Harvey Milk

          Harvey Milk was one of the first openly gay elected officials who represent more than just an official of government but a change in the civil rights movement for homosexuals showing they are just as equal as any other human being and are good enough to govern their country. Milk born May 22, 1930, in Wood mere, New York. Having one sibling, Robert was employed in their parent's store, “Milk”; his birth father, William, served in the U.S. Navy and as did his mother Minerva, both of Lithuanian heritage. Harvey came from a small middle-class Jewish family that was well known in the New York “Litvaks” community for their civic engagement. In a website's called Miks Foundation, it said, “He[Harvey Milk] knew he was gay by the time he attended Bayshore high school, where he was a popular student with wide-ranging interests, from opera to playing football.”

           When he grew up he went to college in “New York State College for Teachers in Albany (now known as University of New York).” He studied math and history hoping to pursue a career in teaching or finance, eventually, he was driven away from that direction, but he did become really involved throughout the campus having a place in the newspaper and questions the decisions made in policies with the wars. He did follow the footsteps of his parents going into a driver officer in the Navy where once questioned on his sexual orientation, he resigned and left his job no matter how of a good position he had.

In the 1960s and 70s when Harvey Milk become more involved into politics and activist in civil rights, he became aligned with an anti-war movement against the Vietnam war. If it wasn't for his love in comedy theater, Milk would have never stepped foot in San Francisco wherewith also the increasing acceptance of the gay and homosexual community, Harvey instantly admired the city and decided to start a new life there. Where he was known for his sense of humor and exaggerated character. Which lead to him wanted to be involved in how the government was working. He mainly began his political career being greatly known for his means in cleaning up the city streets of San Francisco and promoting/creating a law we still have today, The pooper scooper law, where residents with dogs were required to carry around with them bags with them to clean up after their pets have done their business. Later founding and organizing new jobs and businesses that were open and not denied to the LGBTQ communities in the US. He was also able to get George Moscone, the mayor of San Francisco at the time, on board with his plans since he was an early supporter of gay rights and took action. Moscone ended up abolishing the anti-somebody law in the city and appointed many gay and lesbian people in high profile jobs in their city. He also got support from a gay neighborhood in SF called Castro Camera who heard his voice and saw him as a leader/activist.
     Harvey Milk gave a chance for LGBTQ citizens to have an open and equal opportunity that many did not have before. He also gave them a voice in order for them to come out from hiding and express themselves because there was a new hope of being accepted seeing that at the time homosexuality was considered a mental illness. Unfortunately, in the end, Milk was assassinated by a man named Dan White, a supervisor that worked with Moscone, disagreed with what was being done in the city of and believed that Milk and Moscone were going to fail the city. So on November 27, 1978, White entered City Hall with a revolver and shot Moscone four times and Milk five times because Moscone would refuse to reappoint him when he continued to ask and Milk supported that decision. White was sent to trial yet only convicted of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder so he would only serve 6 years in prison.
       Once the outcome of White’s trial had been released, Castros’ set demonstrations outside of City Hall went from peaceful to violent. There were more than 5,000 policemen that responded and around 189 people were injured in what was known as “The White Night Riots”. Nevertheless, Harvey Milk’s legacy continued and his movement has endured because of what he did as the voice and as a leader the LGBTQ community.

http://www.biography.com/people/harvey-milk-9408170
http://www.biography.com/news/harvey-milk-biography-facts
http://milkfoundation.org/about/harvey-milk-biography/

High school Code Of Conduct

I  believe that the school's code of conduct or your entire high school experience is going to be essential in our everyday lives when we become adults. There are things that I gave some overthought to on very subtle things such as teachers being lenient. It may be cool when a teacher extends a due date or dismisses an assignment or allows test retakes and test corrections, but I can't help but feel a little guilty because we're not experiencing the consequences that come with our irresponsibility. In the real world, consequences are real and it kind of worries me.

We've probably already experienced real-world things such as maintaining a job, being professional is what helps keep that job or else you'll get fired. High school promotes just that because if you act indecent, which can be a number of things, you get expelled, suspended, or get sent home for the day. 

I'm probably just pessimistic. What's your opinion on the school's code of conduct or what does it mean to you? 

Defense VS Prosecuters

The defenses roll in the court room is to protect their client from being convicted. While the Prosecuters will challenge the defense to accuse their client of committing such crime. In the OJ trail, It was very hard for the defense to protect OJ from all the evidence that was not in his favor. So as many defense lawyers do is shift the attention of case. In this trial, they brought up how unreliable police work and detective work was done. They exposed other matters that were not relevant to the case. In the end they made the Prosecution look unprepared, and ended up tricking them into statics that would yet prove OJ innocent in the court of law.

