My initial reaction to the terrorist attack on Nice, France was a feeling of disgust. Even before hearing about the many people that died, I knew that the aftermath was as bad as it was. Eighty-four were killed and hundreds were injured and it only feeds into the fact that this world is full of monsters. It also surprised me that there was no precaution put in place knowing the background of the attacker. Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhel did not commit his first offense on this day. Reports say that he was given a suspended six-month prison sentence earlier in the same year and he had been previously charged with theft. Therefore it is beyond me that someone like that would be able to rent a vehicle.
What is even more interesting is what I learned from the two podcasts. There were many topics that I highly agreed with but I never felt the need to talk about it out loud. The fact that reporters refer to terrorists as “masterminds” is actually more disturbing than I thought. By calling someone a mastermind you are basically complementing him or her by pointing out his or her intelligence. But ironically, there is nothing intelligent or genius about killing hundreds of people for their beliefs.
In addition, readers and watchers at home do not pay attention to the key words in the remarks of the reporters because we are programmed to hear the craziest information we are told. As stated in one of the podcasts, “terror causes us to lose our senses.” Many will believe what they want to from what they hear and they will both underestimate and overestimate terrorists. And both are bad because if we underestimate, we are not prepared for the worst and if we overestimate, it fuels the attackers. People not only watch reports to gain information but they also pay attention to the news on social media as well. And social media is a dangerous tool because anyone can say something and deem that it is a fact and all it takes are simple shares and retweets to pass on false information. And because of this, people begin to believe things that are not always true. Through photoshop and lies, facts on controversial information are rarely ever given to those who are interested.

