Americans have a lot to fear. The acts of terrorism committed against the United States and its allies, fuel this fear. It is hard to imagine that anyone after hearing of a terrorist bombing or a plane crash could not be overtaken by some amount of fear. We only have a limited amount of fear since our government and military is there to protect the country. Now for Arabs on the other hand, civilians have no one to protect him or her. In many countries the civilians live in constant fear. Fear of speaking out against or offending the leader of the country could get them killed.
As Americans we are pretty lucky in comparison to Arabs and fear. If we put ourselves in their shoes as Sam said in his talk on empathy, we would realize how much they really do have to fear. Not only are Arab nations currently uprising against their political leaders and facing the chance of being shot while protesting, they also have the fear of the Americans. Who could imagine a convoy coming through downtown State College running over civilians who got in the way or in some cases when the soldiers deter and shoot innocents. The local invasion of Americans is not the only thing; the Arabs are in constant threat of being bombed and many civilians accidently killed as a result of the bombings. It is important to realize that the bombings are happening to help liberate the Arab nations; however, the bombings are another fear of the Arabs.
The video highlights all of these horrific events. Propaganda such as videos like this one help place the fear in peoples minds and helps the fear grow. When Americans only see the terror cause by the opposing side, it is easy for them to view the opponent as evil or bad. Viewing someone as bad helps influence the fear and act out against it. I am sure most Americans will not know that the other side is in just as much fear, even the regimes leading and controlling Arabs citizens are in fear. It is easy to see that fear isn’t one sided.

First thing I would like to say is the idea of killing and innocent civilian for any reason is f***ed up, inhumane and immoral. The article clearly shows that this event was no accident, it is a premeditated murder. There are the questions that arise of what caused this course of action. Is this what the military teaches our soldiers, just kill whoever because they are not American. That can’t be it. In class we talked about the formation of mobs/rioting and how panic can influence the actions of the whole group when started with a few individuals. It is clear in the article that some of the soldiers ha were very set upon killing innocent people. These soldiers should have not be admitted to the military; however, to determine their intentions were to kill innocent civilians is impossible. These soldiers that deterred from the normal patriotic duties of military personal could have influence and provoked other soldiers to take the same course of action. In a way some soldiers may have been the influence n the situation, the same as when peaceful protests turn into violent acts due to a few that deviate and eventually those that deviate set a new norm or lead to others following in the same course of action. This is not meant to justify the actions of those soldiers, no matter what lead them to kill innocents it is not right. As Sam mentions in his TED talk about empathy and putting ourselves in the shoes of the Afghani citizens enduring foreign invaders, these soldiers that feel it was ok to kill innocent civilians for the fun of it and trade pictures would not feel the same way if it was US citizens being treated like targets for target practice. It is important to remember that those that wore killed are not just innocent civilians, but in the case of the article the 15 yr old killed in the poppy field is some family’s son, the same as the soldiers who killed him are someone’s son. It is hard to determine all of the causes of the tragic killings, but it is sure that it can be linked to some sociological evidence as well as it is easy to believe that there is a psychological problem with those killing innocents.

First thing I would like to say is the idea of killing and innocent civilian for any reason is appauling, inhumane and immoral. The article clearly shows that this event was no accident, it is a premeditated murder. There are the questions that arise of what caused this course of action. Is this what the military teaches our soldiers, just kill whoever because they are not American. That can’t be it. In class we talked about the formation of mobs/rioting and how panic can influence the actions of the whole group when started with a few individuals. It is clear in the article that some of the soldiers ha were very set upon killing innocent people. These soldiers should have not be admitted to the military; however, to determine their intentions were to kill innocent civilians is impossible. These soldiers that deterred from the normal patriotic duties of military personal could have influence and provoked other soldiers to take the same course of action. In a way some soldiers may have been the influence n the situation, the same as when peaceful protests turn into violent acts due to a few that deviate and eventually those that deviate set a new norm or lead to others following in the same course of action. This is not meant to justify the actions of those soldiers, no matter what lead them to kill innocents it is not right. As Sam mentions in his TED talk about empathy and putting ourselves in the shoes of the Afghani citizens enduring foreign invaders, these soldiers that feel it was ok to kill innocent civilians for the fun of it and trade pictures would not feel the same way if it was US citizens being treated like targets for target practice. It is important to remember that those that wore killed are not just innocent civilians, but in the case of the article the 15 yr old killed in the poppy field is some family’s son, the same as the soldiers who killed him are someone’s son. It is hard to determine all of the causes of the tragic killings, but it is sure that it can be linked to some sociological evidence as well as it is easy to believe that there is a psychological problem with those killing innocents.

