I hate this video. I don’t even know how else to describe it. David Horowitz is a wealthy man who has full access to education and doesn’t need to promote fear this way. Too bad level headedness isn’t very profitable. When you show scenes from September 11, then show people in some far away foreign looking place holding signs that describe how they want to kill you, all the while playing spooky music... yeah, you’ll be scared. And while the facts he listed about attacks may be true (I didn’t check them, so I wouldn’t be surprised if a few were fudged), isn’t this a type of lying? Because when you so greatly misrepresent something, it seems a bit dishonest? Not only is he wrong in his definition of jihad (you know – an internal struggle to be a better Muslim is not exactly the same world domination) but he’s blatantly fear mongering. I’m sure the educated 9/11 families, and more so the Muslim families who were affected were horrified at seeing it twisted in this way. I get why it’s scary, but it’s hard for me to focus on anything but how utterly wrong this man is (and many others like him).
Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if we were actually all educated. If we all learned to recognize the value in each others religions, and cultures, and found that nearly everyone is just seeking peace – or as Sam always says – a better life for themselves and their families. Would we still find reasons to hate each other, and then find ways to frighten other people into inheriting our own prejudices? Probably, for some reason or another. But I can’t help but think that everything would change with a little understanding. Or maybe we do all have too many “invisible strings” that we won’t break, and in hundreds of years still be fighting the same meaningless battles and never truly develop empathy – it’s not for me to say.

PS I was so pissed that we didn’t actually do the Christian invaders lecture and had the kind of lame Ted Talk version – it was by far the best Soc119 lecture when I took it in Fall 2009, and I really wanted to bring someone to it!

The video we watched in class was extremely powerful. It makes one wonder how anyone can come back from combat without Post-traumatic Stress Disorder – and by my estimation, they can’t. Every person I know who has come back from war has PTSD in some form or another, maybe not to the degree of having black outs or hallucinations, but certainly they have trouble sleeping, nightmares, and shorter tempers. What I was unaware of was how the military treats its veterans. Most soldiers I know, even once they have left the service, still regard the military with an almost religious reverence, so how could they hold so dear an institution which ostracizes them for a disease which it inflicts?
I vaguely remember hearing of the “cowardice” trial, but never knew very much about it. It seems that the military is still operating on a very old set of standards. The fact of the matter is you do not create healthy or efficient soldiers when you cast off their mental health problems. The military is an institution that does seem behind the current time (how could it have taken THIS long to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”), and one would hope that it would soon take seriously the needs of its employees – no just formally (as we saw mental health personnel in combat areas), but practically as well. No soldier should be called a coward for needing help.
Most importantly, the suicides of these young men and women should be preventable. To abandon soldiers in the hour of need is deplorable. When a family sees a soldier beginning to fall apart, they should have somewhere to turn. One father mentioned that his son was concerned because he believed that V.A. was a part of the military, and his sons counseling would be reported. This should be the farthest thing from the mind of a young serviceman in need. The combination of PTSD, no one to turn to, the fear of retribution if one seeks help and the bumpy transition to civilian life can so easily lead to suicide, and with such a large budget, the military should find a way to help those who have devoted so much.

I think the whole point here is that no one is outraged, and honestly, why would we be? When you look at serious gaps in wealth and power in other countries, the people on the lower rungs are often living in serious poverty. I’m from a working class background - I feel like maybe I’m a slight exception to the general rule of people from my background, because I’m in college, and I’ll start law school in the fall, and both of my sisters have post-graduate degrees, but I do fully understand what it means to be in that class. Granted, this is not the lowest economic class in our society, but I grew up not having an extravagant amount of money to throw around. The point is, I never felt like it was a struggle, and neither did my parents. We had enough money to go on vacations and go out to dinner and do things that everyone else was doing. We don’t feel the impact of the differences in wealth in this country because we can’t imagine how anything could be different. We’re not struggling to survive, so there’s no real desperation to change things. To be blunt - we’re ignorant, and we don’t care. Nepotism is real and it always has been – I forget which comedian it was, but he made the comment that congressmen should wear the logos of the interest groups and corporations that support them on their suit lapels, like NASCAR drivers put their sponsors on their cars. It’s a joke, but it makes a real point. Things aren’t going to change. We can feel inspired and want to go out there and change things, but will it really happen? No congressmen is truly going to get out there and “fix Washington” like they campaign to, because it is in their best interest not to, and because they wouldn’t be able to campaign on it anymore! Seriously, think of John McCain in 2008, he was going to go out there fix Washington… why hadn’t he done it in his decades as a Senator? He may have called on the McCain-Feingold finance reform… but it had loops holes in it that a child could find. We’re not interested in dealing with our financial inequality and government is corrupt. Who’s surprised?

