Painful memories

Everyone knows about the Holocaust. Some want to forget it, others believe we need to remember the horrors in order to prevent such a tragedy from happening again. As the years go by, less and less people have been directly affected by this devastating moment of human past. So how do we deal with the dwindling survivors? The Jewish people that escaped, should they have or should they receive compensation? Another pressing topic for more people, is how do we deal with those who were Nazis? Who were apart of the chaos, who helped, or didn’t do anything to oppose it.

Well the question is raised once again, this time with a slightly more important person than those who may have just been mere soldiers or pawns. This time, there is an Auschwitz guard put on the hot seat. 93 year old Oskar Groening has been charged with 300,000 counts of accessory to murder. As an SS (Shutzstaffel) guard and member, he has a much higher bounty on his head. Accused of helping operate the death camp between May and June of 1944, 425,000 Jews were brought to the camp, 300,000 being gassed to death almost immediately. His job included, but was not limited to, dealing with belongings of the prisoners, and helping collect and tally the money that was found among the victims. The prosecutors believe this to say that he “helped the Nazi regime benefit economically, and supported the systematic killings,” while his attorney, Hans Holtermann, declined to comment on any of the charges.

WARNING, BRIEF GRAPHIC INCIDENT DESCRIBED. Groening has openly talked about his time as a guard, and even shared a specific incident with a German magazine. On “ramp duty” he heard a baby crying, and observed his fellow SS soldier grab the baby by the legs, and smashed the child’s head against the iron side of a truck until it was silent.

Groening is one of roughly 30 former Auschwitz guards who are going to be pursued and charged, regarding a new German law. Groening is the fourth case investigated, 2 being shelved due to the suspects being unfit for trial, the 3^rd being closed after the suspect passed away. Groening is in good health though, so what is to happen to him will set precedent for the rest to come.

Do we really need to convict this man with said charges? He was cleared of any war crimes in 1948, and reportedly had nothing to do with killing and Jews directly. Of course there is something to be said for being a part of such an atrocious organization. Awful and completely inhumane things were done by humans, to other humans. While I personally believe the comment on how he helped the Nazi regime benefit economically is complete bull, it is a point many can and will make against this man. Think about all of this from a less literal perspective though, this man was in the middle of country trying, not just planning but trying and being very close to succeeding, at taking over the planet. It’s possible he was just trying to survive, and there isn't much we can do to blame him for wanting to survive. Aren't his memories enough torture for this man? He could have not had the guts to do any button pressing for murder. Of course these points are all multiple sided dice, and is up to you to decide, and the court to decide on a unanimous one.

Links : http://townhall.com/news/world/2014/09/15/93yearold-former-auschwitz-guard-charged-n1891936

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2756765/Former-Auschwitz-guard-93-charged-300-000-counts-accessory-murder-role-Nazi-death-camp.html

ISIS. AGAIN

An ISIS magazine promotes slavery, rape, and murder in their God's name.

Previously I made a statement that I believe that they're just looking for attention, and in a way I believe that this is supporting my statement, but also fights it.

First, I don't think it's fair to consider the Islamic deity, or holy spirit, the same as one in another faith, such as Christianity. With that out of the way, the fact that their religious scripture not only approves, but praises the following of inhuman actions, in my opinion requires isolation. There shouldn't be any connection between those who follow that belief valiantly, and those who have nothing to do with anything they work for or believe in.

While this does seem extreme, It seems necessary. These people are advocating rape, slavery, ethnic cleansing and sexual abuse, and are trying to force these beliefs on the rest of the world, rather violently. I still think that they are acting for attention right now, it's for a bigger idea that they have, and it's rather frustrating that it's affecting the world as much as it is. Like stated previously, I don't believe they should be killed, but rather isolated by our choice. In doing this we sustain our humanity by not killing them for their beliefs, and allow them to live their lives by their ideals, but without any connection to those who don't wish to partake in that Religion.

Topping it off, most of what ISIS is doing is nothing new, we've seen it all before and a lot of these events are happening in other parts of the world without global recognition. ISIS is just like a little kid, doing substantially worse things, unforgivable things, but doing it on small scales and to the Biggest of the big countries, and trying to get more attention out of it.