First thing I would like to say is the idea of killing and innocent civilian for any reason is f***ed up, inhumane and immoral. The article clearly shows that this event was no accident, it is a premeditated murder. There are the questions that arise of what caused this course of action. Is this what the military teaches our soldiers, just kill whoever because they are not American. That can’t be it. In class we talked about the formation of mobs/rioting and how panic can influence the actions of the whole group when started with a few individuals. It is clear in the article that some of the soldiers ha were very set upon killing innocent people. These soldiers should have not be admitted to the military; however, to determine their intentions were to kill innocent civilians is impossible. These soldiers that deterred from the normal patriotic duties of military personal could have influence and provoked other soldiers to take the same course of action. In a way some soldiers may have been the influence n the situation, the same as when peaceful protests turn into violent acts due to a few that deviate and eventually those that deviate set a new norm or lead to others following in the same course of action. This is not meant to justify the actions of those soldiers, no matter what lead them to kill innocents it is not right. As Sam mentions in his TED talk about empathy and putting ourselves in the shoes of the Afghani citizens enduring foreign invaders, these soldiers that feel it was ok to kill innocent civilians for the fun of it and trade pictures would not feel the same way if it was US citizens being treated like targets for target practice. It is important to remember that those that wore killed are not just innocent civilians, but in the case of the article the 15 yr old killed in the poppy field is some family’s son, the same as the soldiers who killed him are someone’s son. It is hard to determine all of the causes of the tragic killings, but it is sure that it can be linked to some sociological evidence as well as it is easy to believe that there is a psychological problem with those killing innocents.

First thing I would like to say is the idea of killing and innocent civilian for any reason is f***ed up, inhumane and immoral. The article clearly shows that this event was no accident, it is a premeditated murder. There are the questions that arise of what caused this course of action. Is this what the military teaches our soldiers, just kill whoever because they are not American. That can’t be it. In class we talked about the formation of mobs/rioting and how panic can influence the actions of the whole group when started with a few individuals. It is clear in the article that some of the soldiers ha were very set upon killing innocent people. These soldiers should have not be admitted to the military

The idea of allowing fracking to continue after the potential damages has been exposed, is unacceptable. Part of the politician’s responsibility is to take care of those they govern. It is wrong that the small percent of the population that influences those in political power the most is those with the majority of the money. Everyone’s opinion and thoughts on the matter should be considered, no matter how little cash they posses. The natural gas companies shouldn’t be receiving tax cuts to help expand fracking, and expand the amount of damage being done due to the contaminating materials used in the process. If the natural gas companies weren’t wealthy they would not be able to influence the politicians the same way, even though the only difference is the amount of money the company has and contributes to the political party. All the worry over replacing oil is going to lead to the depletion of something more valuable, water.
Instead of ignoring the problem arising with advancing the industry, politicians should be ensuring the industry isn’t harming the environment, the water table, people’s health, and people’s lives. It can be hard for those accepting the money for the gas companies to drill on the property, even more so in times of economic difficulties. The government should at least be monitoring the drilling and informing people of what to look out for.

It is obvious that the wealth distribution in the United States leaves a small portion of people to hold the majority of the wealth. Some of these people earned it while others did not, as Sam mentioned. The power that comes with this wealth is enormous and requires a level of responsibility to exercise the power in the proper way, not cheating or playing a ‘game’. By no means should power and wealth exempt people from crime, they should be held responsible like everyone else. If people such as this get these exemptions from the law, why do the laws exist? Are the laws just another way for those in power to try and control us? The laws are a set of beliefs that our nation follows. If those in power find themselves to be exceptions to the rules, what gives them the right to say that they are part of this country if they don’t follow the same guidelines as everyone else? Yes those in power have worked for and earned their wealth, but they didn’t work for exemption from laws. By no means should someone be able to put a price tag on a law, a price to by pass the law. Those in power who have worked for their wealth should be setting examples for others. No one deserves power if they cheat their way into it or cheat their way out of consequences of their actions.
To say those on the lower end of the wealth distribution would do better if they had the wealth and power, is not true. With the wealth and power comes factors that influences actions. The power that many of the wealthy abuse to make themselves exempt from laws and other scenarios, have their actions influenced by the power and wealth and the desire to maintain that position. If a person on the lower end of the wealth distribution came into power it is certain that the person would change and may commit some of the unfavorable actions that those in power already do. The newfound wealth, whether earned through hard work or by chance, brings new ‘strings’ that influence that person to behave differently. Not all would abuse this power but some would. It is not the persons, in power, themselves that deviate; it is the strings that cause the actions. Everyone that enters that position of power has the potential to fall under the same misguidance as many of those in power do already.

