Connection

Ok, so I noticed the other day, while I was taking a break from class, that people are so connected to their phones they have become an extension of our physical bodies. While on this break, every person but two of us had their phones out and were checking text messages, emails, facebook, and twitter. I ask myself, why? Why have we become a society that must connect with people through the invisible world of technology rather than speak to each other in this realm of reality.  Does knowing what someone put on their facebook status really mean you know them or that you are a part of their lives? When did we seperate from making time for the people that matter to us in our lives?  Why is it necessary to feign connection through an avenue that breeds disconnection. How many friends you have on Facebook does not make you popular. How many people following you on Twitter does not mean you are famous. Have we as people evolved to the point of not needing to be in the physical world with others? It makes me think that we as a society are moving toward what was exemplified in the movie Wall-E. We would rather comment to each other through Facebook, or texting than actually be together and share an expierence. This article also got me to thinking about what I observed the other day.

FOMO Addiction: The Fear of Missing Out

from World of Psychology by John M Grohol PsyD

As serendipity often strikes randomly, I was reading an article in The New York Times by Jenna Wortham the other day at the same time I was reading the chapter in Sherry Turkle’s new book, Alone Together about people who fear they are missing out.
Teens and adults text while driving, because the possibility of a social connection is more important than their own lives (and the lives of others). They interrupt one call to take another, even when they don’t know who’s on the other line (but to be honest, we’ve been doing this for years before caller ID). They check their Twitter stream while on a date, because something more interesting or entertaining just might be happening.
It’s not “interruption,” it’s connection. But wait a minute… it’s not really “connection” either. It’s the potential for simply a different connection. It may be better, it may be worse — we just don’t know until we check.
We are so connected with one another through our Twitter streams and Foursquare check-ins, through our Facebook and LinkedIn updates, that we can’t just be alone anymore. The fear of missing out (FOMO) — on something more fun, on a social date that might just happen on the spur of the moment — is so intense, even when we’ve decided to disconnect, we still connect just once more, just to make sure.
Like the old-school Crackberry addict, we’re now all in the grip of “FOMO addiction” ^* — the fear of missing out on something or someone more interesting, exciting or better than what we’re currently doing.

Connected to this fear of missing out on something better that’s going on without you are these fake personas we promote on websites like Facebook. I say “fake” because we often present only the best side of our lives on social networking sites. After all, who wants to be “friends” with someone who’s always posting depressing status updates and who seems to be doing nothing interesting in their lives?
So they are indeed fake, because instead of us being completely real, many (most?) of us censor what we post to our social media profile these days. The people on Facebook are often simply their idealized selves — with a bit of misery thrown in from time to time to “keep it real.”

A friend who works in advertising told me that she felt fine about her life — until she opened Facebook. “Then I’m thinking, ‘I am 28, with three roommates, and oh, it looks like you have a precious baby and a mortgage,’ ” she said. “And then I wanna die.”
On those occasions, she said, her knee-jerk reaction is often to post an account of a cool thing she has done, or to upload a particularly fun picture from her weekend. This may make her feel better — but it can generate FOMO in another unsuspecting person.

Or as Sherry Turkle notes,

“Sometimes you don’t have time for your friends except if they’re online,” is a common complaint. [...]
When is downtime, when is stillness? The text-driven world of rapid response does not make self-reflection impossible, but does little to cultivate it.

Turkle’s descriptions of some of the teens who’ve told her their story is downright scary. Teens who believe they need to be available 24/7 to their friends, because, you know, someone might get dumped or into an argument with their parents. They need instant gratification and solace. Nobody can wait anymore — not because they can’t — but because they don’t need to.
After all, if you could eat all the ice cream sundaes in the world without any serious repercussions (like weight gain or being sick), why wouldn’t you? That’s how many of us our nowadays ingesting social media and technology — taking in as much as we can, simply because we think we can.
But it’s a lie we’re telling ourselves. Humans weren’t built this way.
Turkle nails it on the head with this comment in the article:

“In a way, there’s an immaturity to our relationship with technology,” she said. “It’s still evolving.”