I found this article extremely interesting. I am from a very small, conservative town, with conservative Christian parents, so when I finally admitted to myself that I do not really believe in God, and do not really believe in religion, it was kind of a scary thing to do. It was not until I found that a lot of my friends felt the same way I did, that I felt okay about being honest about it. That is exactly what the article finds when it says that people feel more comfortable in the majority. I obviously have found that in my own life about religion, and I have noticed that people feel very comfortable talking to me about their religious feelings.
I am obviously biased and think that it is high time that religion dies out. I know that sociologically this isn’t very likely to completely happen, but I do think that the predictions are extremely interesting. I feel like religion will die out much slower in the United States than it will it other westernized countries, because honestly, we are pretty puritanical. It is impossible to know if religion will ever completely die out, because they are constantly being created, and being extinguished. When we think of the Greek or Roman Gods, they are always viewed as “mythology.” No one ever considers this to be a religion that anyone could possibly take seriously, but the Greeks truly did. Perhaps in the future people will look at Christianity as a mythological religion, and laugh that anyone could believe anything but their current religion.
The fact of the matter is people with faith will always have faith. I certainly went through a period of my life where I thought all of these people were completely delusional and should be taught the error of their ways, I don’t feel like that is my call to make. Religion is a crutch that people need, and they’re not necessarily wrong to do so. I can’t speak on a large scale, because I’ve never seen the statistics, but in my personal life I’ve known many people to run back to a religion that they’ve ignored for years whenever something bad happens to them, so maybe it’s important to recognize that those countries which are moving away from religion are rather prosperous.
Any way you analyze it, religion isn’t going away completely any time soon.

I remember seeing the video of this young man a few weeks ago, and I was immediately impressed with him. Not only is he an impressive speaker, but to have such strong and eloquently expressed ideals at such a young age is remarkable.
Of course a gay couple is able to perform every single function of a family that a straight couple can perform. The idea that a gay couple may not be able to provide moral stability is ridiculous. Gay couples are exactly like straight couples in many ways. Maybe some of them do have ideals that they should not teach a child, but at the same time, a child being raised by drug addict straight parents would be in a much worse position, and would easily get there, because like was mentioned in the video in class, all that a straight couple needs to do is have sex.
There could possibly be the problem of not being able to create future generations, but at the same time, these couples are raising children that were not wanted by straight couples, so that function is not really necessary.
What is more, gay couples face more adversity than straight couples, so I would argue that in order to stay together, their relationship must be stronger than many straight couples.
Further, it is often conservatives that wish to restrict gay couples from adopting. These are often the same individuals saying that we need to cut taxes. Keeping children in the system forces more tax dollars to pay for the care of these children. Obviously, these two ideas contradict each other.
It seems clear to me that we will look back on the restrictive and prejudiced laws regarding homosexual individuals with the same disgust that we look back on racial laws prior to the civil rights movement. The idea that a person would meet all of the qualifications to have or adopt a child if they chose a partner of a different sex is absolutely ridiculous.

There are so many things that I want to comment on about this video that I don’t even know where to begin. First of all – ADHD. Pennsylvania was one of the states that was shaded in on the map as one where children are frequently diagnosed with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder – and that is absolutely true. I could probably list off 5 kids I know who are on some type of medication for ADHD, and not shockingly, every single one of them have parents who can not discipline them. I am not saying that there are not people who truly do have this disease and benefit from medication, just that it seems to me that it is a bit over done. In the video, the narrator makes a reference to the rise in ADHD coinciding with the rise in standardized testing, and that these kids may just be bored.. I couldn’t agree with this more.
When I was in elementary school, I was classified as “gifted” which meant that I had the privilege of going through a mass of excruciatingly boring tests. No one asked me all the uses of a paper clip like in the video, but I was asked to list all the words I could think of at once (my response being “one,” “two,” “three…”) but it got to the point where I didn’t care what my answers were anymore, no one wants to sit and take tests. The reason I was pulled out of classes was because I seemed to not be challenged by any of the course work. As a result of a test I took in 3rd grade, at the age of 17 I was forced to take calculus as a junior in high school… Let me tell you, calculus is not my thing, or my strong suit in any capacity, but because our school put me on that track I had no choice. When we force students into these rigid schedules and positions, no one benefits. I probably would’ve done very well in an English class that was a year or two ahead of me, but because of the system, I had to take that math. It didn’t serve me any purpose and I never studied it again. Schools need to become more aware of the strengths and interests of their students and play to them.

it before, but it makes perfect sense that we are “soft wired” to know or experience what others are feeling. We have all had the experience, where you walk into a room and feel like you can cut the tension with a knife. In another situation you could walk into a room with the same people, sitting silently in the same positions without that same experience. This is much like when I was in high school and crying about whatever it is that stupid high school girls cry about, my dog would always come lay beside me and stay there until I felt better. We know what others are going through.
This reminds me a lot of the reading on panic. We’re so inclined to think that humans are self serving, when in reality we are naturally drawn to help one another. I don’t think that this would necessarily change the way that I behave, mainly because I think I’m an extremely empathetic person, probably to the point that I get taken advantage of, (which I would prefer if the other option was mistakenly not helping someone because I didn’t think they “really” needed it). I do think it is important to point out the fact that most people are biologically driven to empathy; because it may allow others to realize that their attitude of looking out for number one may adversely affect them. After all, if empathy worked throughout history, it’s likely to continue to work now.
I try not to take anything that someone says at face value, but if what he says about science is true, then I can’t help but agree with this mans interpretation, and it does appear to make sense. If our attitude were every man for himself, I highly doubt that we would have evolved biologically and as a civilization as far as we have. You cannot survive things on your own, especially in times of crisis, if you do not have others to support you.