Sometimes in order to get a large number of people to act together to achieve a goal incentives are needed. In class we discussed social movements and the tuition cut occurring for Penn State students. One topic was how to get people to act. Some ideas arose, a notable one being incentive by introducing feelings. If people could be emotionally related to the problem, for example, someone’s friend couldn’t attend college because they could not afford tuition. This is one method to help get people to act together.
In the article it discussed evacuation plans. In order to get people to act efficiently and together, evacuation plans needed to be predesigned and available for people to review. For the government and other officials to get people to react accordingly they need to stress the importance of following such plans. If people believe in following plans as the norm, the invisible strings tell them to, they will. This action will spread to those around them as well through the invisible strings. It is also important to realize that those same helpful invisible strings can be harmful. If people begin to panic it may become contagious, the invisible strings may pull people that are calm towards a state of panic. So those in charge of the evacuation plans need to ensure that panic doesn't occur. In the article it mention the late call for evacuation in New Orleans, this lateness can induce panic and make the evacuation plan ineffective as well as cause problems with traffic.
Depending on what you are trying to get the large number of people to do decides some of the methods you may use to move those people. The above examples of the tuition rise and the evacuation plan show two distinctly different reasons for people to act together. In particular the one about the evacuation plans suggests the movement is so important peoples lives may depend on it. This need for cooperation shows that we need people in this world that are capable of being leaders and moving large numbers of people together and efficiently.

I think that the event of winning the lottery does affect how people act in some way. This change in wealth can move a person that is of the lower class to the upper or upper middle class. This person who once was the type of person that would see the lottery as a way out and share the same feelings as other people with similar social status, and same views on life. Once the person leaves that neighborhood and moves to a better place, like the woman that worked jobs before she won the lottery, in the article, bought a new home. She doesn’t believe she changed, however if she did not change immediately eventually over time some of the social strings that control her actions may change to new ones.
In the matter of change in happiness with change in wealth, some changes in people’s lives do bring happiness, a change in wealth may increase a person’s happiness for a period of time. In the article a good point was brought up, that the purchasing of material goods brings temporary happiness. The happiness and excitement of the new material good leaves, then the person is less happy. SO this shows that increases in wealth can bring temporary happiness when using the wealth on material goods. The article also mentions how the use of the wealth on experiences brings long term happiness with memories. These both make sense, leaving me to conclude: Depending on how the person spends the wealth will affect the amount of happiness and the length of happiness. It is also important to consider the loss of happiness as the people around you change do to the increase in wealth. People and family members may dislike them and act differently toward them decreasing the happiness. In some ways people increase their happiness and in other ways a decrease in happiness occurs.

The extent of the role government influences our lives constantly up for debate. It is without question that the government should influence our lifestyles to some extent. However, the government nor government officials should be imposing their belief on such personal decisions as breastfeeding. Bachmann speaks out against Michelle Obama’s promoting of breastfeeding. Backmann is right Obama shouldn’t be trying to influence women to breastfeed their children. These women need to have the ability to choose for themselves. So many things in society become a standard and people tend to follow the standards without freely choosing to do so. The government should no be the influence on, and remover of freedom of choice. As Sam said about the strings controlling our social actions, do we really want the government to be controlling those strings?
When it comes to the example of the Big Mac, it is known that obesity is a growing problem in the United States. Some people lack the will power to stop and knowledge of the risky food consumption. This is an example where some government influence is needed. The government should not regulate the consumption amount by the consumer, that the consumer still should decide part of the process, but regulate the contents placed in foods. Some people may disagree with this kind of influence and say that if people want to eat unhealthy they should be aloud to. The only problem in this case is that, in a way, this unhealthy food is poisoning the population slowly and making them obese.
If the government really wants to influence how the public makes decisions, the government should provide facts and evidence of what they are trying to impose. It is important for the evidence to not be bias to ensure that well-informed people are making their own free decisions. Over recent years the government has enforced a policy mandating fast food restaurants provide nutritional facts so the consumer could see exactly what is in the food. This way the government informed the people of the dangers of eating such food but did not force them to decide, the individual still was able to make a decision on free-will.