Reading this article by Rolling Stone Magazine, I am ashamed to admit that I am an American. There is no excuse for the despicable action shown by the “Kill Team.” They should never be allowed put on an American Army uniform again. To kill an innocent bystander is one of the most cowardly act anyone could do. How could they live with themselves knowing they took the life of a son and brother. To make matters worse, not only did they kill an innocent Afghan child, they tried to cover it up. They did not even take responsibility for their evil act. Those “soldiers” weren’t even man enough to sit there and tell their country and the world that they killed just for the sake of killing. This type of stupid actions are the reason why America has such a bad reputation around the world. Every other soldier in the Army could be completely just and moral and never kill a soul, but to hear a story like this- the who reputation of the Army is tainted. It is embarrassing for the Army and for our justice system and national defense. I do not understand how the platoon leaders could stand there, looking at the corpse of an innocent child and congratulate the monsters that did the deed. They should have been punished, not praised for this type of irresponsible action. They even took pictures. It wasn’t enough to kill the unarmed farmer boy, but to taunt his body after death seems a little much, even for soldiers this immoral.
This was not the only act of violence that the “Kill Team” displayed. They staged many more killings within the country during the war. How could they have gotten away with it? The article clearly states that their acts were known to be illegal and yet no one did anything to stop them from killing and staging killings. Our system is corrupt and we need to try and fix our system and propaganda. Without our country and leaders talking about how “evil” all Afghanis and Iraqis are, then we wouldn’t have situations like this happening within our Armies. Keep the world safe, not corrupt.

The subject of transgenders has always been a confusing one for me to discuss. I personally, do not think that they should be placed in a “male” or “female” category. I feel as though people who suffer with these circumstances should be only placed in a category of their own. We should not try to fit them into our small, and ignorant system, but incorporate them into a new and more open system. Instead of just having 2 genders, there should be more. Like in the book we are reading, there should be 5 categories of gender. Therefore, nobody will feel left out. People do not choose how they are born. These cases are special and rare, but just because cases like this do not occur often, they should not be ignored. They are still people and should be treated with the same respect that everyone else gets.
I recently watched an episode of “True Life” on MTV with a transgender. Born a male, she tried all her life to be what she truely was, a female. As she began to come out everyone was more than supportive and encouraging for her to be her true self. In a country that preaches freedom in all aspects of the word, why should we stop variety and uniqueness by placing everyone into 2 specific categories. You are who you think you are, not who someone tells you that you are.
In the case of Mr. Devoureau, the state of New Jersey has no right to question whether or not he he done surgeries, etc. I completely agree with the answer Mr. Devoureau gave to his boss. He should not have gotten fired for that. There was no way to prove the boss was correct in assuming that he was a transgender. If he felt as though he was good for the job, then he is fine in doing the job he was hired to do. The matter of gender, if it was such an issue, should have been taken care of before he became an employee for the company. It should have been handled in a completely different way than it has been handled. Even if there is no tolerance for transgenders in New Jersey, there should still be respect for every human being.

Personally, I think that you cannot dig much deeper into the unequal distribution of wealth within the United States of America and throughout the world. It is what it is. To ask us to question why would seem to be a waste of time. I do not have a problem with someone making a higher wage than I do. That is Capitalism. That is why we are so proud and the mentality that we have based our proud and free country upon. We should be free to be able to make more money. Free to be able to make it in a sleazy way or in the most honest way possible. Whether someone likes it or not, we do not live in a Utopia. People will always do what they can to be on top of the food chain, or in this case in the top .01% income in the United States. I do not think that wealth should be distributed more evenly throughout our population because I do not think that people work as hard as others do. Socialism to me, is for lazy people. It is a system of government that carries those who do not want to strive for more. I would never want someone who works half as hard as me to make as much money as me. Even if the people who cheat to get on top, they still work at SOMETHING to get there. Whether you think it is immoral or not, they are still working towards something. They are not sitting there, like most average Americans, being cynical of our system of government. They are going out and trying to improve their standard of living by any way possible. Although many people are more privileged than others, the beauty of American culture is that even though one starts off in a low income family, they can make their way towards the uppermost income brackets. Those who deserve the wealth, in the end, get it People in this country need to stop whining about how things are and DO something about it. Don’t like your 9-5 job? Go back to college, get a degree and get a better job. Stop crying about the inequality of wealth in this country, without this inequality, the country wouldn’t be able to survive like it has been.

