Yes Means Yes

For years the precedent standard in sexual assault cases in colleges has been “No means No”. Which means if she’s says no then it means no, simple. There has been a way to get past this law somewhat. If the girl is too drunk to say no then it’s ok. So they changed it from “No means no” to “Yes means yes”. So now the woman has to vocally say yes for them to have sex. A girl who was attending the University of Berkley was raped and then sexually assaulted by another her freshman year. She was unsure about wha happened that night so she did not report it to the police. Since then she has led workshops on sexual assault and consent. She was at a fraternity and said that having sex with someone while they are blacked out from drinking is rape, everyone was shocked. They said they didn’t know that it was rape and that it was wrong, this shocked me. It is said that 1 in 5 undergraduate women will experience some kind of sexual assault, but less than 5% of rape victims while attending college report this to law enforcement. Their needs to be more awareness spread for the women but also the women need to talk it upon themselves to notice if a place they’re going into is safe or not. Also if they cannot handle their alcohol maybe they need to slow down. But it is unacceptable that guys are doing this to women. It’s a disgrace that there even needs to be this law in the first place. A responsibility as man is to respect and protect women, not abuse and take advantage. But not everyone is taught the same, and I think it’s harder to educate men about treating women right than it is to teach girls how to stay safe. As hard as you try some guys will still default to these acts. Being a guy it is hard for me to see this from a womanly perspective. So in my opinion unless the consequences for these acts are raised, I think the best way to prevent sexual assault from happening is to try and be as safe and as possible as women.

Obamas Immigration Plan

In the recent elections the Republican Party has won the majority of the senate and now has control of a vital section of government along with the House of Representatives. This would make the Democratic Party not very powerful in the next few upcoming years. President Barack Obama, a democrat, knows his time of having favor in congress is coming to an end so he is trying to do what he can with his time left. From Election Day to the time the new senators take office President Obama has 2 months with the lame duck senators, who are a majority democrats to do work and get things done that republicans would most likely not be in favor. Also another thing he is doing is trying to set the stage for the next democratic president. He’s doing this by trying to pass a plan concerning immigration that could grant papers to millions of illegal immigrants. Also it would provide certain security and safety of relatives and family members being deported. Families with illegal relatives would worry less about their loved ones getting deported. So now that the Democratic Party is trying to help the immigrants the Republican Party has no choice but to do the opposite. The Republican Party will most likely take the stance of tightening borders and cracking down on illegal immigrants. So all the peoples who know, have a relative, or are associated with an illegal immigrant, who are they going to be voting for next presidential election? This is going to give the Democratic Party a huge boost next election. I wonder if President Obama is genially for the illegal immigrants or if he’s doing this just for the presidential race. The title, President of the United States in not just a title but a responsibility and a promise to try and make the U.S a better place. If president Obamas main accomplishment b passing this plan is to help the Democratic Party I think that’s a problem. Why is the leader of a country more worried about whether or not their team wins rather than doing what they are there for and helping the country?

CIA Dishonesty

Just recently the senate has released their report on the investigation of the CIAs methods of interrogation. They found out that the CIA has been dishonest about what they have been saying they’re doing to Middle Eastern terrorists who they have been trying to get information out of. Waterboarding a well-known interrogation technique was used and the medical personal present voiced alarm saying water boarding has been cut down to, “a series of near drowning’s”. Also they did something called “rectal rehydration”, and if you want to know what that is you can look it up for yourself. There were dozens of cases that were brought to light where the CIA deceived the people in charge at the white house and did things without permission. Some people say that there was a fine line in whether or not these acts were done out of revenge or justice. Many of these CIA personnel responsible for interrogation had strong emotions about 9/11 and they could have been “torturing” out of vengeance rather justice. This was another problem with this type of interrogation. A lot of people disagree, saying “torturing” is not necessary and that it is morally wrong. Let’s think for a minute the deep hatred and animosity that the people we’re “torturing” feel for Americans, and how their goal in life is to kill Americans. I’m not saying that it is justified because of these reasons but I understand why the CIA is doing it. Although “torturing” is not a moral act in my opinion, I think the ends justify the means. “Torturing” some middle easterners to get some information that can save thousands of lives in my opinion is ok. These people hate us and want to kill us is it that bad to “torture” them. I think the only wrong done here was the dishonesty of CIA and how they went about things they should get prosecuted for their dishonesty. But on the aspect of “torturing” I agree and think that the ends justify the means.

