stratification in the land of the free

stratification, something that is not suppose to exist in America, where "all men are created equal". While yes, technically there are no Dukes, or lords in our country, and that technically you can't be discriminated against for any reasons besides what you have accomplished in your life, people are constantly discriminated against. No title can legally go with your name unless it is a job title such as M.D Jones or President Obama. But that doesn't mean that there is no systems of stratification present within this country. This can easily be proven not by giving examples of how people are equal here, but how they are not. If we truly were all equal in every manner there would be no racism, no member only clubs, people wouldn't be judge based on how they dressed or what car they drive. But that is not the case. And as cold hearted as this may sound it is a good thing. Now I'm not saying poverty is good, or that no not everyone should be equal. I say this because society CAN NOT survive without some people having power over others. There is no government that has or will EVER work WITHOUT inequality. Even Soviet communism wasn't all equal, there were people in the government that were higher than everyone else. All the Generals were higher than their troops, everyone was below the KGB. For society to work you need leaders, and leaders need to have power over others because otherwise no one would follow them and you would have anarchy (which by the way if you think it works it doesn't because then you would be in charge of yourself and so would everybody else and therefor you would be isolated, which defeats the entire purpose of society and therefor fails, assuming you weren't killed by the lawless actions of others) Society by definition is a group of people coming together and giving up some of their rights for the good of the society and for the protection and security that the society provides. So no matter what to be in a society you have to give up some rights. Now some say well then everyone gives up the same rights, for the most part yes that is true. The exception comes for the leaders of the society who need to have power over the other members in order to make the society efficient. If there was no chain of command nothing would get done because there would be no motivational factors that the commanding elite provide to motivate the masses. The motivational factors can be positive or negative. Some societies used physical power, while other used the power of religion and beliefs, while ours as well as most cultures today us monetary means to motivate the masses. And in addition since there are a limited number of resources available to utilize some people will always have more than others, and as a result will have control of the other person because they have something that they want. In our society that is money, but it could be troops, land, livestock, anything of value, in the future maybe it will be air or oxygen. But regardless those factors must be present otherwise nothing would get done and the society would fail, which is bad for everyone. So since inequality is necessary for the survival of the society, and society is preferable to anarchy there will always be inequality and to some degree will always be stratification, even in the land of the free, where "all men are created equal".     

socialization, how does society do it?

