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.