Religion, to me is something that will in a way eventually go extinct. How soon however, it is too soon to tell. What I think is actually occurring is not a change in the amount of people who are religious in a certain country, but that people who believe in the same spiritual beliefs live together. Those in the Netherlands, such as in Amsterdam have certain beliefs and a specific lifestyle that they live. Some people may be attracted to this sort of lifestyle. Those who tend to be less religious and more spiritual agree with this way of life and this mentality immigrate to this country. Those who don’t agree with this mentality tend to leave the country. Those people are still as religious as they were when they lived in the Netherlands, but now they just live in another country. Although, I stated a different reasoning, the end-result is the same. Religion will become extinct in more countries.
The point I am trying to get at though, is that although eventually religion will become extinct, this will not occur for hundreds and hundreds of years. Plus, by the time religion does go extinct, there will be a mentality that is exactly the same thing that will replace it.
People need something to fall back on. People can’t rely on the world being black and white. There aren’t always answers, there isn’t always a specific person to blame. In the end, death will always be a mystery and we as curious human beings will always try to find a way to explain what will happen to our minds, bodies and souls when that does happen to us. Life seems so much less final when you think that there is no end to it. How would we be able to appreciate life if we think that it will quickly end and we have nothing else to look forward to.
So, in the end-although statistics may show that less and less people are being traditionally religious, religion as a whole will never die. Humans will always need and have something to fall back on and believe in when everything else in their life is going wrong.

Personally, I find that people who get offended from a word are just really insecure themselves. Although, I do agree that people should find better words to describe a person with than curses and insults, I do not think that using the R-word is particularly more offense than dropping the f-bomb. There are many people who would get just as offended by being called “a female dog” or any other common curse than being called a retard. If officials want to ban the word, then they should probably start trying to make a campaign to ban all insulting and derogatory terms in the English language. This would be a difficult feat. The government and other organizations cannot control what and how Americans say and use common words. If they try to hinder the use of a word, they are hinder an American’s freedom to say what they please. If a person cannot find a better word, or insult than the R-word, than that is just reflecting on their intellect. The Special community should not be so sensitive to words. Although the word is used as an insult and in a negative connotation, it is not meant to insult those who unfortunately do suffer with mental retardation.
Although I feel that the government and other organizations can not and should control the speech of ordinary Americans, I do feel as though our public figures such as senators etc, should not be allowed to use such terminology. As a person of power, one must uphold a certain image, by using any type of curse word or derogatory term- it reflects badly on our country and them as individuals. Why would we want ignorant people running our country? The use of the R-word by government officials should be reprimanded and those who do accidentally blurt out a bad word or two should be looked down upon and perhaps not re-elected in the future. They are respected as role models and decision makers in our country and should not get away with using such harsh terms such as the R-word to describe their opponents. They should improve and refine their vocabulary for future debates or loose valuable supporters.

This article is quite sad to watch. I mean, it doesn’t really surprise me that people suffer from some type of depression in Helsinki during the winter months. I would definitely be on of those who would be very affected by the lack of sunlight during the harsh, cold winter days. If there is no sunlight, or it’s too cold I am much more depressed. I lack the energy to do most things. Some days, I barely want to get out of bed because of the cold air. I lack the motivation to go to class, the gym etc. During the winter months, I basically feel like just laying around inside. That’s how I feel and we have some days that are sunny. If I lived in Helsinki, I would definitely develop some type of depression. I need sunlight and warmth. I cannot function normally without either of those two elements. I would never choose to live in Helsinki because of these reasons. My question is, why do people continue to live there if the winter months are so dreary? If I lived there during the summer, I would definitely spend my winters in the Bahamas or somewhere warm. I do think that it was really creative for the city to place the lights throughout the city. It is a very uplifting idea that is unique as well adds a sense of national pride for the civilians of the city. It also gives Helsinki a special twist and another thing to be known for. This sense of national pride and creativity is sure to boost someone’s spirits in the dark, dreary months. I have to wonder, how do they get up in the morning? If its raining or cloudy I absolutely cannot get out of bed. I don’t know how they continue to do their day to day activities. The invisible strings attached to weather and the amount of sunlight is very very prevalent in the example of Helsinki. You could be more annoyed or irritated because of the weather and that could affect your relationships with other people around you which could also affect your happiness.

When I watch a video like the news video, it is only a two minute clip that makes me completely re-evaluate how I will raise my children in the future. Watching that video, I would never let my child walk alone for fear my child would be in even the slightest bit of danger on the streets. While there is a slight chance for something to happen, there is still risk. Why do people over-react to problems that don’t occur very often? I think it is because people would rather be safe than sorry. Why would a parent risk loosing their child because statistics show that there is only a “slight risk” of anything happening. To me, a slight risk is too much of a risk. I would rather my child be completely safe and not speak to strangers than risk a stranger abducting my kid in the future. We all have internal fears and I feel like one of the major concerns is loosing someone you love. Even though it is uncommon to be abducted as a child, everyone fears that they will be the small percentage that it happens to. People project their internal fears outward and a small problem becomes a large epidemic. The news casters feed on peoples fears because that creates a good story that people are interested in hearing about. Therefore, there are more stories about strangers abducting children and less about strangers helping children. So although the statistics stay the same, as time goes on, we will only hear about the negative stranger stories because they are more interesting. This makes it seem like abductions occur more than they actually do. I do not understand how not talking to strangers gets children in trouble. If your child keeps to themself, why would it hurt to not speak to a stranger? I would only let my child go out alone if they knew the area well and they have a plan and know exactly where they are going. Personally, I think that whether there is little risk for child abduction or not, its still a concern and should not be forgotten or taken lightly.

