Japanese Internment Camp, Genocide?

http://www.ushistory.org/us/51e.asp

This article talks about the Japanese Internment camps that were instated after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. There are a lot of similarities between these camps and the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust but we don't acknowledge it as a genocide. Although the conditions at the camps weren't as severe as either of the two genocides it still qualifies. A little over 200 Japanese died in these camps. Another significant difference is that congress and the president apologized to the Japanese and paid 20,000 dollars in compensation to the survivors. I don't think 20,000 was enough because the survivors went back home to basically nothing. It's not as severe and the numbers aren't as high but I think it definitely does qualify as genocide.

Rampage Killers...Rare or Common?

Today in class we watched one documentary and a half of another concerning about rampage killers, or people who have committed crimes in a large scale, enough for it to be a massacre. We've already found out a while ago that nurture, genes, and brain activity might be factors that lead a person to be a psychopath. And with a constant pattern with all known psychopaths, it seems so. That doesn't instantly make any psychopath a killer, but research proves that they may have potential. One can say that with this research, future massacres can be prevented, but the thing is, not everyone with a psychotic mind will or can be a potential killer. The only ways to help prevent massacres like the Navy Yard Shooting or the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting is to watch signs from potential rampage killers.      

Ignorance is Bliss...but not Denial

Today in small group we finished the "Armenian Genocide" documentary with more information on the topic. One portion that got me interested was how that the leader that was in charge after the genocide totally denied that there was such a thing. Even though there was stone hard evidence of the crime, he stood his ground to what he was saying and believing. That is not ignorance, but denial. There was even a point where Turkey told the U.S. to back off on the accusations, otherwise their relations will be broken. But this is all after the genocide. Actions done by others in the past shouldn't reflect how the future generation will be. Most Armenians nowadays would just leave the situation be, as said in this article.
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_armenia2.html

As the times change, friends become enemies and/or vice versa. Just like the Soviet Union and U.S. in the Cold War. So at the end of the day, those who committed the genocide are to blame, not the future generations. And that's the only thing they can do. Forget. Best to leave to historians. This goes for both the current Turks and Armenians. The key factor is that ignorance is not committed. Then knowledge of past mistakes are kept. The past is only useful and necessary when it involves helping shape the future. Not make it, but at least shape it.    

Armenian Genocide

In small group we started watching a video on the Armenian Genocide. I started thinking back to when we watched the Milgram Experiment and the Stanford Prison Experiment and how they showed some insight to the Nazi's and their actions during the Holocaust. Then I started comparing the two events. The Holocaust may seem as though it was more organized because they had a system.  Jews started off at ghettos and then if they survived went to either a concentration camp or extermination camp.But the Genocide was more well thought out because they made everything look staged so they wouldn't have to explain their actions later.

Gun Control, Day Two

Continuing on with the film we started yesterday, more information about how guns affect our world was presented. Not only did it talk about gun violence in history, but also many other topics, such as how most guns used in massacres are acquired legally.


As guns grew to be more convenient to buy, gun violence also increased along with it. First of all, purchasing guns wasn't heavily regulated until President Lyndon Johnson passed the Gun Control Act of 1986, that denied weapons to felons, minors, and people who are mentally-ill. But this law didn't stop the circulation of illegal gun possession, just merely slowed it down. And this is only a percentage of the estimated firearms in circulation, which is about 300 million. Legally and regulated. That means that there are other firearms that are unregulated and illegal/legal. Just like in today's showed portion of the film, an individual can just use a 3-D printer to make parts for a gun. I was surprised, just like some other classmates. And it goes to show how people can find loopholes to acquiring guns, with no one knowing about it. 

And people should know more. It does involve the second amendment, after all. We can't just be bystanders, waiting for other people to speak up to the government, thinking that its just a problem that happens rarely. 26. That's how many documented mass shootings that have happened from 2000 to 2013. Most of them I didn't know about, and that adds to the point. Obama, after the Washington Navy Shooting(article), stated that in order to for change to happen, we, the people, have to make that change.


     

Gun Control

We started watching a film in large group on gun control. A lot of interesting points came up about what should be done about the issue and whether it was an issue at all.

