School Shootings: What's The Motive?

Sandy Hook Elementary School children, who were instructed to keep their eyes closed,
are shown being led out of the building shortly after the shooting.

As the one year anniversary approaches of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, myself, along with the rest of the world are dumfounded as to why someone would commit such a horrific crime.

Lets look at Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook shooter, and you can see a clear example of someone who was mentally ill and could not (or would not) accept help to become mentally stable. He was diagnosed with "Asperger's syndrome, [but] he declined to take any medications or participate in behavioral therapy" (Official Sandy Hook Report). The first response as to 'why' Lanza committed the mass murder was from, "Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Rep. Frank Wolf, [who tried] to tie mass shootings to violent video games" (Ferguson). But, the report states that his preferred video games were Super Mario Bros. and Dance Dance Revolution, which are youth friendly. In a study done by Childstats.gov, the youth violence rate has decreased by nearly 90% since 1980. Therefore, it would be incorrect to directly blame violent video games for the reason as to Lanza's mass murder. So, if it wasn't violent video games that stimulated Lanza, then what was it?


In the report, it clearly states "all of the firearms were legally purchased by the shooter’s mother. Additionally, ammunition of the types [guns] found had been purchased by the mother in the past, and there is no evidence that the ammunition was purchased by anyone else, including the shooter" (Official Sandy Hook Report). Okay, so Mrs. Lanza decided it was a good idea to purchase and therefore educate her mentally unstable son on guns. That is fine, because according to the second amendment she has the right to do so. However, I must disagree with her logic in thinking this would be a good idea. I'm aware that there is no direct link to mental illness and violence, but the connection is prevalent in most mass shootings. Therefore, why take the risk of your son/daughter using the gun as a weapon, rather than a tool? Either way, since the black market is so available, Lanza would have been able to carry out his crime with or without using his mothers guns and ammunition. However, it would have been much more difficult if he did not already have all of the weapons and ammunition.

So, if parents are entrusting mentally unstable young adults with deadly weapons, how can we be sure we are safe? Not even the fact that he was mentally unstable is what worries me, what worries me is the fact that these guns are so easily accessible to people who wish to do harm. Therefore, we need to have armed security personal on school premises at all times. The local police can only do so much from outside of an infiltrated building, even though they have been trained to enter and clear out shooters as apart of their training since the horrific Columbine shooting. If we had one, maybe two armed retired police officers or veterans stationed at the schools main entrance, the threat could be eliminated from within the building in a matter of minutes. This would reduce the amount of time the shooter would have to cause harm, and ultimately stop future possible school shooters.

Sorry for this long post, but school shootings are no easy topic's to discuss in a short manner.
Please leave your constructive thoughts and comments down below.

Police Brutality: And Feeling Threatened

When I was in seventh grade, my friends and I liked to shoot "airsoft" guns at each other for fun. Looking back on it, it was stupid and an all around bad idea, but I didn't care. We would run around the woods behind my house and pretend like we were in the military. Of course, it was all in good fun, until one day when we were surrounded by the whole Winnetka Police Department after someone called 911 to report a shooter. Luckily, we had the sense of mind to put the guns down and calmly approach the officers. They took our guns and called our parents to tell them what happened. I remember being just about ready to shit myself, because I was afraid of what my dad would say when he found out. Fortunately, he just laughed and got a kick out of the fact that I was almost arrested. I look at the situation now and say, 'at least the officer on the scene didn't unload a clip into my chest'. 

In Santa Rosa County this past Tuesday, a thirteen year old, Andy Lopez Cruz, was killed when his airsoft gun was "mistaken" for an assault rifle. The official statement says "that as the subject was turning toward him the barrel of the assault rifle was rising up and turning in his direction. The deputy feared for his safety, the safety of his partner, and the safety of the community members in the area" (Sheriff Deputy's statement). This makes me sick, as an officer of the law your sole responsibility is to protect the safety of your community. And if you feel like your life is being threatened while doing so, well you need to deal with that situation in a more reasonable fashion. Not pull out your gun and shoot an innocent kid. These kinds of police brutalities are happening all around the Country, and are maliciously targeted at minorities. How can we claim to be an equal society if the people who swear to serve and protect us are profiling and gunning down citizens whenever they fear "for [their] safety". I believe we should not let officers of the law be above the law, but instead be treated just like every other citizen. And if they commit an unlawful murder on their watch, they should be tried and convicted like a normal citizen.

What do you think about police brutality? Should having a gun and a badge and claiming to feel threatened justify killing innocent people? Please leave your comments below. 

