This is actually quite coincidental… I e-mailed Sam a few days ago asking how much extra credit attending the optional Friday video coming up and thought about asking him what his thoughts were on The Kill Team, but I stopped myself because I had a feeling that he’d either bring it into discussion in class or on the World in Conversation site. Sure enough, here it is. I read about this when the story first broke. I looked at the uncensored pictures and saw some video. It was hard to read about, and it was hard to look at the results. We all see movies with gore, but actually seeing real blood shed, dismemberments, and decapitations on film hard. Those images stuck with me the entire time we talked about war, especially when we talked about soldiers and how they try to cope with “what they saw” overseas.

However, I don’t understand the sociological ideas that can be applied to this story. I was thinking about it for a while, and the only way I could possibly connect this story to class was to empathize. I specifically empathize with the boy’s father, who was asked to identify the boy before anyone even knew of their relation. Nobody should ever have to bury their children, especially when their children are completely innocent. And I think this story brings into perspective the idea of innocent civilians being killed in war. I would not want to be a civilian in a war fought here. I would not want to be that boy, framed, unrightfully murdered, being treated like a trophy kill. Nobody should ever be treated like that.

However, at the root of the problem, the key is I don’t believe the army condones this type of behavior. Proven by the sentence Morlock was given. I think it’s obvious that these murders weren’t very comparable to the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam. I feel that these actions were evil and random actions committed by people with a history of criminal behavior. I’m having trouble finding sociological bases behind the story, although our class has helped me think of stories like this in a new way.

We must not forget one of the first lessons that we learned in our sociology class this semester about the most personal action a human being can partake in. We came to the conclusion that taking one’s own life is, by and large, the most personal thing any one person can choose to do. However, we also concluded that society plays a large role in some of the determining factors a person must think about when they are contemplating suicide.

With that being said, this article focuses on suicide in the military, specifically people who have been deployed in Afghanistan since the wars in the Middle East began in 2001. Also highlighted in the article is the apparent failure of the United States Military to care for people with psychological trauma stemming from their time of service.

I’ve read countless accounts of people’s time in war. I’ve seen graphic pictures and videos documenting the real life violence and gore that has occurred over seas. I can’t even begin to imagine what it must be like to see those things in person, or to be the direct cause of those resulting images. The only way I can even begin to relate is by thinking about having a relatively infrequent nightmare, and wanting desperately to escape. I would do anything to make the fear and the haunting images go away, and I struggle until I wake up. However, I know for many of these people that return from the pressures and violence of war, those haunting images are not infrequent nightmares; they’re burned into their brains, acting as constant reminders of everything bad that exists in this world. And some of them, apparently, would also do anything to escape.

It is obviously a disturbing statistical fact that more people who are serving our country (in whatever way and for whatever reason) are claiming their own lives than are being killed in action. It is a gross misdeed by their corporation (the U.S. Military) not to be able to help them in their times of need. These people are offering their service in the form of their mortality, and even when they make it out of combat alive, many still find themselves facing thoughts and possibilities of death because of unattended mental and psychological wounds.

With the government shutdown looming, my mom posted a link on Facebook about Obama’s spending proposals that generated some comments from her friends. I read a few of them, noticing one that said “Right. Lets go back to 2009 when the Dems borrowed and spent with impunity while holding a supermajority. Who made money since then? Rich white guys. They "stimulated" a jobless recovery. Nice job. Both sides are disgraceful.” My response was promptly thus, “If I've learned one thing at Penn State about the economic workings of our country's political system, it's that the most important decisions are usually made by "rich white guys". And those decisions are usually (and understandably) in their best interests, and the interests of their industry... statistically leading to a widening economic inequality in which the top 1% controls almost 40% of the privately held wealth in the nation. Thank you economics 102 and sociology 001.” The statistics and ideas we’ve been discussing in both Sam’s class and in my economic class have all centered around the economic inequality in our nation, and possible explanations as to why said inequality has grown so drastically in recent past. Articles like this highlight and closely observe some of the reasons we’ve been talking about.
Of course, like any lobbying industry, it is Big Oil’s sole purpose to gain as many friends in politics as they can in order to gain as much funding/tax breaks/subsidies/etc. as they can, so that they can do their job to the best of their ability. Their work is, after all, the most resourceful and necessary job in a culture so drastically centered around consumption as ours. With that being said, I agree with previous posts that Obama knew, without a doubt, that when he called for the elimination of the tax breaks given to the oil industry he would get unanimously denied. However, in his position, it is necessary to keep up appearances and show the people that he’s fighting in their best interest and not in the interests of industry. Even though he would never really fight against all of his friends that have seats of power right next to him.