OJ's football career

OJ football career

OJ went to USC and was the best player in college football both years. He only played in 1967 and 1968 and attended the 1969 NFL draft. He was picked number 1 and made from $250k to $650k for a four-year contract. His first year he only had 697 yards and only 2 touchdowns. The second year he had fewer yards- 488 but 5 touchdowns. If he continued this way do you think that he would've got in so much trouble?

Gender Equality vs. Race Equality

We have seen how many African Americans across the country reacted to the verdict of the OJ Simpson case. We have also heard many perspectives about how race played into this case and the rising tensions between law enforcement and the black community in LA. While I watched many African Americans - especially women - react so positively to OJ being found not guilty, I could not help but question how these women could stand behind an obvious domestic abuser and raging misogynist. Obviously, I have no room to judge because I am not black and cannot pretend to understand the experience of the black community. But it got me thinking a lot about the interaction between race and gender in our country. Often PoC have to choose to advocate for either gender equality or racial equality, and a number of times racial equality takes priority. A historical example is Fredrick Douglass. Douglass actually set himself apart from the Women’s Suffrage Movement, he put the Black (male) suffrage above Women’s suffrage. Many suffragists claimed he was a sexist, but in reality, he was able to see the racism within in the Women’s suffrage movement. Many suffragists were fighting for the right to vote for white women, not all women. I agree with the argument that in order to receive gender equality, there must be racial equality. The way black women supported OJ is another example of prioritizing racial equality over gender equality. 

Inbuilt or Developed

 The discussion of psychopathic people has lead on to many debates over how they are, can be, and what they feel though their lives. Many with psychopathic minds go through their everyday life with no one noticing, sometimes not even themselves until they're evaluated, as they can act indifferent to others in their behavior. Although, some with psychopathic minds use charm and influence to end up as powerful leaders, normally in the business setting. There's 4 times as many psychopathic people being business leaders than those that aren't.

Although, one debate that continues to this day is about how psychopathic minds develop to other's around them; would they become uncaring and manipulative from birth, or do they develop these tendencies from abuse and bad parenting? Do you think that they do in some way inherit these tendencies directly from birth, or do you think they are obtained through bad experiences with others that they had in their lives?

A Moment Alone

When you have a pretty bad day, sometimes it's nice to spend time with your friends and laugh it off. However, sometimes it's just better spending some time alone. Often times with your choice of music. I think that, often times, that's what's best, not just for yourself, but for everyone around you. A moment alone helps you relax, and get your thoughts straight. It can help you prepare for the next moment in your life, and that's pretty cool, because it could make the rest of the moments to come easier, and maybe more fun. This is why sometimes a moment alone is one of the best things you can do for yourself.

Dream Team

The Dream Team was a group of lawyers that were on the defense side for the OJ Simpson Trial. These lawyers were the best lawyers you could get at the time, and OJ payed good money to acquire all of them. They all played a huge part in winning the jury over in OJ's favor. The team consisted of Robert Shapiro, Johnnie Cochran, Rob Kardashian, Barry Scheck, F. Lee Bailey, Alan Dershowitz, Gerald Uelman, Carl Douglas, and Peter Nuefeld. Robert Shapiro joined the team after OJ's lawyer Howard L. Weitzman left, Shapiro is known for assembling the Dream Team and he was the one who led them through most of the trial until Johnnie came in. Johnnie Cochran joined the team later in the trial and would become a leader, he was the lawyer that uttered the famous line," If it doesn't fit, you must acquit." Rob Kardashian was a really close friend to OJ, and he would hide in Rob's house to avoid media coverage. When OJ didn't turn himself in, Rob was the one who read the note that OJ left for him. Rob would later reinstate his license to practice law, and he would join the team. Barry Scheck is a forensic and DNA evidence expert, and he joined to team to call out the mistakes the forensic team made when they were collecting evidence at the crime scene. F. Lee Bailey joined the team and the most important thing that he did was he cross-examined Mark Fuhrman, and he eventually made Fuhrman plead the 5th. Carl Douglas was in the team because he was one of Johnnie's top lawyers. Peter Neufeld joined the team to also call out the mistakes the forensic team did on the crime scene, he is known most importantly for calling out the credibility on the blood trail between Nicole's and Ron's body. This team eventually won the trial for OJ. Do you think without this team OJ would have never won the trial?
  

