Odracirys

  What a horrible tragedy!  You probably know by now that a passenger jet full of approximately 300 passengers was shot down over eastern Ukraine.  Although this article states that non-state actors don't usually have access to missiles that can go up past 10,000 feet, I wouldn't be surprised if Russia gave rebels in Ukraine some advanced weaponry.  (If it is true that this was shot down by a military, then that is completely outrageous.) If Russian-backed rebels are the culprit, then this is one more reason why rebels should never be supported by any side in (nearly) any conflict.  Rebels are not like states.  Rebels can do as they please without the consequences that would befall a national government.  This goes for almost all rebels everywhere.  Of course, Russia is trying to dictate what Ukraine can and can't do.  On the other hand, the United States is supporting rebels in Syria because Russia has its only Mediterranean military port...

You all know Cecil Rhodes, right?  He was a British Imperialist (living from 1853-1902) who founded the De Beers diamond mining and trading company.  Just this morning, I came upon a post comparing him to Adolf Hitler, and claiming that Cecil Rhodes killed at least 60 million Africans.  It has been shared 99 times.  Here is the post: https://plus.google.com/+TonyJefferson/posts/CZ6HW3AxDo6 Unlike many, I decided to do some research on it.  That is my nature.  I don't accept things without evidence given, and even when no evidence is provided, I search for evidence.  If after looking, no evidence is forthcoming, then I discount the claim unless compelling evidence does surface.  After my research on this topic (taking up about an hour of my day and 28 open tabs on my browser...but still an enjoyable time because this is what I like to do), I found that my initial skepticism was well justified and that this comparison is incorrect.  Adolph H...

We take it for granted that the media can't be trusted in countries which are not "free".  However, there is no doubt that what we read in so-called "free" countries is also heavily biased, and has an agenda.  I'm not just talking about the most blatant sources such as Fox News.  I'm talking about nearly everything. Each news outlet has an agenda.  They pick sides.  It is often great to pick sides.  For example, supporting the fact that humans are changing the earth's climate is what news outlets should be doing because all of the evidence points to that.  When problems arise is when news outlets pick a side and then go with it, no matter the countervailing evidence.  Some of it might be related to pleasing the "free" governments that look over them, and some of it might be due to one of the most destructive beliefs ever - that good always battles bad (and thus, "bad" and "bad" or "bad" and "worse"...

According to the recent referendum, 95.5% of Crimean voters chose to leave Ukraine and join Russia. [1]  Upon learning of such a high percentage, two thoughts passed through my mind...that this vote was unfair and also that even if it were fair, the choice to join Russia would have probably still gotten a majority. The demographics of Crimea are as follows: [2] 58.32% Russians 24.32% Ukrainians 12.10% Crimean Tatars Elsewhere, I've seen that 77% of Crimeans speak Russian, and I'm not sure if this conflicts with the previous demographics or if many ethnic Ukranians and Tatars speak Russian.  Here is a map of the native languages of Ukraine, showing clearly the Russian majority in Crimea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UkraineNativeLanguagesCensus2001detailed-en.png At any rate, Russians make up a majority, but not such an overwhelming majority.  Even with groups abstaining from voting, the results seem skewed. But assuming a fair election with nobody abstai...

A lot of people don't trust anonymous internet users.  I have come to realize that anonymous users might in fact be more honest.  At least for me, my anonymity ensures that you'll hear MORE of what I'm secretly thinking, not less. Here's the thing.  One of my neighbors (whom I have a very friendly relationship with) made these claims on a recent Facebook post: - She and her children's rights are being infringed on when they are not allowed to pray. - The United States is based on the Christian god. - The Christian god is what made the United States tolerant. Now, realize that on Facebook, I'm not anonymous.  I'm her neighbor and we have a good relationship which I don't want to risk.  So, in my non-anonymous response to her, did I act more or less like my inner self than I would have if I'd been anonymous?  Well, I acted less like my inner self and more accommodating.  Is this good in some situations?  Absolutely.  It keeps the peace....

To those who didn't know, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and European Union have said that it is a violation of human rights to 1) give life sentences (forget about death sentences), 2) bar convicted criminals in prison from voting, and 3) deport criminal illegal immigrants with families in the country. Imagine someone murdered your children in front of you.  Now imagine that not only can you not seek the death penalty, but you can't even seek life in prison.  Wow! Some in the UK are upset about this, as they should be, but it seems like most of the government is going along with all of this BS.  I used to respect the UK.  I have very little left for it now (as a general concept.  Of course there are many great individuals who live there). The EU is a crock, and I see it more and more.  And the UK has become a follower.  It's quite pathetic what a century has done.  It's like after WWII, people said to the UK, "You've owned much of the ...

Just this week, both New Mexico and Utah legalized same-sex marriage (via the courts).  I'm glad that the courts are starting to get in on the action.  It's really just a matter of time.  Our period today is like the late 1950s for blacks.  From 1954 to 1968, blacks basically became equal citizens in all states.  For example, there was Brown VS the Board of Education - school desegregation (1954), the Civil Rights Act (1964), the Voting Rights Act (1965), and the Fair Housing Act (1968).  In a period of 15 years, things dramatically changed.  We're in that period for same-sex marriage now. There are a few differences, though.  For one, a lot of people forget that blacks and other minorities did have full rights for quite a while (in some cases perhaps even since America's founding) in many northern states.  Here, same-sex marriage was not legal in any state until quite recently.  It was only ten years ago, in 2003, when Massachus...