FUTURE IS HERE

02/24/2013

FUTURE IS HERE

Really!

Forget about the Muslim world, please do, forget about Africa too, we already have, we in the USA and the UK are discussing abortion and the death penalty, budget cuts and the rising unemployment, role of religion in the government and the corruption of politicians, corruption of religion and the bankers and the industrialists. We got problems, but these are not the problems.

On the Facebook page of Woodrow Guthrie, https://www.facebook.com/woodrow.guthrie?ref=ts&fref=ts
where most of the visitors are from the US and the UK we still talk about such problems, and the yet the world keeps moving along. There are other discussions, other problems, people sit back, giving opinions.
We live in a vacuum, or do we, there other topics from around the globe, yet we talk as if we are still separated from the rest by the oceans, by the distance, what happens in China stays in China, and even if it is happening in the Netherlands of Germany or Greece can not happen to us, will not happen to us anytime soon, yet I see the world as one, always have, and what is happening in China or Japan, Spain or Portugal, even Chad and Pakistan I see my future in it, I try to  see how it will effect me and my future, soon, my present.

Here for instance are some topics discussed recently, 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=507915365916448&set=a.216857795022208.51891.215521678489153&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=507761452598506&set=a.216857795022208.51891.215521678489153&type=1&theater

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151531483169744&set=o.215521678489153&type=1&theater

Hong Kong's human battery hens: Claustrophobic images show how slum families squeeze their lives into the tiniest apartments 

• Bird's-eye images released by social group documenting plight of poorest in one of world's richest cities
• Group's director: 'Lurking beneath this prosperity is great inequality and a forgotten group of poor people'
• With a land mass of 1,104sq km and a population of 7 million, it is also one of the most densely populated

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2282764/Hong-Kongs-human-battery-hens-Claustrophobic-images-slum-families-squeeze-lives-tiniest-apartments.html?ICO=most_read_module



and one more, please

Child euthanasia debate begins in Belgium

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/child-euthanasia-debate-begins-in-belgium/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+christianinstitute+%28The+Christian+Institute%29&utm_content=FaceBook


For many years I have talked about us living in a inter-connected world, the policies being talked about and examined and practiced are our future, these "experiments" set the stage for the future, pour future and how we will all soon be living in this "the New World Order".

Do we feel privileged or are just out of touch with reality? What makes us believe that what is going on in the world around us will not happen to us, and soon. From the social upheavals of Europe due to the economic squeeze on the populous put on by the bankers, to the loss of worker's rights and a retirement and decent wages for the working poor  will not happen here, even though it is already happening to us, right here. Whether you are for or against abortion, or population control it will not happen in the USA or the UK sometime in the near future, sooner than you think that is.

Through the ages the rich and the powerful have used religion and illiteracy to control the masses, such is the case today also, and not just in the middle east mind you. If you think that the rich are not pushing religion to divide the country, making you illiterate through the education system as well as the media (movies, TV, video games and the "talk radio" too), stupidity is on the rise not because you are not informed, just that you are being misinformed, totally. So if you totally and absolutely trust the msnbc, Rachel Maddow, Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, FOX, CNN, Thom Hartmann, Ann Coulter, Dick Morris, Dennis Miller and on and on, you are more ignorant than you think. Oh let me add Alex Jones to the list too. Here is again something to look at

A NOT SO FREE PRESS 

 A NOT SO FREE PRESS II

 A NOT SO FREE PRESS III

  We today find ourselves involved in some bizarre and counter productive arguments, it is by design, at the dawn (early morning really) of the twenty first century, we find our selves in discussions of the economic theory, the women's rights, the worker's rights, the abrtion rights, the civil rights, the police brutality, the torture memos. the drug wars, the atomic weapons, the banker's corruption, the political corruption Ad nauseam. Did we not settle these already, but we hash and rehash the same day in and day out, and we do not make progress, is it not by design and who is benefiting most while we are at loggerheads, almost at the brink of a civil war.  