Every time that we turn on a T.V., talk to a friend, or surf the web we are slowly being socialized. We are constantly being bombarded with ads for products to make us look better, or be stronger. And from a very young age we learn what is expected of us. We learn at that boys are suppose to grow up to become tough strong men, while girls are suppose to grow up and become kind and motherly women. From our very first blanket, we are being socialized. Think about it, its actually kinda sick. From the very first moment society gets a chance to mold us, it does. Every girl gets a pink blanket, while every boy gets a blue. Before we even know how to speak we are receiving messages as to what we are expected to become. From the toys we play with to the shows we watch, we are being socialized. Our childhood toys effects us dramatically. Girls are given their first dolls. Each one with perfect hair, a perfect figure, and a story of a perfect life that comes with it. I remember when I was in 7th grade. My sisters birthday was coming up and I went to the store with my mother to get her a few barbie dolls. I remember looking through them for the one that I remember my sister wanting. The main thing I recall is her wanting the beach Barbie, and I remember the commercial for it. "Hi, I'm beach Barbie. Come visit me at my cool house with my cool friends, hope to see you soon." At the time I didn't think anything of it. But looking back now I can see how much those dolls have affected my sister's life. I believe that my sister, as well as thousands of other girls think that in order to be happy they need to be like a barbie doll. The same thing happens to young boys. All though not as many boys have G.I. Joe action figures any more, there are still plenty of replacements. Such as Super heroes as well as Adventure rescue toys of all sorts. The one thing they all have in common, all the figures have super human strength. From the time boys are 3 years of age they know that they are suppose to grow up big and strong. They also know what women are "suppose" to do. As a young child the main person in your life is your mother. You watch everything that your mom does at home. And the majority of the time that is cleaning, cooking washing the dishes the list goes on. While your dad in most cases is at work. So from childhood observations, not so much popular media in my mind, young boys learn the the mothers place is "suppose" to be in the home. All children learn that mommy is the one who vacuums, while dad cuts down the tree in the back yard with the chain saw. You can't blame the media for images such as those. But that is not to say that the media isn't at least partially responsible. As humans we learn through reinforcement of ideas or processes. We may see our parents doing somewhat sexist jobs, but those are only natural in a way. I know very few women who know how to use a chain saw, and even fewer who are willing to learn to. Most women don't like to be around power tools, mainly because most women were not raised around them. Now not to say that men aren't concerned about them as well. I took 3 years of wood shop and have been using a chain saw since I was in 8th grade, I still don't feel comfortable around them. Men on the other hand are encouraged to use them, so in a way it makes sense that your mom is doing the dishes while your dad is cutting down a tree. It's not so much that your dad is overly masculine, it's that their are multiple jobs that need to be done and your mom may not feel comfortable with a chain saw, so your dad cuts down the tree. Not so much that your dad does not feel comfortable doing the dishes (Honestly from experience my father and I would love if my mom cut down a tree every now and again, it's hard work and I would much rather do the dishes for a half hour than cut down and lug a tree around for 6 hours. I spent most of last week doing that, it's not exactly a glamorous job.) This is where the media comes into play. Going back to we are creatures who learn through reinforcement, we may see our dad cut down a tree at home one day, but the next we may see him doing dishes or vacuuming or doing yard work or any number of tasks that are not particularly masculine. As a result we learn that "oh, dad does house work too." The media on the other hand only shows the man who cuts down the trees all the time, they don't show the sensitive loving father that comes home that night and respects and loves his wife. And the reason that part is not shown is simple, reality is boring, the reason people watch T.V. is to escape from reality not to watch another version of their life. So in order to make shows entertaining producers and writers have to make the scripts and characters larger than life. As a result a larger than life figure is reinforced into children's minds and there for the act on that bases. Now ask your self, is it really the shows fault? Are they truly evil and diabolical people bent on destroying the bases of family values. No, they are not. They simply provide easy to access entertainment at a fairly low cost. Now some people say "they need to watch the content that is put in their shows!".  And I agree to and extent. Yes, producers need to make sure the content in shows is positive, but I don't believe the shows are to blame. I think the parents are the people that should be to blame. I think the one of the main responsibilities of the parent is to help the child decipher the mass amount of information that comes into their lives. I think it's the parents job to tell their kids, "you don't need to be like that" "Or just because they do that doesn't make it right" and unfortunately that isn't happening anymore. There was a time in America where families were close. Now I know that is hard to believe, but yes families ate dinner together, they had game nights, they talked to each other. Shocking as it sounds it was once true. And you know what families talked about? They talked about the local and national news, the parents told their kids what it meant and how they were suppose to react to it. Now children run around nearly unsupervised on the Internet and T.V. and hear and learn infinite amounts of information, with no one to teach them what it means. As a result kids take the information in its raw state and they look at that as reality is and should be. They then live their lives like that and then teach their children the same thing, causing and endless vicious cycle. So who is really to blame? The "evil" T.V. show? Or the parent that is now "too busy" to take the time everyday and raise their children to standards that are expected of them? I know it is easy to blame the T.V. because the T.V. is a faceless scape goat that allows parents to relieve their conscience. So if your a parent and your reading this, think about what you let your kid watch next time the T.V. is on and if you ever become a parent I really hope you think about how you are going to raise your child. Make an effort to be part of your kids life, who knows, you might just keep them from becoming a wife beating, liquor store robbing low life criminal by spending a mere ten or twenty minutes with them every day at dinner... or from doing this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_BvjJeb4x8      

