It was interesting watching "The Cost of Empire". In one of our class discussion we had where Sam showed us how much the United States spends on its military compared to the rest of the world each year, it wasn't too surprising to see that the United States spends more than all other countries combined annually. This of course can be reflected in the amount of influence we have on other countries. I think it was interesting in the video how it was mentioned that Obama promised in his campaign to bring troops home and yet he has expanded our military forces. I think this video is very one sided. Of course the military is an easy target when it comes to how much money it receives. But we also need to consider that our military is one of the "biggest" and "best" there is. In the video they mentioned the F-22 program and how it doesn't really have a role in addition to the amount of money that has been put into it. I think something that is overlooked is that while it may not have a specific purpose at this moment. Just having it available to us I'm sure could be intimidating and a deterrent to other countries. While I think that this video is one sided, I think it also has a good point. That there is quite a bit of money that goes into our military. I believe there are probably a lot of wasteful things in the military that could be cut out. Whether it means closing some bases or whatever, I think it needs to be looked at and they should not be overlooked for their spending. Going back to what Obama said about reducing the number of troops, I can't help but wonder why he would have changed his mind to increase the number of troops. While some say it may be due to lobbyists, I wonder also if there is an underlying cause. There is a lot that goes on within our military and CIA that we never hear or know about, and it makes you wonder if there were other "national security" reasons as to why he increased the number of troops.

This guy seems nice. He talks (or writes) like an old friend or someone I can just get. He painted a great picture for what his experience is like at Rockview. I feel bad in saying this, but throughout the whole letter I just kept wondering what he did to go to jail. What poor choice did he make and when did he make it? I feel like that is the human nature side of me or maybe I am just nosey. It just seemed like he really understood himself and how to love and care for others; and I can’t help but think if you have love and receive love, how can you commit a serious crime. Maybe my thought is due to ignorance but I have always thought that people who commit crimes don’t have people around them that truly love them and encourage them on. For example, he said his teachers still write him. Maybe he came from a bad family or a family that did not encourage him in the right ways, but he has teachers still encouraging him, which obviously have influenced him otherwise he would not write about them.
Ok, moving on from why people commit crimes and back to his letter, I thought “C.” showed a lot of this soul. He served his heart (and vulnerability) on a plate for the world to see, and that is not easy. I couldn’t help but feel for him when he said his family is living in a different world than he is. Rockview has become his world and he is probably starting to not know anything else. Thinking of his new world makes me think of the movie Shawshank Redemption. It totally gets to me every time I see that movie and think of the struggle Brooks, the librarian, faces once he leaves Shawshank. He was so used to his world at Shawshank he didn’t know how to live in the world he originally called home. I wonder if that is how the writer now feels. I understand how his family probably is having a hard time writing him or relating to him because they are both living parallel lives and dealing with things that cannot be compared. But at least he has his new family within the system. It just goes to show you can create a family wherever you go.

What a crazy thought that winning the lottery would be a source of stress but obviously it is and a high source of stress that is. The world is filled with greedy fearful people that will do just about anything for money. I think it is so interesting seeing how people handle their own money, the conversation of money and those that have large amounts money. I would completely agree with the CNN article that those who give money to others are more satisfied and I understand why it would be frustrating if one loaned money to another and then felt they were spending it irresponsibly. People work hard for their money. After all money is a daily need, thought and conversation. If money did not matter then why would we go to school, college or slave always for 40 plus hours each week? We prepare our whole lives to make money, then make more money while saving money so one day we don’t have to make money and we can live off our saved money. I think one factor to look at in each lottery winner is their location and those they are involved with. If they lived in a big city like LA or New York or somewhere that money was very present and obvious then I think they would struggle with it; as compared to a small town where while money is important it is not the main topic at hand. Also, if they were around people that were greedy, always wanting more and unsatisfied with their life again they would struggle. If there were around stable, grateful, moral people I don’t think the lottery winners would struggle as much. I found it interesting to hear that people are happier after spending money on an experience rather than material items. Maybe money classes should be brought into school systems for high school students. While finance classes are helpful, I think a ‘money, psychology and living life’ class would be great for the American people. I wonder how much we would have to spend in taxes to start that? Overall, I enjoyed the article because it was great food for thought and the blog have some very valid and vivid points. What a great way to compare the life change of being rich and then poor to make the reader understand the opposite effect as well.

