In the video, world battleground, it showed the past thousand years of war throughout the world. At the beginning of the video there was only a handful of wars and the explosions were generally small. However, as the video progressed (and the years past), both the number of explosions increased as well as the sizes of the explosions. All in all the wars in the world started to get bigger and more deadly. Also, the United States started to establish itself as a world “superpower”. By the time World War I and II came along the explosions’ were huge compared to before. I believe the reason why war become more common and deadly was because of the advances in technology and weapons of became much more sophisticated. Another possible reason why this phenomenon was occurring was because of the more effective modes of transportation were being invented.
One of the most interesting things about this video was that fact that throughout the video I couldn’t help but notice the lack of battles that occurred on US soil, compared to all of the wars that occurred in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. I believe this is an interesting point the video was trying to make, the fact that we have taken part in numerous amounts of battles across the globe, but rarely have we seen an actual battle on our countries land. This makes me think of what Sam has been talking about in our sociology class, how its interesting we, the united States, always say we are not that aggressors and rather the defenders but how can we be the defenders in all of these wars when barely any of the wars have happened on US soil.
Someone before comments on this video and had a great question that really got me thinking, is it the more that technology progresses, the more dangerous and destructive war will become? We are learning in class how war is not seen as a big deal anymore it is just a part of our social life. This short video has a dramatic impact on the way it shows people just how much war has grown and expanded throughout the world over the centuries.

This movie had a tremendous effect on me, and my views of soldiers coming home from todays’ wars. I had heard about soldiers coming home and the transition being difficult, but I only thought it was short-term and was not that big of a deal. Watching this movie has opened my eyes to how big of an effect war truly is on our soldiers. The fact that from the time the soldiers invited Afghanistan until last summer, the U.S. military had lost 761 soldiers in combat, but 817 in the soldiers in the service have taken their own lives over the same period. That is insane! Clearly there is a problem when this surge in suicides, which have risen five years in a row, is not really being solved. Of course it does not help that Soldiers feel as though they are failures and weak if they go seek treatment.

In sociology class we learned that soldiers are already predisposed to committing suicide compared to others because of what they have seen and been through. According to the article soldiers in combat increases fearlessness about death and the capability for suicide. With the combination of combat exposure and ready access to guns can be very lethal to ANYONE contemplating suicide. About half of soldiers who kill themselves use weapons, and the figure rises to 93% among those deployed in war zones. ALSO It is interesting to me that Ritchie pointed out in January that there are "higher rates of mental-health problems and marital problems for multiple deployers" yet soldiers are still being deployed to war multiple time and the anxiety of when they will be deployed probably does not help!
Personally I really do not believe that there are enough resources and outlets for soldiers that are returning home from war. Soldiers should be well informed that of what they might go through is normal and their family should also be well informed in the signs and symptoms’ of PTSD.
In order for our soldiers to get better they need all the support they can get, that includes from their commands.

The speech given by Zaina Salbi was very powerful and at the same time very personal. Her main point that she discussed was how there are two sides in every war. There is the side that that we heard about in the news with the men fighting on the front-line, and there is a side that no one talks about, this side is the women who keep their communities functioning and keep living their lives to the fullest, despite the war. These women are the ones who are making sure that there is still a civilization (culture) to be fighting for.
I could not even begin to imagine growing up in a war where you are living everyday in fear of dying or loosing a loved one. These people are constantly scared! 90% of modern war casualties are civilians and 75% are women and children, and no one in these countries seems to care. 75% is a large number that normally people do not realize; I myself certainly did not know this. Something interesting that Zaina Salbi, the speaker, said is that the peoples worst fear is the of losing the “I” in me. She said this because losing the “I” in me is like dying from inside out. This quote alone is so deep and powerful that it makes one really think about the affects of war on civilians and how even though these people are necessarily fight in the war they are still being just as affected, if not more.
After coming to the realization of how women in wars play a very large and important role I think it is so ridiculous that we do not acknowledge their voices. These women have so many responsibilities pilled on them from supporting their family and holding the community together, to trying to keep lives as normal as it can be, that they have every right to be includes in the decision made and be a part of the negotiation table. The speaker made an extremely good point when she said, “We cannot have lasting peace unless women are equal partners at the negotiating table.” These women just want to live in peace, why deny that? I believe it is the littlest the government can do after all the women have been through.

This video is an excellent example of how a child, like Zach Walls, can grow up perfectly normal and have a normal life having two mothers. His speech was remarkable because he was able to bring up how his family has the key functions that any traditional family that has one father and one mother has. However many people in todays society do not define LGBTs as functioning families because they lack the civil union of marriage.
According to Zach Wahls, Family is not about the state saying your married and its okay now. That is not what being a family is really all about. Family he says is about making commitments to one another and being there for each other through the good and the bad. Zach says that family comes from “the love that binds us…that is what makes a family”
After listening to that I thought about my own family and how his life is just as “normal” as mine family is. We know we are always there for each other and I know that the love of my parents is the strong bond that holds us together. I think it is a shame that society is so critical on the subject of LGBT couples raising children. In class we learned that children of gay couples might be more likely to come out IF they are gay but they are NOT more likely to be gay.
I thought it was a very interesting point then Zach Wahls also pointed out that in his 19 years not once was he ever been confronted by an individual who realized independently that he was raised by a gay couple and he says the reason that is, is because the sexual orientation of his mothers has had zero affect on his character. This fact alone should show the courts that the children of LGBT families are not exposed to any of the “bullying” that the media usually discuses as a significant problem.
So when it comes down to the question of can gays even raise kids, I completely believe with all of my heart that they can. Zach Wahls and his family is not so different from any family, so why should they be treated as if they are.