The Job of the Defense Attorney

I thought that this was a pretty interesting discussion topic in global. We talked about what the role of the defense attorney is in a criminal court case. Many would say that they have to get justice for their defendant. In a lot of cases, that would be true but isn't always true. In my opinion, I feel that OJ Simpson did commit the double murder AND is also the luckiest man alive. He had the right defense team and it worked out for him. His defense team, especially Johnnie Cochran, did their jobs great and filled their roles correctly. Their job is to get the jury to say that the defendant is not guilty and there are a lot of strategies of doing so. They don't even want to know if the defendant did what they were charged because it doesn't matter. Either way if he/she did it or not, they are getting paid to show the jury why the defendant is innocent. It isn't quite a straight forward thing in court, it is more of a competition between the prosecution and defense and the judges are the jury. Simply put, the team that can convince the jury that their side is correct or that the other side is flawed or incorrect. In the case for OJ Simpson, the defense knew that the cards were stacked against them and there was no way they could go against all this evidence collected straight up and therefore they had to attack the evidence and show the jury why it may be flawed. One way I could tell that the defense was a doing a good job of turning the case against the prosecution was when they exposed Mark Fuhrman and it was no longer about justice for Nicole or Ron but justice for the black community (which was a big part of the jury) in exposing dirty tactics and people in the LAPD. I honestly feel that the jury voted based off of emotion more than facts and evidence because this was a way for them to "police the police."

Never ask a question that you don't know the answer to

A concept in court that we learned in class was to never ask a question that you don't know the answer to. This really hurt the prosecution attorney Christopher Darton when he asked OJ to try on the glove. OJ had taken measures before to make the glove not fit, and if Darton had not asked for him to put on the glove, people believed that the glove was large and the evidence would not be dismissed. Barry Scheck used this concept to his advantage when he questioned Officer Fuhrman. He asked whether he had used the N-word in the past 10 years already knowing the answer, and caught Fuhrman lying under oath. This concept can be very powerful in the justice system, and I believe that if you ever find yourself there, think before you speak when you are being questioned. 

juice

O.j Simpson is guilty.

Importance of Jury Selection

As we travel further and deeper into this OJ Simpson case, I realize the importance of the jury and how they can truly make or break the case before they even hit the courthouse. I have also realized that it is a lot more difficult to pick a good jury for your side than most think. In the case of the Dan White, the former San Francisco City Hall Supervisor, he got off a lot easier than most when they commit a double murder. This case wasn't obviously all decided by jury selection but this shows the difficulty of jury selection. The defendants wanted to choose the conservative jury because they may have a bias towards White because he was also a conservative. On the other hand, the prosecution felt that a conservative jury would help their case because conservatives are for the death penalty that comes with a double murder. In the end, he got voluntary manslaughter which resulted in an immensely softer penalty of 7 years. There were a couple jurors in the OJ case that were in the film that we watched that completely stunned me on how much they were missing from the evidence and how little they knew about the evidence. Especially the DNA because that was a key piece of evidence against OJ that was nearly impossible to debunk or defend against. Bottom line is, there is certainly an advantage gained for one side or the other in the jury selection so choose wisely.

OJ case before the trial

As we as a class look at the OJ trial, I remember something Mr. Stewart said. He said that a lot of cases are won and lost before the trial even starts. There are a few errors the prosecution made before the trial even started that could have changed the outcome of the case.  The prosecution first decided not to use the bronco chase that would have allowed the prosecution to use the disguise, the fake passport, and the $10,000 as evidence to show guilt. It could be argued that not many people have these things in a car that they are using to flee if they are innocent. They also did not use any evidence from which OJ was at the police station. This had the cut hand and the poor explanation from OJ about how he got it. The prosecution also tried to have the trial in downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica, which was the jurisdiction that OJ committed the crime in. This affected the Jury pool the prosecution had to work with and ended up greatly benefiting the defense. Only two of the Jurors had a college education which made the DNA evidence the prosecution used go right over their head as it is later shown that the jury had no idea how to interpret the DNA evidence. While it is debatable that the prosecution had a lot of evidence for a conviction and it was the numerous blunders during the trial that ultimately led to the not guilty verdict, the mistakes in pre trial by the prosecution made it an up hill battle for a conviction at the very least.

Being A Bystander

I remember when I was younger that my parents would always advise me to not get into fights or not step in when I see a fight. My mom would always tell me to walk away or to tell an adult. I would obviously listen because that sounded reasonable to me. There has been many occasions where I know that I could have stepped in or at least done something to prevent what happened. However, I never did because I was taught to mind my own business. As I got older, I started to feel bad for just being a bystander and got involved in a positive way. I remember back when I was a Sophomore, my soccer teammate got into a fight with the team we played against and I would just encourage or spectate them. Now, whenever I see things getting heated, I step in and just tell everyone to relax and that it is not worth it because essentially they will both get red cards. I think being in this class has also helped me see that it is not okay to be a bystander and that it is better to take action.

