This video and the whole concept of Jihad is particularly frightening and disturbing to me. To see the dates of attacks in chronological order is terrifying. The goal of these terrorists is to wipe out America, amongst other people. To see that over the years attacks have been followed through, to know that there are followers of terroristic leaders and that these groups are possibly growing at this minute is terrifying. Seeing this brings me right back to my Hebrew school days and hearing for the first time about the Holocaust. At the time it was incomprehensible to me that one person could lead to so many deaths, that one person could reshape the thinking of millions of people, that a single human being could cause the deaths of millions. A man like Bin Laden had tons of followers, and possibly still has them. To see people holding signs expressing their want for people to die who do not believe in allah makes me think the world has a huge way to go before equality, acceptance, and peace will every be something remotely tangible for the human race. America got its first real taste of terrorism on 9/11, meanwhile the rest of the world experienced bloodshed because of the concepts of Jihad many times before. It is when lives are personally affected by terrorism that people begin to experience fear. After the twin towers were hit my grandmother told me that these suicide bombers are crazy, loonies from the Middle East. "But Grandma," I said to her, "if they were Americans doing the same thing you wouldn't say so." She told me then, that it wouldn't be Americans killing in that way. I never forgot about this conversation because some of what she said rings true. Though not legally insane, suicide bombers are brainwashed, just as nazis were. The supporters and followers of Jihad all hold the belief that allah is the almighty and powerful and if he is telling them to kill the crusaders, or the jews, or the americans, then that is their purpose, to fulfill the desires of their god. I would not say they are crazy, but that these people were brought up with a concept and had it pushed on them with no explanation and they are forced to believe what their people know to be true. To question authority is not an inbred ability. When you look up, you see the sky. It is blue. Why is it blue? Well, someone, probably your mother or father, told you early in life that this was the color to see when you see the sky.

This video completely supports what Sam has said in class about decisions not being up to the president. I agree completely that Obama has the potential to be a great leader, but we are a military country, we support the war. So, even though at the start of his election, Obama vowed to get the troops out as quickly as possible, this does not seem to be the case now. This video brings about the idea of the expansion of the military. The U.S. is responsible for over one half of the military spending to begin with. With the new technology and equipment being used and further evolved, even more money needs to be put forth. It is all of a sudden in our best interest to increase the amount of people in our troops. As previously stated in other posts, I was also completely unaware of the extent of our military needs and the bases that are all over the world. Is this helping, is this fostering peace, or is this making people feel threatened and therefore increasing violence? It's apparent that war is draining for our country and our civilians, forgetting about other countries. It also taking a toll on our economy, the opposite of what it is supposed to do. I would argue that we are reaping zero benefits from this war. So, why are we spending more and more money on it, why are we expanding our troops? There is a larger plan at play, but so far it has not been working. Our country is pouring billions and billions of dollars into into a lost cause, an empty promise, the ideal purpose of our country (to protect us, to save the world). We are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into a dark hole and financing what has been detrimental to us. There has to be another way, however obscure or difficult it may to be find or follow through, it should be supported.

The oil industry, like the majority of corporations and even the U.S. government, is corrupted. The bill was not able to be passed because the people with the money denied the possibility. Just like the documentary in class proved, the common people had no say. It showed people sick and harmed, setting their water on fire because of all of the natural gases in it. When these people made it public, the people who were at fault blamed it on nature and payed off these people. When the man who made the documentary was in the middle of making it,he got warnings left and right not to go public with it, that it was too controversial. The people owning and managing the big industries won't ever take the blame. The people who have money are the people who have power. In this case, the oil industry refuses to allow the public to have less taxes because they do not want to suffer. Nothing is honest when it comes to matters of money and the government. The futures of the oil companies are ensured because they are have a personal relationship with the government. The common people are not making money hand over fist to spare a few million for the government to have and therefore have little or no voice in the matter, or any matter.