I agree with what many people have said before me, this article was indeed very interesting to read. I never really thought about religion dying out in the future. But after reading the article I can definitely see why the authors in the article believe it will. I think that our society has become more “up to date” with science and the evidence that supports the theory of evolution. Now believe me I am not saying that the idea of there being a God will vanish, I am just saying that people wont necessarily have different opinions of how things are.
In the article the author included 9 countries where "religion will be driven toward extinction" including Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Austria, the Czech Republic, Finland, Switzerland and the Netherlands, they say.
When I read that even Ireland, which is very Catholic (like as Catholic as you can get) is also having the same trend of religion dying out it amazed me! (Maybe because I am half Catholic and my family is from Ireland) In their study they found that Ireland has gone from 0.04% unaffiliated in 1961 to 4.2% in 2006. Now 4.2% does not seem like a big number but compared to 0.04% just 45 years after is a big number.
The lead author, Daniel Abrams, spoke to CNN about his finding and said that the reason why him and the other authors made the assumption of religion dying out based on sociology…of course.
There are two sociological trends that are seen
1.It is more appealing to join the majority, than it is to be part of the minority, and right now in some countries, the majority is leaning towards not being a part of a religion.
2.With social networking becoming so accessible and popular, people are able to view each others twitters Facebooks, etc. In the article Abrams explains, "Just a few connections to people who are (religiously) unaffiliated is enough to drive the effect." Just by looking to see if your friends on facebook are religious will eventually change religion as a whole.
Now these sociological trends are occurring because the invisible string that are attached to everyone in our society, that make us now believe that we don’t need to follow a religion to believe in a God
Personally, I am half Jewish and half Catholic (mom is catholic, dad Jewish) and I don’t really attend either Synagogue or church regularly, only on high holy days. And since I have been at college I have not even gone when it is a high holy day. Now I do believe that there is something that is bigger and more powerful out like a God but I don’t really practice any religion. In my opinion, almost all of the wars and problems in the world today are stemmed off religion. Like the fact that Israel keeps getting bombed or 9/11. If religion dies out I don’t necessary think it would be a bad thing.
But as the article said, which I have heard as well, "The Jewish tradition that says prophecy is for fools and children is probably wise,"

While watching this video I could not help but agree that the man in this commercial fits into the stereotypical “white guy” role. Everything about him screams, “I’m a white guys,” from the way he dresses to the way be speaks and his overall manner.
The typical “white guy” wears blue jeans that are worn in and worn higher up with a black leather belt. On top, it is typical to see a white guy wearing a white polo shirt that is of course tucked into his blue jeans. This look gives the white guy a casual look but also shows that he is well-off financially with a good education. This man is not seen as being sloppy in any way, very plain and dull. Even his haircut is very simple and ordinary.
The typical “white guy” also takes a very serious approach to any, and every, situation. The man in the video it talking about this “SmartCarry Holster,” that allows men to conceal a gun! How can you keep a straight face? There is no sense of humor or even emotion in his tone of voice, he is just speaking in a just a monotone. Even when he is unzipping his jeans he puts on a serious face and says, “When I unbutton my pants…everything will be fine,” he is so uptight and proper, which is apparently so typical for a “white guy.” It gets even better when he just stops talking and there is just awkward silence around 1:56 mark into the video. He just made the comment, “When was the last time you stared at someone’s zipper” and automatically became so uncomfortable with what he said and how this could be “inappropriate” he does not even try to make a joke of it.
The man in this video is obviously a stereotype of the typical “white” guy and it is funny to see how the smallest details, like the awkward silence, or his hair cut, makes up this entire stereotype. But what is really interesting is that from the white guys I know, this stereotype, like many, does not do justice to the white guys I know, who are laid back and can have a real conversation with real emotion.

In today’s society almost everyone has wish they had more money for various reasons. The majority of these people do know that “money does not bring happiness” but it does bring a lot of great opportunities that may seem like the “good life” that we average Americans see and hear about in the media. However what the media does not always show or talk about is the negative effects of being a millionaire.
In the article, “Winning The Lottery: Does it Guarantee Happiness?” there are many negative effects that are mentioned that happen to individuals who have won the lottery that I never though of. The fact that a man was scarred to cash in his lottery winning because he would be viewed so differently and have to move AMAZED me!
A couple of weeks ago in one of Sam’s lectures, he talked to us about how just because someone wins the lottery does not mean that they are going to all of a sudden be a completely different person. It may be true that in sociological terms, their “me” could change because people could view and label the people differently, but the “I” is not going to change because of these invisible strings that we all have. At the end of the article, one of the women who won the lottery believes that her personality (her “I”) has not changed because of her winnings just her ability to work less then what she used to have to in order to have ends meet (her “Me”). This further proves what Sam was trying to say when he was talking about how winning the lottery is not going to make the person fit-in with a different social class anymore easier.
Another example of this would be, if a poor person wins the lottery and moves to a more high-class neighborhood that they are not going to fit in with any of their neighbors because they simply do not have the ability to.
We are all predisposed to act and live in a certain way, in which our invisible strings guide us through life. Just because someone wins the lottery and feel more “high class”, does not mean that their invisible strings are going to allow them to fit in and be a part of that society—which may turn out to negatively impact the person in a number of ways.