   How can we even imagine that is is not being controlled, we are being controlled while we sing our anthems of freedoms and our rights, even as we are losing our freedoms and have no rights, while we talk about healthy foods and healthcare choices, we ignore the fact that we are broke and in the long run ( a very short one indeed) we will have to decide who lives and who dies and who breeds and who may not, since we are going to pay for it any way.

more to follow soon!

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

ICELAND'S AMAZING PEACEFUL REVOLUTION

02/14/2013

 ICELAND'S AMAZING PEACEFUL REVOLUTION

 (6) Are the rest of Europe too scared to follow suit?

Iceland’s peaceful revolution is a stunning example of how little our media tells us about the rest of the world. You can read the details about Iceland’s peaceful, successful social revolution, here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/08/01/1001662/-Iceland-s-On-going-Revolution

on Bloomberg.com, or here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-20/icelandic-anger-brings-record-debt-relief-in-best-crisis-recovery-story.html

.

An article at WakeUpWorld says “The Icelandic economy will outgrow the Eurozone in 2012 and is set to outgrow the entire developed world on average, according to estimates from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, here: http://wakeup-world.com/2012/05/25/the-silent-revolution-icelandic-anger-debt-forgiveness-and-activist-triumph/

Now Iceland is proceeding to actually prosecute some of their formerly most powerful bankers and the Icelandic special prosecutor has stated that it very well may indict some 90 people.

Meanwhile, over 200 people, including the former chief executives of Iceland’s three biggest banks, face criminal charges for their activities.

The following summation has been posted by countless people on Facebook; I’ve reposted it in its entirety:

ICELAND (GP) – No news from Iceland? Why? Last we heard, people were rising up and overthrowing the bankers. Then, no news on the television or newspapers for two years. What happened? Why won’t the papers and TV tell us how the bankers successfully crushed or minimized another rebellion? Because… THEY DIDN’T! This time, the people won.

The people of Iceland have overwhelmingly risen up and forced their government puppets of the banks to resign. Primary banks have been nationalized. The debt scam imposed by Great Britain and Holland money printers was declared null and void. A public assembly has been created to rewrite Iceland’s constitution.

The best part is, all of this happened without violence or bloodshed. A whole country’s revolution succeeded against powers that created the current global crisis without a shot being fired. A very good reason exists for the apparent failure of television and newspapers to provide any publicity on this unprecedented event: what would happen if the rest of the EU and the United States took this as an example?

The following is a summary of the facts:

2008 – The main bank of Iceland is nationalized.
The Krona, the currency of Iceland devaluates and the stock market halts. The country is in bankruptcy

2008 – Citizens rise up at Parliament and succeed in forcing the resignation of both the prime minister and the effective government. New elections are held.
Yet, the country remains in a bad economic situation. A Parliament act is passed to pay back 3,500 million Euros to Great Britain and Holland by the people of Iceland monthly during the next 15 years, with 5.5% interest.

2010 – The people of Iceland again take to the streets to demand a referendum. In January of 2010, the President of Iceland denies approval, instead announcing a popular vote on the matter by the people.

In March, a referendum and denial of payment is approved by popular vote of 93%. Meanwhile, government officials initiate an investigation to bring to justice those responsible for the crisis. Many high level executives and bankers are arrested. Interpol dictates an order to force all implicated parties to leave Iceland.

An assembly is elected to write a new constitution (based on the Denmark’s) to avoid entrapments of debt based currency foreign loans. 25 citizens are chosen — with no political affiliation — out of the 522 candidates. The only qualifications for candidacy are adulthood and the support of 30 people. The constitutional assembly started in February of 2011. It continues to present ‘carta magna’ from recommendations provided by various assemblies throughout the country. Ultimately, it must be approved by both the current Parliament and the one created through the next legislative election.