Bystander Effect

We hear stories about the bystander effect all the time and think “I would never do that” “Why would you not it’s just the obvious thing to do”. But in reality, most people fall victim to this and often regret it. The bystander effect in my mind is seeing something that you could help with whether it's picking up a piece of trash or helping an elderly person with their groceries or helping someone that is injured and not doing anything about it because you assume someone else will. Although I have known about this for a long time and do my best to avoid it, I still do this day fall victim to it. One of the most recent was when I was on my way home and stopped at a five guys to get a burger and while I was waiting for them to make it I saw an old man with a cane get his order and attempt to walk out. He was struggling with the bag and his cane and it seemed like he needed much more than just a cane. Since the bag had to handles he had to stop and lean on a table to readjust the bag in his hand and struggled to get out of the restaurant and struggled with the door. From the second he grabbed the bag I really wanted to offer assistance and I tried to convince myself to help him the entire time until he finally got through the door and I just sat there disappointed in myself.

Bystander Story

 I went to a taco truck across the street from my apartment complex. I walk and run pretty fast. As I was going to cross the street I see a man trying to catch up to his chihuahua dog. The dog ran faster than the owner and the owner sounded as if in distress. I felt fairly confident that I could catch up with the dog and retrieve it to the owner, instead, I just stood on the other side of the street watching the man trying to get his dog and so did other people around that area, I did feel guilty after. This happened a while back, and all that I can think of now after learning about mob mentality is how true those studies on human behaviour are. I ate my burrito thinking why I didn't do anything, but not to the extent of how I think of it now.

the difference between a psychopath and a sociopath

Nowadays, the terms "psychopath" and "sociopath" are pretty much used interchangeably, and they are often used in order to avoid the word "crazy". Yet, studies have shown that there are actual scientific differences between the two terms, almost as widely pronounced as the difference between shell shock and post-traumatic stress disorder. There are major differences between saying things such as: "that neighbor is crazy" or "that driver is a psycho" or "your aunt is nuts". Nonetheless, we deploy such charged terms like they mean nothing, even though, mentally speaking, there is the weight of real illnesses trailing behind each word. While they share many common traits, a psychopath and a sociopath differ drastically and their specific distinctions are critical to understand. Psychopaths are dangerous, violent, cruel, and sinister – they tend to show no remorse for their actions since they always crave control and impulsivity. On the other hand, sociopaths' actions and thinking depends strongly on their upbringing which plays a large role in a child becoming a sociopath versus a psychopath. Like a psychopath, sociopathic behavior is conniving, deceitful, and manipulative, but not because they lack a moral compass. Instead, sociopaths have a moral compass that is skewed, unlike that of a psychopath's which is entirely missing.

Harvey Milk

Harvey Milk was an openly gay man who tried three times to get a seat in the San Francisco City-County Board and in 1977 he got a position. He is known for being the first openly gay individual to be elected to office in the US which during this time was still considered taboo. Milk is was also a well known gay rights activist and was well known and adored by many in the LGBT community. His message and proclamation during his time running for office gave the community hope during these times when hope for the community was almost non-existent.

Harvey Milk was born on May 22, 1922, in New York to a small Jewish family with one sibling. Both of his parents were involved in the US Navy during WWI.Harvey Milk attended the State University of New York and soon after graduation enlisted in the US Navy himself where he made it to Leuitenet Junior but resigned after his sexuality was brought into question. During the 60's and 70's, Harvey Milk became more involved in politics in an effort to show distaste towards the Vietnam War that was happening at the time. In 1972 Milk moved to San Francisco and opened up a camera store on Castro Street and became a very popular figure. He, along with other gay store owners, formed the Castro village association after some store owners wanted to prevent gay men and women to become store owners. This formation would become a tool for many LGBT communities to come because it was extremely successful.

The Imbalance of Funds in the Justice System

After viewing the documentary on plea deals in the criminal justice system, I started to think about what it would take for the accused to be given the right to a truly fair trial. Around 95% of criminal charges end in some sort of plea deal, and not all of these people are actually guilty. With all of these guilty pleas, the jails are constantly overflowing with people. About $7.5 billion went into the funding of federal prisons and a lot of this money is unnecessary. If we put more money into the public defense of these poor individuals, we could get real justice, and not this lame excuse that we call the justice system now.

Scott Falater

In class, we learned about a man named Scott Falater who had stabbed his wife 44 times and drowning her in the pool. That's not it, he did all that while he was sleep walking and he was sleep walking for about an hour. Their neighbor heard a scream, so he decided to call 911 and when they arrived Scott was asleep while his wife was laying there dead. He then was arrested because police said he was a suspect, but Scott was confused because he was sleeping and doesn't know what happened. He was charged with 1st degree murder because when police officers when to the house they wound the knife hidden in a blanket. I think it's dumb how someone can say they were sleep walking fro an hour and stab someone 44 times and drown them, it just doesn't make sense. The fact he hid the evidence shows that he was aware of what he did and was trying to hide it.

