I think that situations like this are simply repetitions of situations we have already been seeing for the past hundred years. First it was women's rights, then race equality, this is just the next step. When we as Americans say that every man (and woman) is created equal, we need to then learn what we mean by "every man and woman". Its a learning process. As time passes the American people will grow more comfortable with homosexuality and transgenders much like they did with women voting and African Americans. Im not saying its fair, but through time this issue will blow by.
One more thought to leave you with, if this is a cycle of Americans learning to accept different types of people, who will the next one be? Keep in mind that in past examples of this there have been those who were raised to believe something that was then challenged. Even if right now you are all for equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, you might not be the next time this comes around.

The way I see it, situations just like the one presented in this article are simply the latest form of a cycle our country has been going through. Ever since the 1960s, sex has been taken out from the depths American culture kept it in, and brought it to the forefront. It was no longer a taboo word. People openly talk about it today. With the topic of sex, came the topic of who people prefer to have sex with. It only makes sense that people started to feel more comfortable about their sexuality. Today, now that homosexuality is open and on the table, people are learning to deal with it. (I should mention here that when I say homosexuality, I am also including, bisexuality, transgenders, and everythign else that typically is listed with that). There are many who support gays as equals to heterosexuals, as the should be. But there are also those who see homosexuality as unnatural and that people shouldn't be doing this. They would look at this article and say that LJ is a woman and she was rightfully fired because she had no buisness doing that job. (I used the word she to further my point).

This article shows a problem that we have faced as a country many times over. Our constitution strives for and promises equality for all. But the American people as a whole aren't entirely along for the ride. In the early 1900s women were going through a lot and fighting through a lot of mistreatment to achieve women's sufferage. It was a radical ideal at the time. People who criticized the movement believed that voting is a man's thing to do and that women shouldn't be concerned with that kind of thing. Simply put, today that opinion is considered stupid. Society today accepts that women are just as capable as men and that they have just as much right to vote as men do.
Next was during the 60s. African American rights had been restored by the the government but on the state level, and in everyday life, African Americans were not equal. As they protested behind Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and many others, people began to see that African Americans deserved to be treated equally to whites just like women were as apposed to men.

Okay first off, the video we watched in class today was so powerful. The people who didn't come to class today missed out on just an amazing class. Having said that here is my response.

The video in class today talked about how in every war our country has been in for a while back, there have been many documented cases of soldiers experiencing what we now call postraumatic stress. This isn't all that surprising. I don't remember where I heard this but apparently soldiers who get deployed to a war zone have a lot of trouble with killing people at first. When ordered to fire on the enemy they will purposefully miss so that they don't have to actually kill them. Often times their officers will have to break their soldiers in and get them used to the idea of killing someone else. Its no wonder that people come home with really fucked up problems. Any person who has to be broken in so that they are ready, willing, and able to kill another human being will pretty much inevitably have some problems.

It is also worth noting that more casualties are caused by soldiers committing suicide due to post traumatic stress than are actually killed by enemy combatants on the battlefield. Post traumatic stress disorder is actually more dangerous than the actual enemy combatants. Officers need to figure out a better way to train soldiers. In my opinion we need to come up with a mindset that soldiers can go into battle with that won't hurt them later. One of the soldiers talked about having to accept the fact that he is already dead so he could do his duties without worrying about being killed himself. I don't mean to criticize his commanding officer for training his men that way but I do think that we need a better way for soldiers to perform their duties. Basically, what kind of mindset can a soldier go into battle with that won't cause post traumatic stress later? I don't have an answer to that question, I just think the answer needs to be found.

As a sociologist, we need to ask a few different questions about this article to fully grasp what it is implying. The first thing we should ask is what is causing this increase in “no religion”? They talked about social media as a way that the belief is spreading. Almost like a virus. It says that the lack of a religion, much like any belief system, is just a fad. People are likely to believe what their friends believe. If you are surrounded by people who have no religion you will likely have no religion too.

This brings up another important question: what is the difference between religion and no religion. Before I described “no religion” as a viral belief system. How is belief in a god or some religious belief system any different from not believing in one? Can you not look at different religions as their own viral belief systems? They are just exactly the same. So now we can look at religion not as the answer to where we came from and what happens after history, but as a fad. I don’t mean to say that religion is just the latest craze, but people do respond to what is popular. Religion and “no religion” are both just fads that people follow. Right now, thanks to the fast spread of social media, “no religion” is simply the current fad. Maybe they are right and one day almost everyone will have “no religion”. And maybe after that “no religion” will start to die out as a fad back to people having a religion again. The south park episode “Go God Go” presented a really interesting world that was ruled by three atheistic empires. They all were separated because their interpretations of atheism were different. This again brings up the point are religion and “no religion” really all that different?

One other thing that would be interesting to find out is how is “no religion” spreading in the other countries. How is “no religion” spreading in the United States versus say a third world country? A third world country with much less access to social media probably has a much stronger hold to their religion than the developed world.

When there is a fire in a building, everyone knows the easiest and safest way out is to follow the exit signs. People also know to walk calmly and not to push. It is the fastest and safest way out for everyone. The problem is that people think individually, yet people think as a group. People will be selfish in saving themselves, but they will be thinking as a group in what they are allowed to do. If one person starts panicking and becoming violent in order to save himself, everybody else will too. I don’t really know how to keep massive groups of people calm but I do understand the problems. All it takes is one person to panic then soon everybody will.

That isn’t the only problem. Like Sam always says there are the invisible strings. People moving as a mass will do things that an individual won’t. as Kay from Men in Black said: “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.” You have to come up with ways to keep people calm. What if there is a hurricane hot on people’s tails. What if it is literally a free for all? What if it is literally every man for his own life? How do you create situations where people won’t be forced to put others at risk in order to save their own life? There are the obvious answers like keeping people calm, but how do you do that?

First of all, I’ve never really thought about it before but the logistics of moving massive amounts of people are quite substantial. You need to give people food, shelter, a way to get to their shelter, and a way to know if it is safe to return home. You can’t just simply tell people to get out. Major highways will congest and people will be left with nowhere to go. You need a plan. You need to tell people where to go so that they are safe and how to get there. If it isn’t done right you’ll run into problems like they faced with Hurricane Rita.

This video does a really good job of pointing out the flaws in our educational system, but I’m not convinced that his solution is correct. It is really easy to point at something and say “this is wrong and this is why.” It is a lot harder to then offer a solution. He did offer a solution in the paper clip example. But all he really did was show that lateral thinking is a skill that children lose with age, probably due to our educational system. He didn’t prove that lateral thinking is the way of the future. All he said is that people aren’t taught how to do it now. I’m not saying he’s wrong, I’m just saying he isn’t necessarily right.

The education system was designed when if you got an education, you are automatically getting a job. So they didn’t really need to focus on perfecting the system. As long as the system worked it would automatically give their students an edge over those who don’ have it. Now that everyone is getting it, it is no longer a guarantee for a job and so it needs to change. The system needs to change from just teaching people, to teaching people how to get a job. It needs to condition people on how to be effective workers in today’s economy.