At first, I thought her ideas about women and war were outdated. But, she started stating facts, statistics, and then included the idea that she is a woman of war and she has experienced things first hand. The war is double-sided. I agree that the majority of women are able to see the front lines and be involved in the back conversations of war. However, some women can only see one side. In the countries she mentioned, I can see how her ideas are more valid. The fact 75% of refugees are women and children and are killed is beyond frightening. The fact that millions of women are raped within 100 days in Rwanda is an atrocious statistics. But, I'm not all that surprised. She has just confirmed the dreadful suspicions I previously had. Even in the U.S., war affects lives negatively. This woman's stories were so real and so true. I think she described perfectly the impact of an explosion by saying people could not truly fathom what it is like. She explains how it is so much more intense than anything portrayed in movies. I can't even imagine seeing that kind of explosion and knowing that people I know could be dead.
To hear stories firsthand from someone who has seen the atrocities of war themselves, is earth shattering in itself. The woman who is frightened that her children have hate in their hearts over being financially stable and okay does prove something about the mind of females. The speaker states that women can provide new insight and change in the perspective on war. She finds that giving it a chance would, by default, sort of save the world. I have to say, it is something that hasn't been tried and unless it has been, no one will know for sure if it will work. I find that it could not hurt for women to have a larger voice, to rehabilitate lives already affected by war and to even possibly prevent war in the future, could be the most beneficial thing for us. But, unless it is attempted and unless minds are expanded, it won't be a possibility.

I have friends who are somewhat poor with families struggling to maintain their homes and barely paying for their education. I also have friends who have families who cannot afford their education. I have friends who are not going to college. I have friends who are somewhat poor with families struggling to maintain their homes and barely paying for their education. I have friends who are not going to college, I have friends that are or will end up paying their own ways for college. I also have some friends of extreme wealth. i have extended family who receive financial support from the government, I have a friend that got presents from holidays and hand-me-downs from the local church. I also have a friend with multiple homes, a private jet, and who travels regularly. I know first-hand how extreme the distribution of wealth can be. I also know that it can be lower and higher in the spectrum than I have or maybe will ever see. I have family members who may would hate because they "cheated" the system. I also have family members who got caught for it and served sentences. I do not think that they were right or that the money stolen as a part of their businesses was fair or just. It very well could have been used to feed needier people or reduce another's taxes, amongst other things. Since I also know firsthand about the consequences and gains of cheating the system, I find that even though it can reap benefits there is a possibility of parole. So, members of my family might have gone from middle class to upper class, but I doubt any of them would have said it was worth the time that they served for a white collar crime. The truth is, so many people do cheat the system and get away with it. That does not mean its right and people must not think about the implications or how their actions could be detrimental to other lives. But, legalities aside, corporation owners pass down wealth to their children and the same goes for actors and actresses. Is it at all fair that future generations are reaping the benefits of someone else's work? Also, why is it that people in the acting business or advertisement industry making more than miners or construction workers? Sadly, money is not handed out based on work ethics or sacrifices, but by popularity and the demand of the upperclass. If wealth was more evenly distributed the world would have much less issues and there would not be such a huge gap in the separations of the classes. People on the top would lead lives of less extreme luxury, but the people on the bottom would suffer less. However, this will probably never be completely realistic because those who have money and power value luxury far too much and wouldn't give it up easily. This idea of being overly comfortable is so enticing, that many even risk jail time just for a small taste of it.