 

Ferguson Part Two

On Monday December 1, 2014 the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri declined to indict police officer Daren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael brown. If someone wants to take another individual to court for any reason it must first go through a grand jury. A grand jury is a jury comprised of 23 jurors who decides whether or not a case is legitimate to go to trial. The evidence in the case concerning the killing of Michael Brown was in my opinion obviously clear that it was justified. You do not attack a cop under any circumstances. The people rioting are not a good way to solve racist crime if they think that’s what it is. They want to get justice by causing injustice themselves. I saw a picture on twitter of the man who Michael Brown robbed, and his store was one of the many stores that was looted and devastated by the rioting in Ferguson. That man did not deserve his store to be destroyed and robbed again because of people disagree strongly with an outcome of a case. I think if the case would have made it to the grand jury and then loss in court I think maybe the people would have accepted it more. In the peoples mind they’re attempt at justice is not even being tried so that’s why they are blowing up. In my opinion rioting over something like this stupid and doesn’t solve anything it just helps people get out they’re rage and anger for the killing of Michael Brown. Saying that, I still 100% agree with the decision made by the grand jury that Daren Wilson is innocent and he was doing his job.

The Judicial Branch

The Supreme Court goes through around 7,000 cases each year at which they choose about 100 to 150 of, but there are other steps you have to go through before you can appeal to the Supreme Court. The first court system and the most basic is the District Court. District Courts deals with both criminal civil matters, this is the court that most people are issued jury duty to. The next court system after the District Court is the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court deals with more important civil and criminal matters, on top of that this court system also deals with juvenile and other family law cases such as divorce, custody and child support. There are 13 circuit courts and in the number of judges can vary from 13 being the lowest and 26 being the highest. If your case loses in the circuit court you then can try and be appealed to the Supreme Court. This is the highest and final level of court systems if your case loses in the Supreme Court you are all done and that verdict is final. The Supreme Court is in Washington D.C and has 9 judges that have precedence over all the other court systems in the nation. That is the different systems of courts.


          Recently in the sixth Circuit Court, which deals with cases out of the states in Michigan Ohio Kentucky Tennessee, ruled against gay marriage rights which has been the first loss the gay right movement has suffered since it has recently picked up a lot of recognition. Most all same sex marriage cases have been won after the Supreme Court in June of 2013 ruled against the federal Defense of Marriage Act. This is why this particular case has caught so much attention.
Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton was saying that their hands are tied usually when it comes to cases concerning same sex marriage because of a statement made by the supreme court, "upheld the right of the people of a state to define marriage as they see it." That makes it hard for a judge to vote against gay marriage, but the sixth circuit stood up and said no and I hope that trends and sets an example for other court systems whether they are district, circuit, or supreme.  

Christianity without a Hell

Hell has always been a part of the reality of Christianity not as something to scare people into being a Christian but an alternate choice if you are not s Christian. John Shore said hell is not a real place it is made up and used as a tool for converting Christians. I agree some "Christians" change just because they don't want to go to hell, that is the wrong purpose. Its Christ's love  that should draw us to him not the fear oh hell. Why do people want to believe there is no hell?, to make a religion that they like. They want a Christianity with no consequences. They want to accept the loving side of God but refuse to acknowledge the power ands justifying side of God. At the end of John Shore's article he says, "I want this Christianity. I insist upon that Christianity. Tell me Im not alone". this clearly proves how messed up he is. This is the Christianity he wants? Is Christianity not a constant thing? This statements insist Christianity is always changing and in 100 years could be a completely different idea. Satan is a part of hell so does this mean that Satan is also not real? If he is said to also be fake then were is the distinction of wrong and write, darkness and light. What is the alternative for not being a Christian? where do the non believers go? This idea has so many flaws and so many unanswered questions. If there's no hell then there is no fear, and every Christian should fear God, it's a part of having a relationship with him. This is not a true Christianity but a made up one to make life easier or more comfortable for these "Christians" 

Churches required to provide abortion in medical care

The California government is forcing that all health care companies cover elective abortion. Elective abortion is the abortion everyone knows, just the correct title for it. As of August 22 every health care insurance company in California was ordered to cover elective abortion. The problem that arose with this announcement is the numerous churches that are insured under these companies. Real Christians disagree with abortion and should never want to support abortion. There has not been an issue yet where a women covered by a churches insurance wanted to have an abortion and couldn’t because the churches insurance didn’t cover it.  If a woman under the health care of a church wants to have an abortion in the first place she might want to reevaluate and think about what she’s doing in the first place. But in my opinion it’s not that big of a deal that churches now have coverage for abortion. They always could get an abortion now it’s just covered by their insurance. The thing that I think is wrong is that the Californian government is forcing businesses to change and form to what they want whether the companies are willing or opposed I think that’s wrong. Is it freedom that United States companies are being forced to change how they have been doing things not by the peoples out cries but by the government. For example Kaiser Permanente, one of the companies involved in this issue, say their customers were saying we want elective abortion covered by our health care, I would understand if they then changed their policies. But the government forcing them to change, that just isn’t right to me. The government should not be that much in control were they can just go in and change a company’s policies because they want to.