It is not surprising to hear that only 30% of Americans have passports. Quite honestly, I am surprised that it is as high as 30%. I would imagine that the large majority of these passport holders only have traveled between Canada and Mexico as mentioned in the article. In addition , I am sure that the number of Americans that have traveled within the United States is relatively low also. This can be seen by the distribution of so many different American cultures scattered thorough out the United States from the deep south to New York city to the Midwest. I think there are a couple reasons as to why American don't travel much. First of all, traveling costs money, of which I think traveling can become quite expensive - especially the cost of air travel. Also, since the United States has so many different regions within itself, many people find it is easier to take a vacation nationally. Something that I did find extremely interesting was the average number of vacation days an American receives, and how much less it is than that of the people from the United Kingdom and New Zealand. Additionally, how it is favored to take off a year prior to big life changes like that of after college. If you tried to do that in the United States, you would be questioned as far as your commitment with that company. I certainly agree that the mentality of most American is work, work, work . I believe this can be reflected in the successfulness of our country in the past century . Another reason as to why I think Americans don't travel is the way our society is set up. The way that products and services are advertised to us. It has become so easy to use the internet to purchase thing, and experience things without leaving the comfort of our home. Adding to this, news and information has become easily accessible also. Most of the news, if not all of it on TV, or the newspaper is negative news. So I am sure people would become more reluctant to travel because all they see is bad things happening around the world.

I have never heard of the show Toddlers and Tiaras, nor did I realize how big and competitive these pageants can become. Just from the first few seconds of the video, it becomes very apparent as to why this may be a controversial topic. I did think that there can be two sides to this argument. I feel that these little girls are not very free because of their mothers possibly living through their younger daughters. But how truly free is a four year old girl in the first place? I agree with the mother in the video that the idea of a mother wanting her daughter to compete in the pageant is no different than a father who wants his son to play football. At this age, we are all highly influenced by our parents. Although I have to imagine that there are some girls that do not want to be in the pageants yet their mothers make them. On the other side of the argument, I think that there is probably a large majority of these girls that if given insight to what it is like to not compete in pageants, they would probably choose not to compete. The clip at the beginning of the video where they showed the little girl crying because she did not want her eyebrows waxed is a pretty good indication that they don’t want to be there. In reference to the cone outfit the little girl was wearing that is so controversial, I believe this is the result of a mother that is so far consumed by the “pageant world” that she truly saw it as cute and funny. Because she is so far removed from the non-pageant world, she sees absolutely nothing wrong with her daughter’s outfit and can clearly be seen in her defensive nature in the HLN interview. I also would have to think that she is not the only mother that feels this way. It shows that within a given community, something like the cone outfit this girl wore can be rationalized and perceived as cute and funny which clearly is not the how people outside of this community have recognized this.

I understand that there is a system in place, but to think that a five year old could potentially be a suspect is ridiculous. The only imaginable way I could see that this boy could have hurt someone with the gun if it had accidentally gone off. I think the sad part is this child probably has had a more traumatizing experience being arrested and suspended from school, because he is entirely too young to understand what is going on.
I think what is even more concerning is what the boy may have done with the gun. It seems very apparent that he just saw the gun and picked it up. Regardless of what the boy would have done with the gun, if anything at all, I think the bigger question should be why the step father had a gun in his car where a five year old boy could pick it up? Also how did he NOT realize it was missing from his car moments after the boy got out? In my opinion the implications on the boy's life compared to the implications the man who left a loaded gun in his car will have are far greater.
While I think that considering the boy as a suspect is completely ridiculous, I think that the process in which this situation was handled was correct. The reason I say this is because at what age does the boy become responsible for these actions? If this were to happen again but with an older child, who's not to say that they didn't intentionally bring a loaded weapon to school? There needs to be some type of system in place to keep our schools safe. . It is obvious to me that the boy is too young to understand what is going on and to know how to take responsibility for his action. An older child might be more aware of his or her actions and can take responsibility but in my opinion that would be judged on a case by case basis. This system is in place in order to keep this from happening. Keeping in mind though, all of these thoughts still falls back on parental responsibility. Parents need to teach their child right and wrong and if guns were properly locked up from children this would not have happened.

Soc001

After reading this letter, I can say that I definitely had a different perception of what prison life might be like. I found myself trying to wrap my head around the idea of not only being in prison, but being in prison for life. Initially I thought, "How free can they really be?". If tomorrow, everything and everyone that I knew was stripped from me and then I was placed in a restricted, foreign environment for life, I can't even begin to fathom how differently life would be. I think that by removing the influences we see and don't see from everyday life truly would enable us to take a deeper look at ourselves. I can't say I have ever been in prison, but as a military veteran I'll never forget what it felt like stepping off the bus the first day of basic training. The compassion these men have for each other is a testament to just how free they are. To put aside hatred and have true compassion for another individual is something that is rarely found today.