clearly than in the past, as they were able to look past the lies of glory and idealism placed by politicians and generals. War is an attempt at justifying the taking of another man's life. Killing is still killing, and regardless of the reasons they do it, its going to psychologically damage the soldiers.
The military also doesn't adequately prepare soldier's for the act of killing psychologically, although they prepare them in every other way. They attempt to make soldiers dehumanize the enemy, to make it seem like they aren't taking a life when they pull a trigger. But although this may help soldiers perform kill during battle, it doesn't prepare them to cope with the action later on. This is whats so damaging, and why so many soldier's have difficulty adjusting after war.

Nothing influences power like money. Its something that few can resist, it something that everyone strives for. Really it isn't surprising that the oil and gas lobby has such a chokehold on american politics. It comes down to its just where the money is. As same mentioned before, the political system is really nothing more than legalized bribery, the more money you have, the more you have to give to influence politicians. Politicians would much rather listen to the interests and needs of people who can dish out thousands of dollars for their campaigns, than the needs of the everyday American. It is a flaw in the American political system that allows for this kind of outside influence. Although we tout ourselves as a democratic nation, it is far from the truth. We are democratic republic, we democratically elect people to represent us in everyday political decisions. Really, our country is too massive to work in any other way, theres no way that we can get a real, general and democratic consensus on every decision that takes place for this country. The only way it can work is for us to elect representatives, but really the system fails there. We are victim to a two party system, which greatly restricts our options for representatives and candidacy. These men are usually very well connected, very wealthy, and very disconnected from the average american. It is these men that are easily swayed by the oil and gas companies, because in a few cases, the funding for their elections came in part of the contributions of these companies. In order to remove these oil and gas influences, or any corporate interests from politics, a complete renovation of the election and campaigning system is required. The corporate influences are already so ingrained that it is extremely difficult to remove them, but the key is to remove the bribery involved with political campaigns. Politicans require funds for their campaigns, but letting them accept open contributions is just asking for outside influence in their election. The more money a politician has, the better chance he has at putting on a better campaign and becoming elected. Somehow, the playing field has to be leveled for the election process, and voters should be asked to judge not on the impressiveness of wealth and a campaign, but the core social and political values that politicians are created to solve in the first place.

Its ridiculous to me that people tolerate this kind of social inequality. The american dream that we base our entire society and economy off of, the notion that if everyone works hard that theyll become rich and successful, is utterly wrong. Success isnt determined by hard work, its determined by connections: who you know, and what family you were born into. An average, hardworking, middle class employee at a major corporation can spend his entire life slaving away for his company, but he still wont get chosen for upper management position over sometime that is a family friend of the boss. The entire idealism of the american dream functions as a deterrant to resisting higher authority. People are afraid to resist those with higher power, because they fear that this will jeopardize their chances of moving up the ladder. The severe economic gap also compromises those with power and money. Politicians are supposed to represent the american people, but how is it reasonable that millionaires will know how to make decisions that are in the best interests of US citizens, people of much lower economic status? Politicians are so disconnected from the majority of the american people, that they use their power to satisfy their and their colleagues needs, not the needs of the people. Our political system is nowhere close to be being a democratic system, it is a contest determined by money.

One of the most intriguing things about this article, is that the experts are predicting that the majority of the shift will be as a result of sociological effects, rather than with attitudes and analysis of religion itself. The article cites two sociological forces shaping western cultures away from religion: the majority effect and the utility effect. According to the article, the majority affect simply says that as more people become secular, an even larger number of people will give up religion just to conform, just to be a part of the majority. The other sociological force, the utility effect, cites "political, social, and economic" benefits to be incentive for people to give up religion.
This point is important because it just shows that we aren't even in charge of ourselves spiritually, that it's the social factors that shift what we believe. You think of religion and faith as a deeply set, personal journey. Many think of it as a sacred, defining path in their lives, led by whatever god they believe set the world in to motion. It really should be a very personal decision based solely upon someone's relationship to God, but according to the study, even such a sacred decision is swayed by those living around us.

I remember watching this a few weeks ago too, and i was moved by it. For me, it seems like there is no legitimate legal or moral justification for abolishing gay marriage, because everyone does have a right to love and to marriage. Zach Wahls is boldly presenting himself as a living breathing example that having gay parents is not detrimental to a child's upbringing or character. Although fairly young, he has accomplished a great deal, and seems to be a very ambitious, likable, and charismatic guy. Wahls is the same age as me, but he puts me to shame with all that he has done so far, various accomplishments that include starting his own business. It just disgusts me that even with Wahl's powerful testimony, the court still ruled in abolishing gay marraige in iowa. I cant think of any other explanation for this aside from the prejudices of the courts. Marraige should be a right, and withholding it from a couple because of their sexual orientation is by no means right or fair. The definition of a family to me is a group of individuals that merge together through love and provide for, support, and nurture each other. The fact that many consider gay couples to be incapable of these emotions is discouraging, as it is very wrong. There are many needy and abused children who need proper homes, and ignoring the support of an open-armed homosexual community that is willing to care and adopt these children is irrational and unjust.