Bitcoin: The Online Currency

As we enter the new age of technology, we open new avenues for possibility and success. One of these avenues is Bitcoin, the first ever online cryptocurrency. It has been receiving a lot of attention recently, enough attention that the Senate is holding a meeting this Monday to discuss the legality, and proper use of the currency. I was first introduced to Bitcoin about a year and half ago; a friend of mine, let's call him Greg (for privacy) explained to me the deep and intricate hidden website, Silk Road. The Silk Road was an encrypted website, that sold a variety of drugs, guns, forged documents, and other popular black market items through an anonymous browser called Tor. Instead of traveling half way across the world to get the items, you could simply sit down at your computer and order what you wanted through the internet. Your "package" would then be inconspicuously delivered via FedEx or UPS, and at your doorstep within the week. I know what you are thinking, this is ludicrous, dangerous, stupid and down right illegal. I can tell you that I have never personally ordered anything off of the website, but I know people who have. Not once have they been caught, and not once have they gotten in any sort of trouble. And it astounds me that a black market so sophisticated, and fascinating can exist right under the noses of the very people who try and stop it.


Around the time I found out about Bitcoin, Greg told me the unit price was only $32 a coin. Can you guess what the price is today? Just one Bitcoin has a weighted average of $460 on the Toyko-based Mt. Gox exchange. That means if you bought 10 Bitcoin for $32 back in 2012 (32 * 10 = $320), and sold them at todays value ($4,600), you would have made a profit of over $4,200. Make it fifty Bitcoin, and you would have had a profit of over $21,000. And now that the Silk Road has been officially shutdown by the government, the Senate can focus on the legal options for Bitcoin use. As Nick Wingfield of the New York Times puts it, "Instead of using Bitcoin to buy illegal guns in the recesses of the web, ordinary consumers will use it to buy legal goods from legal retailers — and as easily as they now swipe their credit cards or exchange paper bills" (Wingfield). Jim Breyer, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who has invested over 9 million dollars into start up companies for making Bitcoin available for legal retail use, says he is "confident you will see major worldwide retailers adopting systems built on Bitcoin” (Breyer). Bitcoin advocates are also excited about the currency's future possibility of lowering payment processing costs for credit cards. Without a third party company, like Visa or Mastercard, you don't need to have any extra costs. Without a website like the Silk Road, I believe Bitcoin would not be as widely known as it is today. Now that wealthy investors, such as Jim Breyer, have seen what kind of profit the currency can bring in, they are flooding to the gates in anticipation of the economic boom Bitcoin will provide. Or not. Only time will tell.

Picture via

What are your thoughts on Bitcoin, and it's possible currency use for online retail shopping? Do you think the currency is just a big hoax? Or do you actually think there might be a future for Bitcoin? Please leave your thoughts and comments below!

Slavery: Still a Thing?

I've gone most of my life thinking slave trade was something of the past; making the common mistake that it ended in the late 1800's, with the end of the Civil War. But human trafficking is a very real, very prosperous and very horrific enterprise. CNN's, Bradley Myles, reports, "The U.N. estimated it to be a $32 billion a year industry in 2005, and many in the anti-trafficking field believe that number is outdated and too low" (Myles). picture...

Number of victims of forced labor by region

As you can see the Asia/Pacific region has more forced laborers than all the other regions combined. Nearly four times as many in comparison to the second highest region, Africa. Why is this? After a little research, I found out that Asia has the highest agricultural export profit at $54.4 billion, next to the United State's $132 billion. And in a competitive global market, Governments are willing to do whatever it takes to stay ahead. North Korea, China and Burma are notable examples of State forced labor. This labor is not present just in sweat shops and farms; but also in large scale prostitution rings, where human trafficking is a common way to get prostitutes. This has to stop, and we can help by donating; and by not purchasing cheaper, foreign knock off items, clothes, shoes, etc. 

Who Chooses What YOU Wear?

Gender based fashion is apparent all over the beautiful U-S-of-A; whether in a high school, or an office building, we see it everyday. But what about in our military? President Obama and the Department of Defense asked the Marines to "standardize on a unisex/universal dress and service cap" (New York Post). This 8 million dollar make up has infuriated many male Marines. They believe that the Government should not be spending millions of dollars to change a long standing tradition. Wearing the infamous "cover" has been a way for these men to self identify themselves as Marines for longer than I've been alive. While they see fellow Marines being laid off due to budget cuts, and hear about the economic crisis back here in America, their Commander in Chief wants to re-style their uniform!? I understand Obama's reasoning behind wanting to reduce stereotypical gender roles. But I think he may have overstretched the boundary here.

Current caps on the left, compared to the proposed new caps on the right

On the other hand, do these "girly" new caps really look that girly? No. I think they look just fine, if not better. But that's not the point. These Marines are angry because someone is trying to step in and end an almost 100 year long tradition. These men (and women) have served their country so they could preserve the American values of peace, democracy and justice. Don't they deserve to get to choose what they wear? Do you think the Marines are over reacting to the switch? Or do you think it's a poor decision to try and standardize the caps? Leave your comments below! 

