This video raises some very interesting points. That being said, the video is absolutely absurd. Its purpose is to scare Americans and that is precisely what it does. It takes quotes and passages from the books of Islam more or less out of context and uses Islamist extremists as a source. It is generally an easy feat to spin things to sound the way you want them to sound and to portray a certain image. That is exactly what the creators of this video are able to do. I think that one major thing to bring up about this video is the perpetuation of stereotypes, something that is a major problem in the world today. While it is true that stereotypes sometimes have their plays and sometimes stem from things that do have some basis of truth, many stereotypes come from views or opinions held by a minority of people, yet are portrayed as the opinion of the majority. For example, the stereotype that Asian people are good at math is not necessarily untrue. When I personally look at the Asian people that I have met in my life and at the statistics about how Asian people do in math in general, there is some factual basis for this stereotype. Still the downside to stereotypes is ones that show a minority opinion as one of the majority, evident in the use of extremists in the posted video. When stereotypes like these are shown, such as in the video, they are used to instill fear. Take for example the stereotype that all Middle-Eastern people are terrorists or that all Muslim people want jihad and “death to Americans”. Obviously both of these statements are not only false, but also in fact completely ludicrous. The number of Muslim people who are terrorists and want to bring down America is a very small number in relation to the population of Muslims and Middle-Easterners. But when people are ignorant to the facts, they often fall victim to believing things that are false. This video does a good job at doing what it is intended to- spinning things in order to instill fear. I think videos like this are ridiculous and hold no real weight when one takes into consideration the facts.

This article is extremely disturbing. I know that soldiers suffer in their adaptation to be able to kill and then in their transition back to the real world. These soldiers often suffer from stress disorders and other psychological problems. Transforming into the type of person who can kill someone is extremely traumatic. The fact that these soldiers could go out with the intention of killing someone, an innocent bystander or civilian at that, is never okay or acceptable. Even in a situation where the soldiers are dealing with war and the type of fighting and stress that goes with it, the soldiers do not have the right to take life into their own hands.

Furthermore, the fact that in the first killing of the innocent farm boy that the village elder clearly blamed the soldiers and was ignored and that the captain overlooked all of this even though he found it fishy shows that the army is not holding itself up to a high enough standard. We are raised to believe that those in the army are doing everything that they can to protect this great country of ours, and in doing so, they hold themselves up to the standards that are expected of any American citizen.

After seeing the movie in one of our last classes, it is obvious that our army is training our soldiers to be killers. Because of this, it cannot come as a complete shock to us that these soldiers begin to kill civilians or other innocent people. They are literally being reprogrammed to go against their natural human tendency to support the proliferation of life. When these soldiers are trained to stage killings and get away with it, it should not be surprising when they use their training for their own personal entertainment and satisfaction. While soldiers who are trained to kill may be necessary and effective when dealing with terrorists and others who are trying to unnecessarily kill, they may not be the best to deal with everyday people. While there is no way to go back and prevent this tragedy from happening, it is possible to look forward and prevent something similar from happening again. I am not necessarily sure how to do this, it is something that needs to be looked into further so that something this disturbing will not plague the world in the future.

I think that it is shocking how the oil companies are able to pressure the government like this with no repercussions other than increased profits. While it all makes sense, it is something that is sickening to think about. While there are huge debates going on right now and the threat of a government shutdown looming, something has to give. Our budget deficit has been increasing every year and we have reached the point where it is over ten trillion dollars. Other countries have even taken the steps of lowering the credit rating on United States bonds to below triple A. While this may not seem like a huge deal, it is still shocking. The United States has been seen as the strongest, safest country in the world for some time now. The bonds that it issued have been seen as risk-free and the standard of which to measure other bonds around the world. While oil companies do operate with the intention of making a profit, there is a point where the interests of the country have to take precedence. Even more so, they should realize that a stronger country as a whole would mean stronger profits in the future anyway. The problem stems form the fact that big oil and its money helps support the campaigns of many of the politicians who are currently in office. Even though Obama may want to cut these oil subsidies for the betterment of the country as a whole, many politicians have their own interests at heart. If they allow the subsidies to get cut, many of them will lose the very funding that got them into positions of power in the first place. This conflict of interest makes it hard for people to choose to do the thing that is best of the country, even if bettering the country is the purpose of their job in the first place. The oil industry is a very established industry as well. If the government is going to use the taxpayers’ money, they should allocate it to developing industries that may be able to offer cleaner and safer alternative energy in the future.

