For example, the reason that America goes to war so often is not because of American’s yearning for world peace but rather the power struggle that occurs on a daily basis. America likes being on the top and of course it’s going to do everything to maintain its power.
This video clip really upset me though because it reminds me of the statement “Learn from history.” In which it is evident that we have not. It also makes me upset because in the news war is always played off by being about world peace and that is exactly the opposite of what it is. I mean seriously, does anyway really truly believe that our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq is strictly for peace? Hell no, we're raping them dry of all of their oil so we can afford to buy gas and other byproducts that fuel our everyday lives. When it comes down to it, war is a fundamental to the world we live in and it will continue to be part of it until the end of time.

I just want to first say, WOW! That was an incredibly mind opening video that really presented the debacle of world history in less that I thought possible, five minutes. I'm more of a science oriented person and so I was never too interested in world history but the amount of battles that have taken place since 1000AD are astronomical. More importantly though, is that the video shows a much bigger picture than what meets the eye. And really the bigger picture is this; people have always fought wars and will always fight wars. It’s a sociological thing that we can not overlook anymore. We’re not fighting wars for peace; we’re fighting wars for domination and power control. I think that idea is very evident from this video in the fact that as time progressed and the amount of people increased, more battles were fought. It was also evident that every important society through those years, like Europe, Japan, and parts of America, were involved in some sort of military conflict. Sociologically speaking war is really determined by forces outside our control, or by the strings.

“From the invasion of Afghanistan until last summer, the U.S. military had lost 761 soldiers in combat there. But a higher number in the service — 817 — had taken their own lives over the same period.” This is quite a shockingly number, but the statistic in itself brings to the table evidence that proves something about suicide that we have long since talked about. The fact that there are strings outside of our control affecting our thoughts, feelings, and actions. It also hints at the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with the military for suicide is not something that normal healthy individuals do. So what is truly causing these things to occur? Well for one, I think the system of the military is not providing an environment that is beneficial to these soldiers. For example, in the video we watched in sociology one of the correspondents spoke about how the military never directly used the word kill or killing in any of its literature. I mean how can you truly train soldiers to be ready for war when you're not addressing the main goal of fighting, which is clearly to kill?
In my honest opinion the military training needs to be more "sociological" in its intent because they are socializing soldiers incorrectly in that they are trying to unify soldiers but don’t “repair” them for normal life. There are high suicide rates for both military situations, soldiers getting deployed and not getting deployed. Blaming the problem entirely on posttraumatic stress syndrome is only one factor in the whole scheme of things. There are definitely factors that we do not understand right now, but it’s clear that something needs to be done about it. I think another main problem with the military today is that there isn't this overall feeling of patriotism like there has been in older military involvements. Which would definitely have its affect on the psyche of its soldiers. They are now entering the military for other reasons, like financial reasons and not truly wanting the military experience. I mean some people can kill and some cannot, I just feel as if a lot of people in the military today are there for financial reasons which doesn’t make them any closer to being able to kill.

The more I look “sociologically” at things the more I realize that life is really quite bleak. I’ve begun to see just how controlled ones’ life is by the things outside of ones’ control. I’ve always felt like it was myself who was controlling the thoughts, feelings, actions, and overall interests, however, I now see that that’s an incorrect feeling. In a way, it’s almost morbid. I feel as if I’m a puppet rather than being a unique individual.
However, since I’m a puppet everyone else has to be this way as well, don’t they? So to me, it’s no shocker that the government and corporations are exactly the same way. Basically, what I’m saying is that their thoughts, feelings, actions, and interests are all governed by the same thing we are, self interest. I mean is it really that hard to believe that the government is corrupt? Money, for most people, is the deciding factor in ones quality of life, and it’s no shock that the government runs this way as well. Everyone talks about how terrible the government is and how corrupt it is but sociologically speaking, they act the same way as we do. They want the best for themselves and for the people they love.
I don’t think anyone would willingly give up the power that government officials and the big oil companies withhold. Yes, there are some exceptions, like the large amount of money given away by philanthropic organizations, but when you have 10 billion giving money away is like throwing pennies into a wishing well. My point of this whole essay is this, we can be upset about the amount of money big oil has and at the fact that the government isn’t in the favor of the people, but someone has to be that way. Society works when there is a division of power. You can’t have people of the same social class, we are animals and we don’t work this way. It’s been tried, just look at the fascist, socialistic, and communistic societies that have nearly all failed. It’s sad but true. There is only so much that we can do as citizens of this country and clearly the bill proposed by Obama to tax big oil is evidence enough. This social injustice will continue to be this way like it has for years. That’s just how life works and we need to accept it.