I think that succinctly summarizes the problem — our relationship with technology is still in its infancy, and we’re still feeling our ways around it. We don’t quite know how to interact well — mindfully, meaningfully — with it. Count how many times you check your email or smartphone for messages, texts, status updates, etc. in a day. 10? 100? 1,000 or more? You may be surprised.
Technology that we’re at one with and that promotes social balance and harmony wouldn’t require such obsessive checking behavior, would it? It would understand and complement natural human social behavior. It would differentiate for us what’s important and what’s not (the idea of “smart agents” from a decade ago still resonates).
Teens think they “get it” — that technology is a natural extension of their social lives. But they’re mistaken — they’re still crafting their lives around the technology and the social connections they entice us with, rather than the other way around. They stay up all night waiting for the next status update. They interrupt a face-to-face conversation to make sure whatever’s going on elsewhere isn’t better. I wonder how this is a good way to promote future, strong social connections?
I have my doubts.
I believe, much to their detriment, that the makers of social networking technologies have some rough idea — but not in any nuanced or scientific way — how the tools and products they create are changing human behavior. (If these companies really wanted to take their efforts to the next stage, they should consider hiring some psychologists!) It’s an impulse control problem — we cannot easily control our impulse to “check” the technology to ensure something “more important” isn’t waiting our immediate attention.
The reality is that there are few things so truly important in life, they can’t wait. Sure, I understand it if you’re the President of the United States — you have a legitimate reason to check your texts during dinner. But everyone else, not so much. We’re succumbing to our FOMO when we do so.
Fear of missing out (FOMO) is a very real feeling that’s starting to permeate through our social relationships. The question is — will we ever settle for what we have, rather than cling to the fear that we may be missing out on something better? Social media like Facebook and Twitter are making this increasingly more difficult.

Read the full article: How Social Media Can Induce Feelings of ‘Missing Out’
* – I use the word “addiction” here firmly tongue in cheek, to emphasize how extreme some of these behaviors can be. I do not believe in FOMO addiction any more than I believe in Internet addiction.
Photo by hkarau.

 

If what is better is out there in cyberspace than what you are experiencing right now in the moment, aren't you really just isolating yourself even further from other people? Next time you are out at a restaurant, the mall, or in public in general...watch other people around you and see how many people you notice are living in the cyber world rather than here in this one.

Relationships and the Internet

I have been disturbed by the amount of people that often believe that if they are in a relationship, whether long or short term, it is ok to carry on an "emotional" connection with another person online. Why do so many people constitute cheating as only a physical act? Whether you are straight or gay carrying on an online relationship is cheating.

An article on World of Psychology (http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/03/23/does-the-internet-promote-or-damage-marriage/) illustrates many of the problems that occur when online affairs are acted upon in a committed relationship. The article discusses how online affairs effect a marriage, but I don't think it just applies to a marriage.  What is a marriage? It is nothing more than a commitment by one individual to another individual. That is a relationship. Two people in a committed relationship should, but often don't, consider themselves married.

I believe carrying on in an "emotional" relationship, is cheating. If your partner is not meeting your emotional needs, then communication is required between you and your spouse. Be honest with yourself first and figure out what it is you want to convey before starting your conversation so as to not be accusatory.  I have made the mistake of speaking before thinking and being accusatory.  The conversation will go bad, trust me. Here is another article that will help you plan how you want to say what it is you want to say: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rediscovering-love/201104/unequal-appetites

Don't turn to someone else, its just not worth it. If the person you are with is not what it is you want then end the relationship before starting a new one. Cheating is never acceptable.

Feeling off

I am the type of guy, not to sound cliche or "yeah right", that enjoys taking care of the people I love. I am in the military because I feel a very strong pull to protect and shield others from harm. Whether that harm be from outside or within. I go through alot of struggle when someone I know is hurting or may be harmed and I can not do anything to stop it. It's an internal struggle I go through that I feel like throws my entire world into upheaval. When someone is sick or is in pain I feel that same urge that brought me into the service to help them heal. I know I am not a miracle worker, but sometimes I do help. I always try to do what is right not in terms of religion or just the laws, but in the laws of the universe. I live my life by a code of honor and integrity, and that code makes me try everything within my power to do everything I can. 

We all find it frustrating when we want to accomplish something but can't when our end goal is beyond our control. Still I am trying to work out how to overcome that frustration within myself when situations outside of my control are in effect. If anyone reading this has an idea of ways to deal with the frustration please comment below.

Going to War

There has been a lot of controversy over President Obama's choice to join the United Nations in not allowing Muammar Gaddafi's genocidal actions against the people of Libya. I think many people forget or do not know what Gaddafi has done in the past and what his nature has been. Here is an excerpt on some of his past actions:

Libya under Gaddafi

After the 1969 coup, Muammar Gaddafi closed American and British bases and partly nationalized foreign oil and commercial interests in Libya.
On 11 June 1972, Gaddafi announced that any Arab wishing to volunteer for Palestinian armed groups "can register his name at any Libyan embassy will be given adequate training for combat". He also promised financial support for attacks.^{[104][105][106]}
On 7 October 1972, Gaddafi praised the Lod Airport massacre, carried out by the Japanese Red Army, and demanded Palestinian terrorist groups to carry out similar attacks.^[104]
Gaddafi created the Islamic Legion, a mercenary group associated with Arab supremacism.
He also played a key role in promoting oil embargoes as a political weapon, hoping that an oil price rise and embargo in 1973 would persuade the West to end support for Israel.^[107]
In 1973 the Irish Naval Service intercepted the vessel Claudia in Irish territorial waters, which carried Soviet arms from Libya to the Provisional IRA.^[108][109] In 1976 after a series of terror attacks by the Provisional IRA, Gaddafi announced that "the bombs which are convulsing Britain and breaking its spirit are the bombs of Libyan people. We have sent them to the Irish revolutionaries so that the British will pay the price for their past deeds".^[104]
Gaddafi was a close supporter of Ugandan President Idi Amin.^[110] Gaddafi was not alone – the Soviet Union armed Amin and East German Stasi agents came to build Amin's repression machinery.^{[111][112][113]} Gaddafi shipped troops to fight against Tanzania on behalf of Idi Amin. About 600 Libyan soldiers lost their lives attempting to defend the collapsing presidency of Amin,^[114] during which Amin's government killed hundreds of thousands of Ugandans.
Gaddafi aided Jean-Bedel Bokassa, the Emperor of the Central African Empire.^[114][115]
Together with Moscow and Fidel Castro, Gaddafi supported Soviet protege Haile Mariam Mengistu,^[115] who was later convicted for a genocide that killed thousands at least.
In October 1981 Egypt's President Anwar Sadat was assassinated. Gaddafi applauded the murder and remarked that it was a punishment.^[116]
Neighboring Arab countries and the United States became concerned of Gaddafi's policies, and they made a deal to increase in military credits and training.^[117]
In April 1984, Libyan refugees in London protested against execution of two dissidents. Libyan diplomats shot at 11 people and killed a British policewoman. The incident led to the breaking off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.^[118]
Gaddafi asserted in June 1984 that he wanted his agents to assassinate dissident refugees even when they were on pilgrimage in the holy city of Mecca. In August 1984, one Libyan plot in Mecca was thwarted by Saudi Arabian police.^[119]
After December 1985 Rome and Vienna airport attacks, which killed 19 and wounded around 140, Gaddafi indicated that he would continue to support the Red Army Faction, the Red Brigades, and the Irish Republican Army as long as European countries support anti-Gaddafi Libyans.^[52] The Foreign Minister of Libya also called the massacres "heroic acts".^[120]
In 1986 Libyan state television announced that Libya was training suicide squads to attack American and European interests.^[121]
Gaddafi claimed the Gulf of Sidra as his territorial water and his navy was involved in a conflict from January to March 1986.
On 5 April 1986, Libyan agents bombed "La Belle" nightclub in West Berlin, killing three people and injuring 229 people who were spending the evening there. Gaddafi's plan was intercepted by Western intelligence. More detailed information was retrieved years later when Stasi archives were investigated by the reunited Germany. Libyan agents who had carried out the operation from the Libyan embassy in East Germany were prosecuted by reunited Germany in the 1990s.^[122]
Germany and the United States learned that the bombing in West Berlin had been ordered from Tripoli. On 14 April 1986, the United States carried out Operation El Dorado Canyon against Gaddafi and members of his regime. Air defenses, three army bases, and two airfields in Tripoli and Benghazi were bombed. The surgical strikes failed to kill Gaddafi but he lost a few dozen military officers.^[42][123]
Gaddafi announced that he had won a spectacular military victory over the United States and the country was officially renamed the "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriyah".^[119] However, his speech appeared devoid passion and even the "victory" celebrations appeared unusual. Criticism of Gaddafi by ordinary Libyan citizens became more bold, such as defacing of Gaddafi posters.^[119] The raids against Gaddafi had brought the regime to its the weakest point in 17 years.^[119]
Many Western European countries took action against Libyan terror and other activities following years.
Gaddafi fueled a number of Islamist and communist terrorist groups in the Philippines. The country still struggles with their murders and kidnappings.^{[44][47][51][52][124]}
Gaddafi fueled paramilitaries in the Oceania. He attempted to radicalized New Zealand's Maoris.^[47] In Australia he financed trade unions and some politicians. In May 1987, Australia deported diplomats and broke off relations with Libya because of the activities in the Oceania.^[46][47]
In late 1987 French authorities stopped a merchant vessel, the MV Eksund, which was delivering a 150 ton Libyan arms shipment to European terrorist groups.
In 1991, two Libyan intelligence agents were indicted by prosecutors in the United States and United Kingdom for their involvement in the December 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. Six other Libyans were put on trial in absentia for the 1989 bombing of UTA Flight 772 over Chad and Niger. The UN Security Council demanded that Libya surrender the suspects, cooperate with the Pan Am 103 and UTA 772 investigations, pay compensation to the victims' families, and cease all support for terrorism. Libya's refusal to comply led to the approval of Security Council Resolution 748 on March 31, 1992, imposing international sanctions on the state designed to bring about Libyan compliance. Continued Libyan defiance led to further sanctions by the UN against Libya in November 1993.^[125]
Gaddafi trained and supported Charles Taylor, who was indicted by the Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone.^[126]
Libya had close ties with Slobodan Milošević's regime. Gaddafi aligned himself with the Orthodox Serbs against Bosnia's Muslims and Kosovo's Albanians. Gaddafi supported Milošević even when Milošević was charged with large-scale ethnic cleansing against Albanians in Kosovo.^{[127][128][129]}
In 1999, less than a decade after the sanctions were put in place, Libya began to make dramatic policy changes in regard to the Western world, including turning over the Lockerbie suspects for trial. This diplomatic breakthrough followed years of negotiation, including a visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Libya in December 1998, and personal appeals by Nelson Mandela. Eventually UK Foreign Secretary Robin Cook persuaded the Americans to accept a trial of the suspects in the Netherlands under Scottish law, with the UN Security Council agreeing to suspend sanctions as soon as the suspects arrived in the Netherlands for trial.^[42]
Following the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime in 2003, Gaddafi decided to abandon his weapons of mass destruction programmes and pay almost 3 billion US dollars in compensation to the families of Pan Am Flight 103 and UTA Flight 772.^[130][131] The decision was welcomed by many western nations and was seen as an important step toward Libya rejoining the international community.^[132] Since 2003 the country has made efforts to normalize its ties with the European Union and the United States and has even coined the catchphrase, 'The Libya Model', an example intended to show the world what can be achieved through negotiation, rather than force, when there is goodwill on both sides. By 2004 George W. Bush had lifted the economic sanctions and official relations resumed with the United States. Libya opened a liaison office in Washington, and the United States opened an office in Tripoli. In January 2004, Congressman Tom Lantos led the first official Congressional delegation visit to Libya.^[133]
Libya has supported Sudan's President Omar al-Beshir despite charges of a genocide in Darfur.^[134]
The release, in 2007, of five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, who had been held since 1999, charged with conspiring to deliberately infect over 400 children with HIV, was seen as marking a new stage in Libyan-Western relations.
The United States removed Gaddafi's regime, after 27 years, from its list of states sponsoring terrorism.^[135]
On October 16, 2007, Libya was elected to serve on the United Nations Security Council for two years starting in January 2008.^[136] In February 2009, Gaddafi was selected to be chairman of the African Union for one year.
In 2009 the United Kingdom and Libya signed a prisoner-exchange agreement and then Libya requested the transfer of the convicted Lockerbie bomber, who finally returned home in August 2009.^[137]