I personally am pretty pissed at ISIS because they do these things based off of religion, and I'm not personally a very religious person, and dislike those who try to make actions towards or judgement upon someone else based on their religious beliefs.

Huzzah for rights!

Privately gay bishops have recently been told that if they publicly acknowledge their sexuality they will receive "support, prayer and encouragement" from a number of Church of England priests and parishioners. In a letter signed by more than 300 members of the Church to its leadership and entire episcopate, Anglican, Methodist and other Christian signatories appealed to gay and bisexual bishops, urging them to have the "courage and conviction" to come out. The written plea is back by at least 160 priests and promises to stand by and "welcome and embrace' those bishops who do decide to go public.
The Church of England teaches that sexual intercourse should occur within a marriage and that this "ideal" is not met by homosexuality. There are also currently no openly gay bishops. A 1991 statement from the House of Bishops said that hetero and homosexuality are not equal, nor in harmony, with the observed order of creation or with the insights of revelation as the Church engages with these in the light of her pastoral ministry.
The letter to the Church of England Bishops adds that it does "not advocate the involuntary outing of bishops."
They write to assure those bishops who may choose to openly acknowledge their sexual orientation as gay or bisexual and that they will receive the support, prayer and encouragement of all that respect the written proposal.
They also added "Sadly, we live at a time when those who are honest about LGBTI and Christian are treated with hostility by a vocal minority within and outside the Church. We have no doubt that the vast majority of Anglicans will welcome and embrace those of you who are gay or bisexual for your courage and conviction if you come out: weeping with you for past hurts and rejoicing in God's call as witnesses to Christ's transforming love and compassion.

I have 2 primary concerns with this. The first being, by "support" do they mean that they will actually stand behind their friends' and families' sexualities, or encourage them to "witness God's love" or whatever term they'd like to use and tell them they need to change.
Secondly, if this happens on a larger scale, as in all of the official large Christian Churches accept gay and bisexuality, then this could cause a large moral problem, larger than it already is. There are those who are die-hard to the fact that gays and bisexuals are wrong and should be "fixed." These people will probably state that they don't believe that these large scale church changes are Christian and break away, causing more extreme cases like the Wet Borough Baptist Church.

Abortion and the many views

It has recently come to my attention that it is possible for a young woman under the age of 18 to have an abortion without needing a parent or guardian's consent. I'm shocked that this is even a possibility, considering the state of our society when it comes to matters such as that. 

Today's society is just a mosh pit. Everyone fights about everything possible, yet our country is supposed to be founded on the basis of freedom, nothing we do seems to be anything similar to our "goals." We fight over gay rights, feminism, abortion, wars in other countries, ethics in other countries, anything that could possibly lead to a large scale argument, our kind seems to take and put an immense amount of work into making it a huge deal.

Firstly, my views on all of these topics follow a similar pattern. The largest question leading them: why do you care? Where does it affect you? 90% of the time it doesn't and the person is just trying to dictate someone else's life, regardless of their views. Let’s take an example here - gay rights. Many believe that same sex marriage is wrong. They believe that it is either against some religious idol’s teaching, or is the opposite of what nature want. Now let’s take this into perspective, why does this said homophobe care? Because it’s different, and they’re uncomfortable. I will admit, there are some homosexual couples and/or individuals who are very abrasive with their personalities, and can be a little much. That isn’t because they’re homosexual, it’s just who they are. That person would be uncomfortable to be around regardless of their sexual preference. So therefore, it doesn’t matter, you’ll have to deal with them like you would anybody else, without taking into account that they’re not heterosexual.

Abortion however has a couple of twists and turns in its debate. There are debates about ethics in this topic. Whether or not abortion is killing a human being or not, and whether or not we have the power to decide another human beings life like that without consent. While I don’t have a good solution to the problem, my views on it are pretty straightforward and apply to those who believe for and against abortion.

Don’t be overbearing about it, if it doesn’t affect you, or anyone in your family, there is absolutely no reason to harass anyone over this topic. This topic is not much different from deciding whether or not to pull the plug on a patient who relies solely on life support.  

Is self expression that bad?