Guns were considered critical for survival in the past and in order to survive you had to be armed. Many people regarded guns as a symbol just as the American Eagle because they've been around since Columbus. It wasn't until after the Civil War that guns became an issue. After the war surviving soldiers were encouraged to keep their guns, this essentially pumped a large number of guns into circulation. Post Civil War was the beginning of gun violence. Guns started to evolve and became easier to use. As a result of making the revolver homicide rates were increasing rapidly. The revolver was small, cheap,portable, easy to make, and you didn't have to keep reloading after each fire. As guns started to evolve and become more deadly their functions were shifting as well from protection and recreation to violence. The role of guns significantly differ in rural areas versus urban areas. In rural areas they're used for recreational purposes. It's a part of their culture, and it's not fair to them that the media portrays all gun owners as bad people. As opposed to urban areas where they're used as a means of protection or violence. In response to the Mulford Act, a law that prohibited carrying loaded fire arms in public, members of the Black Panthers marched on the California Capitol in Sacramento armed with rifles and assault weapons.They were just trying to protect themselves from local and police brutality, they believed the only way to defend themselves was to use the very weapons being used against them. Then you have situations like Sandy Hook, Aurora, gang violence etc... that jeopardizes all gun owners because of the negative effects guns have on the community.The problem is finding a solution without violating the second amendment which protects America from tyranny. I don't think the guns are the problem because just as the video suggested the gun is not the catalyst the violence is and we celebrate violence,we make heroes out of stone killers and simply see them as people who refuse to be pushed around.

http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/common-sense-conservative/2013/jul/22/what-would-reagan-and-black-panther-party-think-gu/

In this article the author interviews a murderer and asks his views on gun control and he responds "I'm all for gun control because that means you won't have a gun and I will always have a gun." This just proves that trying to get rid of guns as a whole is nearly impossible because so many people own guns and probably won't be willing to give them up. I don't think that trying to rid America of guns will solve anything. It will just make people furious and crime will continue, people will still murder but instead of guns they'll find other weapons to kill. The only reasonable solution would be to put restrictions on who can possess a fire arm. Even this comes with many obstacles. Although someone may have no history of violence or problems with the law  doesn't necessarily mean they're not capable of shooting up a school or neighborhood. Gun control is a serious problem that's been around for a long time but hasn't been solved because just thinking of the many variables that are needed to solve it can be overwhelming. I agree with the article that if we don't start to seriously look into this problem we'll be facing this same issue years from now.

So similar, but not the same.

We've been talking a lot in class about concussions in the NFL and the legal ramifications. This got me wondering on what influence these court cases might have on other violent sports, like hockey. What I found was very interesting. There are so many similarities: situations, injuries, and tragic deaths of players later diagnosed with CTE. A wrongful death lawsuit has even been filed recently against the NHL for the drug addiction and suicide of a former "Enforcer" by the family of the player.

But the reaction by the other formal NHLers is very different than the NFLers. Many players don't actually blame their injuries on the league, in fact the acknowledge the leagues proactive nature on this issue. Keith Primeau, who made his living being a gritty player who suffered 4 documented concussions during his 15 year career in the NHL, does not blame the NHL for his continuing long term health issues. Despite being approached by several attorneys looking to jump on a similar bandwagon to the NFL's lawsuits, he isn't interested in pursuing any.

The league has been very proactive history with concussions, starting in 1997 trying to protect their players. Now, these could be similar claims to the NFL when they were/are in denial, but I think it's different. Research and rule changes and increased education have been made to try to make hockey players more safe.

It is interesting to think that the paths and opinions of players can be so different in sports that are so similar in their violent nature. Even with the same injuries and diseases present in both sports, it is interesting that the players in one sport feel much more inclined to seek legal retribution.

So does this mean that the NFL lawsuits have opened the doors to lawsuits in any violent sport, or just more lawsuits for football? Can we view the NFL cases as a precedent for all cases or do we have to look at each sport on a case-by-case basis?


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nhl/2013/09/30/nhl-concussions-players-keith-primeau-gary-bettman/2898689/

http://www.corboydemetrio.com/news-414.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/13/sports/la-sp-sn-derek-boogaard-lawsuit-nhl-20130513

Happy Friday!
So, today we continued to talk about sports and why people get so heated.  Referee attacks don't only happen in the United States!  Just to be clear, yes Americans can get very passionate and loose control but nothing like this has happened in the U.S.  Here is the article that Casey was talking about in class today (Ref stabbing soccer player...ref gets his head put on a pole) This is completely savage!  