I have no doubt in my mind that religion is becoming less widespread and that fewer people are affiliating themselves with a particular religion. If data were to be done on religious worshippers and more reformed worshippers, I would think that over time the religious group deteriorates. Also, I would bet that smaller amounts of kids brought up in extremely religious households go on to raise their kids that way than the statistics would have been decades ago. I think part of this is due to the fact that people are being introduced to different religions and ideas than ever before. People learn a history and have a smattering of knowledge of so many religions. I think that this causes people to think differently about their own religion, be more open to new ideas about religion, and question the concept of a higher power in general. People are realizing that one group believes this, another supports a completely different theory, a separate religion or group thinks that this other concept is true. So, they might think, which is it and why is mine right?
The article and video clip talk about how in the late 1800s and early 1900s certain countries had a much lower rate of people claiming they did not believe in god or have a religion. One possible reason for this is that times have become more accepting and the world is less narrow-minded. I am sure that more people back then did not believe in god or affiliate themselves with a religion, but just did not admit to it. They could have feared the responses of others and might not have even admitted to themselves or questioned their own traditions and beliefs. The further back in time one goes, the less open-minded people were. However, I do think that more people truly don't affiliate themselves with a religion or are unsure of the existence of god now more than before. More people feel that is okay to admit this and express these kinds of ideas also. The article also states Religion will never be completely obliterated, but may deteriorate more and more. I find this to be true. People will continue to question their own beliefs, the way they were brought up, the existence of one or many higher powers. I do not think that this growing skepticism will demote the value of people's morales or wellbeing.

This poem is extremely profound. The fact that it is written by a person serving a life sentence makes it that much more real. This is not a person who feels heartless or numb because of hereditary depression. Although, this person might be depressed it is not the purpose of this poem to exaggerate that. This person is in prison for committing an irreversible crime. He or she feels that being in prison is similar to walking amongst the dead and heartless. This person wants to love and feel warmth. This person wants to feel human, but does not and cannot because of all the remorse. I like how in the poem there is a question mark after dubbing other prisoners heartless. Since this person is one of the prisoners, he/she is claiming to have a heart, a heart that is frozen. But, this person is also acknowledging the fact that many perceive lifers as heartless for ending or ruining lives. This person is on the outside looking into his situation. I find that most people are unable to see themselves or the group that they are associated with from other people's lives unless they are forced to think outside of the box. Prison has certainly helped this person accomplish this. This person is describing what it is like to feel inhuman, to be drained of emotion and feel worthless. Is this person heartless? Clearly not, each being in a prison has a beating heart under his or her chest. But, having a heart in the sense that this person is saying, is a different story. The fact that this person is questioning its existence and acknowledging absent feelings, desiring a soul, means that prison has offered a different perspective. This human's heart, cold as he/she claims it is, is clearly in the thawing process. I do think people should have faith in the rehabilitation process prison can accomplish for people.

The speaker in this video, Zach Walls, preaches something that is an extremely controversial topic worldwide. He is right in every way, that gay couples should be granted the right to marry and raise children. But, even though this is my opinion, many people are against homosexuals raising children. This video also attempts to define family. Zach Walls says his family is like any other and that he was brought up in an equally beneficial manner as kid's with straight parents. He brings into the equation his ACT scores and overall success. Although this proves that his upbringing probably helped bring him to his full potential, that should not matter. Even if this man was unemployed now, it should not reflect on the fact that his parents were gay or straight. It is sad to think that people would see a struggling child, teenager, or adult and assume that it is due to their upbringing. Granted, sometimes that's the very culprit of failure, unloving or neglectful parents. But someone's gender preference does not indicate whether they are more or less likely to be loving parents. I do understand that by nature, opposite sex are "supposed" to be attracted to one another in order to reproduce and continue the cycle of life. However, through artificial insemination and adoption, to bring a child into this world or enhance the quality of one's life is certainly supporting this cycle. It's sad to me to think that it was harder for a gay couple to be cleared for artificial insemination than my aunt's single friend. She wanted a baby and despite not having a spouse, she filled out paper work and in days it was accepted. For a gay couple, even when adopting a child, the process is more strenuous. I do find that society has had some break throughs and expanded narrow mindedness and questioned the "norm." A family is a family, a name to be decided by the individuals under a roof, or in a group, connected by bloodlines or not, it is no one's decision or label but their own.