Nature Vs. Nurture

Nature Vs. Nurture has been a theory debated since the beginning of sociology and psychology. Are we born with our personality and our knowledge of language? Or are we only influenced by the people and culture around us, the ones who nurture us? I personally believe it is a mixture of both, and the vast majority of people seem to agree with me. But besides my personal opinion on the matter there is a large amount of evidence to support my claim that both nature and nurture shape and mold a person into who they become. Although there are no direct experiments to support my theory, there have been many experiments that disprove either of the options on there own. And since there are only 3 possible answers to the question to is it nature or nurture which molds a person and neither of those are correct, it must be the answer in between. The main examples I am going to use are the experiments conducted on feral children as well as the family in born a boy raised a girl. The main evidence that refutes the idea of humans naturally have the ability for language and knowledge is the example of feral children. If nature was the only cause or reason for humans being able to comprehend and use language in a meaningful and useful manner, these feral children would be able to speak without significant human interaction. As we know children who are past a certain age that have never been introduced to language or culture do not posses the ability to speak. Many leading experts believe that the human brain develops in stages. Once the child passes a certain age the ability of that individual to learn the complex process of language diminishes and the said individual can not learn language. Now by language I do not mean words, or one's vocabulary. When I say language I am referring to the ability to communicate with other people in a complex or meaningful manner. So if nature was the only cause for the human ability of language and society, then these feral children would be able to be reintroduced into society without a problem. This is unfortunately not the case. Because nature is not the only reason as to why we can comprehend and use language these children are unable to be proactive members of society. There by proving that nature is not the only force that molds and shapes the human mind. Now that we have determined that nature is not the only force that makes us "human" we have two possible theories as to what makes us human. I refute the idea that nurture is the only factor that makes us human, or who we are. The best case I can think of that refutes the claim that nurture is the only factor that effects us, is the case of David Reimer. David Reimer was a born a boy, who had an identical twin. His penis was burned off in a circumcision gone bad. In a desperate attempt to salvage their young boys life, the Reimers went to Dr. Money to see if raising David as a girl (then A.K.A. Brenda) if he would live a successful life. As the study proved, Brenda (David) did not want to be a girl. As a girl he was awkward, bullied, and was uninterested in female activities. If nurture was the only factor in determining how we identify ourselves and determine we are human, then David would have grown up fine as a girl, as his brother grew up fine as a boy. But as we know, he did not. This case proves that nurture is not the only factor in child development, but it does play a major role. Considering that David can read, write, talk and is a perfectly well educated person. So since we have multiple cases proving that nature is not the only factor in human development, we can safely say that nature is not the reason we can talk, write, and use language. And since the ability to use language makes us human, nature is not the only cause. We also have cases proving that nurture does not solely develop us into who we are. And since we have evidence refuting both claims, we have only one theory left. That both nature and nurture influence who we are as individuals and as a intelligent species as a whole. We know that no person can learn language without influence from society or another human, and that nurture does not make us into an individual either. There is a certain percentage given to each category. Some people are about 50/50. Half influenced by nurture half by nature. While others people may be 60/40 or 70/30 or visa verse, Neither force has the complete capability to mold us into active members of society.

gallup polls

When I first looked at the gallup page I noticed the polls at the top. Polls like economic outlook 39% say it is looking better and 56% say it is getting worse. And Economic conditions, which 10% said excellent/ good and 48% said poor. Those polls did not surprise me. A poll that surprised me was the Obama job approval poll. In which 54% approved and 40% disapproved. I was surprised by this poll because the majority of major news stations do not show disapproving stories about Obama. The only major news company which does is FOX news. Now if only one of several news stations is showing doubt of the President you would think the news would be reported according to what the national opinion is. But yet only 1 news station is showing the views of 40% of the country. I find that rather interesting. Another rather interesting poll is one concerning sending more troops to Afghanistan. According to the poll "Americans are now divided on sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan: 48% say they would favor President Obama’s deciding to send more troops and 45% say they would oppose his doing so. Two weeks ago, Americans were more likely to oppose than favor increasing the U.S. troop presence there." I find it interesting that in a few weeks public opinion can change so much. Personally I Believe that this drastic change and changes like it are due to the fact that the American public is far to lazy to make an informed decision on their own, as a result they rely on the major news companies to tell them what to think. Another interesting poll I found is also relating to Afghanistan. It was a poll on the opinions of the Afghan people and sending more U.S. troops there. The poll says "As President Barack Obama mulls whether to commit more troops to Afghanistan, a Gallup survey during the troop buildup earlier this year found nearly half of Afghans (49%) saying additional troops would help stabilize the security situation in the southern provinces. Thirty-two percent said they would not." I found this interesting not only because I had a debate on the subject this weekend at a debate tournament and I was told that according to CNN and MSNBC a poll they conducted (with 70 participants might I add) said the 83% would oppose more U.S. troops. Now how can their be such different results? Well obviously the news companies set up polls to make it seem that their opinions were supported by the Afghan people. The one thing I have learned from this assignment is to make sure I double check sources and polls for now on. 