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/10165304/Brazilian-referee-beheaded-and-quartered-after-stabbing-player-he-sent-off.html

This article is good to read because it makes you aware of how crazy some people get.  It's amazing how good people can turn into crazy, obnoxious, and sometimes violent fans.


Also Mr. Stewart was telling me about how a war broke out between El Salvador and Hondur after a soccer game.  This article says how the two countries had tensions before hand, but I guess this soccer game was the last straw...
(read the 1st slide)
http://www.omg-facts.com/History/El-Salvador-Once-Went-To-War-With-Hondur/21198

(my opinion) At the end of the day it's just a game!  Although sports are an athlete's lively hood, that still doesn't give them the okay to beat up a ref or for a fan to attack another fan.  Sports are not always fair, like life, and people need to realize that and just enjoy the excitement of the game :)

On Thursday we watched three court cases that were, let's say, very strange and unfamiliar.

Dan White = a former supervisor who killed the mayor and another supervisor.  His case was different than the norm because the case was called the "Twinkie defense".  White's lawyer said White had an undiagnosed depression and his lawyer claimed that sugar (twinkies) were a violent catalyst!  So even though his actions were without a doubt 1st degree murder (in my opinion) he got away with man slaughter.  So what it comes down to is that White had a good lawyer.

Scott Falater = The Sleepwalker!  This man brutally murdered his wife while sleeping.  This might be credible if he stabbed her once, but he stabbed her 44 times and then drowned her in their pool...it's very hard to argue that he didn't mean to kill her when her screams, the struggle of killing someone, and the noise of the neighbors didn't wake him up.  He was guilty of 1st degree murder(jail for life).

Kathy Willets = The infomaniac.  Mrs. Willets took an anti-deprssent called Prozac, this drug made her loose self control.  When her husband could no longer satisfy her needs, they started to bring in other males and asked them for a donation...
Although this reaction to Prozac is not an unknown condition, one still can't turn their own home into a brothel.  In the end Kathy was accused of prostitution and both her and her husband ended up going to jail.

~Strange/New cases usually don't sit well with the public according to these cases.  Do you think the verdicts were appropriate?  

Teen Kills Soccer Ref With One Punch

10/17/13

Today in class we heard of a case in which a 17 year old soccer goalie punched a ref in the face after the ref called a foul on him. The punch given to the ref caused swelling in his brain and caused him to go into a coma and a week later die. The ref was Ricardo Portillo, he was only 46 years old. Today on Edmodo Mr. Stuart posted and article about the incident and turns out the 17 year old was a substitute he wasn't really even on the team. I know that in the heat of the moment people do things that they regret later on but as Mr. Stuart said it's just a game. A poor innocent man died doing what he loved and there was no reason for the kid to physically harm Mr. Portillo. I get it we are humans and we make mistakes but we really need to start thinking our actions through like seriously. Just like you think what comes out of your mouth, you need do the same thing when you are about to react in the heat of the moment. I'ts stupid things like this that need to be avoided. I play sports and I'm not gonna lie and say that I have never wanted to yell at the ref for a bad call but I would never hurt them.

Here is another article that I found on the same story.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/us/utah-soccer-death/

Don't forget quarter ends Friday! :)

Fan v Fan Violence

10/15/2013
Today in Mr.Smith's small group, we finished watching the Fan v. Fan Violence video. Mr.Smith brought up the question of why fans would go out of line when it comes to "supporting" their teams. We came up with the ideas of alcohol being an influence and also having that feeling of belonging to a group. When your rooting for a certain team that has been successful and very known in the sports industry, of course you, as a fan, will take it as being the best and better then other teams. You start believing that you are part of the team and that you should defend it by any means. When someone tries to talk smack about the team your rooting for or goes for the rival team, you start to feel like you have this thing call power and can do whatever you want to someone just because they don't like the same team you like. I find this pathetic. For fans to go out of their way and fight someone else over a team they don't even play on is childish. Matter of fact, the team can careless about you and doesn't even contribute to any of your bills nor necessities so there is no reason to be fighting over the sport.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2013/10/14/49ers-candlestick-park-fans-worst-calais-campbell-cardinals/2981447/

