I thought the article was very disturbing and disappointing. My initial reaction is that these soldiers are inhumane and deserve to be punished for their actions. While I still hold to this statement, I will try to understand the reasons why these soldiers starting looking for innocent people to kill.

I think the frustration of not finding the enemy and the idea of group think are a few of the main reasons the soldiers were inclined to kill innocent civilians. With the enemy often hiding out in the villages and the soldiers having trouble winning the war, their emotions were bound to get the best of them. Frustration would lead to bad decisions in a way to release anger. The soldiers also do not have a personal connection to these civilians, so it would be easier to kill them. Furthermore, people who thought about dissenting from the group were pressured by group think (as well as some physical threats). We the army instituting the idea of the unit, and army, above the individual, people are already inclined to go along with the group. As we saw in our class discussion with the three former soldiers, Jeff was hesitant to question BJ because she was a superior officer. In war, with lives on the line, people never want to think of the idea of questioning a superior officer. Once enough of the soldiers are on board with the idea of killing soldiers, others will want to conform in an effort to avoid rejection.

More specifically, I think the actions of Morlock are not surprising from a sociological standpoint. Morlock was supposedly a troubled individual with a track record for getting into trouble prior to joining the military. Morlock was constantly getting in fights, drinking, and driving illegally. A guy like Morlock probably had a family history of problems and/or grew up in a situation that predisposed him to get into trouble with the law. With his record, he seems to be the guy who would not have a problem breaking the rules while at war. If he would fight people when home, then in the context of war, he would not have a problem killing someone.

Finally, we have talked about sociology as a way to put yourself in the shoes of other people. It may have helped the soldiers to put themselves in the shoes of the civilians in Afghanistan, and all of the Middle East. The soldiers may have seen that these are people who just want the best for their family. The soldiers could see them as their neighbors and friends at home who are trying to live a good life everyday. Then, the soldiers may have understood how upsetting the death of a 15 year old son must be.

After reading this article, I find myself very frustrated with the leadership in this country and the way certain things work. First of all, since the major oil companies were the first to see the bill, I have to imagine they made changes to their liking. I think it is unfair that they got to see it before the public. However, putting myself in their shoes, I could see how one would have looked to edit the bill, or pointed out changes that needed to be made, that would benefit their own interests. The next aspect of the article that was so concerning to me was the possible deal between President Obama and Congressman Pickens. I honestly thought Obama was looking to move off oil and to new, renewable sources of energy. While I understand that cannot happen overnight, or else many places would be out of power, but this is certainly not a step in that direction. I wonder what sociologically made me think Obama would be different than past leaders. I think it has to do with our belief in democracy and freedom that we have discussed in class so much. The American ideals are so ingrained in my being that I think the system will work and the people in power will represent the will of the people. Furthermore, I continue to be consumed by my own life and am not necessarily worried about these things that do not directly effect me.

On another note, the article reminds me of our conversation with Sam's friend from Iraq (I apologize for blanking on the name already). The people of Iraq are not happy with the involvement of the United States in their country. While certain aspects of life have improved, their is still a great deal of corruption and people are dying everyday. In America, the citizens living in the areas impacted by the drilling are not dying everyday, but are losing their drinking water. Many of them have been sick and are losing their ability to use their own water. The oil companies claim to be bringing employment to the area and energy to the country. Yet, many people are being negatively affected each day. Also, the United States government is showing signs that it is corrupt, at the very least in regards to bribery and deal making behind closed doors. In that way, I think the people who live in the areas surrounding the drilling can relate to the citizens of Iraq.

Based on our discussions in class, President Obama does not stand a chance at fighting the oil companies on his own. There are certainly many sociological factors that are working against the president in any of his efforts to move the country off of oil or at least take some of the profits away from the oil company. The first problem is that those who are in power are going to do everything they can to stay in power. When we watched the movie Gasland, it was very depressing to see the destruction caused by the drilling. The oil companies are going to continue to drill at the expense of others as long as they are benefiting.