fenger high school

Once again we hear of another student killed due to gang violence. We hear this almost everyday "gang shooting killed 13 year old by-stander". Gang violence is all around us. It may seem far away from the safety of Barrington, but it is a real threat to hundreds of kids and families everyday in Chicago. But what made this most recent murder at Fenger High School different? Kids from Chicago schools die almost every other week. It's not an uncommon occurrence. What made it different this time was that it was video recorded. People saw what happened, they just didn't hear about it or read about it, they saw it. Most people make connections through visual memory, especially when it comes to major events. A great example of this is where were you on September 11th 2001? What was in the room? Who was with you? The vast majority of people can clearly remember where they were and who they were with when it comes to tragic events. Even more people remember when they saw pictures or videos of the event occurring. When people hear about a kid dying in a gang shooting on the radio or read about it in the paper they go "that's horrible" and then go back to eating their dinner or they flip to the sports page. The reason people do this is that they can't make the same connection that they make when they see something. People make strong connections with visual inputs. So when people connected Derrion Albert's face to the story of his death they took greater notice than usual. So now that we know why people took notice to this particular case we can begin to explore the many sociological reasons behind his death. As the Rev. Jesse Jackson said "You can't solve it, your system caused it." What does this show? It shows that the environment that the schools provide is not healthy or safe, and that the schools should have been trying much harder to prevent this from happening. Lets look at some sociological factors, such as social class. Derrion was from a bad neighborhood, the Altgeld gardens public housing complex A.K.A Ghetto is a low income area. A particularly low income area. Crime festers and multiplies in these areas, much like bacteria in an open wound or fungus in a dark damp cellar. Ghettos are a criminals best friend, a great number of poor people that are desperate for drugs or money in a concentrated area. That creates enough crime to keep the police from patrolling the area. When you grow up in an area like that you are likely to get mixed up in some sort of criminal activity whether you are a law abiding citizen or not. Derrion got caught up in the middle of a gang fight, which occur rather often. Different gangs are always competing for control over certain neighborhoods. Which is based on the next sociological reason for his death, poverty. The reason there are gangs is due to poverty. When people are desperate they turn to crime. It was poverty that was the core reason behind Derrion's death. It was poverty that caused the gangs that killed him, it was poverty that caused him to live in a bad neighborhood, it was poverty that caused his school to not be able to provide him with safe transport to and from school. Now poverty is a never ending problem that will never be fixed and there are many sociological problems behind Derrion's death. I have only skimmed the surface of the many possible reasons as to why Derrion died, but i have vaguely identified some of the main factors.       

Ethnocentrism and you

What is ethnocentrism? The way I see it ethnocentrism is simply the way in which we analyze other cultures and habits. We compare them to our society and judge their actions based on how we view such actions, not how they view such actions. Every time you hear about some tribe from the amazon and the rituals and practices that they have you often times call them "barbaric", or perhaps "uncivilized". But are their practices so much different than ours? In the way some of them are preformed yes, but the same principles remain. For instance some American Indian tribes would have all the warriors gather around before battle in a tent and would pray while the tent was filled with hot rocks and water would be pored onto the rocks (kinda like a really really intense steam room). When the Indians emerged they believed that the ritual had cleansed their souls and made them stronger in battle. Insane right? Or is it? Tell me what happens before every football game you have ever seen? Where do all the players go? To the locker room. And tell me, what do they do? They all gather around the coaches and they give a pep talk to the entire team.  And when the players leave the locker room tell me, how do they feel? Is their moral high? Why yes, as a matter in fact the moral is rather high. Now what other event that I have mentioned caused high moral? Perhaps the Indian ritual in the tent. So is it possible that the tent ceremony is really just the native American version of the pep talk? It seems logical now doesn't it. But what is the difference in your thoughts of the native American tradition now than when you first heard it? The ritual didn't change, so what did? Your perspective changed. You now understand the purpose to the ritual. Before you had an idea of what it was for, but had no idea how to relate it to something that you have knowledge on. But you now have the familiar ritual of our own to compare it to, the pep rally. With the two different rituals in mind you can compare and contrast them and then finally you can comprehend the idea behind the Indian Ritual. So why do we look at a ritual so similar to one of our own with such negative preconceptions? Its because we don't understand them. People are most afraid of things that they don't understand (examples of this are people that are afraid of the dark, afraid of dogs and cats and have never been hurt by these animals, and often times foreign rituals). But why don't we understand these other cultures right away. We are all human, shouldn't we all think the same? No, in fact we don't all think the same. In fact we think very differently from one another. As it turns out your culture has a effect on every part of you, even the way you think. Some very interesting information has been coming up about this lately. Dr. Nisbett and Takahiko Masuda came up with an interesting experiment to show the different ways that different cultures think. Look at the picture at the top of this entry. Now take a good look, now scroll down the screen until you can no longer see it. What do you remember from the picture? You remember the big fish right. Interestingly enough that is not what people in Asia most often remembered about the photo. They remember the background of the picture. Now why is this. Some believe it is because of the way that we are brought up. As Westerners (Americans in particular) we are taught to look for the big fish, the strong fish, the fish you would want to be if you were in that picture.  While the Asian (particularly the Japanese) most likely describe the background because they are raised to view the whole picture, to look for the ideas to why the picture has the characters it does. Its also because the way Americans and Japanese view logic. As Americans we contradict, and argue over differences. While the Japanese often times try to take more passive approaches and view both sides of a differences (which is ironic considering that the Japanese congress often has mass fist fights within its walls on a fairly regular basses). But as you can see cultural based differences are the cause of our views of other cultures as well as the cause and definition of ethnocentrism.    