This article show's two examples of bad fan behaviors but one of them is close to home. The San Francisco 49ers. How is that fans can applause one's injury while the players who are actually putting in work on the field are showing respect to the one who is injured. It just doesn't make sense. I feel like fans are too caught up with the idea of their team being so superior to others that they forget the real meaning of actually watching the game and what the game means for everyone! Yes one player might be on a team that you don't like but that player is still human. That player playing on the field is working to provide for their family. That player might be going through some tuff situations and the way he get's his mind off things is by playing on the field. Fans are so quick to judge one's character just because they are from another team instead of looking at the big picture. Supporting a team is one thing but fighting other's just because they don't like the team you like is just child like.

Violence In Sports

We've been talking in class about how unruly fans are turning to serious violence at profesional sporting events. Ranging from inappropriate heckling (like swearing at kids) to near fatal (and fatal) tragedies. But unfortunately this fan on fan violence isn't limited to profesional sports. As any simple google search will prove, there is an abundance of parents getting into fights at youth sporting events. Suddenly a happy game between kids can escalate to assault by parents who take it a little too seriously. Here's an article covering one such incident.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/07/30/parents-fight-youth-baseball-game/2600481/

I'm not condoning the parents behavior in any way, but we shouldn't be surprised to see fans at a packed stadium getting violent over a profesional game when fans will get violent over a child's game.  They seem to be acting very similar way to the fans in the videos we watched in class.

Today in class we examined the topic of bullying.  Jessica mentioned an elderly women being bullied by middle school kids on a bus.  I think this is the clip she was referring to:

http://www.godvine.com/Grandmother-Gets-Cruelly-Bullied-by-Kids-on-a-Bus-But-Watch-This-1672.html

Also the whole class today was great because many opinions were shared and the participation was awesome!  Road rage seemed to be a hot topic today; I think it was because everyone can make at least one connection to overreacting drivers.  A solution that I thought made the most sense to why a driver could get a hot head is because, yelling is a release.  People who have road rage are not psychopaths, according to the majority of the class, so yelling is a release of frustration.  It's like crying, the release of emotions through tears may make someone feel better.

Before today I did not know what hazes were...it is strange how people could not only do crazy things but life threatening things to fit in.

What is your limit?    

For those of you were not here today, we finished watching the film about human and psychopathic behaviors.  It turns out that one can have the warrior gene as well as the brain differences (inactive pre-frontal lobes which enable one to 'feel' emotions, and the amygdala which triggers instincts) but murderous-psycotic behavior may not occur because of a healthy and nurturing environment during the early stages of childhood.  So, even though the genes and brain differences are definitely there it doesn't mean the person was a born killer, they just had a high percentage of becoming one.  We also examined that the traits of a psychotic individual may give them an advantage in the world of business.  For instance, psychopaths (according to research) usually posses charisma, they also have a lack of empathy, and a business environment is perfect for them because there is always something new for them to tackle.  Psychopaths, as said in the film, are not always behind bars.

In small group we also examined the topic of fan on fan violence.  What do you think about this topic?  I think the documentary made a very strong point about why fan violence is now a regular thing.
~lack of family time (the feeling of belonging to a group)
~church on Sunday's is not a big part of American society anymore ('')
~people who lack one or the other or both have a strong need to belong to a group/so sports =solution

Unfortunately, games are not an escape from reality, but a couple hours of reminders of what the real world can be like.


In large group we started a new case study!  MISS SMART  This case examines the idea of (even though she didn't pull the trigger she still gets the worst verdict)...how does that work?  What do you guys think?

If interested in unraveling some of the basic issues around the politics of shutting down the government...

Check out this article from a few hours ago.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-government-shutdown--20131013,0,6593863.story

Ponder.

Should House Republicans be allowed to do this?

While the government shutdown continues, I've been thinking about the tactics that the Republicans used. The government passed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) completely legally. It passed the house, it passed the senate, and it was signed by the President. The Supreme Court even heard a case on the issue, and declared that Obamacare was indeed constitutional. Now, the Republicans have shut down the government because the Democrats won't repeal or defund Obamacare. Laws can be repealed by votes in the house, senate, and the signature of the President or an 2/3 override. But, in my opinion, they can't be repealed by blackmail.