The interesting trend that is told is that religion is beginning to falter. I can completely see this trend even in my own life. My mother, my aunt, and my uncle were all raised by catholic parents who believed in a catholic education and they did the whole thing, went to catholic school, went to church weekly, and did all of the things that were "required" religiously. However today, nearly 30 years later, not one of them is religious anymore. So, what exactly happened?
I really believe that the foundation of religion is beginning to crumble. Religion truly had a purpose at one point, and that point is becoming not part of the future but actually part of the past. The revolution of self worth and economic gain that we have seen for many years in westernized society is making religion lose its purpose. Historically speaking, religion was often a medium in which people learned and developed morally, as well as socially. Yet today, all of those things can now be done within the confines of school and family. Nothing is left for religion to do, and so when religion does not change with the times, it begins to fail. That's exactly what we are seeing today. Another interesting point is the fact that we as citizens and as a society have become much more socially aware. The advent of technology and knowledge has really shown religion to be a false representation. Many scientific beliefs contradict the facts and ideas imposed by religions. And also, people don’t really need religion as a medium to become spiritually aware anymore. I know as a child I had a yearning for knowledge and I could just open a book or ask my parents to find the answers to my questions. Religion used to be that answer. The clergymen knew all about the world. Religion used to have a special purpose in that, it helped people understand or try to understand the eventual death that overcomes all of us. While this curiosity still exists in westernized society today, it is being answered by different means. I feel as if people are just coming to terms with the fact that they have one life, and they need to live it to the fullest. So in effect, religion just doesn’t provide all of the answers like it has in the past. We can thank technology for that, whether it is good or bad is your decision.

The management of crowds is often a very difficult process and evidence shows it to be because it is hard to provide transportation for millions of people. This is mostly due to the fact that the infrastructure of our country and many others were not made to handle such large exoduses.
After reading this article, I was immediately reminded of the chapter that I read about crowds in the “ Intersections Collection” that talked about collective groups and how they act when in hectic situation. The intersection collection detailed something that this article hints at, and that’s the fact that people don’t normally act irrationally in groups when in trouble. A plethora of data supports this, like data from 9-11 and other traumatic events in history. So, people are basically very docile people, and I truly believe controlling large groups of people is a simple process but must be done with care.
What I mean by done with care is that order must be maintained. That way people do not act irrationally. If one person or a couple of people get out of control then the whole group is compromised, and this is obviously a sociological standpoint. The freedoms and feelings of these people are not within but are within the group. So the main goal is to keep the group at bay.
Basically, people must believe that they are safe and that everything is under control. So, I truly believe that it’s imperative to maintain control and you must have some governing power that controls the whole group. So military or authorities must be present for a group. Without a leader a group is nothing and is most similar to a wild pack of wolves. There also must be some sort of motivation to move large crowds because no one really wants to leave their home. Another thing that must be present is knowledge of the event. This, however, is not a problem in our society but in lower class societies the information must be sent to the people. Whether this is by radio, television, or newspaper.
So in conclusion, you must be aware of the situation, you must have a reason, and you must have some sort of authoritative figure leading you.

Zach Wahls should be commended on not only his oratorical skills but also for his courage and determination to stick up for his lesbian parents. We as citizens of this country need people to stick up for what they believe in and he did exactly that. He also did it with such moving character that I was almost uplifted right out of my seat.
Until recently though, I have been adamantly opposed to allowing same sex couples raising kids for I felt as if they would have a negative effect on the developing child. However, Zach is a great example of how, contrary to popular belief, beneficial these same sex parents could actually be. I have never come into contact with anybody that was raised by same sex parents, so I didn’t really have any understanding as to how they would turn out. Yet, Zach seems to me to have faired well, at least I know I didn’t get in the 99th percentile of the ACT!
On another note though, I don’t believe one man’s testimony is enough to prove that these parents are a sociologically match to having a man father and a female mother. So, I think before I make the decision I need more proof. As for putting legislation about who one can marry is absolutely bogus. I do not feel as if his or her government should mandate them, whether it be federal of state, to have the opposite sex as ones partner. We as citizens live in a dynamic country in which we have some “freedoms” to pick and choose who we want, whether it be determined by factors and forces outside of control or not.
Another valid point is that children can be raised by straight parents that aren't fit too. For instance, my mother is a social worker and deals predominantly with mothers who are unfit to raise children, and let me tell you, there are plenty of them that aren’t fit! So, if homosexual individuals choose to have children, then they are one step above the crack-addicted mothers who are unfit for raising children. In my opinion, IT’S FOR THE KIDS! So, whether the couple is straight, bi, or homosexual, if they can put a child in a positive environment like Zach was in, then so be it.