The sun not only provides light, but boosts the absorption of vitamin D in human's bodies. It is proven that sunlight improves moods. Overall, the sun is almost an imperative part of living. According to the video, people suffer from a certain disorder, depression, weight gain, and fatigue due to the prolonged darkness. The lack of sunlight is not only taking a toll on people's physical health, but their mental health also. A person's wellbeing affects the way he/she views the world and interprets the events around them. What is also an interesting thought, is that depression is contagious. I don't mean that in a literal sense. But, when you spend extended periods of time with someone who is happy, you too, often tend to feel happy after a while. The same goes with sadness. If the lack of sun is affecting the majority of people in the negative ways it has been, then those who are affected less by the darkness, are still affected. When it is difficult to find happy people, I'm sure it is difficult for people's spirits to be lifted all that much.
I have a friend who has seasonal depression. It is obvious that her depression is in the winter, when the sun hides the most and the weather is colder. Her treatment is to stare into a bright light for a certain amount of time a day or when she feels depression coming on. People in Finland stare at bright lamps (with their morning coffee at times) to improve their moods. Also, they have light festivals and try to light the city well. Although it's not sunlight, the simple act of starting at light can lift spirits. I worry they will have a power outage over there! Although I'm sure it helps, people report having to leave the city in search of the real thing. For people already prone to things like seasonal depression, I find that living in that city must take an extreme toll on their psychological health. I would not be surprised if there were higher suicide rates over there due to the higher levels of depression. It scares me to think that even I or my friends and family could endure extreme depression just from being in darkness. Although exercise and lights and keeping busy can help, it is proven that sunlight cannot be replaced by anything else or have the same effect on humans. There is no doubt there is something keeping citizens in that dark town; be it work, family, or comfort, people are staying. Not only would I not visit that city, but I would strongly discourage anyone from doing so for an extended period of time. People tend to take trips for prolonged periods of sunlight anyway, probably because they realize it puts them in a better mood!

Money certainly does not guarantee happiness. It can enhance people's lives in some ways, but also downgrade them in others. It is true that the woman in the article who once worked four jobs and now only works one has a lot less stress. However, she has more stress when it comes to dealing with friends and family. Her family wants to control how she invests her money and friends are putting unfair pressure on her to give them money. People who were once so generous are now bitter because the tables have turned, and she is the wealthy one. The man who won five million and invested most of the money safely claimed that it didn't change his life greatly. But, the fact is it changed him in ways he might not be able to identify. Simply knowing that you have the ability to make larger investments can change the way people think and the way others (friends and even family) treat and view them. Winning the lottery places so many new invisible strings on a person as well as readjusting older ones.
I also find that people who win the lottery tend to move, maybe even by multiple homes and new vehicles. When one's setting is changed, their lives and their beings are permanently changed. Once you have been exposed to a new class of life and have simply seen what it is like to live a certain way, that event has shaped the way you view the world and are viewed by others. The people who stole millions of dollars and moved into a mansion, only to throw out all of the expensive and fancy items left in the home, did not fit in to a higher class. They not only did not get along with people from that neighborhood but stuck out like sore thumbs. Although these people were criminals, people who win the lottery most likely have similar experiences. People who were not exposed to wealth and that lifestyle at a young age will not mesh with the upperclass. It makes sense for someone, even if they all of a sudden possess loads of money, to have more in common with a poor person than someone who was born into wealth.
the article talks about people feeling better when they spend money on other people. To pay for a meal or go on a vacation with family is much more rewarding than to spend money on yourself and be stingy. However, there is always some sort of an expectation for someone who possesses a lot of money to foot the bill every time. This puts a social and psychological strain on people. My father was once an extremely wealthy man. Whenever he went out with people even if it was multiple families, he would foot the bill. Eventually, people stopped offering and it was silently expected that he would pick up the tab. Even if spending money on others is more pleasing than to never do so, it becomes a burden on people if it's a constant occurrence. I find that this is also why it is easier to have friends from the same socioeconomic class so that it is not always expected for one person to pay. It makes sense why different classes associate with each other in that way. Overall, money changes not only an individual and different societies, but the way we view the world.