In summary of the Icelandic revolution, we saw:
-resignation of the entire corrupt government of the country
-nationalization of the bank
-referendum enabling the people to determine their own economic system
-incarceration of responsible parties, and
-a rewriting of the Iceland Constitution by its people

This is significant stuff.
Have we been informed about this through the main stream media?
Has any political program on radio or TV commented on this?

Not that I’ve seen. The Icelandic people have demonstrated a way to beat the international money printers and controllers of information. The last thing entrenched usurers would want is for you to think you could also free yourself from their chains.

The above article is a reprint.

UPDATE: Cenk Uyger has posted a good video on Iceland’s peaceful revolution at http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/964401/cenk_uygur%3A_iceland_shows_bailing_out_middle_class_works%2C_not_bailing_out_banks/

UPDATE: Ex-Bank executives go to jail – In deciding the punishment” the Supreme Court took account of the fact that the “magnitude of the offences was significant,” according to the ruling posted on the Reykjavik- based court’s website, at: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-07/iceland-court-sentences-ex-byr-savings-executives-to-jail.html

Watch the video, "How to Start a Revolution – Learn From Iceland!", which already has 115,475 views, here: http://bit.ly/WHrDNS

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS

02/13/2013


 BANNING ASSAULT WEAPONS

 Banning Assault Weapons

I know many of friends and even close relatives are against gun ownership and consider it foolish if not outright crazy, stupid or worse.

Any investigation of facts must not be based on emotions or preconceived notions, it must not only be based in facts but the ability to look for clues and putting them together, connecting the dots, mind you.
As it was revealed on CNN no less, that even with the recent spate of shootings using assault weapons, of the more than 11,000 shooting deaths a year only 4% are caused by this type of weapon!
Then why all the hoopla and the assault on the assault weapons, is there something else? Are we missing something? Are we not being told something? Is there something else?

If the assault weapons are used in no more than 4% of murders per year then why there is such a big push for their ban? Why they are more important to ban than say cheap 9mm handguns that used in so many more killings, killings in the hood, in drug wars, and even more importantly "black on black" killings.
Is there a reason? Look for the reason and you solve the puzzle.

Actually, at a closer look you will find that the use of these weapons in murders is very new, in very few but extremely well publicized cases. 

An assault weapon was used, it is said, in Aurora and at Newtown, the weapon used in Fort Hood was military issue. The weapon used in Wisconsin was a hand gun. So was the one used in Arizona.
The second part of each of these stories is the mental health. 

Something is gone wrong with this country, we are not just a lazy people, generally, we have become mentally lazy too, why not just get your facts and opinions from some hack, from a talk or a news show, why waste time gathering facts and thinking for yourself. Why think! 

The media are setting the agendas and determining our priorities, what to eat, how much to eat, what to drive, what gas to use and so on. So it is no wonder that so many informed and the educated suddenly don't see a problem with assault weapons ban.

Even Obama himself will agree that 99.999 % of these weapons have never been used in a crime, that most owners are law abiding and stable citizens with no metal illness and no intention of going on a killing spree. Then why is this rush to collective punishment justified? Why should ALL be punished for the foolishness, no matter how horrible and sickening.

Obama will also agree that a lot more people die in house fires every year than by assault weapons, then why not just ban houses, we could make people live in camps, tents or some shelters, may be not, but surely more home owners set fire to their own homes than the assault weapon owners use their weapons to kill people, just the same, ban home ownership, no more a problem. What I am saying is this, that the idea is stupid.

Another problem here is where do we stop, assault weapons are actually no more than simple rifles designed to fire semi-automatically, that is IT, until you realize that most all hand guns are also semi automatic weapons, (also used in more shootings than the "assault rifles"), so if you let them pass a assault rifle ban you could well be looking at a ban on the semi-automatic pistols, no joke, that is the next step. Even if you are just a run of the mill criminal, you know that it hard to hide an assault rifle and carry one in to a say bank or a store for robbery, it hard to hide and transport to kill some one with, it is hard to aim and harder to shoot accurately for a single murder, even a hand gun, a small one, is easily capable of killing three or four people at close range, most of the people that oppose the long guns have never used one, never handled one and don't freaking know what the hell they are talking about, they are just on a band wagon of the stupid and clueless.