An Australian man is being charged a $4,000 fine for having his fence painted with rainbow colors unless it is repainted as "heritage colors."
I'm laughing with frustration right now. Not only does the office in charge of this whole fine say that they have received numerous complaints, she's lying about it. Completely. Everyone nearby the house loves it. The owner of the fence even went door to door asking opinions on his fence, and everyone said they loved it. Not just liked, but loved. He would be doing more harm than good if he repainted it. It's absolutely absurd that the government is trying to REPAINT A FENCE THAT HAS MULTIPLE COLORS. Multiple colors is their problem. It's not "heritage colors, and they have 'regulations.'"
Isn't that the base of racism?  You oppress someone because they're of a different race, or, a different color? Obviously there are some pretty core differences, but it's so stupidly extreme to think that someone would even go out of their way to remove a colored fence.
I think the worst part is that they're trying so hard to get rid of it too. They lied, and lied the complete opposite of how it actually was. If every single neighbor said that the fence was "alright, or bearable" then I could see it maybe. Not only that, but the owner is more than willing to repaint the fence if his neighbors are unhappy with it. He is willing, for the people he respects and sees as equal, to change his ways in terms of decoration. Yet this isn't good enough for the Australian government, they think that what he's doing is wrong. It makes me super sad to be completely honest, just let the man have a colorful fence. What harm is he doing?
http://m.theage.com.au/victoria/raglan-street-port-melbourne-rainbow-fence-owner-sees-blue-over-council-fine-20141020-118jvd.html#ixzz3GdNDUqRY

ISIS video of child shooting Russian spies

Don't get me wrong here, this is absolutely terrible and awful that they have a child brainwashed to believe stuff like this, especially to such extremes. I think a key thing to remember here is - ISIS can't win in any large goal, at all whatsoever. They're simply too small of an organization, they aren't an entire country. They aren't even a well organized group, and they're reckless. Even if they wanted to do something, virtually everyone in the world would be able to retaliate twice as hard. ISIS is a little kid wanting attention, and that's what they're getting. Do I think ISIS needs to be stopped? Absolutely, they infringe human rights. Do I think that anybody is doing anything correctly about it? No.
ISIS is just like any other terrorism group, their ideals need to be completely obliterated. By ideals I mean more specifically the extremes that they sit on. Religion as it stands, is mediocre at best. It's losing its place and people are having troubles accepting that, but people should have the right to believe and practice what they want - WITHOUT infringing human rights. Based on that, some militant freak's ideals could be to just nuke every middle eastern country because of what ISIS is doing, along with previous terrorism. Should we allow that? No, but that's the same idea. You can use religion to justify both ends of it, so that's checked off the list. Some would even go as far as to say that we're teaching little kids the same "nuke everything" ideal here in the US, just like ISIS is doing that with their children. Anyway you look at it, someone can justify the same thought process somewhere else in the world. We just don't take it to the same extremes, and raise with filters. It works, and these ideals are normally not kept the entire lifespan of said child in a non terrorist-enthused environment.
Please, sit down and open your eyes,
Sincerely - the world.