Earlier this week in class, Sam taught us about how society stresses thinks that seem “dangerous” and not stress things that are actually so much more dangerous. One of the examples he used was child abduction. He told us that the best thing for children to do if they are lost is to talk to the first stranger they see and ask for help. After he said that I was absolutely shocked! My parents made it clear to me when I was young to NOT talk to any stranger. I believe my parents, along with many parents, give this “bad advice” to their children because of all the attention it receives in the media. I feel like every time I watch the news someone else has gone missing. But statistically, child abduction is actually rare. This is a serious issue because the public is not aware of the fact that telling their children that talking to strangers is a good thing. This is also an issue because the news does not talk about how rare child abduction is and what children should do if they are lost. In the video, once of the families has already changing/made new rules for their child, even know it is so highly unlikely their child will be taken.
The amazing thing about sociology that I am learning is that even if you know the chances are so unlikely, the chances of you still telling your child not to talk to strangers is very likely. This is because it is a social norm. I hate to admit it but when I have a child, I will probably be just as protective as my parents were. They always told me “better safe then sorry” and I do completely agree with this. Although child abduction is rare, especially if a stranger abducts the child, there is that very small change that it could happen to you. As someone posted earlier in the blog, child abduction can be compared to the lottery. Although the changes of actually winning the lottery are so rare, it can happen so people keep hoping that they will win it. Parents keep telling their children the bad advice, to not talk to any strangers, because there could be that slim changes that their child could be taken.

As someone posted earlier, this video clip may seem to be a culture shock to us Americans because we are raised in a culture were it is the norm for a married couple to consist of one husband and one wife. We don’t have to worry about issues like limited amounts of land or farming. However, in these isolated villages in the Himalayans, polygamy is the cultural norm because these people who have to worry about these issues (limited living space and farming).

There was something that was very interesting to me towards the end of this video. These individuals find comfort in the familiar, polygamy, which is normal in any culture. One was how the women at the end said, “I myself feel like everyone should live like our family.” HOWEVER when the villages started to become more modernized with satellite dishes for television and a road that now connects these villages to distant cities, these individuals are no longer isolated and it has a dramatic effect on their way of life and their views of their cultural norm on having one wife and multiple husbands. The most dramatic effect on this culture, being more modernized, is now the availability of education. These people are being educated on family planning in which there is one wife and one husband and one child. This effect is so dramatic that the narrator believes polygamy in these villages will vanish in 2 to 3 generations.

Although polygamy maybe decreasing in these villages in the Himalayans, it seems to be increasing in China. In China there has been a “one child rule” that was in place as a way to control the Chinese population. Married couples were only allowed one child and males were preferred because in the Chinese culture they are obligated to take care of their elders. The effect of the “one child rule” have significantly imbalanced the sex ration in China, so much that there is a lack of single females to marry for all of the males. So a way to fix this problem is to have one wife with multiple husbands. This is an effective solution for this problem and I believe that in the future the number of polygamy marriages will increase dramatically and become a cultural norm just as it once was in the villages in the Himalayans.

After watching this video, wow, I do not even know where to start. This video is so complex that it’s hard to say I completely understand everything that the speaker/artist is saying and have a deep understanding of it. However, I can say that I definitely believe that I have a basic understanding of what he was trying to teach his audience. The speaker caught my full attention when connecting that our first drive in life is to actually belong and fell a part of something. He connects this with stating that this drive is actually an empathic drive. It indeed took a remarkable stance on the world and the direction that we could possibly see I the future. The artist/speakers main point is that humans have the natural inclination towards connecting with one another, this empathy that we all have.
When the man says, “We are soft wired to experience other’s plight as if we are experiencing it ourselves.” I could completely relate this idea. I was watching a scary movie the other night with some friends and in the movie when the woman was scared we were all scared! After readying that quote everything clicked.
The idea that as a race, we are “soft-wired” to feel what others around us are feeling is an amazing idea. As humans, we are programmed to NOT be aggressive, violent, self-interested and utilitarian. Instead we are programmed to be sympathetic towards others. Its amazing how if this theory is true then the world we live in would be so incredible different. The speaker in the video claims, why can’t this empathy extend to all those on the planet, especially in the society we live in today? He does give a lot of ideas that do seem as though they could actually work. I feel as though as race, it is almost like our “duty” that we need to make these change happen or else we will not make it. I will definitely think that this video will affect my actions/emotions and how my empathy is a natural drive and how we, as a race, are actually not naturally prone to violence and self-interest.