Deportation Laws

I  understand why people get angry about deportation laws, it ruins families. But, I never really am against or for these laws even as a son of undocumented parents. Could it be that because I am a citizen that I am more likely to not care because these laws don't apply to me? Am I a bad person for being this way?

Hero

      We define hero as a person who puts themselves in harms way to save others from a hazardous situation. I believe that for us to expect a hero in every traumatic experience is unfair and unrealistic. How can we define hero as the person who puts himself in harms way to save others, and then also expect a hero to not be rare. So in many catastrophes where the news and the nation seeks for a hero in the wake of all that has happened, we find ourselves stretching and redefining the meaning of hero. 

       Desmond Doss, a non-combatant that despite his anti-war beliefs believed he could help his country, and he did just that saving 75 injured soldiers pulling them out of an enemy secured war zone one by one knowing every trip could be his last due to the constant patrolling of the enemy. Desmond Doss embodies the word undoubtedly. But the same word has been used to define Pete Fenson's efforts at the 2006 Torino Olympics, leading the US national curling team to a bronze metal. Society has created a term to give hope and the feeling of protection to all. And in making a word to do just that they have a broad labeling of the word to further spread the positive characteristics.

The sheriff in daisy`s case

what did you guys think about the sheriff in Daisy's case?

Lionel Tate

In class, we recently learned about Lionel Tate and the murder of Tiffany Eunick. Lionel was 12 years old when he beat 6-year-old Tiffany Eunick to death. When he was put on trial, Lionel was indicted for first-degree murder and second-degree murder. At the trial, Lionel and his attorney tried to win this case by saying that Lionel was pretending to wrestle with Tiffany and that's when she hurt because of it. Eventually, in the trial, the wrestling claim didn't work and he was sentenced to life in prison. They then appealed this, so Lionel and his attorney managed to get a plea deal that had 10 years of probation so his life wasn't ruined. At the end of this, was Lionel given what he deserved or should he have gotten more or less of a punishment?
  

The justice system makes people criminals

As we've been studying both the court cases and the documentaries about race and privilege, a fact that I have thought about for a while has become more and more evident. We have a justice system that makes people criminals. A man who lives in complete poverty and is unemployed, has no way of paying for the speeding tickets he is given on a regular basis. The homeless man who has no family or friends has no one to help him when someone decides to blame him for something he didn't do just because it's convenient. What choice do theses people have? If you have to feed your family AND pay for the tickets, you have a choice between not paying them and going to jail (and thus being unable to take care of your family) or obtaining the money somehow. How are you going to get the money? In an impoverished neighborhood there's always going to be crime. Maybe offer to sell some drugs, just for a little while, so you'll have enough to pay that ticket. But then you get arrested for distribution and possession. Now you're in the arrest and facing jail. And that ticket still isn't paid. And your family is waiting for you to come home with dinner.

How are heroes created?

We've watched the Human Behavior Experiment documentary in small groups about a week ago. The documentary itself was very interesting to me, but one idea stood out most of all to me while watching the documentary; What makes a hero?

What I mean by this question is, what circumstances cause a person to act in a manner where they stand up against things they think are immoral. What causes a person to break from the bystander effect and become a "hero"? Murder is one of the few crimes that nearly every human agrees is immoral, yet, in the Kitty Genovese murder, very few people did anything to stop it. Just a couple weeks ago, the Las Vegas shootings occurred, which killed 59 people and injured 546 more, yet we only got a couple stories of the "heroes".

We can hypothesize all we want about why people are super susceptible to the bystander effect, but the simple fact is that we've pretty much all fallen victim to it, and if something like Las Vegas or Kitty happens near us, having heroes can mean the difference between a life lost and a life saved. So let's ask ourselves, "what makes a hero"? What can we do to create more heroes? What can we do to become heroes?

Personally, I believe knowledge is the best way to create more heroes. Spreading awareness of the bystander effect and encouraging people to speak up and rise up against things they think is wrong is effective. Teaching our kids to stand up will be effective. But, I'd like to know your opinions. Are there any other ways to create heroes? Are heroes even needed? I'd like to hear some thoughts.

