All I can think of after watching that video is how much Europe, Asia and the Middle East were slammed throughout history. A good point is that a lot of these wars dealt with empires. There was the Ottoman Empire, Spanish Empire in the Americas, The British Empire as well as Napolean’s quest to conquer the all of Europe. It was brought up in class one time about how sometime empires must come to an end, and that happens through war. Once the map hits the mid eighteen hundreds, the booms become bigger and louder and more frequent. This can be attributed the increasing technology in artillary as well as the fact that the “empires” include large countries that are allies of each other, including the United States.

This video proves a point that as soon as the United States had established itself as a country, the wars in the world started to get bigger and more deadly. Also, the United States starting establishing itself as a world superpower. By beating off the English and the French through multiple altercations, the United States proved in its beginnings that it was a force not to be messed with. As they continued towards economic prosperity, it can be concluded that budgets began to be allocated towards defense in case of any future invaders. But due to this increase in defense spending, not only did the United States become more powerful on its own, but it also became more powerful as an ally. After entering WWI and WWII, both of the wars changed significantly with the presence of the United States.

But after the “War to End all Wars”, why has the United States continued to enter more wars? My theory is that defense technology has a certain shelf life. If there is a single reason on why the United States needs to enter into some sort of conflict, it does it without hesitation. Some of these weapons are sold to other countries, however why put all of that hard work into making those weapons if you are not going to use them? I expect that wars are going to continue to become more frequent and more deadly as the United States still applies itself as defending their empire and always wanting to grow, whether it be through territory or owning resources.

I am sure a lot of us would like to be released of all of our labels that society puts on us. Even as simple as boy and girl we are already labeled with expectations of our behaviors. These expectations can make ourselves feel inadequate or not worthy of ourselves. I am very guilty, as I am sure many of my other peers at Penn State are, of judging people based off of the labels put on them. Freshman vs. Senior, Major A vs. Major B (yes we have all compared our majors to our peers, always explaining how ours is a lot harder than everyone’s) and even down to where we are originally from aka Philly vs. Pittsburgh.

But this particular lifer points out how uncomfortable it is for not just having the label attached to him, but it is making other people uncomfortable in the room. I could only imagine the stigma put on this person as they walk into the room trying to attend classes.

I do not think that labels will ever be able to leave our society. It is how we are able to identify people without actually knowing them. It gives us a sense of security and relieves us of our fears that we have with other people. It makes us feel less apprehensive approaching or working with others and it makes us confident that we are socializing with the right people.

However there are many instances that labels have been proven false on many people. But why do they still exist? What does it take for us to get away from labels like “girl” or “slut” or “goody-goody”? Or rather to this particular writer, “convict” or “murderer”? We could try to do everything to disassociate with those labels that we have put on ourselves from the invisible strings, but like Sam has said many times in class, there are many factors and forces coming from everywhere that we have no idea how to even scratch the surface.

The best thing that one can do is to embrace who they actually are and let people make their own judgements. I am sure as the class moves more along throughout the semester the students will realize that you are really human beings after all. And in fact, it might change their outlook on everyone who is labeled a convict. However, it will never be fully ignored as will many labels that we all have.

Oil companies have been at the center of the United States government for over a century. It shouldn’t be a surprise that they are still given subsidies to their production because as always, resources will be scarce and everyone wants the same resources. However I do have to mention that it is interesting that these are subsidies and not tax breaks. By the government giving them subsidies, it gives them incentives to enter the market and to continue to produce and do what they are doing without much change. Also the subsidy encourages production that will ultimately lead to a lot of tax revenue for the government, which will allow it to keep spending and fund wars for....more oil.

I think what President Obama was trying to do was make a point that he was trying to do what the American public has wanted for him to do, even though he knows that he can’t get an outstanding agreement to repeal these subsidies. I have no doubt in my mind that President Obama did not even believe himself when he said that these could and should be repealed. If anything, it was probably politically motivated, which is why big oil gets a lot of attention anyway.