I think that this whole debate comes down to innate human desires. People want to find happiness. Due to the invisible strings that control our lives and the socialization that we are subjected to as soon as we are born, we tend to become materialistic people. We believe that these material luxury goods will give us happiness and make our life experience more enjoyable. This is why most people want to be rich, or part of the socio-economic elite. The more money one has, the more opportunities one has to increase their happiness, or so they believe. Like Sam has discussed in class, inequality and class structure makes sense when you think about it. People want to reach the point of happiness and money. Once they achieve it, they try to make it so that their successors have the same luxuries. By both passing their money on and using the money and power they have through back doors and secret channels, they are able to create a system that perpetuates their money and social standing. Basically, once people have reached the top of the mountain, they do their best to stay their and use their advantages to help their loved ones reach the top as well. Also, I think that Sam is right in his first assumption that some people want wealth and will work harder than others to obtain it. Human psychology and behavior makes it easy to understand why the people at the top would pull strings to help their friends and family. I believe that if given the opportunity, nearly everyone would use the advantages that they are presented with. Additionally, if other people are playing the game unfairly, then they have essentially skewed the landscape. If you do not play unfairly as well, then you are at a disadvantage. This becomes a moral debate about whether people will decide to play unfairly or not, but in the end people will generally do what is in their own self-interest. Lastly, I think that the poster who said that we are all going to die anyway, so we should do all that we can to make the most of our life here on earth is completely correct.

I thought that this article was very interesting. However, I do think that it was off base in thinking that religion is something that will die out. While this is a sociology course that we are taking and the article uses sociology as a basis to come to the conclusion, I think that religion is something that is more philosophical, so it should be looked at from that viewpoint. That being said, the claim that religion will become extinct, from the sociological perspective does seem valid. I agree with the idea that people want to be a part of the majority. This will cause the movement towards people not being identified with religion to increase significantly if it is able to get a good start. The fact that people who are unaffiliated compose the fastest growing group of people does not surprise me. The general attitude of apathy and laziness seems to be something that is gaining popularity in the world, and is something that I believe can further the movement towards the extinction of organized religion. One point that I thought was interesting was the fact that the utility of those who are not affiliated is higher than that of those who are affiliated. People tend to join a religion because they believe that it will increase their utility to some degree, whether it be in the afterlife or in the idea of having a large network or even in some other way. Another point that I think is very important is the reason why people join religion. People join religion not just for the possible benefits that I listed above, but also because they need a reason to reconcile how and why things in this world are. This is one reason why I think that religion is something that will never go extinct. We are always as humans going to need to have some notion about why things are the way they are. Unless people are not affiliated with a religion because they have a better understanding of the nature of the world, then I do not know how religion can die out.

I think that the inmate raises a lot of interesting points. The fact that he seems to have changed, as he says himself, goes to show that the system did its job. It should be noted though that he was a boy when he committed this crime. He should have been given the opportunity to repent for his sins and serve a punishment that did not involve spending his whole life in jail. One thing that sticks out about this case is that people like this inmate are being sentenced to a life in jail when they did not commit murder or an equivalent offense. Being an accessory to murder, especially when one did not commit the murder themselves and instead were removed from the situation, such as in the case of this inmate, should not be punished with such severe sentences. It is obvious that the inmate is remorseful and has learned of his sins. He should not have that all be for nothing. He should have the opportunity to resume a normal life and be a productive member of society.
Having experienced such a tragic crime is something that will stick with this inmate for the remainder of this man’s life. It is a great thing to see that he has been able to not only learn about the error in his ways, but now try to give back through this blog. He seems intent on not making the wrong choice in life again. Though we all make mistakes, it is refreshing to see that he is devoted to being a good person and making good decisions. In his position, he truly has nothing to lose. He could choose to have no remorse and continue to make bad decisions because he does not have anywhere else he can really go.
I think that the discussion about “lifers” that we had in class today was very enlightening. The series of events that led the one guy who stabbed another guy for raping his girlfriend is something that potentially happened to a large number of people in our class. For this guy to be branded as “evil” is tragic and something that we really need to step back and examine.

This article raises a lot of interesting points in regards to the age old money and happiness debate. I personally believe that while money cannot buy happiness, it can make life much easier. Ultimately, we are all going to get jobs to make money so that we can pay for all of the material things that facilitate our daily lives. One interesting thing to think about is what we would do if we had enough money so that we would never have to work. It seems like society has structured life so that as soon as we are deemed educated and individual, we are immediately thrown into the workforce for the majority of our life. We have been socialized in this way that work seems like the only thing for us to aspire to. If I didn’t have to work, I think that I would get very bored after a year or two and may enter the workforce anyway.

In terms of the lottery curse, I think that people who play the lottery are generally in the low levels of the socioeconomic scale. When these people are thrown into lives of wealth, they are unsure of how to react. They are overwhelmed by all of the possibilities, the greed of friends and relatives, and the investment possibilities. They are generally not well-educated enough to know how to invest the money properly and end up spending or giving away so much that they end up in debt or in a bad situation. As shown in the study, people who win the lottery do not experience a greater amount of happiness than people who did not win the lottery. This is a very interesting point and goes to prove the notion that money cannot buy happiness, at least implicitly.