Stereotypes, although sometimes unoffensive, are almost unavoidable when different races meet. Each race gives each various generalizations, and the one that seems to get the least flak is the white stereotype. The white stereotype usually attributes white men being nerdy, awkward, boring, unable to dance, and a number of other generalizations that plays on them being lame. The guy in the video above seems to achieve a lot of the stereotypes attributed to white guys. His appearance fits the bill, as he is wearing a white preppy polo, close cut haircut, and has very pale skin and a medium build. He comes off as kind of lame, very awkward in how he carries himself and unsure in his manner. He doesnt really make it interesting, and he comes off as intelligent but knid of nerdy. Its difficult to describe, but there are certain expectations that he meets that relay the stereotype.

It is a revelation to hear how uncommon things events like kidnapping truly are, especially when analyzing it from a statistical standpoint (i remember Sam mentioning that your child has a better chance of getting struck my lightning than getting abducted by a stranger.) It's interesting how something so statistically unlikely can be such a huge fear for the public, it makes you question the rationality of people. But although it seems strange and irrational, I can understand the thinking behind it. Even after a parent is given this information, I doubt that they'll seriously change their behaviors or loosen their protections for their children. People aren't rational when it comes to the things they love, and parents usually love nothing more than the children they brought into this world. Numbers and percentages mean nothing to a parent, because even if something is very unlikely to happen to their child mathematically, it doesn't rule out the fact that it could happen. Parent's avoid looking at their children from larger vantages, from the scale of entire society, and rather concentrate on the small, individual level. They can't comprehend these statistics because they only view their own child when thinking of these situations, and they concentrate on the idea that if it can happen to someone else's child it can happen to mine. It's similar to the public issue vs. personal trouble distinction. The public facts are the statistics that include all of American children and the number of children kidnapped, the personal viewpoint is the notion that "my child could be kidnapped". The media also helps with spreading the irrational fear of kidnapping, as seen in the clip above. The news just plays off of the public's fears to get their attention, to make sure they watch the new segment or buy the paper. What mother wouldn't be scared by the idea that their child could be taken by a stranger? Reassurance of the public takes a lesser priority when it comes to receiving profit for networks, and they'd rather unsettle you and make money then provide insight for no profit.

This video is interesting because it brings up the argument of not only fate vs. free will, but public issue vs. public domain. The song is funny, but it this is only because it challenges the overused and somewhat unlikely ideas of fate and true love. It seems like everyone at some point in a serious relationship will tell themselves or others that they have found "the one" person who was made to be with them. It seems reasonable if you look at it in a small, personal scope, but looking at the big public picture, why does there have to be just one match for any of us? Like the song points out, why can't the traits that are found to be desirable in someone be found in someone else, when there are millions of other possible mates out there? It would seem like limiting our marriage options to whoever is our "one true love" would make things easier on us by limiting our choices, but in fact it makes things much more difficult. By believing that there is only one other person out there for us, we are setting the expectations for that one person impossibly high. We expect perfection from our mates as a result of this zealous belief in the one true love, and we will never find it and never be satisfied by our partners. However, if we realize that their are many people out their on this planet that could meet the expectations of a partner that would make us happy to be with, we would be much more accepting of our partners.
The other interesting thing to analyze about this song is the idea that a small change in life would make a huge difference in the writer's future, that if he chose someone else as a wife, he'd be a stuntman with an incredible life. This brings up the free will/ fate argument, which is interesting to think about sociologically. I would say that sociology would support both viewpoints. The invisible strings partially support the idea of fate, that there are forces driving our lives to a certain point. But sociologists would not say that this fate is set in stone, that there are exceptions to the pulls of the invisible strings and that we have a say in who we are and what we do.

I think that some of the points raised by the article seem like legitimate explanations for why Americans do not travel as much as other tourists in other countries. It is true that Americans generally have less time allotted for paid vacation in their jobs, and that it's harder for Americans to travel to foreign countries, as usually it involves expensive flight tickets. However, I think that most Americans don't travel because they are less aware and more ignorant of the world around them than other parts of the country. American's generally appear to be self-centered in their idea of the world, a viewpoint bred from decades of economic and technological superiority that unfortunately now seem to be on the decline. We believe that we are the solution to the problems of the world, and that we are THE model for every other country to follow. We say to ourselves: why travel, if America is the best country in the world, why go anywhere else? What we fail to see is the limitless potential and experiences we can gain by going to new parts of the world. America is a super-power yes, but it is by no means the center of this Earth. There is so much to see out of our country's borders, and we can learn so much by getting new perspectives through new cultures and settings. We’re so comfortable with our grasp and perception of our country, that we’re afraid to examine any countries that are different from our own. When we do travel, usually we pick civilized areas that are similar to our own environments. We pick England, or Canada, or nice parts of Europe. Even when we travel to exotic places like Jamaica or Mexico, we limit ourselves to upperclass resorts that speak nothing of the cultures of the areas that we are visiting. We don’t go to Third world countries, places that would completely challenge our perceptions of life and routine, we don’t let ourselves experience that type of culture shock. The key to opening your mind up is finding new experiences; the treatment for solving ignorance is immersing yourself in different environments. As Americans, our lives and viewpoints would be a lot more fulfilling if we allowed ourselves to travel to foreign environments.