I was barely halfay through Kim's polished case study when I decided to jump on board as secondary investigator.  After hitting a little bit of a block I am feeling charged up over new research ideas, collaboration, and potential "audience sharing." Here are my thoughts...

The way that Kim has molded her thesis into an investigation of ethics, religion, and politics with relation to charities is genius.  This opens up a ton of doors, and while Kim's witty writing is consistently apparent, I did not see this coming.  Our quest is similar in that my project began with an interest in the way structured and partisen worlds of politics and religion coexist with a more fluid, accepting concept or practice of morality (radiant peace foundation).  It is interesting to think that the institutions of politics and religion work in society as both dictators and barriers of morality.  Imagine all the exciting ideas that could emerge from an investigation of religious propaganda as portrayed through the media now and historically.  I am anxious to compare common characteristics of religious belief and media.  Both can connect, inspire, transcend, and promote cooperation, and both can separate, zombie-ify and create friction.  I have a feeling Mchulan will be able to supplement some discussion on these matters.   I am interested in Kim's ideas about what will create a contented society.  Does happiness exist in a dull, group-think, numbered existence?  What makes people choose to buy in, wave flags, fall in line, pick a side?  What blinds people to the idea that our images of perfection and happiness are literally sold to us?  Jumping to my discussions on children and the need to "turn it off", how does health and wellness (makes me think of  Patti's case study) relate to dogma, politics, and the media that distribute these?  Kim rhetorical use of the first amendment conjurs up thoughts about government and polital control over both religious belief, and media outlets.  After this, some investigation on how society supports or declines this control is in order, and how these decisions affect our society's and our youth's wellbeing (or illusion of wellbeing).  Allegiance, dogma, symbolism, yipee!!! 

Kim creates a path to understanding dogma vs religion.  I am feeling a dogma is to religion, as patriotism is to nationalism analogy in the works.  To connect some Mchulan,  a love for an ideology (religion) posseses a kind of "cool medium" identity filled with potential for discovery and growth, where as literal dogmatic practice posses a more "high definition" identity, filled with mind numbing, systematic robotism.  Kim's statistics allude to this. 

I can feel my focus drifting towards a "break the cycles" type of research.  Our society seems to promote a pre-packaged version of identity as a means to fullfilment.  Our spiritual, ethical, and political beliefs are like presents from the media.  When we open them up we find a box full of labels (symbols)  we can stick to ourselves, and then concentrate on other, obviously more pressing issues.   Kim's research on David Wallace and his ideas of "the default setting"  give me a new angle for research, and a closer view of my audience.  The "easy path" is so relateable to my rantings on nationalism and society, and are helping to steer my interest towards discovering the means to breaking these cycles early in our youth.  Revolution time.