Picture
                          Brave New World
     In this book the scientists, the state, have control over everyone and everything. Their citizens are grown in test tubes and conditioned as they grown to a caste that is chosen for them. They continue to be conditioned, or brainwashed into their society's views and to know their role and purpose in their society. They are constantly taking soma to stay happy and ignorant so that they don't ask any questions or get curious. They are kept as brain dumb, opinion and thought free as possible. Also because they have been conditioned they have no freedom at all, no choice in their life, and no personality. 
     The reservation citizens on the other hand are "all natural" and seem to be like the scum of the world. They are born with no additional additives, conditioning, or depleted oxygen. They worship a god and sacrifice themselves to it, instead of worshiping an idolized Henry Ford. However they do have most of their freedom, to what they please as ling as it's in their boundary's the state has put up. They also do have their personality, choices, and their own brain without any conditioning done to it.
     Bernard's view of the reservation, like any other World State Citizen is of disgust. He thinks it is revolting to live in so much dirt and disease and to smell horrible all the time. However it also slightly fascinates him because it is something different and he becomes curious about it. Due to his conditioning he thinks it is overall an extremely uncivilized and disgusting way to live. John's view of the state is tainted by his mother's talk and love for her old life. Since she was always telling him stories of the world he thinks it is an awesome place and that it's his dream to go there. He almost sees it as a heaven due to his upbringing and his mother's stories, but also because maybe he thinks he might be able to fit in there. 
     The scientists have worked together with each other to make a Utopian society where science is akin to a god. This relates to my big question because they did so by taking charge of the entire world and working together with each other, and other scientists, in order to change the world. They took control of the world and completely  changed how it was run, how people live, and everyone's views. They did go too far in their plan to make the world a perfect place and now they might end up paying for their mistake of going to far. 

 
Picture
     The internet could become a very powerful tool if we choose to use it correctly, or we could just use it for fun instead. In the video the guy talked about how the government could be using technology and how it already is. How you can look up the senators on the government webpage and see what bills and laws they have passed. On the forum sophiewatters said that, "technology can be really good or really bad - depends on the users and how they decide to use it". I agree with that because as the guy in the video said the internet could be used for a lot more. Even the government could change how they used it. They could use a program where the document (or bill, law, and budget) would show the changes and additions to it, just like programmers do. 
     This relates to my big question because the government has the possibility to change the world if they work together with programmers and take charge of how they use technology. This could completely change how us, as citizens, stay informed of what the government is doing and changing. This could potentially change how the average citizen interacts with the government and how they get their information about the changes happening within the government.  It would be a good change and if the government actually did it then I think more citizens would become more involved, more informed, less ignorant of their government and life within the whole country. 

 
Picture
"The Obsolete Man":  How can working together and taking charge change the world?

     In "The Obsolete Man" the state had control over anything and everything; even when it came to determining if a person was obsolete and should be killed. The state in this video had worked together with itself to take control/ charge of the world. They changed the world to a completely different place; a world where if they thought you were now obsolete they then had you "liquefied", or really just killed. A world where there was no need for god because he was proven to not be real, by the state of course. A world that simply eliminates all the undesirables and people who no longer have any use. A world where there were no need for books, or in Mr. Woodswarth's case no need for librarians. A world where the state controlled everything.
     Mr. Woodswarth was given the choice of how to be "liquefied" and when it was to be done. So the state gives him just enough freedom so it seems like it was his decision to die. However he chooses to go by blowing himself up with a bomb, and locks the Chancler in with him. This shows that even Mr. Woodswarth can take charge and change the world; because in the end the Chancler is also declared obsolete and killed. 
     Even though the state did change the whole world into something that was horrible and was based on the fact that they should kill all the people that they deemed; unfit, not needed, or a burden they had still CHANGED the world as they knew it. Mr. Woodswarth CHANGED the world when he proved that the people of the state were no better, no smarter, no more needed, no less of a burden to the state than the people like himself. All in all, yes it's obviously possible to change the world, it possible to change the world in a bad way (like the state) and in a better way (like Mr. Woodswarth).

 
Picture
How has signing statements changed laws and what are the implications are when considering your big question. BQ: how can working together and taking charge change the world?

     A president has the power to sign statements, which he can put on the bill when he signs it into a law. He can sign that part of the bill isn't constitutional and won't be followed. They can be good and bad because the president can still sign a bill if only a part of it is unconstitutional, but since he doesn't have to go through congress he can basically do as he pleases. Most people don't even know about this power the president has, which can be dangerous because then the president can sign statements that the people don't even know of. 
     The government is suppose to be full of check and balances; but this power of signing statements that the president has doesn't seem to have a balance or a check for it either. The president can just sign the bill into the law adding his statement which can change the law without having to go through congress or the judicial branch. This could lead to something bad if the president keeps adding signing statements and isn't monitored or kept in line.
     However it could also be a good thing since congress has a hard time compromising. So if they won't compromise at all when the president gets a bill while he's signing it into a law he can add a signing statement fixing the part of the bill where they could not compromise. This could help the people if the president paid attention and fixed the bill so that it would help them out and change what they wanted changed. 
     This can be related to our big question because the president can work together with congress to change the world. Or he could try to take charge and completely ignore congress and do as he pleases. Which is what Bush did; he wrote a lot of signing statements and sometimes they weren't always what congress wanted too, they weren't always in the best interest of the people of the United States. 
     All in all the presidents power of signing statements can be good and bad depending on how the president uses his power.