So why are we so gung ho about  the assault rifle ban, because we are told that they are dangerous, by whom? by the government and their patsies in the media. 

It is no doubt that our government is very scared of the people, the department of Homeland Security has named most all categories of American public   as potential terrorists, does not matter, left wing right wing, white, black, peaceful or anarchist, we are all potential terrorists, could this be a first step in reducing the threat to the status quo? I hope not, but sure sounds like it. Our police are armed to the teeth, police in SWAT gear, and tactical vehicles, with robots and machine guns, tear gas and grenade launchers, helicopter and drone surveillance, the police today are no less than an army in civilian uniform, yet the government knows that if shit hits the fan, people with assault weapons could still put up a resistance to the police, reducing the number of assault weapons reduces this threat. 

Back in November of 2010 I write a series,  A life in Dichotomies, there are three articles if you want to look, we have choices in life and most of the time choices conflict, such is the situation here also. We have police that are armed to the teeth, with assault weapons as the government wants to call them, then we have "police" trained in techniques we have taught our combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan to break in to peoples houses and shoot first ask questions later, without consequence, now we also declare that 20 to 30 percent of the troops coming back suffer from PTSD, to the point that they are considered a threat to themselves and others, and guess who is hiring these returning troops, our police departments. As a result of the training the police are being given and then recruiting the returning troops for the police duties, we are endangering the civilian population. If you notice that our police are becoming heavy handed, if you notice the rise in the police brutality and abuse of civilians ( innocent civilians in far too many cases) you should know what is causing the problem. Also more people are killed with these so called assault weapons by the police then are killed by civilians. It is not uncommon that scores if not hundreds of rounds are fired at a single person or target by those that are sworn to "serve and protect".

Mallick: Why Newtown victim Noah Pozner had an open coffin

Sadly we do not so well publicize what happens to the people that are killed by the police, sometimes receiving more than twenty or even sixty bullets. A vehicle getting more than a hundered rounds pumped into it is just par for the course.

And why is the government afraid of an armed uprising? It is not really, we are brain washed in to changing our behaviors  by what we are watching on TV, or on our computers, yet few still have thoughts that are out of the main stream, not everyone likes to be felt up by the TSA body snatchers, not everyone thinks that the gays playing grab ass on the public streets is kosher, both the left ant the right are tired of being screwed by the bankers and the wall street and the government. What if the country goes bankrupt and the people have to give up property to pay the banks, and accept lower wages and lower standard of living along with higher taxes to pay off the national debt, there could be trouble. There could be trouble if the left or the right tried to impose their own kind of morality on the general public. Our privacy is under attack, our human rights and freedoms are under attack, we are not too far from the day when the government could start killing the Americans in America, even those that are not Muslims, (it could happen). Removing these assault rifles from the hands of the public could be the first step towards achieving safety for the government troops or the police.So could the problem have something to do with the high deficits and the bankers wanting to get paid?







LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

WHAT IS NEW IN LIFE

02/06/2013

WHAT IS NEW IN LIFE

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

IS ABORTION MURDER?

02/02/2013

 IS ABORTION MURDER?


IS ABORTION MURDER

MURDER DEFINED

David The common law definition of "murder" in USA is "the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought."