Houston mayor Annise Parker

Annise Parker is the first openly lesbian mayor of a major city, and upon becoming the mayor she wanted to make some changes for equal rights. She put into action a law that would make every public bathroom have to be transgender so that whether your a man or women the bathroom will be suitable for you. This would also mean that a man could use a women's bathroom and a women could use a men's bathroom. Just like on every matter some people agree and some don't, in this situation the Christian community disagreed with this law and tried to repeal it. they claimed to get 50,000 signatures saying they wanted to repeal this act but the city attorney said they did not have enough signatures, the required amount of signatures is 17,269. So the churches sued the city and then the city responded by issuing subpoenas for the sermons of five local pastors who were not even involved in the lawsuit of the people and the city over the signatures. This is where people said they line was crossed, they claim freedom of speech and freedom of religion. The city is saying the signatures are not legitimate and by issuing subpoenas for the sermons they can review the sermons and see if the pastors are directly encouraging the people to sign the ballot against the mayors new law. It is ok for a pastor to speak on a moral issue but it is illegal for a pastor to speak against a politician because of he or she's view on that moral issue. This is what I think the city is trying to accomplish by issuing subpoenas on the sermons. After saying that, I also think the mayor, because she is lesbian, probably isn't liking the church and wanting to hurt it in some way so she is taking them to court trying to get them in trouble. But I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing that the city issued subpoenas for the sermons to see if the signatures were legitimate, but being gay/lesbian is wrong that's where this whole debate has stemmed from, so don't be gay/lesbian.

Suicide and Depression

“Suicide is a permanent fix for a temporary problem" - Robin Williams. How ironic that Robin Williams, someone who killed himself, is the one who said this quote. Robin Williams had a wife and kids and left them, that was an extremely selfish thing to do. 800,000 to a million people commit suicide each year with another 10 to 20 million attempts. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the whole world. In the US someone kills themselves every 13.3 minutes that amounts to about 40,000 people making it again the 10th leading cause of death. Studies show that in 2012 the most common age people committed suicide at was 45-64. Also another interesting factor is the gender, 78.5% of the suicides in 2012 were males. That really surprised me and made me realize how much stress the American male must be under in today’s society. Making a living and being successful in today’s world is tough and when having to provide for a family theirs even more pressure, I'm not going to pretend like I know what that feels like but it must be tough. Also 50% of people who kill themselves do it with a firearm. The number one cause of suicide is something everyone could probably guess, depression. Depression is a disease that actually has a physical effect on the brain in some ways. It can impair the growth of nerve cells in the Hippocampus part of the brain. No matter the situation Suicide in my opinion is never the right thing to do. When you think about the people you leave behind and what they have to deal with after you’re gone. Like I said earlier the majority of people who kill themselves are men, fathers, husbands, and sons. Also the daughters and wife's and mother, who would want their kid to grow up with the thought that their mother father left them forever. Just because life's gets rough doesn't mean you should end it. People talk about someone having depression and that's the reason they did it. Although depression may be a factor it is the person themselves that makes the decision. Suicide is people acting irrationally about their life situation. Suicide is never an ok decision it should never even a choice. If someone is depressed they should seek help, better yet turn to God because he can definitely help with any problem you have.