Talia Seymore
Rhetoric and Civic Life
Teresa Hamilton
30 June 2016
Money Can’t Buy Happiness
Money makes the world go ‘round, meaning it keeps everything running. Citizens look at it as just pieces of metal and paper but yet it means so much. The idea of money is a common place that everyone can fathom because it affects all human beings. Whether they have a lot of it or not, it affects what goes on around them and the things they buy. The only difference is that those who are wealthy value the idea of sustaining their economic status where as those who are considered poor value the idea of having money for every day purposes. And although money contributes to our social status and means of acceptance, it will not always buy happiness. People believe that money is capable of buying happiness but they do not pay attention to the deeper connection between what we earn and how we feel. It all depends on how money is handled and the expectations we have for what we earn. Therefore it is true in some ways, but it is not the direct reason for happiness.
“Can Money Buy You Happiness?” is an article in the Wall Street Journal written by Andrew Blackman. Including this article, Mr. Blackman has written hundreds of articles, magazines, blog articles, novels, short stories, and essays. He earned his masters degree in journalism from Columbia University and a history degree from Oxford University. He writes on various topics that not only have to do with finance but he has written about the health differences in females and males, failed small businesses and even articles about advice on writing. In “Can Money Buy Happiness”, he specifically states many reasons for why and how people are fooled to believe where exactly their happiness comes from. To help readers get a better understanding of how this conclusion came to be, Blackman explains multiple experiments and statistics proved by credible sources and he uses comparisons that people of all economic statuses can relate to. Because happiness is an emotion, it is a common place that all human beings experience. He uses comparisons to draw to different emotions, causing the reader to put him or herself in situations to imagine how they would feel.
Mr. Blackman starts off by introducing a common misconception that those who are richer are overall happier than those who may make less money. But it all depends on how their money is exactly their money is spent. Studies by Ryan Howell, an associate professor of psychology and San Francisco State University, show that when people spend money on experiences, such as vacations or concerts, they tend to be happier over a longer period of time compared to when using the money to buy material things. This is due to the fact that buyers pay more attention to the time spent with the purchase rather than the value of the purchase. His studies reported that many people would prefer to buy material items because they last longer. But even though experiences would be more meaningful, they are looked upon as only temporary events in peoples’ lives. But ironically after experiments were done, they realized that experiences did in fact have more value than tangible items. And even though people begin to understand this fact, they continue to splurge on material things because they can be used over and over again whereas an experience can only be “used” once.
Similarly, Thomas Gilvich, a psychology professor at Cornell University, conducted experiments comparing the value of experiences and material things but the results are based upon having a restricted amount of money to spend. In this case, subjects related the amount of money they had to the time available with what they were purchasing. Consequently, they were less inclined to spending that limited amount of money on a vacation because it gave limited time. Another reason that people prefer to buy material goods is because they are more important when comparing what they have to what other people have. Gilovich states that “ ‘Keeping up with the Joneses is much more prominent for material things than experiential things’ ”. He came to the conclusion that it bothers people more to know that someone had a better experience than them rather than buying a better tangible item than them. For example, it would make a person more upset to know that someone got a way better phone than them but on the other hand if someone also stated that they went to Hawaii whereas another just went to Florida, it would not bother the person who went to Florida as much because their experience would still be memorable. Lastly, he proved that the anticipation for both means of spending is different. Gilovich was also able to conclude that people waiting for an event to happen were more enthusiastic about getting there. Compared to those waiting on a tangible item, who were more impatient.
Blackman also explains that people experience what is called hedonic adaptation. It is defined as the adaptability of humans to return to a neutral state of happiness even after going through positive or negative situations. And because of this, they are able to adapt to the material things they buy. Sonja Lyubomirsky, a psychology professor at the University of California, also mentions that getting used to such a habit is risky because it is hard to snap out of it. She uses the example of someone buying a new, big house but months later getting used to the neighborhood and the people around, which can only cause them to want a change for more. Even keeping a painting on the wall in the same spot for years can become so irrelevant that the value for it is lost because its owners have gotten used to it.
The proposed solution for hedonic adaptation is to more or less “count your blessings”. Lyubomirsky explains that the only way people will not adapt to something is if they do not take it for granted. If one takes the time to appreciate the value of the things they have and remind themselves of why they have it, they will be less likely to sweep it under the rug after a couple years. The only problem is, it can be difficult to transition into ways that were not normally practiced and it can become quite frankly boring. And as a solution, it us up them to develop new ways to show thankfulness and appreciation.
Ironically, one way that money can actually buy happiness is not by earning it, but giving it away. Professor of psychology, Elizabeth Dunn from the University of British Columbia, performed an experiment in which she gave money to multiple students and either told them to spend it on themselves or spend it on other people. And as expected, those who used the money for someone else’s benefit reported being happier than those who did not. Being responsible for the improvement in someone else’s well being is enough to make others feel better about themselves. Dunn furthered her studies into other countries and she found that the experiment had the same effect on many diverse groups. Furthermore, she realized that even donations from the rich and poor resulted in the same level of happiness, whether you were struggling at home or not. It did not matter on the amount that was given because the happiness that follows stems from the impact on the life that was changed.
Andrew Blackman does a great job at making the article understandable for all age groups. Because it is presented in the Wall Street Journal, the audience is limited to adults who are most likely familiar or interested with finance. But because it is easy to relate to the many situations presented, the possibility of it reaching a bigger audience is likely. It is a large topic that many people ask themselves because contrary to belief, no one knows the right answer. But it is directed to anyone who earns their own money and may not be spending it wisely, which goes for a huge percent of the population in the United States.
Hopefully now, people will be able to create a more valuable use from the money they spend. While putting the necessities to the side, people can now think deeply about how a purchase can emotionally affect them. Andrew Blackman has proven through many means of persuasion that some forms of happiness last longer than others. If consumers of money take the time to analyze exactly what their money is going towards, they would realize that experiences are a better bargain. So next time someone debates upon whether they should buy a Maserati or take a trip through the Central America, they should remember that they can tell their vacation story a million times but no one will want to hear about the “exciting” story of how they bought their car.

Works Cited
Blackman, Andrew. “Can Money Buy You Happiness?” The Wall Street Journal 10 Nov. 2014.
Web. 27 June 2016. .

Twitter Logo
I like this symbol as a civic artifact because it connects society through social media. It exposes many public issues taking place today and it groups people together through common interests. It poses challenges because as all social media sites do, it spreads information that can sometimes be false, causing controversy. All it takes is one post and thousands of retweets can be generated. But why does it seem like so many people are addicted?

Above The Influence Commercial
This artifact is seen on several commercials in order to prevent teenagers from using drugs. I like it because these commercials exaggerate the effects of drugs, which steers away from the seriousness of the situation at hand. But questions arise as to why it is only directed towards teenagers when all ages are capable of using drugs. We assume that it is because most addicts start during adolescence due to peer pressure.

Money
This artifact is consumed by everybody in society and it “makes the world go ‘round.” It is unarguably the most controversial artifact in today’s society because it is the reason for why we are able to sustain our lives and the lives we are responsible for. It is the way the government is able to control us and it is one of the top causes for crime in the United States. How is a tangible item able to control millions of people?