Road Rage

Over the past few years especially, people have exhibited seriously irrational behavior on the road. It's common for people to have road rage. Drivers can tend to display aggressive or angry behavior which include rude gestures, verbal insults, physical threats or even dangerous driving methods that are targeted towards another driver in an effort to intimidate or release frustration. Although, sometimes road rage can lead to certain altercations and get extremely out of hand. Some have overreacted so badly that it had led to numerous harmful situations. For example, a priest was driving with his wife and daughter when a pickup truck cut him off; he then proceeded to follow the truck for 40 minutes all the way back to the other driver's house. A cell phone video caught the scene that followed – the man started a fight with the people in the pickup truck, then the wife came around the car and handed her husband a gun which he then pointed at the two others and threatened to shoot. He drove off, but later came back in the day to the house and shot at the pickup's windshield. This exemplifies the danger and risk that comes with displaying any sort of negative temperament towards others on the road.  This leads to the question: how can such ordinary people get so angry to the extent of endangering the people around them? A stressed driver’s behavior depends on that driver’s coping abilities. Generally, we could expect drivers with high aggression levels to use direct confrontation strategies while driving when stressed; such strategies would include honks, swerving, tailgating, and fighting the other driver. Driving presents a more or less stressful environment to any person behind the wheel simply due to the high speeds of other drivers and everyone making different decisions – as stress increases, the likelihood of a person having road rage increases as well, and if a person has road rage, their stress levels increase. This could be a very clear reason for how stressful situations can keep drivers from thinking before their potentially harmful actions.

Human Behavior Experiments

Today in class we watched a documentary of how people behave when placed in experiments that make them act wrongly without any limitation of any morals. An experiment i found very interesting was the Stanford experiment because the idea of the experiment was based off an actual incident that occurred in Abu Ghraib, Iraq. In this experiment Philip Zimbardo uses Stanford university basement for the experiment. He got volunteers from the school and they were paid for being part of it, but they didn't know what the experiment was going to be about. You either were a cop or a prisoner. The police officers got symbols of power like handcuffs and uniforms to show they are superior than the prisoners. The prisoners where identified by numbers not their names. The guards who make them sing and do push-ups, at one point the guards was being challenged by the prisoners and saw them as dangerous. The guards started taunting them, making them do brutal things and some of the prisoners would break down because they couldn't take it anymore. After the 5th day of the experiment the wife's creator, Cristina, came in to see how it was going and she was terrified. She couldn't watch anything the guards were doing to the prisoners, so she stepped out and told Philip she couldn't be with him if he continues it,so it ends the experiment because he realizes what hes doing. This experiment shows how people get seduced into things things they never thought they would do, because they think they are doing the right things, torching normal people.

Mob Mentality

In class recently, we have been talking about the mob mentality in certain groups in our communities. I agree with what we have talked about and can see it in our society in many different forms. A popular one that we have talked about has been at sporting events. It is believed that supporting a team is more than just watching the game and cheering but instead adopting the mentality of attacking the opponent's fans. I feel like it has gotten more and more out of hand in the recent years especially with the Brian Stow incident that hit the Bay Area pretty hard because it was a conflict between the Giants and Dodgers fans. Stow's mother brought up a great point that if you had asked the "thugs" who beat him up probably couldn't tell you anything that happened in the game. The purpose of their attendance was to create a problem and attack Giants fans just because they think it is acceptable in these conditions. One question that comes to mind when talking about this is how these people came to the conclusion that causing physical harm to someone for simply not liking the same team you do is completely justified and a socially acceptable thing to do. Do you guys think that there is anything that these teams and stadiums can do to prevent this from happening? It seems that they have added extra security and easy accessibility to those services but nevertheless, there is still fighting and conflicts.

Social Conformity

In global we have learned about social conformity, which is where an individual changes there mindset to match others point of views. Humans do this to fit into a group and be accepted, cause if they were to stand out they would be judged and critic.  We watched a documentary where there was a test subject along with several other actors. Here the actors would all give the same answer wrong or right, and when the subject was asked and answered correct he was shammed, while if he answered the same he was accepted. This case study showed how humans shift their beliefs to socially be accepted by others.

Are Americans Too Jaded?

Yesterday, Eminem ripped Donald Trump in a cypher during the BET Hip Hop Awards. Upon first glance it would seem that this performance has blown up the internet like never before, but if you take a closer look, the reaction is much more underwhelming than it would have been 20 years ago. During a time of seemingly unending tragedies occurring all over the world, this cypher is almost an afterthought. This would have been groundbreaking years ago, but today, my mom and dad don't even know about it. With such controversial topics already floating around this is just another drop of water in the ocean. Even though I agree with what Eminem is saying and support it, I am sad to say that Americans are officially too jaded for their own good. Even though it was trending on Twitter today, I wonder if it will even be thought of in a month. With everything happening in Puerto Rico and Las Vegas, this is just another thing that we can, and will, brush to the side so we can go on with our lives.