what is normal? an overview of The Social Construction of Reality

What is normal? 

nor⋅mal

 [nawr-muhl] 

–adjective

1.	conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

2.	serving to establish a standard.

3.

Psychology. a. approximately average in any psychological trait, as intelligence, personality, or emotional adjustment. b. free from any mental disorder; sane. My definition of normal in terms applicability to sociology is Normal: any action or characteristic or belief that is considered acceptable to society as a whole. Common actions and beliefs are the base of the social construction of reality. Ideas and beliefs as to what is considered food. In many cultures dogs are often times seen as meals rather than man's best friend. In our culture dogs are not considered to be food, but why then in parts of Asia is dog considered a specialty. Do the dogs there taste better? Is the meat of the dogs there better for you than the meat of dogs here? No, dog is dog no matter where it is. What changes are the beliefs of those eating the dogs. It is not the taste of dog that keeps people from eating it, it is the belief that dogs are friends not food. A great fictional example of this is in the movie finding nemo. There are a group of sharks that decided that they were going to give up their life of killing fish and start living with them. The sharks bodies had no problem eating fish, in fact they are built to do it, but their beliefs made them view the act as disgusting, their beliefs not there bodies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_MQdMKuY5A . Applying that same concept to the real world and you get vegetarians. The vast majority of vegetarians never thought meat was disgusting as a child. This belief of theirs came about when they discovered where meat came from. When some people find out that the burger they got from Burger King is made from cows just like the ones at the farm on the side of the highway they are on, then they find it disgusting. Other people can have the same experience and think nothing of it. The vast majority of the population fall in the second group of people can come to terms with the idea that they are eating something that was once alive. The reason they can (my self included) is because of their social construction of reality. Meat eaters have come to the conclusion that yes all though this burger was once part of a living animal it taste good and gives me energy, it is meat in their minds, not a leg, or a back, or even a rib cage, it is meat. Vegetarians view meat as a part of an animal, identifiable. Identity is what allows us to attach emotion to an object. Because meat is identifiable to vegetarians they find it impossible to eat. Which is also the reason the majority of people would never become cannibals. Identity has a lot to do with the social construction of reality and human behavior. A example that everyone knows but rarely thinks of is hostages. What is on a hostage's head when they are on camera? Think about it a black bag. Why would the hostage takers bother to put a bag over a hostages head. Are they trying to keep them from escaping? To a degree yes, but that is not the main reason. The main reason is to keep the hostage takers from identifying with the hostage, reverse Stockholm syndrome in a way. Over the years criminal masterminds and world leaders have learned that if a hostage taker gets to know a hostage they are less likely to kill them. That is why police always wade out hostage situations, the longer the people are hostage, the more time they spend with the hostage taker, the more the hostage taker gets to know them, the harder it is for the hostage taker to kill the hostage if the time comes. That is where the black bag comes in. By covering the face and making it hard to talk the hostage taker doesn't get to know the hostage well, which makes it less difficult for the hostage taker to kill the hostage if the time comes. But now getting back to the social construction of reality. Beliefs are what gives every society its foundation. Beliefs are what cause our actions, are ideas, and our lives. Every thing is constructed upon our foundation of beliefs, and based on what are beliefs are determines how far our society will go to thrive, and are beliefs are what will eventually make our society fall.