USD: United States of Drones

Imagine this. You are deep in Northern Pakistan, with different tribes all around you. You're finishing up a hard day of labor, and you're talking with your fellow workers while enjoying a relaxing dinner. All of the sudden, BOOM! You look up, and see drones (unmanned aircraft) firing volleys of missiles right at your village. That's exactly what happened in Zowi Sidgi, Pakistan. CNN correspondent, Jethro Mullen, did a recent article on a former drone operator, Brandon Bryant who saw some pretty nasty stuff in his time working behind the monitor that displayed the graphic images. "The smoke clears, and there's pieces of the guys around the crater. And there's this guy over here missing his right leg" (Bryant). Now, after he quit the job in 2011, Bryant struggles day to day with depression, drinking and PTSD, all because someone convinced him he was doing the right thing when he started. The government actually offered him a six figure bonus to stay and continue firing the drones. That goes to show what good ol' Uncle Sam can do FOR YOU.

Amnesty International released un-certified estimates from Pakistani officials and the NGO regarding the number of civilians killed by drones. From 2004 and 2013, it is estimated that between 400 and 900 civilians have been killed and at least 600 seriously injured. These numbers, if true, have raised questions about potential war crimes being committed by the United States. However, the U.S. Government has classified the numbers of civilians they have killed, and deny any allegation of war criminality. Therefore, no one really knows. But what we do know is that innocent people are being killed. Men, women and children of peaceful tribes who just happen to be located near some not so peaceful people. Do you think it is okay to kill innocent people if it helps kill the "bad" guys? Why might this be a bad idea if we want to make peace with these countries? I feel like dropping bombs with a drone being virtually controlled half way around the world is not a good way to make friends. But will only create further chaos.  

Human Brain Project: Finding the Answers

Picture Link

I wonder what people would do if we created computers that could think as fast as a human brain...

Far out in the land of melt in your mouth chocolate and melt in your pants babes, a Swiss university has started their research for the "Human Brain Project." Henry Markram, the head coordinator and neuroscientist for HBP calls it "the world's most ambitious neuroscience project," with a budget of over 1.2 billion euros ($1.6 billion). The human brain is one of the biggest mysteries about our bodies, no one knows exactly how it works or how we get certain mental diseases and illnesses. Makram and his team plan to use super computers to model the brain, and then simulate different types of drugs and treatments on the model. Unfortunately, these "super computers" need to operate at 1000 times the speed they do now in order to be a reliable model of the brain. And the technology to achieve said speed does not exist... yet. Makram plans to begin testing prototypes as early as 2016.

Not only will we be able to finally comprehend the brains complex and multi layered functions, but we will have groundbreaking discoveries and inventions along the way. I personally believe this is the most important part. With the research collected from HBP, we can create technology that is virtually as smart and as fast as humans. Dr. Gayani DeSilva, a psychiatrist from California, talks about how the human brain model could have "unimaginable" implications for medicine, helping us learn how we adapt, heal, and develop. "The more we know about our brains, the more we can utilize our brains to its full potential, intervene when issues arise, replicate in artificial creations the power of the brain’s ability to integrate a vast amount of information that then causes other systems to perform specific actions” (DeSilva). Do you think we should be developing and researching this technology? Could this lead to jobs being lost to machines? Or could we work in parallel with the technology, thus making our lives easier and simpler? Comment below.

Who Even Cares About the Pledge?

Earlier this week I experienced something very awkward. While I was in the math office Thursday taking a quiz, the announcements came on.

"May you please stand for the pledge of allegiance..." I slowly looked around and got up. I was the only one who stood up. I was right in the middle of taking my quiz, but I could take twenty seconds to stand up and pledge my loyalty to my country. Because that's what the pledge is, "allegiance", "one nation", "justice for all". These are basic principles that I believe every American should believe in. 

My heart was racing, and everyone was staring at me. The teacher sitting at the table adjacent to me actually turned his back to me. He took a double take at the flag, as if he was debating whether or not to stand up. The same thing happens every day at the beginning of advisory, I stand up and people will give me weird looks. Part of me is glad that we live in a a country where you are not forced to say the pledge. But, I feel it is your duty as an American to stand up and repeat the pledge, or at the very least just to stand up. But I also strongly believe no one can force you to do or say anything you don't want to. That is the beauty of living in a democratic republic country with basic human rights. Therefore, if you do not want to stand for the pledge, you have the right not to. Right?

Morton Grove Park District Commissioner, Dan Ashta, argues that by not standing up for the pledge at park board meetings, he is just expressing his freedom of speech. I completely agree, but when local vetern groups caught wind of Ashta choosing not to stand for the pledge, they decided to cease all donations to the park district until he stood up. Joseph Lampert, a vetern commander, says, "nowhere did we say that he has to recite the pledge or put his hand over his heart. We would just like to see him stand out of respect" (Lampert).  To which Ashta simply responds, "by having the pledge on the agenda, the park board is potentially infringing upon the freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution" (Ashta). Does it seem logical to halt all donations to a community organized government, just because one board member chose not to stand up during the pledge? Not really, and therefore I think the veterans groups took the situation too far. But I know there are plenty of people who would disagree with me.