Furthermore, they know that a mass of people will not do anything. I felt awful for the families who were unable to use the water in their own home. Despite my feeling of sadness, I left the class and moved on with my life within five minutes. President Obama needs the support of a large mass of people from within in the country. Yet, most people will only act if it they are being impacted negatively or if one of their close friends of family is being impacted.

I also think there is a certain amount of group think and/or a need for social acceptance even in Congress. When an idea is presented, people may have dissenting opinions to certain bills or want to support bills that the majority of Congressmen will not approve. In this case, the minority is looking to get a bill passed that will prevent the oil companies from continuing to gain ridiculous profits. They will have a hard time gaining support form everyone, especially those who decide to conform since that is the easier route.

More notably, it will take more than just a few powerful people to make a difference. As we mentioned in class, many of us will remain in the middle class, so we will have a hard time making an impact. It seems that many of the people in power are have traits that are manipulative and have gotten them to their positions in power. They are more willing to manipulate us, while looking out for themselves, than to do what is best for the country. The whole situation is very frustrating on the whole. I think it is also ridiculous that oil companies can take a resource that belongs to the state with no tax. Once the jobs are gone in the area, what happens? Most people continue to pay taxes while the oil companies do not have to. I just hope Obama can find a way to push the bill through and help us smaller people.

As many people have addressed, inequality has been a major issue within society for years. There have always been those at the top and those at the bottom. However, I had not thought about it in the ways that we discussed in class. I also thought anyone can work hard and get to the top. The one issue that may not have been discussed is the fact that only a few people had to cheat the system in order for the whole structure of society to be corrupt. It reminds me of the steroid issues in sports, particularly baseball, because it creates the same problem. Once a few people cheat the system, many people are left behind. In baseball, players are unable to keep up naturally because the others are using performance enhancing drugs. Then, the player is faced with a tough decision, use steroids to keep up or play it fair and fall behind. The political system as well as the system of wealth works in the same way. One person does illegal or immoral things to get ahead and then everyone is forced to do the same in order to keep up. I would like to think I would not do some of the things necessary to advance in this world, but I have not been in the same position. As we discussed, most of us are among the middle class and will be in the middle class most of our life. The sons of billionaires on the other hand have been given the opportunity to take advantage of the system and have often taken advantage of it. I just wonder why we, as human beings, feel the need to manipulate people and get ahead. I certainly want to get ahead, but I am happy with my place in society. I do not need millions of dollars or power to make me happy. I assume the competitive nature of our capitalistic society has a greater impact on these people than others. However, I think society would benefit from those at the top donating small amounts to others that deserve it and trying to give everyone a good standard of living. I think those who work hard should be rewarded, but cheating the system should not be the answer.

I think this is an interesting question to ponder. I have thought about the idea of religion fading over the years. While I think there is certainly a reasonable argument, I wonder if it is possible on a large scale. From my understanding of history, religion has had its ups and downs. While their were times when faith was more central to daily life, there were still times when people turned away from it, then they went back. I just wonder if something such as religion that has survived for this long can ever go away in a large proportion.

The world, and these countries in particular, have become more secular. People focus on material things and getting enjoyment out of their time in this world. Part of this movement has been a lack of church-going. I know the Catholic churches in my area have seen a significant decline in attendance over recent years. The churches are simply not as filled as they were years ago. I also think people do not care for particular rules as much. I know people who still claim to have a faith in God, or a high power, but have a more liberal view on the actions necessary to be connected to God. Sorry for another Catholic example, but this is what I understand best. One example is the fasting during Lent. Catholics are not supposed to eat meat on Fridays, yet I know many Catholics who do. They still believe in God and just don't think the rule is necessary.

Therefore, I certainly thing more formal showings of religion will die out. My question is does unaffiliated mean no religion or just not one in particular? This would call into question the study because people could have a mix of beliefs in regard to a higher being. While I understand the sociological perspective that people act in order to fit into the group, they also have to cut ties with the invisible strings that have made them religious. Their family may still have a strong influence on their beliefs even if they don't tell their friends. I think people want to believe in a higher being and have continued to for a long time. I am very torn on the results of this study. The more scientific knowledge we have, I think the more people call into question certain things. Yet, we still want their to be meaning to life. While this may not be a good answer, I think the extinction of religion could go either way.