Since Sam’s asking (challenging?) us to dig deeply into the sociological structure of wealth distribution in our country, I think we need to really talk about the ideas that he’s been offering us. We often assume that the people at the top of the socio-economic scale, the upper-class, have done something to earn that distinction. Of course, if we’ve learned anything over the past few classes from Sam, we’ve learned that the things they do aren’t always honorable acts. A lot of times, they’re playing a game of chess or checkers. Behind closed doors, hidden from the societal eye, they move their pieces around to best profit them, their interest groups, and their sponsors.

But here’s where we really need to think about the BROAD lessons that Sam has been trying to teach us from day one.

First, the invisible strings come into play. Our society, as much as some of us may hate it, is very material-based. We judge people far too often on what kind of position they hold, what kind of annual salary they make, what kind of car they drive, what kind of clothes their wear, what kind of house they live in. While money can’t always directly buy happiness, in many cases, it can bring with it a level of luxury and a tremendous sense of self worth that is very enjoyable. Thus, the invisible strings of our society push us to thirst for wealth.

Second, we’re all going to die really soon, right? Noticing that, why wouldn’t we do our absolute best to make the short amount of time we have on this earth well worth it? I mean, I’m here at Penn State for two reasons. First, I want to learn from people with experiences and ideas that I’ve never encountered before, much like Sam. Second, I want qualifications in order to have a sense of self worth and a paycheck that I can use to give the ones I love anything they want. I don’t know if that’s going to happen, but I know that the interests I hold closest to my heart are the interests of myself and those I love. Even if I have to tweak a few things and bend some rules… screw it. We’re all going to die sometime. I know there’s a minuscule chance I’m ever going to be one of the societal elite, but when I think about it, I fully understand why those people do what they do. Messed up, maybe but… it is how it is.

The idea of winning the lottery has been sociologically coupled with realistic questions and impractical taboos in recent time. Statistics show that many people who play and win the lottery are from lower socioeconomic standing, and upon gaining a large sum of wealth over night face hardships in adapting to their new lifestyles. Also, a lot of people believe bad luck is associated with lottery money, which is obviously subject to some skepticism.

In general, our world works on a principle of experience. You wouldn’t suddenly nominate a low level worker in a company to be CEO because they have no experience in important leadership roles, and would thus jeopardize the company’s existence. You wouldn’t give a 17 year old who just received their license a brand new $50,000 car because they lack driving experience, and would thus put the car (and your $50,000) at greater risk. When people who have little experience with money receive a lot of it, they do not have the experience or knowledge to act the way they should. The middle or upper class individual would probably use it first to pay off debts, and then do investing with the remainder to maximize their wealth. However, poor people, upon discovering the ability to spend freely without restraint, do so. This economical positive time preference results in quick use of their newly found wealth, and it is gone almost as fast as it came. They also sometimes work themselves into a social situation that they cannot adapt to, such as buying a nice house in an upper class neighborhood. However, they cannot buy upper-class socialization, and fail to fit in to their new surroundings.

As for those who say lottery money brings with it bad luck, any such luck is usually the result of self fulfilling prophecy. These people, buying into society’s idea, suddenly realize they may have bad luck, and everything that happens from then on out is usually looked at through a scope of negativity and pessimism. Even if bad things do happen, it is obvious only a coincidence. Applying any thought of negative magical money to money is asinine.