  

Jean  at it's most basic level murder is willingly and maliciously taking someone else' life without their consent

 Time and again we end up at the same point, an impasse may be, that murder is and unlawful act, as described by the current rules and norms of the society in which we live, I disagree, if I accept this definition then we are saying also that the Inquisition was O.K., that the killings by the Calvinists just may have been acceptable, The Salem witch trails and may be even lynching would be O.K. And thus by extension we could justify human sacrifice, and cannibalism too.  Am I taking this too far?
Surely the cannibals had some laws against murder and so did the people offering human sacrifice, If god could ask for, and Abraham be willing to sacrifice his son, then we must assume that some people at certain times in history were correct to offer humans as sacrifice to the deities that they believed in, semantics aside.

It is hard to define murder in the absolute terms, some of it legal and some defined as illegal, as in when the state itself decides to take a life for what ever reason. ALL MURDERS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL!

I saw the question when first posed on "Woodrow Guthrie", I actually went to the original site to argue, discuss really, by the time of my third comment I had so many comments personally directed at myself that the discussion was not worth staying, in, I most certainly appreciate those that have followed these threads, without attacking me personally, Thank you.

The US law allows an abortion, an abortion is not defined as murder in law, thus to call an abortion a murder is libelous, it is inflammatory and out right lie, until the law is changed no one should call abortion murder, no one should be allowed to, one should be sued for making such an accusation. Also in such other places where the abortion is allowed. And not only that the law allows it but also because we just don't know what a murder IS!

If we are to go with the point of a malice a fore thought,  the accusation fails also here, no one goes to have an abortion or to perform an abortion for the sole purpose and intent to kill,  anyone or anything.

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Aragorn

02/01/2013

 ARAGORN

 Hold your ground - hold your ground! Sons of Gondor - of Rohan . . . my brothers! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. The day may come when the courage of Men fails; when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship; but it is not this day - an hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the Age of Man comes crashing down - but it is not this day!!! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth - I bid you stand!
Aragorn.

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

A POINT TO PONDER

01/31/2013

 A POINT TO PONDER

The secret of life won't be cooked up in a chemistry lab

Life's origins may only be explained through a study of its unique management of information

• • Paul Davies
  • The Guardian, Sunday 13 January 2013 14.07 EST
  • Jump to comments (406)

Even the simplest bacterium is incomparably more complicated than any
chemical brew ever studied. Photograph: Mads Nissen/ Panos Pictures