I have a very vivid memory of being in fifth grade, at maybe the end or the beginning of the school, but at some point where it still felt like summer, and sitting outside on our front porch, and borrowing a lighter from my dad to light a citronella candle. The next day I went to school and realized it was still in my pocket, and spent the entire day absolutely terrified that someone would find it, or that it would fall out, and I would be suspended. That is crazy. This boy being suspended because he had an object that he did not understand let alone know how to use, is sort of crazy. I understand the explanation of it, that the rules themselves are rational. After all, if a fourteen year old carried a gun to school, he or she should probably be held responsible. But, as a small child, it seems slightly ridiculous to be penalized for something you don’t understand.
I feel like things work a lot better in smaller towns where rules do not have to be so stringent. You get away with a lot more in an area where you know a child’s parents, or family and friends. I can almost guarantee if this had happened at my school (my town’s population is 3000), this child would not have been in that kind of trouble. When we allow people flexibility within their rules, then schools and other systems like it are able to operate in a more functioning and proper manner.
This is an extremely unfortunate situation. This child is probably very confused about what happened to him, and it’s likely that this suspension will follow him throughout the rest of his academic career, and for what? Because his stepfather didn’t properly secure his weapon? It seems to me that even if the rule was rational because it was created to protect students, this school should be designed so that irrational results can be avoided. Hopefully this school will change its policy so that a situation like this does not occur again.

First of all, I could probably dedicate an entire blog post to the idiocy regarding sex education, and particularly federal funding of sex education in this country, but since that is not what this blog is supposed to be about, I’ll refrain. I write this post with the hope that these kids are not replicating the “pregnancy pact” mentality that we saw a year ago
The first thing that struck me just when reading the post was that Sam said that these individuals were “choosing” pregnancy. I don’t think that’s the case. I think that all of these kids are choosing sex without condoms or other contraceptives. I can’t say for sure, but to me this doesn’t seem like a situation where these girls are tracking their fertility and trying to get pregnant. The fact is, especially at such a low income school, sex education will be seriously lacking. Not only did this school apparently not have an effective sex education curriculum in place (otherwise, why would they need to take so many initiatives) it’s a simple statistic that lower income girls are more likely to get pregnant. Condoms and other forms of birth control all cost money, which combined with the fact that these kids are probably pretty poorly educated about sex would seem to lead to teen pregnancy.
In high school, you do what your friends do in all walks of life – including sex. If your best friends are waiting until marriage, then you probably are too. If your best friends are sleeping with their boyfriends, then you probably are too, and if your best friends are having sex with everyone… you probably are too. Obviously, birth control isn’t a huge deal to these kids, and there are probably many of them who are having unprotected sex and not getting pregnant because statistically, it just doesn’t happen every time. Yes you are in control of every time you decide to have sex with someone, but if you were properly educated, maybe you would use a condom. Still, even if you are educated, and the people around you are no using them, you probably won’t be using them either.

I know Sam had mentioned this in class, but I was extremely surprised at how introspective, and eloquently written this letter is. I automatically assume (and probably wrongfully so) that those who end up in prison will be poorly educated and unable to speak well. Although we do see poorer less educated people in prison more often than wealthier more educated people, I did not account for the years in prison that he may have spent changing. We do, I suppose, take our freedoms for granted. I did not give a second thought today to what I would eat, wear, and buy, where I would or would not go or what I choose to do. This prisoner seems so grateful for the few freedoms he is given and longs for freedoms I would never even consider, like the ability to vacuum the house. Although many of us may be unaware of the freedoms we are given every day, I think we are even less cognizant of the freedoms we do not have. The United States is a pretty puritanical society; we create laws concerning moral behaviors which have no effect on others. Although we are free to wake up in the morning and travel where we please (within the country at least), work or not work, make purchases, decide our career paths, have children or not have children, all of which may not be available to an inmate, we are also very limited in our freedoms.
I found it extremely interesting that this particular inmate was writing about the freedoms he finds within his own mind. He values his ability to choose even though so many choices are already made for him. Prison is an interesting way to study sociology because so many of the “invisible strings” which limit us in our own lives may be removed, while very obvious limitations on freedoms and the ability to choose are instated. While a very wealthy person or someone with a good name may have better accommodations or be more likely to be released from prison, most people have more equal treatment than they would in every day society, which makes the study of sociology in a prison much easier to understand.