Sociological imagination

Sociological Imagination is a sociological term created by the American sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1959 describing the process of linking individual experience with social institutions and one's place in history. The sociological imagination enables us to grasp the connection between history and biography." History would be the broad stream of events leading up to any situation in society, while biography would be an individuals own experiences. By combining the two, one gets the foundations of a sturdy sociological imagination. (C. Wright Mills ). When someone connects seemingly impersonal, and remote historical forces to the incidents of an individual’s life that is sociological imagination. Social imagination suggests that people look at their own personal problems as social issues. People then try to connect their own individual experiences with the workings of society. The primary goal of sociological imagination is to help develop the ability to participate in social life, and analyze what is going on in the world around us. Sociological imagination is rather important in today's world. We need it everyday to analyze situations on local and global levels. The majority of people analyze their own life's using sociological imagination and often times don't realize it. The world is ever changing and as a result every "remote historical force" that a person comes across in someway molds the way that person acts toward society. It is more than less a learning process than a way of viewing human nature. Every child that grows up in a different culture than ours will grow up thinking that different customs are acceptable. In contrast to any child born in our culture will grow up thinking that our customs are acceptable. A child raised from birth in one culture will take on the views of that culture and apply them to its every day life. They will find certain things attractive and reasonable because of the culture surrounding them has taught them that is how things are suppose to be. It is in the local area where sociological imagination becomes most critical to social survival. It helps the most at the local level because that is where the person from that area has the most experience in social behaviors. Sociological imagination allows a person in situations to contemplate the sociological factors involved that might or might not impact the outcome of any given problem that they may have. The sociological imagination is becoming more and more important in the modern world. Today the once isolated groups from around the world can now communicate with almost any other social group on the planet. Everyone needs to have diplomatic skills to survive in today's world, which are learned in an individuals culture. By applying social skills learned in some one's local culture they can apply them to other cultures in the world. Sociological imagination helps people to realize how events have shaped their lives as well as other's and helps them apply that knowledge to help with problems abroad.       

My Introduction

Hey I'm James, if you can't tell this is my sociology blog. So I'm assuming that if you are reading this you are one of Mrs. Castelli's students, and if your not I haven't the slightest clue as to why you would be reading my blog but I guess I'm happy just having people read this (because if people read this I must be somewhat interesting). A little about my self: I'm a senior at Barrington High School, I play the piano and guitar and I love writing and playing music. I think music is the best communicator and wish there was far more funding for it at public schools. I believe that every type of music has at least one good song, and that you should give all music a chance to prove its worth. Here are some of my favorite bands: red hot chilli peppers, modest mouse, sublime, bare naked ladies, weezer, Nervana, die tote hose, 3rd eye blind, The Beatles, cold play, radio head, Jimmy Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Jefferson Airplane, The Monkees, Cream, Blue Oyster Cult, Procol Harum, Rise Against, Super Tramp, Eric Clapton,Muse, 9 inch nails, Jack Johnson, Django Reinhardt, Linkin Park, The Fray, Basshunter, Black Sabbath, Fleetwood Mac,Blind Faith, Canned Heat, Charlie Parker, Drop Kick Murphys,Harvey Mandel, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, Pearl Jam, Pink Floyd, Pure Food And Drug Act, Talking Heads, Flight of the Conchords, and many more Im just to lazy to list... Most of you are guessing that I want to major in music when I go to college, and your half right. I would love to be a professional musician, I want it more than anything else in the world right now. But I'm not an optimistic person, I know the chances of becoming a successful musician are slim to none. So my plan is to get a legal degree and minor in music theory. If music doesn't work out my hope is to become a corporate lawyer. I believe I would be good at that job because I enjoy reading contracts for some reason and I am a very particular person. I love cars, my current project is a 1988 Merkur, which I hope to have finished by the time I leave for college. I love the outdoors as well. I enjoy hiking and camping, having bond fires, and just being outdoors in general. I also believe that the National Parks need to be expanded greatly (yes I know how big they are, I have been to many of them) because once these natural wildernesses are gone they will never return to their previous beauty. I'm sure by now your sick of hearing my life story so I will leave you with a link to few videos of music I think is particularly funny and good... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGoi1MSGu64