The origin of life is one of the great outstanding mysteries of science.
How did a non-living mixture of molecules transform themselves into a
living organism? What sort of mechanism might be responsible?
A century and a half ago, Charles Darwin produced a convincing explanation
for how life on Earth evolved from simple microbes to the complexity of the
biosphere today, but he pointedly left out how life got started in the first place.
 "One might as well speculate about the origin of matter," he quipped.
But that did not stop generations of scientists from investigating the puzzle.
The problem is, whatever took place happened billions of years ago, and all
 traces long ago vanished – indeed, we may never have a blow-by-blow
account of the process. Nevertheless we may still be able to answer the
 simpler question of whether life's origin was a freak series of events that
happened only once, or an almost inevitable outcome of intrinsically
 life-friendly laws. On that answer hinges the question of whether we are
alone in the universe, or whether our galaxy and others are teeming with life.
Most research into life's murky origin has been carried out by chemists.
They've tried a variety of approaches in their attempts to recreate the
first steps on the road to life, but little progress has been made. Perhaps that
 is no surprise, given life's stupendous complexity. Even the simplest bacterium
 is incomparably more complicated than any chemical brew ever studied.
But a more fundamental obstacle stands in the way of attempts to cook up
life in the chemistry lab. The language of chemistry simply does not mesh
 with that of biology. Chemistry is about substances and how they react,
 whereas biology appeals to concepts such as information and organisation.
 Informational narratives permeate biology. DNA is described as a genetic
 "database", containing "instructions" on how to build an organism. The genetic
 "code" has to be "transcribed" and "translated" before it can act. And so on.
 If we cast the problem of life's origin in computer jargon, attempts at chemical
synthesis focus exclusively on the hardware – the chemical substrate of life
– but ignore the software – the informational aspect. To explain how life began
 we need to understand how its unique management of information came about.
In the 1940s, the mathematician John von Neumann compared life to a
 mechanical constructor, and set out the logical structure required for a
 self-reproducing automaton to replicate both its hardware and software.
But Von Neumann's analysis remained a theoretical curiosity. Now a new
 perspective has emerged from the work of engineers, mathematicians and
 computer scientists, studying the way in which information flows through
 complex systems such as communication networks with feedback loops, logic
 modules and control processes. What is clear from their work is that the dynamics
of information flow displays generic features that are independent of the specific
 hardware supporting the information.
Information theory has been extensively applied to biological systems at many
levels from genomes to ecosystems, but rarely to the problem of how life actually
 began. Doing so opens up an entirely new perspective on the problem. Rather than
 the answer being buried in some baffling chemical transformation, the key to life's
origin lies instead with a transformation in the organisation of information flow.
Sara Walker, a Nasa astrobiologist working at Arizona State University, and I
 have proposed that the significant property of biological information is not its
 complexity, great though that may be, but the way it is organised hierarchically.
In all physical systems there is a flow of information from the bottom upwards,
 in the sense that the components of a system serve to determine how the system
 as a whole behaves. Thus if a meteorologist wants to predict the weather, he may
start with local information, such as temperature and air pressure, taken at various
locations, and calculate how the weather system as a whole will move and change.
In living organisms, this pattern of bottom-up information flow mingles with the inverse
- top-down information flow – so that what happens at the local level can depend
 on the global environment, as well as vice versa.
To take a simple example; whether a cell expresses a gene can depend on
mechanical stresses or electric fields acting on the whole cell by its environment.
 Thus, a change in global information (a pattern of force) at the macroscopic level
 translates into a change in local information movement at the microscopic level
 (switching on a gene). More generally, a range of signals received from its environment
help to dictate how a cell's DNA is distributed and transcribed. Walker and I propose
 that the key transition on the road to life occurred when top-down information flow first predominated. Based on simple mathematical models, we think it may have happened
 suddenly, analogously to a heated gas abruptly bursting into flame.
There is a second distinctive way in which life handles information processing. The
 language of genes is digital, consisting of discrete bits, cast in the language of a
 four-letter alphabet. By contrast, chemical processes are continuous. Continuous variables
can also process information – so-called analogue computers work that way – but less reliably than digital. Whatever chemical system spawned life, it had to feature a transition from analogue to digital.
The way life manages information involves a logical structure that differs fundamentally
 from mere complex chemistry. Therefore chemistry alone will not explain life's origin,
any more than a study of silicon, copper and plastic will explain how a computer can
execute a program. Our work suggests that the answer will come from taking
 information seriously as a physical agency, with its own dynamics and causal
 relationships existing alongside those of the matter that embodies it – and that
 life's origin can ultimately be explained by importing the language and concepts
of biology into physics and chemistry, rather than the other way round.

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

MURDER DEFINED

01/28-2013
MURDER DEFINED

So far no one has come close to a solid and consistent definition of murder, we are not lacking in ideas, we just can't put a finger on it.  It is all about circumstances and customs,  it is about the outcome but the intentions, results, however, being the same. 

Let us then take a look at a few more examples and see what we can learn further.

The siege of Stalingrad caused numerous deaths, so did the people being placed in concentration camps.  Either situation caused many to die of  starvation and disease,  not from being gassed, shot or being bombed ( which some will consider military action), are these deaths murder? There is a reason why I ask this question,  I am still working on finding the answer ti what is murder and if abortion may be defined as murder also.

I admit, actually I have already proposed that defining murder is not an easy task, In my discussion the replies always come back either confused or  at least not so helpful at all, here are some examples

Gabriel , Murder, by definition, is the unlawful, intentional killing of a human being.. Death by starvation or infection due to war isn't classified as murder -- no more than a movie director who's horror movie caused someone to die of a heart attack.