Speaking of which, think of the past presidential administration. The Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney took hand in big company oil when he was CEO of Halliburton, the world’s second largest oil company. Obviously being a former CEO of an oil company would maybe cloud the administration’s policies. Could explain why these subsidies continued to increase as well as the United State’s occupation in Iraq.

It all ties in together. You have a government that is living from paycheck to paycheck, former CEO’s in charge and oil companies with plenty of industry and money to donate. It all stems from that we make decisions based off of what makes us better off, not necessarily what makes everyone else better. Oil companies are here to stay and here to run the government because nothing is never enough and all resources are scarce.

Coming from a background of economics and business I see that there really is not going to be an end to inequality when it comes to who makes the decisions within government. The main philosophy that backs it up is that people are always going to benefit themselves no matter what. The incentive in benefiting themselves is based off of the power that supports them if they make decisions that benefit the rich. For example, Company BIG that makes BIG widgets that come under public scrutiny for using cheap illegal child labor, and to be made an exception to the regulation, Senator Q will then pass a law trying to benefit Company BIG and in return Company BIG will donate millions of dollars. It is all part of the incentive system and the presumption that people will always do what will benefit themselves the best.

To me, it is true that people are always going to be selfish. I am sure there were even times that Mother Teresa, the most selfless of all people, was selfish. We are the ones that have to live with ourselves every single day, so we are going to do what benefits us the most. If we were able to live through other people, then we would do things to benefit them and ourselves.

I don’t think that this will ever change. It is part of our nature. Even for the people that get to the top by cheating other people out are part of the system where people will cut down those who get in their way in order to benefit themselves. I know it is hard to empathize with them, but sometimes I do. Good for them for outsmarting the rest of us.

However there is another side to the coin. Per the recent financial crisis we still see that people will always do what benefits themselves the most…even if that means that their company will fail and people will lose all of their riches. Those people even though they probably worked really hard and made the right choices, in the end are shown no mercy when it comes to their actions based on the fact that interpretation of law will cause them a lifetime of repayment to the people they hurt, just to benefit themselves.

This poem by a Pennsylvania lifer bleeds the amount of reflection that one does when sentenced to a lifetime in prison. They observe each other and see their mistakes and how they have all caused them to become cold and dead members of society. It is as though they walk amongst the people that are “dead” or “cold” because they have completely shut out from the freedoms and liberties of life that normal citizens acquire on the outside. They’re forgotten as if they have passed away. Because of the crimes that they have committed, they have died and no longer get the chance to live or love the lives they always imagined.

I can also identify with a similar reflection. I think no matter if you are in a prison for life or amongst society, reflection is important. There are times that I feel cold and empty. I long to feel as though I am frostbitten like the author and want to change and break off dead limbs affected by the frostbite caused by my life. I’ve made mistakes and need to learn to forgive myself like the prisoner. Even though these mistakes are not punishable by law, but I’ve hurt people, felt completely alienated and broken promises. These have caused me to feel like I am a terrible person and that I do not deserve to be around the regular society. But by reflecting on these mistakes, I move on from these mistakes and the people I have bothered.

Despite the fact that it is very rare that a lifer gets released, I think it is important for rehabilitation and that the person realizes their crimes, comes to terms with it (whether it includes a victim or not) so that they can ultimately leave their lives and those that they affected in peace. I do not believe that they do not deserve to be in prison or on a life sentence whatsoever. Sometimes for people to come to peace with their lives they need to be taken outside of regular society and serve time for themselves to make them better people.

This video really puts into perspective the doubts that many people have about how gay families function and what the sons and daughters of LGBT families grow up as. After observing the guidelines that we have learned from class one can see that in fact the LGBT families do function as a family after all. Even though they are not defined as functioning families to many others because they lack the civil union of marriage, in fact it does not take a formal marriage to create a family. I believe that Zack Wahls said it himself that the fact that they are a family is because they look out for each other and love each other and support each other no matter what.