Islamic state

On September 21, 2014 Isis said to all Muslims a disturbing and very threatening announcement. He called all Muslims to kill Europeans and American citizens and that if they did not have a knife to bash them over the head with a rock. He said to the people of the west, "You will not feel secure even in your bedrooms". In every religion there are extremist, Muslims are probably the most known extremist group especially in America for the 9/11 attack. Therefor they experience a lot of stereotypical oppression, and this new message from Isis leaders probably won’t be helping the stereotype for being extremists. Can a stereotypical view be someone just being cautious? Of course not every Muslim is an extremist, but after what the Isis leaders said is it wrong to think that any Muslim could potentially do these things? In my opinion its being cautious, not stereotypical, unless your abusing them. In some ways I don't think certain stereotypes are bad of course assumptions are not the best way to go about things but I would rather assume and be safe than be oblivious and possible get murdered. I think one of the reasons behind their rally cry is to just strike fear in the hearts of American's and Europeans. If you've watched the videos or heard about the airstrikes that America has been dishing out, they are brutal, so you bet that Isis is definitely taking a loss and having to go to extreme measures such as calling all Muslims to kill Americans and Europeans. Isis in Iraq has had a huge effect to the civilians in the area. Over 5,500 civilians have died and another 11,000 wounded. On top of the deaths and injuries 1.2 million have be driven out of their homes and forced to find a new one. Isis is devastating Iraq and they need to be stopped soon before they can influence more people and grow and I think the airstrikes are doing a great job.

Banning of christian groups

Recently many UC's in California have had their Christian groups derecognized, starting with Vanderbilt University and now spreading to many others. This is controversial because of Christian beliefs. Christians do not believe in homosexuality and In these colleges you are not aloud to be gay and be a leader of these Christian groups. Homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, but that shouldn't change the Christian outlook on this sin. Like every club or group, there are requirements and rules to be the leader of that group. I admit some Christian can be very short minded and very aggressive towards homosexuals, But Christ says to love everyone. Homosexuality is a sin, but so is stealing, cheating, murder, and many others. Also it says in the bible that all sins are equal so to not let a gay person be a leader of a Christian group because of that sin should be the same as not letting a person who lies a lot also be the leader of that group. Instead of judging these people who are gay, as Christian we should try and help them with there sin and not just be judgmental Christians who live in the bubble of their own world. But on the other hand the colleges should not ban the Christian groups because of their leadership choices. These Christians believe something, they start a group on what they believe, why should they then change that belief to fit other peoples needs. They believe being gay is wrong,  I think a way homosexuality is slightly different from other sins is the fact that homosexuality is a life style other sins are can be lifestyles but are usually just temporary urges. So if you're life style is sin then I don't think it's a good idea to be leading other Christians to follow God and "not sin".

Russia's invasion in Ukraine

Most of you has heard about the problem with Russia invading Ukraine. It has become a world problem and now NATO is getting involved and also the United States. The "invasion" of Uktaine is not by actual Russian troops but rather pro-Russian rebels. Although these rebels are equipped, supplied, and funded by Russia. A part of land that russia has claimed, Crimea, is still according to Ukraine not theirs and still belongs to Ukraine. Russian presence in Crimea dates back to 1783, and in 1997 Russia and Ukraine signed a partition treaty. This treaty was good until 2017, but in 2010 extended 25 years to 2042. This treaty states that Russia can have th following in Crimea: 25,000 troops, 24 artillery systems with a caliber smaller than 100mm, 132 armored vehicles, and 22 military planes. So Russian presence in Crimea is completely ok and legal according to this treaty. President Obama  stated while in Estonia, "An attack on one is an attack on all, and if so in such a moment you ask again who will come to help, the answer the NATO alliance including the armed forces of the United States." Estonia is one of three countries that broke away from Russia in the 1990s, Russia has been bitter from this ever since. Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania are worried that they are next to be attacked by Russia. If Putin decides to test President Obamas word and attack these countries, he will have to respond. This is scary to me, could war with Russia be imminent? Russia's greed for their former land is getting to them, they need to stop supplying rebels in Ukraine but I don't think that's gonna happen. If Russia thinks they can take ukraine why wouldn't they want Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. There's one thing that stands in their way of that and that's the USA  and NATO. If Russia doesn't stop there greedy impulses I would not be suprised if there was war.