Postpartum-Psychosis and Depression

Postpartum-Psychosis is a rare but possible psychiatric emergency that changes people's  (mothers) minds and makes them think differently than what they usually think about. Most people that have this usually go through a time of depression, hallucinations and sometimes severe confusion. Most times this happens about two weeks after birth and can last from 2-12 weeks. During the weeks that they have postpartum-psychosis, mothers will usually stay in the hospital to make sure that nothing else goes on and/or gets worse. Most mothers that have it will recover because it usually is just a time of depression but if it gets worse it can be consider Postpartum Depression which isn't treatable and would have to live it through their entire life. People between the age of 19-40 and the only way they could possibly fix it, is through counseling.  

ANTIFA

ANTIFA or anti-fascism was a communist party created in Germany 1932, the same year the Nazi Party took power. It made sense then to have a party that was against fascism, as expressed in Hitler's Mein Kampf that was created in 1925 and at the time was the leader of the Nazi Party. However, their communist beliefs were not popular enough to get into office.

They exist today 2017, and it's not clear what they're even fighting for. One of their goals is to bring down free speech, they argue that it gives people the platform to incite violence but inciting violence is not protected under the first amendment, and yet whatever they say can be protected under the first amendment. They also clash with other organized groups, and both ANTIFA and the other organized group(s) result to using violence to try to outdo each other,  and it all just looks stupid and at the same time entertaining. But it brings light to ANTIFA's hypocrisy.

They also hold a belief that communism/socialism is so good, yet, they've never seen any real-world examples where communism/socialism has failed. Venezuela is a great example, they currently have a socialist/communist government and they are in an economic crisis. People can't afford basic necessities because inflation has gone up, and at the same time, Venezuela has a massive amount of debt.

It's just hard to take ANTIFA seriously

Fanatic attacks

In class we discussed why sport fans argue against rivals, and sometimes end up causing a huge scene. At the US vs Jamaica final in the gold cup, i was hoping that Jamaica would win the soccer game. I wanted them to get the sense of fame for making it so far. The guy sitting next to me was cheering for USA. The guy next to me was white and looked like he was one of those big fanatics. He kept the anger in until USA final scored a goal. He jumped off his seat, with rage he turned to me and screamed even louder. He said ¨Don't think i didn't notice you cheering for Jamaica¨. I actually thought we were going to start a fight over this. I but after the game he apologized and basically said he was just excited. It seems like the culture of sports changes the mentality. The fact that it's just a game and that we both just cheer for a different team. There is no need for aggressive attacks, the athletes don't even get that raged at each other and they are the ones playing.

Intersectionality and White Feminism

Up until recently, I might have been a white feminist. I know you might be thinking well duh you're white and you're a feminist therefore you're obviously a white feminist. However, I am talking about the negative label that has come to be associated with feminists usually who are white only looking out for certain types of women. It's not necessarily that they put down other groups it could be that they don't support them.

Feminism at its definition is females being equal to males socially, economically and politically. This is where intersectionality comes in. I'll come back to white feminism in a second.

Intersectionality first came about when black women were facing discrimination in the workplace because they were female and black. They tried to sue, saying that all jobs set aside for women were going to white women and all black jobs were going to black males. When the court examined this, they said it wasn't fair for them to sue on two accounts just because they were both. Being a black woman made them vulnerable to the laws because of how certain laws applied to groups since they were considered part of neither.

Back to white feminism. If you're truly a feminist, you believe that all women should be equal and that means fighting against racism. Some people would like to ignore that racism can affect some women making them worse off. White feminists prosper by elevating their status while not raising up the rest of women.

One example the professor gave was if a woman was running for a leadership position in the KKK it wouldn't be a triumph for feminism because it was indirectly pushing down women of color. Feminism is not about power for women it is about equality. If feminists don't actively fight racism, they are not promoting the equality they supposedly believe in.

How does intersectionality affect you? Has this changed the way you thought? Do you disagree or agree with this theory?

SF Dog Mauling Diana Whipple

In 2001, Diana Whipple was killed by two dogs after she was trying to enter her apartment door in San Fransisco, California. Diana was coming home after she went shopping at the grocery store when the two dogs came from behind her and attacked her. The dogs were two Perro de Presa Canario dogs that were cared by her neighbors Majorie Knoller and her husband Robert Noel. Mr. Noel was not home when this incident had happened. Ms. Knoller had said that she was taking her dogs up to the roof when they yanked her and she let go of the leash. Whipple had a total of 77 wounds on every part of her body except the bottoms of her feet and scalp. She was then taking to the San Fransisco General Hospital where she died several hours later due to loss of blood from traumatic injury.