I think the first thing that makes this guy white is his clothing. He is wearing jeans with a belt at the waist and a shirt tucked in. The clothing just says white guy. It’s very simple and it reminds of the clothes Jerry Seinfeld wore as a character on Seinfeld. The key here is that the belt is visible and it is at the waist. As a classic white guy, I wear a belt at the waist as well, but mine is not visible. For some reason, the tucked in shirt has the effect of bringing out the image of a white guy, or maybe the image of a middle-aged white man.
The way he speaks is just like the classic white guy. There is no slang in any of his sentences and there are plenty of proper sentences with proper pauses. There is nothing wrong with slang; he simply does not use it. Even if he did, I do not think he would deliver it properly. He tried to make a joke about the zipper and it just didn’t flow well. He said it with little emotion and had an awkward laugh to go with it. Also, there is not a lot of emotion in his speaking or laughing. For some reason, I feel like the typical white guy is either soft-spoken or not too emotional in everyday conversation. While he can get loud and passionate, he does not seem to in this situation.
Even when he bends, he has no rhythm. His movements are more robotic and don’t have any style. I think it is entertaining when he bends over to show that he can move easily. This reminds me of the classic “white guy dance moves” my friends and I do when dancing. This includes standing in place, little movement of the hips, a lot of movement with the arms, and a cheesy smile. There is effort but not too much rhythm. He uses his hands a decent amount, which is supposedly and Italian characteristic. Therefore, speaking with your hands in simply movements may be categorized as a trait of the white guy. I feel like some of these statements may be very stereotypical and not true of every white guy, but this guy does seem to yell white guy.

I think it is quite fascinating that the amount of sunlight in an area can have such a substantial effect on the population. As many people have mentioned, this is clearly another invisible string that has a negative impact on the lives of those living in Helsinki. There are also some biological factors that are impacting the people as well with regard to the sunlight. Either way though, the people of Helsinki need to adjust to their environment.

I think this is an example of the value of sociology. By realizing that the darkness has an effect on everyone, individuals can begin to adjust. The town has attempted to adjust by introducing ceremonies and providing lighted buildings to increase the mood of the citizens. Rather than continue to be depressed, people can see that it is acceptable, and even natural, to feel a little down during the winter months. Furthermore, rather than continue to be down, they can seek activities and lighted areas that will allow them to improve their mood. As the one guy mentioned, I would turn to sports as an outlet. The excitement and energy of sports would help to alleviate the impact of little light.

As for me, I could not imagine living in such conditions for a considerable period of time. During the winter here, many people get a little depressed. Then, with the return of spring, people find new life and are excited to be outside. The return of light, and life, provides a new energy for the people of this country and this particular area. Simply put, less light would result in less activities outside each day. With less activities, people may lose their sense of worth or feel they are not contributing as much to society. They may spend more time inside and ultimately exercise less. This can take both a mental and a physical toll on an individual. Overall, their health will deteriorate and they can become depressed.

On a bigger level, less light may place more importance on the days when their is light. People may take full advantage of the days with light since they occur for only a portion of the year. When we may decide to save a walk for the next day, people living in Helsinki may walk today. Without even realizing it, they may be more in-tune with the sunlight days.

I think the media plays the biggest role in instilling fear in the public. While events such as kidnappings may be extremely rare, the news portrays them as occurring quite frequently. I want you to think about your local news station. What are a majority of the topics? Are the stories about events with negative or positive impacts? Do you ever feel a sense of fear after watching one of the reports? I know for me, one of the main reasons I do not always watch the news is that it is so negative. Most of the stories on my local news stations are about murder, kidnapping, drugs, health risks, etc.

