VIDEO PROOF OF WHITE POLICE OFFICER BEATING BLACK TEEN. ALL WHITE JURY DECLARES OFFICER INNOCENT.

About 1 minute into the video below shows a black teen face down on the ground getting beaten by white police officers.

The fact that the teen, 15 year old Chad Holley, is laying defenseless on the ground with his hands behind his head surrendering shows he is of no threat to the officers leaving their actions to be violent hate crimes. If they weren't deliberately beating him for his race, but because he was running from them for burglary just minutes earlier, still leave their conduct inappropriate and unnecessary. What led to their actions was none other than a society still poisoned with racism, no matter how subconscious that may be. Holley was beaten by at laest five officers while he lay there defenseless with no intention to fight back.

Andrew Blomberg was the first to reach Holley and in the video is seen kicking and stomping on his head and neck. Despite the video and expert testimony that "Blomberg’s actions were ‘objectively unreasonable’ and were ‘contrary to any legitimate police action,’” an all-white, six member jury acquitted Blomberg on Wednesday (Brown 2012).

The Jury that claimed the prosectuion failed to show evidence that Blomberg acted unreasonably really shows that to some people the life of a black man means nothing. This is not ok. The law needs to change to be more specific in what a police officer can and cannot do and when there is video proof of officers violating those terms they are to be punished. Those who enforce the law cannot be above the law. Also in an interracial case, the fact that there was an all white jury shows another flaw and injustice that ironically exsits within our "justice" system. This should never be the case.

Three other officers are still to be tried for their part in the incident. Drew Ryser is charged with official oppression and Phillip Bryan and Raad Hassan are both charged with official oppression and violating the civil rights of a prisoner (Brown 2012).

My interpretations of the incident were based on facts presented by an article written by Alex Brown on May 18th posted on thinkprogress.org.

THE GOP THINK IT SHOULD BE LEGAL TO FIRE SOMEONE FOR BEING GAY

-"If only gay people didn't exist."

Yes, this is true. Rep. James Lankford of Oklahoma believes its morally right to fire someone for being gay. According to Lankford, it's ok to discriminate against someone as long as they have a different viewpoint or makes different choices than him. To Lankford, freedom is all about him being able to have his own opinions and making everyone else live by his way of life. He thinks being gay is a choice. First of all, it's not. "Being gay is actually not a choice, according to the American Medical Association, the American Association of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association, and all other accredited medical organizations" (thinkprogress.org). Second of all, even if it was, the American definition of freedom is for people to be entitled to their own practices as long as they do not cause harm upon anything or anyone else. Come on America, a law stating its ok to fire someone for their sexual orientation is only going to lead to more harsher forms of discrimination. It's just not right. With elections coming up, I hope everyone reading this post will focus on these human rights issues when supporting politicians.

WAR by Sebastian Junger Part V

Junger hits on yet another part of a soldier's life and how powerful it is to leave a man cheering at someone else's death.
He recalls an event, "The Scouts were watching a guy crawl around on the mountainside without a leg. They watched until he stopped moving... Everyone at Restrepo cheered. I couldn't stop thinking about the cheer; in some ways it was more troubling than all the killing. Stripped of all politics, the fact of the matter was that the man had died alone on the mountainside trying to find his leg. At one point or another every man in the platoon had been pinned down long enough to think they were going to die. I got the necessity for it (the killing), but I didn't get the joy."
So what does cause the joy? It's not simple enough for Junger to answer, and I definitely could not give you one answer. One soldier, Steiner, tries to explain it, "Fighting another human being is not as hard as you think when they're trying to kill you. People think we were cheering because we just shot someone, but we were cheering because we just stopped someone from killing us. That person will no longer shoot at us anymore. That's where the fiesta come in."
After hearing this, there seems to be a moral justification for the soldier's mindset. Even if you think its disgusting it's not their fault. War had made them this way. I want to go back to the American soldier who killed 16 Afghan civilians. How did that happen? Well it starts with situations like this, men learn to cheer at death because it really means they have saved themselves. But after months, or even years, classical conditioning kicks in and soldiers are conditioned to feel joy when someone dies. Killing becomes so normal you stop thinking about the reasons behind it. Soldiers start getting a good feeling when they kill someone, or see someone be killed, and that is what becomes addicting. Then America gets all fed up about an American shooting at civilians. Well you put him there to kill, you trained him to kill, don't act all surprised when goes overboard on the killing or on who to kill. Killing becomes conditioned into his head and it no longer matters who he is killing once that psychological change has already occurred.
One other thing in the passage struck me. Junger briefly hits on the idea that "Every man in the platoon had been pinned down long enough to think they were going to die."
Above I spoke on why I understood the cheer the soldiers felt at the deaths of others, this idea contradicts it. One would also think that since they all know what its like to be afraid for your life, they would have much more of a gratitude towards not just their own lives, but the lives of others. They would sympathise with the dead enemy's pain more because they have experienced much of what he has. Junger doesn't linger on this thought much, and I can't tell you why this isn't the case. If I had to try, I would say it comes down to the basis of human morality against survival. Morals will bend when one's life is on the line. One will do whatever it takes to survive, not matter how cruel it might seem. Even though they know what its like to be scared for your life, that might only make them cheer more at the enemy's death because it is one more relief for their own lives.