the people there, eat, work, and sleep. However, Helsinki is interestingly unique because it’s resident’s only get a few hours of sunlight a day during the peak winter months. Their thoughts and behaviors towards lack of sunlight, like everything else I’ve learned in Sam’s class, relates to sociology and these people’s days and habits are structured by their surroundings. Some of the people in the video talked about the use of bright lamps, taking baths in the Adriatic, or overwhelming themselves with sports as activities that lessened the effects of no sunlight. This may be true, but what is not true is the fact that they’re not making totally free choices. A lot of relationships in sociology are hard to see, but this is not. It is very easy to see just how the darkness affects the structure of society and that their sociological context is telling them that they must do things that better remind them of the sunlight. When it comes down to it, this video is exemplary of just how people’s freedoms and beliefs are not actually shaped by their own thoughts and feelings, but actually more correctly by their sociological contexts, or invisible strings.
This video was also very interesting in the fact that these people had to adapt their ways of living to the lack of sunlight. I really never thought about what it’d be like to live in a darkness filled world, however, I do know it would be very different. Yet, these people have been socialized to believe that it really isn’t a big deal and so, I want to make an observation that has recently come to mind. People more often than not seem to be socialized to pretty much do anything, so I’m beginning to think more and more about the fact that no one really possesses anything special. What I mean is that the people in the video were clearly accepting of their surroundings and it really didn’t affect them to live in almost complete darkness, so how far can we socialize people? Could we make them believe anything, or do anything? That’s a very eerie question, and it’s answer, I’m sure, would be just as eerie.

Tim Minchin’s song: “If I didn’t have you” is an ingenious one. Never have I really thought about the sociological contexts of love before this class, but I’ve always known that something “more” was behind it. Also, after watching this video I felt a lot better about my previous relationships because I had a quite a few awful ones during my adolescence. They just always made me so upset after they fell through, but what I realize now is that I was just being ignorant and stupid. You really truly don’t ever fall in love with someone because they are that perfect person, rather, you more specifically fall in love with that person because they are socially similar. Aka—the people with the same social status, interests and or class. This video may seem demeaning to a lot of people because it might seem to most people that this is a very bad thing to hear. For example, why would you want someone to tell you that you don’t actually love your significant other? Well, I take it as a blessing. I may not actually completely love them because of natural forces, but they still make me just as happy to be around. I’m currently in a relationship and I love her dearly, but knowing this information doesn’t change a thing. If anything it makes me love her more, because I know that we were “set up” for each other.
On another note, I like to look at things logically and this video just resonates through me! It explains a lot of the stereotypes to me that have always baffled me, like why are women attracted to those asshole muscular, tan men. Well, when it comes down to it they aren’t making free choices; they are just doing what society has basically programmed them to do. So in conclusion, what does it matter that these person were basically “set up” to love you. Well--nothing at all. This video has been another essential piece in adding to my knowledge. Now I can better live my life and actually be truly free.

Here’s what I want to first say, the American political party system is shit. It is a completely ridiculous system that doesn’t portray the American people’s beliefs at all. We as Americans should not be limited to just a couple of parties. Yes, there are a couple of other ones besides the Republicans and the Democrats, but they don’t get nearly the same amount of funding. I am a very moderate person in my beliefs, and I believe that there needs to be a higher power that moderates some things to create a balance. However, there should never be someone that tells me what to eat or what to dress. That’s just up to the environment you’re in.
Anyway, the topic of whether the government should control what people do socially, physically, and mentally? Well, I personally believe the answer to be no. Why--well it doesn’t make sense to me sociologically. For instance, we each are unique in our thoughts and feelings, which most is created by our sociological context. The government doesn’t need to provide this “context” for you. The people all around you are just as capable at providing as good of an environment as the government can. Who even says the government’s rules and regulations are correct. Mostly the government, in my opinion, creates rules and regulations to exploit the people and to make certain people wealthier. Hence, why the difference between the poor and the wealthy is so large today. I mean, when’s the last time you say a government official driving around a Cavalier? I’m sure it’s most likely, never.
As for Michelle Obama’s statement about breastfeeding, I think it’s clear that she isn’t saying it’s mandatory to breast-feed your children. She’s just saying that if you breast-feed your children then you will reap positive benefits for it. Michelle Bachmann is just starting arguments with the other party, which occurs quite often. I also feel as if this is similar to what we’re learning in class about comparison bias. Michelle Bachmann to me is clearly very partial to the large group that she belongs to and is so erroneously not seeing the benefits to what Mrs. Obama is saying. This is a very large problem in our democratic system today. The groups we belong to often bias their opinions in solving problems. This to me is also why our law making process is flawed because it bases too much off of the parties and, unfortunately, isn’t reflecting of what the people want.