Last week, the 49ers beat the Texans by a score of 34-3. But what the Texans did not say to the NFL was, "If you don't give us 32 points right now, we're going to shut down the entire league."

Here is an article that shares my views if you want to read more: http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/03/how-to-solve-the-crisis-in-washington/

Do you think the Republicans should be allowed to do this?

Yates! Another question of morals and ethics.

Today we finished the case study of Andrea Yates. As has been said multiple times in class, this specific case boils down to one question: Was Andrea Yates legally insane when she committed this crime? The current law clearly states that in order to be considered not guilty by reason of insanity Yates would have to prove that at the time of the murders she did not know what she was doing was wrong. In my opinion, she did know what she was doing was wrong, and she should have been found guilty.

Let me first say that I don't agree with the current law completely. I feel that she shouldn't be convicted of murder put in jail for life. The law as it is today does not do nearly enough to help people who suffer from these debilitating mental illnesses. However, under the current law, she is guilty of murder.

The reasoning behind my opinion is simple: She knew what she was doing was against the law. While she believed that killing her children would be better for them, and that they would go to hell if she did not kill them, she was well aware that killing was against the law. This can be seen by her calling of the cops afterwards. And even though her own personal, while very deranged, morals told her that it was okay, the ethics of killing your kids is pretty clear cut in our society. I equate it to murder because of revenge. Lets say that a man kills your child. You may feel that this man deserves to die, and you may be right about that. But if you kill him, it is murder, it is against the law, and you will be put in jail. Even if you believe it's right, in the eyes of the law it is wrong, and the law will punish you as such.

Stanford Prison Experiment

Today in Class we watched a documentary about the Stanford Prison Experiment. For those who are in Mr. Stewarts class i assume you will watch this tomorrow. But I did some research on the experiment and I found a movie that was actually made about it. Its called The Experiment and I found it to be very helpful in visualizing what really occurred. I don't want to say too much and ruin it for you so ill let you watch it and form your own thoughts about it.

Here's the link I came across. It also is on Netflix if you have that.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0997152/

Morals vs Laws

So we are learning about David Cash in class, and the public outcry to arrest him brings up an interesting issue. That being how closely related are our moral standards and legal standards? Because it doesn't seem right to make immorality illegal. And I'm not saying what Cash did was right, it was immoral beyond belief and he absolutely should have acted to save Sherrice Iverson. Ostracizing Cash socially makes sense because you label him as this immoral monster, but legal prosecution don't and shouldn't have any grounds. There are many things in our society that are immoral (to many people) but it would seem ridiculous if we tried to outlaw them. Things like cheating on a spouse or breaking a promise to a friend. Now I know there's a huge difference between a broken promise and a life lost. But if you create a legal consequence for not acting according to moral standards alone, then it could open the door to ridiculous laws. Because where would you draw the line between immoral and illegal? I think Cash's refusal to take action or even give an apology is extremely immoral, but not illegal.

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialSciences/ppecorino/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Mores_Law_Morality.htm

Presa Canarios

A little while back in class we watched the Case Study about the two Presa Canarios that attacked and killed Diane Whipple. My mom just recently told me of a time where my parents were being sued because of an almost similar incident. We own a rental house and the people who lived there had a dog (type is not really as important). But the neighbor’s dog broke through the fence one day into our yard and the dog that lived there attacked the intruding dog. The neighbor’s dog ended up having to go to the vet and suffered some severe wounds. The lady then sued us in a small claims court and was trying to get us to pay for the full veterinary bill. Prior to this we had asked her to help us pay to fix the fence since it was not only ours but hers as well and she refused. So at this point I was convinced my parents were going to win. The lady had refused to let us fix a fence that was broken; her dog came into our yard and attacked our dog first but suffered more severe wounds. My parents went to court and the judge’s final verdict greatly shocked me, they had lost. I guess the lady next door did such a good job sympathizing with judge, she went up crying, totally broken down, and claimed she was unable to afford the bill. From this I realized two things, the justice system can be easily persuaded and maybe even biased, and also that owners of dogs can be held responsible what for what their animals do. 

Government Shutdown

For those of you interested in understanding some of the issues surrounding the government shutdown check out this article...

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-gop-mccarthy-20131005,0,7794046.story