Richard Dawkins opinion of abortion of children with Down Syndrome

Richard Dawkins, an atheist, a former professor at the University of Oxford, and some would say a very intelligent man made a very bold statement on August 25, 2014. He was talking about Down syndrome children still in the womb when he says, "Abort it and try again, it would be immoral to bring it into the world." This subject is getting attention and some people agree and some disagree as always. 1 in every 800 babies in the US is diagnosed with Down syndrome. In 2012 3.95 million babies were born in the US, out of that 3.95 million around 5,000 of them were diagnosed with Down syndrome. Although that may not seem like a large number they are still humans who deserve to live. Dawkins says later that it would be hard to raise a child with Down syndrome, and it would be. It would cost extra money, the child would need extra attention, and also there different behavior would be sometimes difficult to deal with. But aborting a child just because it has Down Syndrome is a very selfish and immoral decision. Nobody is perfect everyone has flaws. How far do we go when it comes to the kind of baby we want, if this becomes acceptable what’s next? If abortion of Down Syndrome babies become acceptable, what makes it wrong for children with other physical impairments to also be aborted? It’s a very slippery slope, down the road people may think it’s ok to kill a baby if it has blonde hair, they want a kid with brown hair so why shouldn’t they abort it and try again. I know some of you are thinking that would never happen, but if you ask people 100 years ago if it was even a debatable subject I’m sure they would say no. They would say it’s wrong and not even something to discuss. The bible says in Genesis 1:27, “So God created man in his own image” that includes people with Down Syndrome. In Gods eyes everyone is the same no matter what. But say you don't believe in God and what the bible says, then those last few sentences might be irrelevant to you. But think about this, if you've ever seen or known a person with Down Syndrome what are they like? Do they seem sad, depressed, or angry? My answer to that question would be no, all of the people that I have ran into with Down Syndrome seem to be the happiest, care free, and joyful people I know.  Killing a baby just because it has Down syndrome, I will say it again, is immoral and extremely selfish.

Micheal brown shooting

On August 9^th, 2014, 18 year old black male Michael Brown was fatally shot by white officer Darren Wilson. There has been many different views on what actually happen. According to the police brown was stopped for jaywalking and then assaulted Wilson while in his squad car, resulting in an injury to Wilsons face. According to police protocol an officer is allowed to fire his weapon at another individual when there is an immediate threat to his life or others. Brown, standing 6 foot 4 inches tall and weighing 300 pounds is not a small little kid, he is a large man and capable of doing some damage. So if you ask me that sounds like immediate threat especially when reports say that Brown also tried to grab for Wilsons gun. The police say after Wilson was assaulted he got out of the car and drew his gun. At that time brown said, "what are you going to do shoot me?", and then charged at Wilson. At that time Wilson, who has never been in an experience like this before according to previous records, shot several times, the fatal shot being a shot to the head. To some people this is just self-defense by a cop, but now let’s look at the other side of the story.

 Dorain Johnson who is Browns friend and was stopped also for jaywalking saw the whole incident unfold. He said after telling them to move out of the street Wilson threw the car into reverse and said, "what did you say." he then hoped out of the car and grabbed brown by the throat, they then struggled physically before Brown tried run off. Dorain Johnson then says Wilson drew his firearm and shot brown while he was running away, then brown got on his knees put his hands up, surrendering, and said don't shoot. According to Johnson, Wilson then fired several shots killing brown leaving him dead in the street. Johnson said, "He shot him down like a dog".

            Many controversies over whether the shooting was just or unjust have arisen resulting in riots and protests. Many of the protestors are angered and their cry is racism. In Ferguson 67% of the community is black to the 29% who are white. 80% of the people stopped by police were black and only 12% stopped by cops were white. By those people who were stopped 21% of the African Americans were prosecuted for drugs while 32% of white people were found with drugs. Ferguson police department has been accused of racial profiling before and now it’s gotten to a point where the community has had enough and now rioting. Why are people screaming stop the violence when they are being destructive, looting, and causing violence themselves. If you ask me this completely contradicts what they are protesting for.





            Reporters ask close friends to Wilson what they think about him and the situation. Many of his close friends and relatives describe him as quiet, well-mannered, respectful and not a cold blooded killer. One friend even says, they were shocked when they heard it was Wilson who shot Brown, they would never suspect him to shoot someone even as a cop. But what about Browns friend such as Dorain Johnson the main witness going against what the police statement. In 2011 Johnson was arrested for theft and making a false report. So he just saw his friend get shot and killed  in front of him by a cop you think he’s going to be felling love for the cop? I think not. This is just my opinion but Johnson’s statement is unreliable on two factors, first of all he is prejudice towards the cop and his emotions are taking over his realistic and factual thinking, and secondly he has past arrests showing he has lied on a police report. Would you trust a statement from a person in those circumstances? Another eye witness at the scene backs up the cop’s perspective saying that brown charged the cop. Since Dorain Johnsons statement is one of the only or at least the most influential to the protests, his statement is what everyone is going off of. Therefore if he has given a false statement, like he has done in the past, the reason for protesting and rioting is purposeless. So if his statement is untrue as I believe their argument is irrelevant.


            It is always unfortunate when a cop has to use his fire arm and in this case sad that it resulted in a fatality. In my opinion this was just, but also a loss for his friends, family, and the community.