Gabriel No, starvation and diseases caused by concentration camps are considered murder, but a town suffering because of war isn’t considered as murder. The former is intentional while the later is not.

hmmmm!

 Quirino murder is intentional killing with malice

 Graham Murder is the taking of a life outside of the rules under which you operate at the time. Quirino is correct for civil law. Military law has it's own definitions.

So a murder is only murder if committed by civilians,  if the military commits a murder then is it is not murder?

But it gets even more confusing if we throw in a few more variables, say, A women is terminally ill, severely injured, she is brain dead, and on life support,  her husband is called in by the doctors and told there is no hope of a recovery, he tells the doctors to pull the proverbial plug, did he commit murder? Alternately, he just goes to her bedside and either pulls the plug himself or just takes a pillow and smothers her till she expire, has a murder then been committed? 

Secondly. we were not at war with Iraq and had no siege, yet we placed a trade embargo against Iraq, it got more and more stringent,  ( As it is being done against North Korea these days you know,) , it is said that the embargo caused many to suffer and some to even died in Iraq due to our action, is anyone responsible for these deaths? Any murder here?

Thirdly, there is something called honor killing in Islamic countries, in the West, however, we do not have honor killing, yet in some states if a spouse comes home and finds the other  in a sexual tryst, say the said spouse takes a knife and kills the two, there is no murder, yet if a spouse comes home and tells the other of having an affair and thus is killed by the jilted spouse a murder is committed, how are the two different?

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

IS ABORTION MURDER?

01/27/2013

 IS ABORTION MURDER?

Woodrow Guthrie shared Daily Debates - Get Informed's status.

Friday

(2)

Is abortion murder?

• 

  Mohammed N. Razavi I think the humanity has yet to define murder,( at least for me). Is war murder? Is death penalty murder? Who do we murder and for what reason?
  Some texts define male masturbation as murder of the sperm, millions of them, each time, but yet even if a guy has sex and it only takes one sperm cell to impregnate the egg, millions still will end up dead. ( Is eating cum cannibalism? That is for anti abortion people). If a female is unmarried, she is still passing an ovum each month, is that murder? How about having sex with a pregnant female? The sperm is still destroyed.
  When does the life begin? If it is at the moment when the sperm enters the ovum, then most life is destroyed by nature it self.
  Recently the abortion debate has taken more of religious tone, most of the religious want to impose their own brand of morality on the rest, it has nothing to do with freedom and choice, it is blatant religious oppression where common sense and human rights take a back seat.
  Why do we so phoo phoo the Islamist morons yet we wish to pose our own kind of sharia on others. It is not about rights of the unborn, you kill babies when you have oral sex. if a fetus would not be viable outside the womb, it is not human being yet.

  
  

  Define Murder!
  The idea of a constant thinker, an observer of life, is not to answer your questions but to provoke you in to thinking, to look at things differently than you are used to.
  To say that you are thinking is not to mean thinking just to reaffirm your own thoughts and convictions, but to look at life differently, to try and understand and to try to make sense of what and why someone else will say what they say.
  I do not go out on the limb, I don't need to, I live here. So when I say we have yet to define murder I am not out on the limb, for me murder is YET to be defined.
  If murder is the killing of a person then it should be so, but it is not. Think, a person is dead as a result of another person causing that death, is that a murder? You know and you have agreed that it is not always. We have justifiable homicide, negligent homicide, even lawful killings. Is murder then defined as a matter of convenience for the norms of society. Much of the murder in the Islamic lands today is not by some criminals but at hands of the rulers and the clerics. Everyday, everywhere we are implored to "think outside the box", we commit ourselves to "think outside the box", yet most of the time we don't even know that we are permanently locked inside our own minds.
  What is a murder? Hitler killed six million Jews, yet if we had had a chance to kill him, how would that had evened it out? We dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to save lives! And what if princess Di had been murdered so that the step father of the future king of England would not be an Arab and a Muslim to boot? The Pharaohs declared the were the givers of life and death, they were gods to be worshiped, in our own recent history kings and even presidents and prime ministers, of the "free world" have ordered killings of many without ever being called murderer by anyone. Obama himself has ordered murders of American civilians and their kids without trial and conviction, is Obama a murderer?
  Sadly most that are against abortion and consider it murder are one with Obama on this, while those that are for abortion are against these killings, define murder!