The future is what Britain sees

So Britain has decided they need to educate younger kids about coding eh? Personally I think this is a phenomenal idea. After going through the early stages of schooling, and most of the later parts of it (that required by the United States government and 99% of every basic job), I have determined my opinion on education as we have it in our country.
It's flawed. Completely flawed, there is nothing that I can say is anywhere near perfect for our current setup. The elementary school years are very basic, as they should be. Sadly, this is also where the core of social problems start, and I could go on about that for hours in another post, but I'll save it for later. I personally think that we should integrate more arts and extra curricular things at an earlier point in life. I completely understand that it may seem like a bad idea because the performing arts is a very limited area for people in their adult lives. I understand that entirely, but I'm not saying that it should become a primary focus in a person's life that early, but there's no reason it shouldn't be integrated into schooling. By doing that, it's natural. School will always be a part of their life. Always. They will go 5 out of 7 days a week, for the next 13 years of their life in a minimum. If we can put something CREATIVE, not necessarily productive in the later parts of lives, I believe that we would be able to maintain a stable level of children not completely hating school. Most kids I know don't like school, for one reason or another, it doesn't matter. It's the fact that there is no way that we can fix that without revamping the whole system. Personally, I think we should revamp it.
The junior high/middle school period. I don't think this is necessary at all. The fact they take 2-3 years out to put you in another school to try and practice how high school is, is really dumb. "Practicing" for high school shouldn't be necessary. It should be a stereotypical practice throughout all years of basic schooling. Doing that, makes it again, a more natural thing. That way high school isn't daunting, and awful. People won't have to hate school if it's not drastically different or harder than what they've been doing for the past 9 years, and on top of that, if the whole stress of school is removed or significantly decreased, based on my suggestion (or others), then school isn't a chore.
High school. I could go on forever on every single little thing that is wrong with every single one in the country. That's not necessary, I believe with any previous changes made, we can just tweak the curriculum and alter it enough to make a difference in kid's lives.
Fixing school problems like this will open a lot of doors that were previously closed, because our population will be more diverse in how we go about various problems that arise, and eventually solving the current problems we have, making the world a better place.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/five-year-olds-learn-coding-as-britain-eyes-digital-future-1.2072508

Great Job Science

A brand new 3D microscope has been invented! We can now view cells and things like embryos in 3D! This is absolutely outstanding! Even though we don’t know for sure what practical uses this thing will be used for, I’m 100% sure without a doubt it will have a huge impact on research and the development of our species.

This is such a huge step. Humans could use this microscope to analyze how disease cells replicate, and figure out how to combat them. We could study human embryos while developing if there was suspicion of deformities, and figure out how to remedy that. What I feel to be the most important though, is the ability to study stem cells more. If we were able to study how stem cells replicated and decided what they were going to be, maybe we could find a way to reverse the process and turn, for example, a hair cell back into a stem cell. Then we could use this to grow replacement organs, or fix damaged ones.

This is going to be completely revolutionary once it gets going. I’m sure that this device is extraordinarily expensive, but once we can use this for practical things, we can advance the human race by leaps and bounds. While I do believe this is a huge step, we also have to be careful. There could be things that we can’t handle as a species yet, and that may be hidden within this new ability. I believe we need to solve our current debates and issues, work on preventing any further problems, and then start research and advancements using this. For now, we should just use it for more pressing things, things that could help us right now. Stem cells, vaccination progression, things of that nature should be top priority. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/microscope-cells-in-action_n_6041638.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World

Goodbye animals

Scientists have devised a way to accurately monitor the number of living animals on the planet right now. This new tool has been dubbed the "Living Planet Index," or LPI. It reflects the state of all 45,000 known vertebrates by analyzing 10,000 different populations, covering 3,000 species in total. The number of wild animals on Earth has halved in the past 40 years, according to this new analysis. These creatures across land, rivers and the seas are being annihilated as humans hunt them to extreme degrees, and pollute or destroy their habitats. The Zoological Society of London's director of science Ken Norris as said, "If half the animals died in London zoo next week it would be front page news, but that is happening in the great outdoors. This damage is not inevitable but a consequence of the way we choose to live." Nature was essential for human well-being. We have lost one half of the animal population and knowing this is driven by human consumption, is clearing a call to arms and humans must act, according to Mike Barratt, director of science and policy at WWF. More of earth needs to be protected from development and deforestation, while food and evergy has to be produced in a sustainable manner.

There is a lot more to this article in the later 3/4, but this is a good section that I'd like to share my thoughts on. I'm not trying to sound like one of those people that just complain about how humans are destroying nature and how we have to do something about it right this instant. That's not going to happen with how humans are, at least not on a large scale. Governments are not going to dedicate any amount of money or time to preventing ecological problems, unless it's to one-up an opposing country, or that country has no pressing matters and is fairly well off in a political and economical sense. They're too focused on war and being the best, and trying to deal with human ethics, rather than the basic "Hey, why don't we all just stop killing our planet first, then deal with trying to kill each other with nuclear weapons." While I am in no way trying to say that we should just ignore this problem, people need to realize that they can't wait for a law that says you can't throw away [insert miscellaneous item here] and then follow the rules. Humans have to take this into their own hands, spread the word and hope that their acquaintances, friends and family have the heart, and/or time to help the cause. It has to start small, and off the radar. Kind of like a revolution.

