Atheist Ads to be posted on NY Subway

      During  November, a series of pro-atheist ads will be put up in the New York Subway system. This CNN article suggests that these signs are not intended to offend other religions, but instead expose the people of New York to the religous option of Atheism. The photo at the top is an example of one of these ads. Although it will not be possible to know the actual response to these ads until they are posted on Monday, I'd like to try to predict it.

         Do you think any negative response to these ads will be stregthened because the subject matter is atheism? I tend to think that the response to these ads will probably be stronger than if they promoted Christianity or Judaism, arguably the two most well-known religions in america, but probably not as strong a response as if they were ads about Islam, a religion that people sometimes try to connect to terrorrism. How do you feel when hearing about this? I personally have absolutely no problem with these ads in the subway, but I understand that some people might feel differently. Is public transportation an appropriate outlet for advertising religious views? I think it can be seen in two ways. I tend to feel that any public place is an appropriate place to expose people to different views. Another way to see it is that people may not be able to avoid taking the subway if they think the ads are objectionable, and therefore should not be shown ads that have to do with personal matters.

       Finally, I'd like to ask one very broad question; Is America becoming more or less tolerant of different religious views? I'm not sure; I feel that within my surroundings people are typically quite tolerant, but I know that fears and ignorance still build prejudice. While it may be impossible to totally eliminate religious prejudice, as a nation, are we progressing? I think that these ads are a step toward awareness of a particular view, but how will NYC respond?

    

An Army Drill Sargeant School's First Female Commander

      While reading a news article, I read that Command Sergeant Major Theresa King has become the first female Commander at U.S. Army’s Drill Sergeant School in Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Now, she is essentially the 'principal' at the school, oversees 78 drill instructors, and is responsible for training all of the drill seargeants at this school.
     While Commander King sets a powerfill example, women represent only 14% of the active-duty soldiers, and only 9.6% of the top three enlisted positions.  What does this say about our society? I'm glad to know that women like Commander King are recieving higher positions, but there is a long way to go before the army has a similar amount of women to men. On the other side of the spectrum, there are many careers that that are just as dominated by women as the army is dominated by men; for example, 91% of all nurses are women.
    Personally, I've never truly considered joining the armed forces. As a woman, I'm not allowed to join front-line, direct-combat units because of Department Defense policies. However, I am allowed to enlist should I choose. As Americans, is the lack of women in the army due to lack of interest, or because enlisting is deemed socially uncacceptable?
  Perhaps as children we aspired to be like princess' instead of GI-Joe, but for our generation I don't think I can make that generalization. As a kid, my favorite 'princess' was really Mulan- who, as you may know, pretended to be a man so she could fight in the chinese army. Additionally, she's just plain awesome, but that's really beside the point- in an age where women are becoming increasingly more equal to men in the work world, why aren't there more Commanders like Commander King?
  

Connections between Social Networking and Socioeconomic Class

           I read an interesting article on CNN about parellels between socioeconomic classes and the networking sites they choose. This article stated that "people in more affluent demographics are 25 percent more likely to be found friending on Facebook, while the less affluent are 37 percent more likely to connect on MySpace." Also, people who use Twitter are most commonly in cities, and 38 percent of LinkedIn users make over $100,000 a year. What does this say about the use of Social Networking sites?                                                        

        On a personal level, I have a Facebook and a Twitter. If you are interested, my twitter is @mchunt23, but that's beside the point. I am a white, high school student who lives in an affluent subarb of Chicago. I fit the study perfectly- I live in an affluent demographic and a city. However, why do these parallels exist?                                                          

           One of the guesses presented in the article was that now, people join the networks their friends are on, but that explains why these divides continue, not why they began. However, facebook was originally for the students and faculty of colleges, universities, and organizations recognized by the site. Those registering had to provide a valid email associated with those organizations to get a page. That means that the first people to use the site were those who went to college- and college is an expensive luxury that not all americans can afford. So, the people who used the site were typically from more affluent backgrounds, meanwhile those from less affluent backrounds went to the all-welcoming myspace. Now, facebook is open to all, but people joined the sites where their friends were.

     While this is an totally uneducated guess, I believe that Twitter users are mostly in cities because the site spreads by word of mouth. Therefore, in areas with more people, more people will hear about it. LinkedIn is a site for buisness recruiters, and similarly, people in more affluent jobs might be more likely to hear about it. However, that is only a hunch with nothing to back it up.

     What do these sites say about us? What does the use of these sites reflect about our time period and society?

Dogfighting Videos Create Free Speech Battle at the Supreme Court

       While searching the news, I found two articles, from CNN and The New York Times, about a case (U.S. vs. Stevens) the Supreme Court discussed this afternoon. The Supreme Court is debating whether or not Mr. Robert J. Stevens should be prosecuted for producing videos glorifying dogfighting. Dogfighting itself is a felony in 48 states, but Mr. Stevens would be prosecuted under a highly controversial statute written in 1999 . The statue says that a person could receive up to 5 years in prison for sharing or making profit from videos with animal cruelty. This case has become a battle between free speech activists and animal rights activists, and the Supreme Court itself appears divided. Do you think Mr. Stevens should be prosecuted for creating these videos?
      It's a sticky situation; I believe that making films glorifying dogfighting is horrifying, but as an American he has the right to free speech. If it was possible to find evidence that he participated in the dogfighting itself, and prosecute him for that, it would be a no brainer. CNN pointed out that under this statute, videos with clips of dogfighting meant to deter the animal abuse could also be prosecuted. If he gets prosecuted, it would be the first time someone would not be protected by the first amendment for making media of nonsexual violence.
      I do not think videos of this nature should be condoned. According to the New York Times, the veterinarian that testified said that the videos "depicted terrible suffering" to animals. Should Americans be allowed to show videos of animals being maimed and tortured?
      However, I think that although the first amendment is a double edged sword, it is one of our most important rights as Americans. America was founded on the principle of allowing all to represent themselves and be free- the right to say whatever we want and the right to believe whatever we want are crucial in upholding that American ideal.
      What does the aforementioned statue say about Americans? To me, the fact that we have to make a law contradicting one of our most valued laws means that there are obsene amounts of videos out there depicting animal torture.To put it bluntly, that is sick.  Maybe watching these films is a way to get out violent tendencies without actually acting on them, but I'm still struggling to see this issue in an ubiased way. Additionally, I think that this law is not just a reflection of Americans, but the world. What do you think?
     One final question; as a whole, should exceptions be made for our first amendment?