In my honest opinion, the idea of freedom is completely relative. I can argue that any healthy individual has the freedom to think, while someone else could argue that nobody actually has their own “free thoughts”, that instead their thoughts are shaped and controlled by the things they see and hear. I may argue that I’m free to get in my car and drive to wherever I like, however someone may argue that I will undoubtedly face a innumerable amount of consequences and rules (missing a prior obligation, adhering to the rules of the law while on the road) along the way, greatly limiting the freedom I actually possess. Whatever side you take however, it is most important to make the realization as this man, W.H., has made, that your personal definition and sense of freedom must stem from your own values and experiences. I’ve mentioned before in the blogs that I am in a long-term, long-distance relationship. Interestingly enough, people have deemed me as being “shackled” or “confined” by the commitments and sacrifices of such a relationship. However, that is my journey, and with it I’ve made those commitments and sacrifices in part because it makes me feel as free as I’ve ever been. I don’t necessarily expect anyone else to understand that, and that’s why I don’t mind when people say it. They can’t understand how much I value the bond I have with her, or the freedom I feel when I’m flying 1,000 miles to see her, or how alive I feel when I’m finally in her presence for the first time in months. But that’s ok, because that’s not their idea or definition of freedom. Like W.H. says, he found his path if freedom inside the walls of a place that is notoriously defined as the most confining space anyone could ever find themselves. He has had the time and the mind, both retrospective and prospective, to realize what is important to him and what should be important to all human beings. If he can find freedom in that place, anyone should be able to sit down and think about the things going on around them, and come to a conclusion of what freedom means to them.

The ideas portrayed in this video are the exact reason that I don’t believe in the notion of having a soul mate. Statistically speaking, if everyone had a soul mate, next to nobody would actually be with the one person they’re supposed to be with. For people who swear by their significant other as their soul mate, it never occurs to them that the convenience and coincidence around their romantic involvement is astronomical when thought of in a broad, sociological spectrum. It doesn’t occur to a white, 25 year old, Christian male whose “soul mate” is a white, 23 year old, Christian female that the chances of that actually being the girl for him are 1 in 3 billion. It also doesn’t occur to him that sociological statistics could have prophesized that he would wind up with a girl that matches that exact description.
Although I don’t believe in the idea of soul mates and I do believe in the idea that societal influences shape who you are attracted to and who you consider potential candidates for dating or marriage, I don’t entirely agree with everything this guy is singing about. I’ve been in a long distance relationship for a long time. My girlfriend lives in Florida, and before coming to Penn State I lived in New Jersey. Our mothers have been best friends since kindergarten. She is a white, 18 year old, middle class, Christian female, and I am a white, 19 year old, middle class, Christian male. I guess it makes a lot of sense when you looked at it like that. But I honestly don’t think that “there could be someone else” who would make me just as happy, or could make me feel just as complete. I haven’t necessarily looked, because I love my girlfriend and I’m an honest and loyal person, but I haven’t sheltered myself either. Nobody has shown me anything that could even come close to comparing to her, and how she makes me feel. If I didn’t have her, I would probably have someone else. Fine, I’ll give you that. But if I didn’t have her, I would have to settle for something that isn’t as good. And unless I’m proven wrong, I’ll always feel that way.