Personally, I do not feel that the government really does and should have a say in the personal matters of the American people. In my opinion, the government should focus their time and efforts on matters more important than whether or not a child is breastfed by its mother. As a child, I was breastfed and still suffered from childhood obesity. It wasn’t until I made the initiative to change my eating habits that I lost weight. The government telling the public what foods are good to eat and what foods aren’t good to eat isn’t going to prevent obesity from still being a problem. Whether or not a child is breastfed isn’t what is making them fat, what’s making them fat is the food they’re eating when they’re older. Most people know McDonald’s is bad for them, but that isn’t deterring them from chowing down on a Big Mac every once and a while. Where will the control end? If Michelle Obama is telling the American people the only right way to give your child nutrition is to breast feed, where will they stop? Slowly, but surely the government could begin to control every aspect of out lives. This isn’t what “American Freedom” is all about. I should have the freedom to eat a big mac and be fat if I choose to be. Michelle Obama shouldn’t have a say in whether I breast feed my child or not. She can create programs and make speeches to encourage certain behaviors, but do I think she should that nursing supplies that aide in the practice can be deducted from tax returns? No, I do not. I feel like that is abusing her rights and privileges as First Lady. Just because she believes one thing is correct doesn’t mean it truly is. Just because some research talked about how breastfeeding can prevent childhood obesity does not mean it is entirely true and tax dollars shouldn’t be messed with because of what Michelle Obama’s research team claims. Overall, the government needs to but out when it comes to personal health of children. That job is up to the parents and not Michelle Obama or any other Presidential administration.

This article didn’t surprise me as far as the information that was presented in it is concerned. What I found not surprising, but disappointing is the lack of American citizens who possess a passport. Only 30% of the population feels the need to leave their country and explore other worlds, that’s a little sad. I have had a passport since I was 5 years old and my parents make it a point to go to a different country annually. Ever since I was young, I have been able to appreciate life and The United States more because I was able to see other countries and regions of the world. A lot of my friends, however, have never been out of the country or even the State. These “invisible strings” that the article was talking about were pretty accurate, leaving out a few details as to why many Americans do not travel abroad. My friends, although they wish so desperately to explore Europe or East Asia, lack the funds necessary to do so. With the country still in a depressive economic state, many Americans are unable to splurge on traveling funds or a U.S. Passport. Another fact that the article did not mention was the fear many Americans have for flying. My cousin refuses to get on a plane and must either drive or take a boat. Since taking a ship across the Atlantic would take many months, fear of flight is often a large deterrent from traveling as well.
The main reason for not traveling that the article presented that I agree with the most was American’s ignorance. Many citizens do not feel the need to go anywhere else because “we have it all.” This thought process takes away from the curiosity to see the world. If someone already skied the mountains in Colorado, they wouldn’t want to snowboard down the Alps. Seeing a beach in Puerto Rico isn’t the same as laying on the coast of the Fiji Islands. Americans are missing out on sights that far surpass any sights we have here in America. They are missing out on other rich cultures filled with life. The Americans that do not travel, in my opinion, do not really live.

There is no doubt that candid camera was a very funny show in its day. Not only was it entertaining to watch, but it exposed the public to many sociological oddities within our society. It asks the question, “How would you act if this happened to you?” This particular experiment, however, clearly depicts “group think” that we were studying class today. Just like the experiments with the lines that we watched, the same thing occurred inside of the elevator. The subjects were pressured to act a certain way because that is what their peers were doing. In the experiments we watched in class, the subjects were pressured to answer incorrectly because everyone around them was answering incorrectly. It amazes me how someone could change their answer or opinion just to conform to a group. I would like to think that if I were being tested like those in the video we watched in class were, that I wouldn’t change my answer to agree with the group. However, that would most likely not be the case. I, like most others, would change my answer in order to be accepted and liked by the rest of the group. Most people have a need to be liked by others and this drives them to change and morph their opinions and individualism to morph into what the majority deems “correct” or “good.” Nobody can ever stand to be ostracized and alone for the rest of their lives, so they would rather change their opinion than be the outcast.
The video in the elevator is similar to this. I also think that awkwardness had something to do with it. Unlike the test takers, the people in the elevator were facing towards the subject. This would make me feel uncomfortable. I would never want more than one person facing towards me as I face the opposite direction towards them. In this experiment, I would change not to be like the group, but to relieve the anxiety I would feel if I continued to act differently. I feel like conforming to a group relieves anxiety as well as making a person feel accepted into that group, making them comfortable with the way they are.