In order to solve the problem of the lottery curse, I believe that the payments of the sum should definitely be divided up and paid either annually or quarterly. This allows people to ease into their new wealth and adjust to their new social situation. In addition, it helps protect the winner from blowing all of their money because they receive a sum on a regulated basis, not all at once.

I think that the question of where to draw the line in regards to the size of the government is very interesting and prevalent in today’s society. The reason that this question seems to resonate is the idea of restricting our freedom and whether an entity should be able to control the things we do, so long as they are not negatively affecting anyone else. While on one hand, I believe that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as they are not harming anybody else, on the other hand I do agree that there has to be some sort of regulation so that chaos does not ensue.

All of this being said, I believe that the government does need to concern itself with issues that are affecting the public (i.e. obesity, education, drinking, smoking etc.). This does not mean that they should create a tax that increases the price of something like a Big Mac. When they do this, they are effectively limiting peoples’ ability to make a free choice, even if it may have a negative effect on their being. Instead, I think that they should just raise awareness of the problems that the item could cause. They can use warning labels and have ad campaigns, similar to what they do in the case of tobacco sales.

This issue spills over into the issue of drug regulation. I personally believe that we should be able to put whatever we want into our body, again as long as we are not harming other people. I don’t think that the government should be able to tell us that we cannot do a drug if we so choose. The government should merely serve as a means of warning people what the harmful effects of using these substances are, but they should not be able to flat out make them illegal.

The actions that the government is taking to promote breast-feeding are overstepping their bounds, at least in my opinion. Again, even for something positive, they should only be able to promote it, rather than giving a tax break for breast-feeding equipment. The government is definitely necessary, but I am an advocate for small government.

I thought that this sociologist took a very interesting stance on the world and the direction that it may be headed. His main assertion is that humans have the natural inclination towards connecting with one another and becoming a part of something bigger than themselves. The development of technology has helped foster this, as people were able to move from only being able to communicate with those within shouting distance to now being able to communicate with people across the world. One interesting point that the sociologist does make is the advent of organizations stems from the innate human desire to belong. While it does boil down to small, specific organizations, it also is apparent in the largest ones we as humans see, countries (nation states) and religious groups.

One thing that I think impedes our ability to belong is the human desire to be the best (greed). This desire though is just a less developed form of wanting to belong. The reason people want to be the best, the richest, the smartest, etc. is because they want all of the luxury and happiness that stems from having these characteristics. This happiness comes from being completely accepted.

I though that the idea that everyone in the world must belong with each other, as in a single organization is more or less correct. The competition and war between the countries of the world evident in the past and likely to continue in the future only serve to hurt the world. I am a full believer that if a general human acceptance cannot be agreed upon (whether that means no separate countries is uncertain) then humanity will eventually self-destruct. The development of weapons in the future and the ability of the few to have control over the majority will eventually lead to some nutcase destroying the world, unless we as humans change. Changing the way that we live our lives will be an extremely difficult process because even one person dissents, the whole process could be impeded. In the end, I think it comes down to one’s faith in humanity. I personally believe that we have the power to save ourselves but have no doubt it will be a difficult process.

This story is fascinating, yet completely absurd at the same time. The real problem is that a five-year-old child had access to a gun, and if the stepfather was negligent in this aspect, then he should held accountable. Under no circumstance is a five-year-old child able to understand the dangerous repercussions that bringing a gun to school can carry. Most likely, the child did not even understand that a gun could truly take another person, or even his own life. Rather, this was likely just a product of the child’s curiosity. Fortunately, this situation was held under control because things could have been much worse. Had the gun discharged, this would not be just another news story, rather a national headline story.

This story really proves the state that the country is in today. Arresting a five-year-old as a suspect is not only utterly ridiculous, but also an unfortunate incident. This child is now likely to be scarred for life. Like Sam talked about in class, this is now an invisible string that will be attached to the child for his entire life. He will be more likely to possess a gun as an adult and probably have a higher chance of becoming a real criminal himself. Additionally, I would like to agree with the point that another student made. Parents of other children are not going to let their children anywhere near this kid because they will think that he is dangerous. This will have major implications in how a seemingly normal child will be outcaste and this will shape the person that he develops into as an adult.

All of this being said, I think it is important to look at this from the police’s viewpoint. For all they know, the child may have had intentions to use the gun, and even if he didn’t understand the severity of the situation, another student could have been injured or even killed. The legal system has to take a stern stance so that situations like this do not have worse results in the future. Furthermore, just as Sam said that the 350 word limit for these responses is stern, in that it cannot be 349 or 348 words, the law must be the same way, or people will abuse it.