For example, I was watching a story discussing something called a spark fire that occurs while people are pumping their gas. When pumping your gas, if any static causes a spark near the gas tank, a fire could engulf you as well as the car. While this event is very rare, I was left scared after the report. While at the gas station, I was nervous that a fire could take off and engulf my mother pumping the gas. Then, when I began driving, I still thought about the chance of a gas fire. Now, I do not think of it as often, but it still enters my mind from time to time.

I think this example shows that the media feeds off fear. Furthermore, the ideas they present to the viewers make many people feel afraid of uncommon events. Clearly, the problem is a sociological one and a matter of a public issue. Right after the attempted kidnapping, those who were interviewed felt they needed to change their behavior. Although there was no kidnapping and it is not likely to happen to them, people still were overcome by fear. Our logic is overridden by this fear. The problem becomes especially concerning to individuals who live in the neighborhood. They now have their personal experience to guide their judgments of their world. I certainly understand where the people are coming from in this case. However, that one kidnapper was stopped by a woman who took action and probably would have had help from nearby "strangers." We are socialized to not trust strangers, but maybe we should be socialized to be cautious with strangers. Knowing to be careful (and even skeptical), we can interact with them in the hopes that they have good intentions. In some cases, they may be very helpful in preventing dangerous situations.

The issue of travel (or lack thereof) in America fits into the discussion of public and private issues. Private issues are individual problems that the individual has the power to fix. Public issues on the other hand are problems that are shared by many people and are a societal problem. The lack of traveling in the United States is a public issue because it is happening to a lot of people. While it may seem like individuals are choosing not to travel, the many factors listed above are actually constricting their freedom and leading them to remain within the borders of the United States.

I think the portrayal of other nations as dangerous and unhealthy have a huge impact on the areas in which Americans choose to travel. When the news constantly reports the negative aspects of the countries around the world, and Americans are not continually learning more about the positive aspects, it is no wonder people seem to want to stay at home. They think there is nothing but danger within other countries, particularly in undeveloped nations. People may also judge you for traveling to these places. When society thinks it is odd to travel to other places, then you are more likely to stay at home. It was like the example in class today, students at Penn State can go to the library on a Friday night, but most people will choose not to. This may be because they enjoy going out and partying. However, it also has to do with the opinions of others and the societal opinion that students should party instead.

The working culture in this country certainly makes it difficult to travel as well. A person will have a harder time taking off in America with their limited vacation time. Yet, we see even with vacation time, Americans do not take off. This has to do with the idea of a public issue. Society sees the need to travel and take vacation as unnecessary. Rather, people should be working and staying close to home to vacation. We constantly feel the need to work to provide for our families and stay ahead of the game. Vacation would seem to get in the way of that.

The video really shows the power of group think and conformity. I think from a young age we are taught to conform, whether it by intentional or not. As social animals, we want to fit in with those around us and be accepted. Therefore, we act in the same way as others in order to gain acceptance among our peers. As this video shows, there are many examples of this in everyday life, but I think high school is a particularly troubling time. For example, a person could be making fun of someone, whether it be verbally teasing them or physically pushing them around. The group of people around them may join in or simply laugh at the victim as well. Rather than help the kid out, people often conform and watch. The fear of not being accepted and the need to feel wanted forces people to conform to others.

I think that there may also be certain factors that further cause people to conform. For example, if someone is insecure, they may have a stronger need to be accepted. The social nature of human beings combined with the need for attention would make someone be even more predisposed to conforming. There can be very negative consequences in certain situations. If a group is making an important decision, such as whether to build a new building on Penn State's campus, group think can be a problem. Especially if the financial support was not present.

The idea of group think brings into question the idea of democracy. Majority may rule, but this may be due to conformity more than logic and reasoning. I think this is most likely why presidential voting is done alone in a booth. This allows an individual to vote for who they really want to vote for. With others around, a person may not pick the candidate than think is best for the country. However, this would also be conflicted by the confirmation bias. People will believe what they want and reinforce it by hanging with others. Therefore, by the time they reach the voting booth, it may be too late. The fact that conformity and confirmation bias are at play shows the complexity of every individual and the world as a whole.