The Drinking Contradiction

In class we've been talking about the drinking problem mostly among college students. That's right, parents pay thousands of dollars to send their kids off to party. We discussed how when you're drunk your brain is less capable, if at all, of making responsible decisions and therefore people enjoy getting drunk because they can do whatever they want without baring any responsibility for the consequences of their behavior. In today's society, students who drink in order to get drunk and not have to act responsibly, ironically are being incredibly irresponsible. It's one thing if you're out to dinner and accidentally have a few too many drinks. But, if you are purposely drinking not to have responsibility you are choosing to put yourself in a situation where you don't have to be liable for anything and that in itself is the most irresponsible thing a person can do. Their actions to get drunk contradict their reasons for wanting to be drunk. If your goal is ultimately to not have to be responsible, then whatever you do while under the influence you are most responsible for because you didn't accidentally get in that situation, you purposely did.

WAR by Sebastian Junger Part IV

Two more things soldiers uniquely expierience is a new sense of teamwork and with that, pressure.
Junger writes, "Errors were so catastrophic that every soldier had a kind of de facto authority to reprimand others...because combat can hinge on the most absurd details, there was virtually nothing in a soldier's daily routine that fell outside the group's purview. Whether you tied your shoes or cleaned your weapon or drank enough water or secured your night vision gear were all matters of public concern. If something happened the guy with the loose laces couldn't be counted on to keep his feet at a crucial moment. It was the other man's life he was risking, not just his own. There was no such thing as perosnal safety out there."
This shows the extreme form of teamwork and selflessness soldiers have. Soldiers learn to do things not for personal interest, but for the good of their squad. It's one of the many admirable qualities soldiers have. To the soldiers though, it's not about the morality of it. They often aquire these characteristics through the pressure of being a soldier in a combat unit.
Junger goes on to write, "The attention to detail at a base like Restrepo forced a kind of clarity on absolutely everything a soldier did until I came to think of it as a kind of Zen practice: the Zen of not fucking up. It required a high mindfullness because potentially everything has consequences."
At war, soldiers understand that when everything happens suddenly, there is no room for any margin of error. They need to be ready at all times because the last thing any soldier wants is blood on their hands. This type of pressure, that at any moment a firefight can break out and it's his duty to protect his squad, is what leads to the ongoing selfless mentality and teamwork. The metality of making sure one doens't mess up because it can literally kill others in his squad.
In Second Platoon, Junger takes note on a special sort of punishment that reinforces the importance of teamwork.
He writes, "The way to ensure no one fucked up was to inflict collective punishment on the entire squad, because that meant everybody would be watching everybody else." Junger then asks how the guys react to this form of punishment. The response, "There are no hard feelings after everyone gets smoked... they're more pissed that they all let each other down."
This punishment brings together the two quotes from above. It incorporates both the teamwork aspect and the pressure aspect. The punishment increases that feeling of pressure by showing the whole team is literally punished when one person messes up. Just like on the battlefield those can be punished by death from the actions of the fellow soldiers. On the contrary, one also has the power to save others through this level of teamwork that really has been implanted in these soldiers. The fact that they hold no hard feelings shows what great character exists within this squad, and probably many others too.

GLENN GROTHMAN, NEWEST SOLDIER IN THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN

As the GOP continues to limit the rights of women, The Colbert Report's April 10th broadcast shared this quote from a Wisconsin state senator, "Take a hypothetical husband and a wife who are both lawyers... the woman takes time off, raises kids, is not go go go... the husband is making two hundread grand a year, the woman is making 40 grand a year. It wasn't discrimination. There was a different sense of urgency in each person... you could argue that money is more important for men." -Senator Glenn Grothman, April 7, 2012.



Glenn Grothman speaking in March 2012 where he shares his
thoughts on why single parenthood is child abuse.



His quote seems to contradict himself. He seems to be making a point that in this hypothetical situation is not discrimination because the woman is working less than the man. However, if "money is more important for men" then he would not need to use his hypothetical situation because it would be true in all cases. So according to him, women are always the stay at home moms who always work less than their male spouses. But don't worry, cuz it's not discrimination. Oh wait, that kind of generilization that women do not work as hard as men actually is discrimination.

Don't listen to me though, Glenn Gorthman, a male, seems to think he knows women best. Especially the part about how women don't really care about money. And as a man, he knows how important money is for men. "They need it to get the ladies, appareantly they don't have any" (Stephen Colbert 2012).

FLORIDA GUN OWNERS HAVE MORE SHOOTING RIGHTS THAN OUR SOLDIERS AT WAR

The Trayvon Martin case has engulfed the nation and brought to attention not only gun ownership laws, but "use of force" laws too. The Stand Your Ground law, a law only a state like Florida would have, allows George Zimmerman to get away with murder because he was protecting himself from what he believed to be a threatening situation. He saw a black kid holding skittles with his hood up walking through his neighborhood and shot the kid, because he fit the stereotype of previous burglars in the area. According to this Think Progress article, the U.S. law, Rules of Engagement, allows soldiers to protect themselves from threats, without abusing their weapons or force. Soldiers have to approach a threat in the following order:

3.G.(1)(A) (U) Shout verbal warnings to halt;
3.G.(1)(B) (U) Show your weapon and demonstrate intent to use it;
3.G.(1)(C) (U) Physically restrain, block access, or detain;
3.G.(1)(D) (U) Fire a warning shot (if authorized);
3.G.(1)(E) (U) Shoot to eliminate the threat.

(thinkprogress.org)

These steps in removing a threat seem more logical because they make killing somebody an absolute last resort by providing four previous steps to deter the threat. Trayvon Martin was shot, his life taken from in a matter of seconds, when he was unarmed, on public property, and without the oppurtunity to beg for his life. The law that allows this needs to be abolished. The Stand Your Ground law is a law that is up for interpretation depending on the case. In a society where racism still exists, a law that allows one to interpret what murder is in unjust and unconstitutional because it allows people to tear away at the fourteenth ammendment that states, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."