Do you think it should be an american value to stand up during the pledge? Or do you think it is your right to not stand for the pledge?

Comment with your thoughts below!

Link

America: Home of Disagreement

Picture Link: V for Vendetta

Our so called 'Government' just may be shutting down in less than two weeks. CNN's, Jeanne Sahadi reports, "The House on Friday will vote on a short-term government funding bill that will include a provision to defund Obamacare. That provision is a no-go for Senate Democrats and President Obama -- If they can't work out a compromise, many functions of the federal government will be shut down indefinitely on Oct. 1..." (Sahadi).  Folks, I don't think you understand the gravity behind what might happen next, next Tuesday. The last "two shutdowns in the mid-1990s cost an estimated $1.4 billion" (Sahadi). She goes on to explain how "many, if not most, government offices, programs, museums and parks would be shuttered" (Sahadi). How are you supposed to travel if you can't get a visa or passport? What if you planned a vacation to Yosemite or some other national park? Moreover, why should you pay taxes to an incomplete and widespread Government that doesn't provide us with services they promised to uphold?

Do you think I'm over-reacting when I say I am scared for my generation? Surely, I cannot be alone. We are screwed if we don't pull our acts together and actually move this Country forward. But the only way we can do this is by compromising and listening to what other people have to say. In our case, it will be over Obamacare. I know there are a lot of people suffering because they do not have health care. And I believe it's your right to health care. But, there are also a lot of people and small businesses that will suffer. The premium to have all of your employees on Obamacare will be through the roof. Therefore, people who own small businesses will have to pay a penalty for not choosing Obamacare. However, the larger cooperate companies will be just fine because they can afford it. I believe Obamacare will only increase the gap between the lower and upper class, instead of trying to unite everyone as equal. By making small businesses suffer, the middle class workers who are employed by those businesses will be laid off and forced under the poverty line. 

Our judiciary system would only last "roughly 10 working days" (Sahadi/Congressional Research Service) before the emergency funds run out. The shutdown would also force Federal court staff and officers to work for free, while still giving Federal judges and Supreme Court justices their pay. Looks like Judge Judy will be missing a few employees in her next episode. Why would anyone work for free, while the people 'above them' (physically and metaphorically) are getting paid. Also, citizens called for jury duty will not receive their checks until after the shutdown. Once again, why would someone take time away from THEIR own work to be a juror without getting paid.

This is a classic example of our Government failing us. And I will not stand for it. What are your thoughts on the potential shutdown? Do you think this will blow over? How are you going to better our generation? Don't ever forget...

"People shouldn't be afraid of their government.

 Governments should be afraid of their people" 

(Alan Moore, V for Vendetta). 

Cannabis: It's as Responsible as You Make It

Now that Governor Quinn has officially signed off bill HB 1, which will allow qualified Illinois citizens to receive medical cannabis as early as January 2014, the push for federal legalization is growing at an exponential rate. In a recent Gallup study, a record high of 50 percent of Americans would favor legalization. In 1969, only twelve percent of Americans thought the drug should be legal (Gallup). CNN correspondent, David Nathan, wrote an interesting opinion article about how to properly end the prohibition. In it he brings up the valid concern of how to keep minors away from the drug once legalized. He says the politicians should "limit advertising, sales and public consumption of cannabis products the way we do with alcohol and/or tobacco, fund preventive youth education about the dangers of underage cannabis use and ban cannabis packaging and advertising that targets or attracts underage users" (Nathan).

 These are all great ideas, but what it comes down to is how the parent(s) inform their children about the dangers of under age use of cannabis. Parents need to be strict with their kids, especially when cannabis becomes recreationally legal. I know that if I was ten years old and I saw my parents sparking up on the front porch, I would have thought it was an okay thing for me to do as well. But if they explained to me that the use of cannabis should only be for adults because of the negative affects it has on children, I would have happily waited until I was an adult to responsibly enjoy cannabis. But this attitude will only come from future generations who can experience their parents legally, responsibly and safely using pot. I hope that I am be the pioneer generation of parents that can enjoy cannabis, just as my parents did with alcohol, while teaching my kids the very real and prevalent health risks that cannabis has on the young mind. 

What are your thoughts on cannabis legalization? Do you think as a parent you could responsibly enjoy cannabis while explaining the negative effects on a young mind to your kid. Or would you feel like a hypocrite? Please leave your thoughts and comments in the below comment section. Don't say something you wouldn't want the whole world to know, so please be smart with your words. 

Link to picture above