Blog 5, Repeal "Stand Your Gun" Law

Blog 5

I was having a difficult time choosing an issue to write about. I'm not schooled on the intricacies of politics and what it "means" for the everyday man. As I searched through the archives of the numerous media outlets, I found an extreme number of "Stand Your Ground" related articles. This "Stand Your Ground" law seems to exploit the defenseless, rather than protect them. This law allows individuals, under certain situations, to use force to defend themselves without attempting to flee the conflict. The supporter's of this bill cited the elimination of prosecutions that legitimately used self-defense. (1) Sounds like a well conceived and thoughtful law, to the contrary. This legally gives a gun toting citizen the power to kill another human being in a public domain.

"Stand Your Ground" essentially turns a  routine argument, scuffle, situation, disagreement, wrong-doing, or any perceived "threat" by an individual, into deadly, life ending event. All it takes is a gun-toting individual to "snap" and decides to use deadly force in a road rage incident, looking at someone wrong, and maybe even bumping into that individual. This law promotes violence on a nation wide scale. Giving power to use deadly force in this gun crazed, over stimulated, pro-2nd Amendment, self-absorbed nation will be deadly. This self defense attitude will carry on through generations, generally the kid(s) take after their parents political affiliations).

 Apparently, there doesn't even need to be an argument in the first place; evidenced by the recent killing of 19 year old, Renisha McBride.(3) Renisha was simply asking for help after being involved in an accident. Another disturbing case where homeowner, Joe Hendrix, shot and killed Ronald Westbrook, a 72 year old man with Alzheimer's disease.  The "Stand Your Ground" law is an extension of the commonly accepted

Castle Doctrine. The Castle Doctrine gave homeowners the right to use deadly force in their homes. (4) Often these cases involve no witnesses so trials are decided on human judgement and or rather a one-sided story.

          Human element/error is a significant part of this process. Human judgement/testimony is heavily relied on and is subject to change throughout the trial process. Nothing is perfect in this world, especially humans. The "Stand Your Ground" needs to be repealed to prevent unnecessary deaths like Martin, McBride, etc. It would strip the citizens the power to make such fatal decisions.

-(1) http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/stand-your-ground-laws.html#sthash.Wy9MYx0G.dpuf

(4)http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/castle-doctrine.html

(2) Textbook.

(3)http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/07/woman-shot-detroit-stand-your-ground

Blog 4: STOP ALL WARS!!! US GOV 4 46858

I found an interesting post on the political blog at The Smirking Chimp. The article is titled, "The Dangerous Seduction of Drones," by, Madea Benjamin. It took me some considerable time to find an interesting or adequate post because I'm not cut from the political cloth. The title, "The Dangerous Seduction of Drones," alone caught my attention because I strongly oppose United States foreign policy. Specifically, the "world police" attitude our government, military leaders and general culture we have as a nation. A general review of recent world conflicts shed to light, many faults in our foreign policy. Many "black eyes" litter our history from treatment of Native Americans to the many failed excursions in the middle east. The post highlights  the continuing flawed foreign policy. Madea Benjamin appeals to human rights, the use of military technology, peace, and effective justice. The website, first and foremost, is catered for liberals, left-wing, and socialist; otherwise, known as Democrats. Madea Benjamin has a long list of credentials. Benjamin is the co-founder of both the international human rights organization. and CODEPINK, a women-initiated grassroots social justice and grassroots peace movement looking to end United States funded invasions and conflicts/wars(1). Benjamin and her affiliated organizations fight to end military globalism(1). She was awarded the US Peace Memorial Foundation 2012 Peace Prize, an award that signifies the "Creative leadership on the front lines of the Anti-war movement."(2) She has an extensive list of protest acts that span across party lines. Her main argument is a plea for the government to find different or effective solutions the comply with international laws/ guidelines. She argues for the closing of United States programs that operate in Yemen, Pakistan, and Somali, where drone attacks take innocent lives. Since 2004,  Pakistan has reported Drone related death totals between 2,500 to 3,500. Benjamin, then argues drones attacks are ineffective and in-turn "terrorize" communities. These attacks have fueled the resurgence of Al-Qaeda membership because victims often seek revenge and only feed the epicenter of the Anti-American sentiment. Benjamin's final point is the that our involvement in Drone warfare has spiked an arms race that will eventually arm the terrorist groups, our government want to eliminate. Benjamin wants solutions like, "peace talks, alliance-building, treating terrorists as criminals who arrested and tried, targeted development aid, and empowering women. The drone wars are making us less safe by simply creating new enemies abroad." (3) I agree with Benjamin's argument because I believe United States government often engages in acts in the interest of the United States. The military exploits inferior countries and acts above the law, citing for the benefit for the world. The military needs to be all but eliminated to self-defense and relief efforts. Resources wasted in these "wars" can be directed to schools, education, infrastructure and general well being of this nation.

The Article: (3)http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/medea-benjamin/54209/the-dangerous-seduction-of-drones

(1).http://codepink.org/article.php?id=51

(2)http://mondoweiss.net/2012/10/medea-benjamin-awarded-us-peace-memorial-foundation-2012-peace-prize.html

GOVT: 2305-003- 46858 Obama starts marijuana fad? in 2014? I don't think so.

The article,  "Obama must take hit for pot talk," by, Alex Barazow, caught my attention because of the biased stance he takes on marijuana. Barazow arguments relied on generalities and personal opinion rather than informed statistics. Furthermore, another topic of interest was the claim of the "Clinton-Lewenski effect" that Barazow links with HPV (Human Papillomavirus) and correlates with the seperation of oral sex and sexual intercourse. This argument is rather insufficient and appeals to the right-wing policies. This article is reeks of conservative tones and plays to the usual political attacks that are so common in today's politics. Alex Barazow is a co-author of Science Left Behind, a book that claims to have no political affiliation, clearly hammers home conservative view points.The title alone should give the readers an insight on who Alex Berezow is. Alex Barazow has appeared on Fox news and MSNBC. The former is the legendary news outlet that claims unbiased reporting but is rather one-sided. I'm not suggesting that Fox is the only "news" station with a slant, in fact every single media outlet has a benefactor with outside influences. I tend to look at "news" with complete disregard because our society tends to care more about celebrities than actual real world problems/tragedies. I digress, Barazow ineffectively argues that the "Clinton-Lewenski effect" has flipped the whole meaning of sexual intercourse. He states when the President Clinton said ,:"I did not have sexual relations with that women," this statement basically increased oral sex activity . because the president deemed it a non sexual relationship. I believe this rise in oral sex is attributed to the lack of sex education/ knowledge and the ever expanding digital world. Barazow then tries to use that 'Clinton-Lewenski effect" to connect President Obama's recent comment on marijuana. Obama simply stated "I don't think (marijuana) is more dangerous than alcohol." Even though he states that scientist are not sure the long term affects, I'm absolutely positive that alcohol is far more dangerous than marijuana. I would like to compare death tolls of alcohol related deaths with marijuana related deaths; a large contrast to say the least. Not to mention the devastation alcohol has on the physical and mental aspects of the human body; alcohol even creates its own gene! I don't believe I have come across any study regarding marijuana creating its own gene, rendering the human body to be addictive. As any reader can tell, I don't agree with Barazow and find it hard to believe he holds a degree in microbiology. I don't believe that a Presidents word can alter a person's opinion. The president is merely a public figure representing the United States. Like I stated earlier we as a society hold up celebrities much higher than any President.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/04/obama-pot-clinton-lewinsky-philip-seymour-hoffman-column/5208589/