Science has done it again!

A brand new 3D microscope has been invented! We can now view cells and things like embryos in 3D! This is absolutely outstanding! Even though we don’t know for sure what practical uses this thing will be used for, I’m 100% sure without a doubt it will have a huge impact on research and the development of our species.

This is such a huge step. Humans could use this microscope to analyze how disease cells replicate, and figure out how to combat them. We could study human embryos while developing if there was suspicion of deformities, and figure out how to remedy that. What I feel to be the most important though, is the ability to study stem cells more. If we were able to study how stem cells replicated and decided what they were going to be, maybe we could find a way to reverse the process and turn, for example, a hair cell back into a stem cell. Then we could use this to grow replacement organs, or fix damaged ones.

This is going to be completely revolutionary once it gets going. I’m sure that this device is extraordinarily expensive, but once we can use this for practical things, we can advance the human race by leaps and bounds. While I do believe this is a huge step, we also have to be careful. There could be things that we can’t handle as a species yet, and that may be hidden within this new ability. I believe we need to solve our current debates and issues, work on preventing any further problems, and then start research and advancements using this. For now, we should just use it for more pressing things, things that could help us right now. Stem cells, vaccination progression, things of that nature should be top priority. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/microscope-cells-in-action_n_6041638.html?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=World

Pirate Bay is Back

I'm laughing at this honestly.You can't stop something like the Pirate Bay, let alone pirating as a thing. No matter how hard you try, it will always exist. To an extent, I don't really have a problem with pirating - especially with the reactions that people give to pirating. You can't sit there and complain that people are stealing from artists, when millions of people are throwing money at them continuously, and this money is, let's face it, outrageous. Then these artists also make money from things like Youtube and concerts and what-not. So let's be real, they don't need 100% of all analyzed profit. Now do I believe all pirating is okay? no definitely not. For example, pirating video games has it's limits in my eyes. I think it is okay should it be used as a demo for trying the game out, playing it if you don't think that you would like it, or if you can play it on your current system. I do believe that one should purchase the game afterwards though, to support the developers if you would want to see more of their content. I think similar goes for music artists, pirating a little bit of an album then buying the full thing if you enjoyed what you sampled. I have nothing against the laws opposing piracy, I don't think nearly as much effort should be put into trying to stop it. It won't work, ever. It's just like trying to take down porn from the internet. It's so pointlessly futile to even try, you could be using that money on better things, instead of trying to do something that's pointless to begin with. On that note, the government trying to control the internet was a stupid attempt too. You will never be able to stop the population from accessing the internet how they want. The best of the best will never take a side, so they wouldn't help the government, meaning that the best could easily divert the attempts to control anything on the internet. You would have to completely shut the internet off from the United States and that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Ever.

Link to story about Pirate Bay here.

Cop shoots neighbor's dog and gets off scott-free

Alright look. Bottom line, there is no proof that this dog killed the cat, so therefore no law should protect the police officer who murdered the dog. This shouldn't be a problem...at all...this man should be charged with something. He shouldn't get off at all, there's no two ways you can go about this. I understand the anger and the frustration that he and his wife may feel, but it straight up should not be a problem. It's stuff like this that gives everyone a reason to have a negative bias towards police officers, especially in light of reason events in the United States. I get it, police can be corrupt. I agree one hundred percent, but there's a cold hard truth that humans need to recognize, and it is the fact that all humans are greedy and self centered. Now you'll sit there and you'll try to argue with me that you aren't nearly as self centered or as greedy as others, and to that I say it's true. But what you can't tell me is that it doesn't exist. You could give me any example of any person's act of selflessness and/or greed, and with enough background information I will be able to prove that the person did not act in purity. It may appear that way, and one's brain may also let them think that, but the truth of the matter is that everyone is greedy and self-centered. So, now that the wake-up slap has been administered to the readers of this fine post, I will state again - cops can be corrupt. Humans are corrupt. Our corruptness is directed towards the negative end of the spectrum. I'll use this incident as an example. This police officer was set free based on a claim that has virtually no proof, and why? To avoid backlash is the most obvious reason to me. They know that they will be able to through the whole event with little to no reaction from the public. Oh would you look at that, they did. The problem with that, is that they should have their selfishness be channeled into saving themselves or their reputation, maybe even bettering it. Instead, these people are letting this officer get off free and have another tick of police corruptness be added to the chart. You'll have to look at this in a much grander karma scale to actually see why this should matter, if what I've been saying about the whole human greed and selfishness is true.
Story here.