I consider myself a conservative thinker. Although I don’t like to get wrapped up in politics (since I consider politics to often undermine the free thought process), I understand my obligation as an American citizen to try and be somewhat politically knowledgeable and involved. I do know that the general consensus among true conservative thinkers in a situation like this would be to not get the police as involved as they were. It’s obvious that a 5-year old boy shouldn’t get arrested, because his understandings of his actions are far too limited to even know what he did. The liberal thinker would say, “This is what happens when you let people try to control themselves and the things around them.” When things like this happen, it gives liberal thinkers the right to say “There need to be stricter gun laws and more governmental control,” because by no means should a 5-year old come into possession of a lethal weapon. Regardless, if the boy accidentally shot another young child and killed him, there would be a political uproar in the gun control community.
Can conservative thought punish someone enough to help prevent accidents like this? Can liberal thought control someone enough to make sure something like this would have never happened? It’s impossible to say how to efficiently handle situations like these. Clearly, the conservative is right in saying it’s wrong to arrest a five year old child and hold him suspect to knowledgably harmful behavior. However, the liberal is right in saying this should never have happened, and it is an individual’s failure to control his possessions that led to the occurrence.
Obviously, the stepfather should have been held accountable, given fines, and put through a gun education class instead of punishing the child. But, as I stated earlier, if the child was to mistakenly take the life of a classmate, things may have been different. Who would be held accountable, if life was lost? It wouldn’t be the child, because it is unlawful to charge someone so young with any crime. It wouldn’t be the father, because he didn’t pull the trigger. In our system, one in which conservative and liberal thought are often unable to cooperate, we fail in many situations to both control people safely while allowing them freedom.

The man behind this video explained quite possibly the most broad perspective about being a living thing that I have every heard. Although I am well aware that I am a human being, day-to-day I fail to realize what that means in the broadest of sociological perceptions. I am one person in a family of almost 7 billion human beings. I am one creature on a planet that is home to countless amounts of living things. However, it’s nearly impossible to understand the true meaning of that realization.
The man makes a good point about human “soft wiring”, explaining the changing of conscious empathy over the course of history. He clarifies a hope, that we can change one day to understand our “families” as our entire race, instead of just limiting our empathy to our nation, religion, or blood. Hanging in the balance of this hope, the man offers, is the fate of humanity and our world, as we know it.
Nobody can say that this is impossible. He makes an amazing case about human empathetic development, leading me to believe that one day maybe we can see everyone as “human” instead of American or Chinese, Christian or Muslim, Black or White. Although these widely adopted and strongly held units of organization have been very useful to the human race during the developmental stages, perhaps it is time to see past the barriers of nation, race, religion, class, and so forth. While the past few millennia of human development were widely based on organization, maybe the next millennia of human development needs to be based on the breakdown of organizational recognition of the human race.
As I said, nobody can say that this is impossible. However, I strongly feel like it is improbable within my lifetime. As previously stated, I can even recognize myself easily as one of 6.8 billion. Society has done too wonderful a job of branding me for what I am: a white, American, monotheistic, middle class male. That is what I see when I look in the mirror. Although part of me is human, that is not the only thing that I can classify myself as, and I’m sure that it would take centuries, if not more, to re-socialize the entire human population into understanding themselves primarily as a single species, undivided.

The video, taken from the TV show "Candid Camera" does a good job of portraying the human instinct to conform, and fit in with his or her surroundings. In an effort to be accepted, liked, or even loved, we usually find that people may change their beliefs, habits, and ideals to match those of another persons, or another groups. In some cases, as seen in the video, it can unnervingly uncomfortable for a person to work against the actions of others that surround them. It can be casually referred to as being “the odd one out,” and always singles one person out as being “different.” For the most part, people tend to try and be as “normal” as possible, straying away from being different in any respect, because people generally don’t like to stand out in a crowd. It can often bring unwanted attention to them and their actions. Unless they know for a fact that their uniqueness would have a possible impact, and bring positive attention to them, they usually will try their absolute best to fit in line with the crowd.
Attempting to change yourself to better portray a likeable person in the perception of others is another reason often for conforming. To gain what you want, such as a new friendship or intimate relationship, you want to try your best to become something that you know they would like. Conforming to somebody’s desires can account for massive changes in personalities or actions, such as somebody quitting smoking to please someone who dislikes people who smoke.
It is a natural human instinct that is also nurtured early in life. You must conform to the desires of your parents and the society around you as a child otherwise you don’t have a chance of ever fitting in to your household, your school, and even the world. Before you even know what’s happening to you, you become a machine made ready to conform to new thoughts and new perspectives that aren’t even your own, and the only way to break free of this terrible fate is to break the mold by thinking and acting by yourself free of scrutiny and judgement. Upsettingly, this is often hard to attain by any human being.