 

As of October 25, 2009, Canadian visa requests were being denied and Canadian travelers were told they were not welcome in Libya, in an apparent reprisal for Canada's near tongue-lashing^[vague] of Gaddafi.^[138] Specifically, Harper's government was planning to publicly criticize Gadhafi for praising the convicted Lockerbie bomber.^[139]

Libyan-Swiss relations strongly suffered after the arrest of Hannibal Gadhafi for beating up his domestic servants in Geneva in 2008. In response, Gaddafi removed all his money held in Swiss banks and asked the United Nations to vote to abolish Switzerland as a sovereign nation.^[140][141]
Libya still provides bounties for heads of refugees who have criticized Gaddafi, including 1 million dollars for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist.<sup>[142]

- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Libya_under_Gaddafi

We act because it is the moral and "right" thing to do. It takes strong character and a strong will to do the "right" thing, as opposed to the easy "wrong".  Is it morally just for us to sit back and allow a genocide to occur? Maybe people who oppose us helping others should ask a Jewish individual who was a prisoner during the Holocaust.  Let us not forget also that Gaddafi has and still supports terrorism. Have we forgetten Sept. 11th already? I find it interesting that our memory can be that short. If we continue to be so relaxed and allow terrorist nations to prosper then we open ourselves up to attacks again. Whether you agree with me or not, we are one of the greatest nations on Earth.  Therefor we will always be a target, and this is why we must be ever vigilant in the defense of our country. Which would you prefer, fighting the terrorists on their ground, or fight them here at home so that our husbands, wives, and children may die?</sup>