Ferguson P4

Part 4
Here I am going to simply continue supporting my opinions and beliefs regarding the Michael Brown case in Ferguson. If you haven’t read Part 1, 2 and 3 please do so before reading this one.

Wilson's story of what happened that day changed at least 3 times. Another piece of information that has been left out was the fact that 6 eye witnesses all have identical accounts of what happened, and four of them had never met each other. These witnesses were also never interviewed by the police.
These eyewitness all agree that Darren Wilson was the aggressor and that Mike Brown was shot while surrendering, with his hands in the air and that his last words were "I don't have a gun. Stop shooting."
This is also backed up by the autopsy report, which suggests that Mike Brown would have had to be in the hands-up position for the bullets to enter his hand and arm the way  they did.

Next, in a press conference, the coroner who performed the autopsy relays that there was no trace of gun-shot residue anywhere on his body, proving that Wilson's claim that Brown grabbed his gun, causing it to misfire, is impossible and untrue.

Here's another shocking point - Ferguson Police lied about the distance Brown was from Wilson when he was killed. They reported 35 ft. but it was actually 148 ft.

For those who think that Brown was reported as having stolen cigars, the owner of the Ferguson Market stated that he did not call police to report a theft of cigars, and that the theft had nothing to do with Mike Brown. On top of that, the man on the security footage is not Mike Brown.

Finally, the thing that frustrates me more than anything - the prosecuting attorney for the case against Darren Wilson helped raise $600,000 in donations for Wilson. VERY OBVIOUS CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Ferguson P3

Ferguson Part 3

Here I am going to simply continue supporting my opinions and beliefs regarding the Michael Brown case in Ferguson. If you haven’t read Part 1 and 2, please do so before reading this one.

For any of those under the impression that Brown was not fleeing from Wilson when he was shot, Wilson confirms, on page 281 of the testimony, that Brown WAS fleeing when receiving the fatal bullet.  

For any of those who are under the impression that Brown was attempting to take the gun when shot at least one time, the autopsy report states that no gunpowder was present on Brown’s body. Therefore, he was not shot at close range.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=1

The amount of protocols broken is absolutely astounding.

Ferguson Police ignored protocol and refused to interview or take a statement from the eyewitness present from Wilson’s initial contact with Brown, until his death.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/12/michael_brown_witness_police_allegedly_turn_down_offer_of_interview.html

Forensic examiner broke protocol by failing to take crime scene photos. On page 95 of the grand jury transcript, she claims that her camera had died. BUT she goes on to describe how she immediately followed Wilson to the hospital in order to photograph his “injuries.” Please, if you haven’t seen the “injury” photos, go google them. What passes for an injury these days according to the law is pathetic. They speak for themselves.

Then the investigators broke protocol by failing to test Wilson’s gun for fingerprints since Wilson claims that Brown grabbed his gun and caused it to misfire. Page 39.

THEN Wilson was allowed to break protocol by washing blood off of himself BEFORE it could be photographed. There goes any attempt to analyze blood spatter patterns to determine position, but I guess that isn’t important to the situation, right?

For now, that’s all I’m going to say. I’ll most likely be back next week with more defensive evidence for Mike Brown.

Ferguson P2

Ferguson Part 2

Here I am going to simply continue supporting my opinions and beliefs regarding the Michael Brown case in Ferguson. If you haven’t read Part 1, please do so before reading this one.

Did Wilson have the right to shoot Mike Brown. I know that I said I didn’t think so, but in reality I am 100% certain there was no reason for a gun to be involved at all.