And I think that is the most important part of being a family. Is for some reason we always stick together despite whatever happens. There is nothing in the law that forces families to stay together (other than mothers/fathers to their children) but the fact that siblings do stay together and work on their family and support each other through thick and thin no matter what really says something. Many people, including myself, consider to have other families despite no blood line together. Humans have micro-families within their life through the friends the encounter.

The reason that people will argue against it is because of religion, but in no way does Zack Wahls or any LGBT couple argue against the government that it is about religion. Yes families share beliefs, but that goes to the extreme that some families teach their children that there is no need for a god or to worship an entity. If we allow the families those rights, shouldn’t we allow ourselves to have families that do teach religious ideals, that are legally married, but happen to be gay?

All in all, I see no reason why LGBT couples cannot start their own families. If the majority of those children end up similar to Zack Wahls, then it really is better for the United States to allow civil unions because our population will be full of whippersnappers like him. To bring religion into matter is not what it is about. It is about being able to function as a family legally and to gain the same rights as any heterosexual citizen.

It’s very well known and accepted by many people that sunlight has an effect on the mood with human beings. The more sunlight the lighter the mood for most people. Even the roots of monotheism comes from worshiping the sun. It gives life to our plants, to our crop and to our civilizations. Thus it shouldn’t be much of a shock that mood disorders are associated with the winter months. The dreary, gray and frigid winter can be enough for those who live in relatively temperate climates. As for those who live near the Arctic Circle, like Helsinki? Well then it must affect their lives more than any other northern hemisphere resident could ever imagine.

One of the things that struck me in the video were the artist renditions of the use of light in the city. Especially one exhibit, which was titled “Good Light, Bad Light”, it really touched a different use of light that we usually don’t associate with concrete uses. I for one am really guilty of feeling more safe in lighted areas. It might be because of being a young woman, but I for one do get nervous when walking through unlit areas, even on Penn State’s campus. What might attribute to this feeling of safety is our mood that is associated with darkness. When we think of dark or winter, we usually associate it with something bad or evil. When we think of light or summer, we usually associate it with something good or comforting.

Humans disassociate themselves from darkness, evil or bad by using anything from artificial light during nighttime, windows in the daytime or going to sunny southern beaches in the winter. Humans do not like dark because of what we have been taught to think of dark. We were taught to think of dark as evil or bad ever since we are born. The villain in the cartoon dressed in dark cloaks and the hero dressed in shining gold armor. Even when it comes to religion, angels live in the sky, where the sun resides, and the devil lives in the dark underworld where a speck of sun cannot permeate the Earth. Because of these human sociological behaviors, seasonal depression is inevitable until we as a society can disassociate these behaviors that we have with light vs dark.

I really enjoy listening to lecture topics from this man, because he really brings about an interesting way to discuss topics that are pertainant to society. For instance, in this blog he speaks about public education, which has been a problem in society for years within the United States.
When he began his lecture he discussed how there were two pillars in which the public education system had been founded on - cultural and economic. The reason he mentioned economic is due to the belief that we need to educate our society to allow our children to be able to replace us within the economy. But touching more on the economics associated with education, he mentioned that originally education was based off of who could afford it. If you were to be educated, then you were rich, and vice versa.
However I don’t think that the United States has ever separated itself from the past where the rich are educated and the poor are uneducated. That somehow, the more wealthy you are the more willing and entitled to a better education then those who are not wealthy. From this creates an increasingly larger gap between the rich and the poor. Today we see the middle class diminishing based on the fact that education is reaching the wealthy and they are the ones ending up with the better jobs and higher incomes.
Additionally we find that in a lot of poorer public schools, children do not have the motivation to learn and do well because of all of the other distractions from school work as well as the fact that the cost of college is rising. Because they do not have the income to support a college education, then public school seems less of a springboard to a career and more so a blockade to the distractions that surround children in society today.
The solution that this lecturer argued was that we need to have more divergent thinking within our education system. To allow children to know that there is not a right answer and that collaborative thinking is productive will allow our children to prosper and to become more educated. However what I argue is how would this be able to permeate through the distractions that surround children in society today? The difference between right and wrong is already a motivator for children in school to want to do well. This is clear in subjects like math and science, however how can divergent thinking be applied and used seamlessly in subjects that do not allow it? My answer is that it can only be allowed in the process of getting to the correct answer in math and science. Instead of putting a stress on students to follow rigidity of rules, teachers should allow students to find a way to the right answer.