  
  

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

FACTS OF LIFE

01/23/2013

 FACTS OF LIFE


 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

If all carnivores became vegetarians, no plants will be left. Some animals must be eaten by humans, or you can teach lions to eat grass too. 

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

"With the populace so badly divided and constantly at loggerheads, the government had no other choice but to declare the Martial Law" 

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

Everything that is NOT your (government) theory, is a "Conspiracy Theory".

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

All philosophies are really just an illusion that you are on to something, when you really are not. 

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

"Happily ever after", begins right after you let the reality knock some sense into you. (M.N.R.)

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

"loneliness is just a place in your mind". 

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

Don't worry about the petty squabbles among the politicians, it is like they are all like the prostitutes working for the same pimp. 

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

You too can be a financial genius, political commentator, a philosopher or a psychoanalyst,find a computer keyboard and start typing. Easy! 

 tombstone001 ‏@tombstone001

What is a successful suicide?

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE

Woodrow Guthrie shared Fractal Multiverse's photo.

01/23/2013

Woodrow Guthrie shared Fractal Multiverse's photo.

about an hour ago

Your thoughts on this? Do you agree?
(2)

Give me one good reason why alcohol should be legal and "illicit" drugs shouldn't be.

1. Illegal drugs are deadly.

Legal drugs kill more people than all illegal drugs combined. And when I say "legal drugs", I mean alcohol, tobacco, and prescription drugs.

"In the United States, smoking is responsible for about one in five deaths annually (i.e., about 443,000 deaths per year, and an estimated 49,000 of these smoking-related deaths are the result of secondhand smoke exposure)."
http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/

In 2009, alcohol use killed 24,518 people, and FDA-approved drugs killed 63,846 people. "We estimate that illicit drug use resulted in approximately 17,000 deaths in 2000, we included deaths caused indirectly by illicit drug use in this category."
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Causes_of_Death

2. Illegal drugs make people crazy.

Alcohol makes people crazy. "Alcohol induced psychotic disorder is characterized by prominent hallucinations or delusions that are judged to be due specifically to the effects of alcohol."
http://www.psychtreatment.com/alcohol_related_psychotic_disorders.htm

3. Illegal drugs turn people into criminals.

"According to the Department of Justice (DOJ), 37% of almost 2 million convicted offenders currently in jail, report that they were drinking at the time of their arrest."
http://www.ncadd.org/index.php/for-youth/drugs-and-crime/230-alcohol-drugs-and-crime

Drug prohibition distracts law enforcement from actual crimes. "In 2011, arrests for marijuana exceeded arrests for violent crime by more than 100,000, according to a report from the FBI."
http://www.nationalmemo.com/marijuana-arrests-now-exceed-arrests-for-violent-crime/

-John-

Image: http://beaudeeley.deviantart.com/art/Omnia-Est-Intra-300358689

 

Mike,  In my Catholic high school's library we had a copy of the Consumer's Union Report - Licit and Illicit Drugs. They recommended decriminalization across the board as the only sensible strategy to reduce the harms associated with drug abuse. This was back..1986 and I've never believed differently since reading it. Apparently the whole thing is available online now (originally published in 1972):

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm

LIFE IS A GAME OF CONNECT THE DOTS, IF YOU DON'T CONNECT ALL THE DOTS OR DON'T CONNECT THEM IN THE RIGHT ORDER YOU NEVER GET THE PICTURE