Firstly, Mike Brown and Darren Wilson are the same size. In the grand jury transcript, page 198, Wilson states that he is 6 ft. 4 and weighs 210lbs, roughly the same size as Brown. That immediately defeats the possible argument of “Well maybe the officer needed it in order to ‘level’ the odds.” I have had that said to me in a conversation regarding this event, and I cannot even fathom that it was said at all. A gun in our reality doesn’t “level” anything unless there is a gun pointed at someone. A gun should be the absolute last resort, not as a means of evening out a situation.

For whatever reason, Brown started fleeing. Unsure of why, if was a valid reason, I cannot say. For the purpose of me being able to defeat any point a supporter of Darren Wilson could have to this, I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that Brown just started running, giving him a reason to stop him (fleeing from a police officer).

Wilson broke police self-defense protocol. It teaches to disarm and incapacitate the target rather than kill them, as well as teaching officers to go for body shots. Wilson shot Mike Brown twice in the head, after shooting him four times in his arm and torso.

Seriously? Do I even need to explain how I feel about this? Wilson you shot a man, who was unarmed, as he was running away from you. That is already pretty bad, but not only that, you break the self-defense protocol which should have been you’re only mean of defense in court.

Grand Jury Transcript : http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370494-grand-jury-volume-5.html 

Ferguson P1

Ferguson Part 1

If you haven’t heard of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri regarding Michael Brown – you must live under a rock. I have nothing more to say about that.

So I’m going to express my views briefly here. It is in my opinion that this entire situation shouldn’t have happened, and the confrontation was purely because of race. There is no doubt in my mind at all that this is entirely because Wilson is racist. Extremely so.  Did he have the right to shoot Mike – I don’t think so, and I’ll explain my thoughts later in the post.  Was the Grand Jury’s decision right? With the evidence given to them, partially. I believe that Darren Wilson should not have gotten off basically scot-free. In no world is that the answer to a situation like this. I also don’t think that any of the attention that the media has given the whole ordeal is in the right.

“The confrontation was purely because of race.” I will stand by this statement with my life.
The previous police department that Officer Wilson worked for was disbanded from multiple instances of racial profiling.

Source : http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/darren-wilsons-first-job-was-on-a-troubled-police-force-disbanded-by-authorities/2014/08/23/1ac796f0-2a45-11e4-8593-da634b334390_story.html?wpmk=MK0000203

There’s the evidence that at the very least Wilson was surrounded by racists, if he himself wasn’t also racist, which he probably was, although I cannot prove that his previous precinct caused that.

Mike wasn’t stopped because of suspect for a crime, that’s not true at all. He was stopped for jaywalking with his friend. This can be seen in the Grand Jury testimony of Darren Wilson, page 208 (link at the bottom). Let’s be real here, what cop honestly will stop someone for jaywalking. I’m 100% certain everyone in the United States has, or will, jaywalk. That is virtually undeniable; people do it all the time.  So why would Darren Wilson choose to stop Mike and his friend for jaywalking? My belief is because Wilson just wanted a reason to give Mike a hard time, or in other words: Wilson was looking to express his racism.

Grand Jury Report of the Michael Brown case:

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1370494-grand-jury-volume-5.html

New Fantastic Recycling

So it has now been stated that old worn out laptop batteries are more cost efficient in 3rd world countries.
GREAT! I love it. We can now cut down on a good portion of e-waste and save money, allowing us to spend it in on more pressing matters, such as helping said 3rd world countries out of their current predicaments. This could do more than just putting money in a better place, this could help create money sources as well. If these parts of countries are now able to join the power grid, that means that we can set up minor industrialized work places, those that can be run on minor electricity. Or now you can increase the efficiency and potential of existing businesses in these areas by using the power and money to improve their products and work rates.
It's astounding what we can recycle and find new ways to reuse, and I think that if we gave the common" person a little more opportunity to help solve things like wasted and how to improve recycling, we would get a lot more done. There are a ton of creative people out in the world, and they're already doing small things in their lives. As a society we could learn a lot from each other and use this new found creative knowledge to help benefit the world considering we're in a pretty bad global state of decay right now. Maybe more of these new creative recycling ideas will pop up and help jump start more people into helping share their ideas/practices that help with situations such as this one.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30345221