Polygamy is becoming a popular topic when it comes to disecting different cultures. Even within the United States there is polygamy, particularly with those of the Morman faith. This can be seen in the popular TLC series of Sister Wives, where light is shed on the topic of polygamy. Yes they are normal people, there lives are very similar, but juggling three different families under one father figure proved difficult for such a large family.
The video shared on this world in conversation post showed something unfamiliar with the world of polygamy. As Americans we normally associate polygamy with having more than one wife, but having more than one husband proves a little culture shock for the average American. At least for myself, I thought how is that possible that would function well with jealousy always swirling between the husbands. On top of it, the husbands are brothers, and knowing my family, arguments between families can escalate quickly and end very badly.
However this video suggests that polyandry is out of necessity, not out of complete choice. It is for survival - not having to split up land and birth control for these families. Even though the video mentioned that the younger brothers are free to find wives and make families of their own, most of the time they didn’t. In fact, these brothers are not really free to make their decisions on families because of the sheer need of survival.
The one child rule in Asia has backfired on the demographics of the population. Like mentioned, having a son was more desirable than having a daughter. The surname would continue to live on and the family farm would not be split up due to their daughter’s marriage. Because of this, families that did have newborn daughters would abort them or kill them so they could have a son. Because of this, the demographics in Asia are distorted, whereas there is a larger male population. When it comes time for courting and dating, there are less females for marriage, and thus polyandry is an option that many take.
Although the concept of polyandry is new to me, I appreciate how the family in the video functioned. Everyone looked as though they agreed on how everything was run in the household. There was a silent system of rules, like the wife rotates sleeping with different brothers every night to keep the peace between everyone.

In my opinion, I believe that this sociologist has a correct assumption that we as a society are driven by empathy. If you look at the evidence that he provided, mortality is one thing that we can all identify with, and to be able to cope with this looming idea of dying, we identify ourselves with each other in order to make sense of the world that we live in. With the beginning of time it was blood lines, then it became religion (Christians with Christians, Jews with Jews, etc), and most recently nation states. However the question that he brought up was if it was possible that humankind will be able to identify with each other based on living on the planet.

I believe as a society, we will be able to reach that at one point. If you look at his example of the Haiti earthquake in 2010, the world was aware of the crisis because of technology. People were posting on social networks (Twitter, Facebook, etc) of their own experiences, or of just mentioning the crisis after seeing someone else post on the Haiti earthquake. Social networks in general are the key to bringing society to identify with humankind. This stems from the ever decreasing costs of technology (internet, computers, smart phones). Technology will continue to advance and decrease in cost due to Moore’s law. Look at the iPhone. Apple develops a newer and better iPhone almost every two years due to technological advancements and the decreasing costs of technology. This allows people with lesser incomes to purchase the old iPhones and become connected with the world.

Technology has also allowed the globalization trend to accelerate in the past century. It is not possible for an industrialized country to be isolationists. This can be proven with the Great Recession in the past decade. When the markets in the United States failed, it domino-ed over into the European and Asian markets. More and more economies are becoming intertwined due to technology and comparative advantages in production. This might be a stretch, but I believe before society empathizes with all of human kind, it will emphasize with the corporations that drive different sectors of the global economy. For instance, a large corporation like Johnson and Johnson has production plants, financial subsidiaries and operating companies in all parts of the world. Even more, the products produced by a big corporate like Johnson and Johnson are used in every corner of civilization.

Through social networks, increasing technology and globalization, I believe that someday society will become a humankind that identifies itself with being human and nothing lesser. I do not believe that this will be attainable in the coming century, but I believe throughout the coming years we will see society becoming closer and closer to it. As long as technology increases barriers between nationalities, religion and races will begin to fall as humans identify themselves as one another.