Solar Energy Improves

Solar energy gets more efficient! Hooray! It has recently been improved to 40%, and while I don't know what the original conversion was, I'm extremely excited for this. Even if it's a small step, this means that we are nearing a less polluted existence. Theoretically after maximizing the efficiency of renewable energy conversions we should be able to completely drop off from the market.
Even though that sounds all great and what not, yay no more world pollution, I don't think fossil fuels should completely drop off the face of the earth. I still believe we should have them around but find another use for them, so that we can utilize as much of what's given to us as a species.
I also think we can't just ignore fossil fuels because the world would lose so many jobs and job opportunities from the change that it would do more harm than good. Things like vehicles would have to take time to adapt to the energy changes as well, but overall I think this is a really great improvement and a small step forward in energy.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/solar-energy-world-first-in-australia-20141207-121w8n.html

Suicidal Man Jumps at Crowd's Urging

Recently a man has jumped off of a building due to a crowd's chants of "Jump, jump, jump." Absolutely disgusted in every possible way. One should never tell someone to kill themselves, ever. This man was reciting bible verses. If someone is up multiple stories of a building reciting religious things, chances are there is something really bad going on. Normally that doesn't happen, why would you ever tell this person to jump.
Suicide is already a big problem in the world right now, we shouldn't promote it in any sense, joking or not. I know that a lot of people regardless of background or age joke about suicide. It's no laughing matter. In my opinion it should be treated equally as talking about the horrors of human history. WWI and WWII aren't joking matters and are taken very seriously, at least in the United States (although I can't imagine it getting any better in another country). People don't just go around talking about the world wars, and you certainly shouldn't go around just talking about suicide like it's no big deal because it is, regardless of what anyone says. Now do I think that suicide should be banned as a subject of conversation as a whole? absolutely not. Raising awareness about suicide and helping those who are suicidal is just as important as removing it from our everyday language,
This is a massive part of desensitization that happens in our society. We don't put enough emphasis on the prevention of socially unacceptable things - such as the joking of suicide or rape. It's not okay any way that you look at it, but because it was used as a joking matter for so long without any backlash, people have started using it as a common thing, and it's lost its meaning. I believe that as a society we need to put more emphasis on the prevention of things like this in the future. Primarily on the verbal aspect of it. I don't believe that there is a such thing as a violence desensitization unless there is some extreme mental interference.
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Suicide-victim-dies-after-crowd-urges-him-to-jump-20141205

Drinking Pregnant Women May Face Charges

Women getting convicted for drinking while pregnant and causing birth defects. It seems like this argument has been sitting in a waiting line for our society's debate table, and it's not being brought to the front.
In order for this to be a valid thing, I believe that the mother's situation needs to be analyzed before any conclusion about charges can be reached. If the woman is a severe alcoholic and has no regard for a human life, not planning on actually taking care of the child or investing anything in their future, yes I believe they should be punished. Now you have to look at another possible side of the whole thing. What if the mother just was drinking a glass of wine once a week every week while she was pregnant and they were able to conclude that child's birth defect is from the alcohol? I think that if the mother is willing to take full responsibility for thew child, there's no reason to charge her on a federal level for whatever damage she will have to endure. She'll have to live with the fact that it's her fault the child is defected, and if they're going to raise the child, special expenses and medications will have to be paid for that. I believe that is enough punishment in regards to what is happening in that scenario.
Next you have the side that straight up says that running that risk is against the child's rights as a human as to how they want their life to be handled. This can have wrench thrown in the argument by saying a parent or guardian is in charge of a child's life until an adequate age is reached. So therefore, it is up to the parent by that standard. Then you open the door towards other arguments, and whether or not abortion is valid by the setting that a parent is in control of the child's life, but since it's regarding their life as a whole, it isn't fair. It's a very sticky situation, and will have to be truly decided by the ethics that we as a society deem correct.
But as a whole, the decision as to whether or not expecting mothers should be charged for drinking while impregnated depends on the future of the family and the scenario of the time period in which the drinking took place.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/11208353/Mothers-who-drink-while-pregnant-could-face-legal-proceedings-following-test-case.html