Later in 2001, they had finally gone to court and Ms. Knoller had been charged with second degree murder and Mr. Noel had been charged with involuntary manslaughter. They both were then charged with a felony of owning a disobedient dog.  In court, Knoller had argued that she was trying to defend Whipple during the attack but people had said that Majorie Knoller had refused to control her dog. When their "dog walker" told Mr. Noel to put a muzzle on the dogs, he responded in a rude, unlike manor of telling her to "shut up".

It seemed that this incident wasn't the only one and that there were more but no one had reported them when they happened. During the court visit, they were trying to convince the jury that Mr. Noel and Ms. Knoller knew about the dogs being aggressive and she did not do anything about it. Robert Noel kept saying that the dogs were never fighting dogs, and the only time that they saw that the dog was mean was when the dogs were with male dogs.

The jury had found both Noel and Knoller guilty of involuntary manslaughter and owning a mischievous animal that caused the death of a human. They did find that they both knew that the dogs were aggressive towards other people and which they did not take precautions of doing something about it. Knoller had state appealed the court in which she had lost twice. After it being 7 years, in September 22, 2008, the court had sentenced Marjorie Knoller to 15 year to life.

When We Were Young

When we were young, we feared but still adventured
We always saw the bright side to everything
We didn't care about labels
We didn't see labels
We created and destroyed with pure imagination

We fought but made up in minutes
We could make almost anything into fun
We didn't worry about what others thought
We could sit and talk about anything
We played and laughed and enjoyed everything

When we were young we would put on dad's shoes
We would follow him around and attempt to do what he did
We would join mom in the kitchen and help her cook
We used to build forts and pretend they were houses
We just wanted to grow up

Now that  we're growing, and see how messed up the world is,
Now that we've seen how life is,
Now that we've gotten a taste of how cruel life can be,

Now that life has tested and failed us, 

All we want to do is go back to when we were young 

The Rodney King beating and conformity

As we have been examining human behavior these past few days I noticed a parallel to the Rodney King documentary that we watched earlier. One of the questions brought up was why the policemen who were observing the beating didn’t intervene or report it. I think this has to do with the ideas of conformity and the bystander effect. The policemen were in a group of witnesses, just like in the case of Kitty Genovese. Even if one of them thought something was going wrong (which might not even have been the case) they might not have wanted to report it for the fear of stigma and not being part of the group.

Of course I’m not saying this is okay behavior, I’m simply trying to analyze why they acted the way they did. I also think this has to do with the fact that they have a privilege as policemen and don’t have to report it since they know they won’t have to face any consequences

Conformity

Today in class we learned about conformity and human behavior. It turns out in a public setting for example people saying their answers out loud people are more likely to conform there answers to the majority answer, even if they think otherwise. They do this because if avoids the contradictions between the greater population and themselves. In class we watched an experiment that about the line test. Were 4/5 people were in on the experiment and one person left was the subject being tested on. It was a group setting where they had to match the standard line with a line that is exactly the same length. Initially 4/5 people said answers that they subject knew were completely wrong, yet the subject conformed his answer to theirs because of group think. It turns out there are two reasons why people conform; there is a genuine belief that he must be wrong or he doesn't believe he sees is correct wants to avoid discomfort with disagreeing with the group. But later in the experiment someone else said the right answer and the subject didn't conform to group think this time because of the buddy association. They came to the conclusion that when you have the ability to due away with the discomfort and being able to think anonymous you are less likely to conform to group think.

Psychopaths and CEOs

Today in class we learned about Psychopaths and the traits they have. Some of these traits are impassivity, lack of remorse or guilt, and failure to accept responsibilities for their actions. Psychopaths are willing to manipulate those around them through deception. But for some reason they make great CEO's, psychopaths are able to address things very well face to face.  One CEO Steve Jobs who founded Apple has been called a psychopath based on people who have worked for him. He has a tendency to want things done is a specific way fashion. If people don't create a product he likes he wants people to re engineer the product. It does get the job done but he doesn't have any sympathy for when people do make mistakes. The telegraph conducted a study showing that study of 261 senior professionals in the US found that 21 percent had psychological traits. They came to the conclusion that 1 in 5 CEO's obtain psychopathic traits.

Could You Live With a Psychopath

From the documentaries and studies we have seen, it has become apparent that, although unlikely, anyone around us could be a psychopath. One breakthrough scientists have had is identifying a gene that can tell you if you are prone to psychopathic tendencies. Although you can test to see if someone has psychopathic tendencies, it is extremely rare that someone with those tendencies will become full blown psychopaths. Because of this it brings up the question, if you found out that someone in your family or someone you live with has the MAOA or “warrior” gene, could you live with them? Personally I would. It seems extremely rare that, if they were already in their later years of life, they would become a full blown psychopath, especially if your lives are relatively good. On the other hand if someone gets tested and has the marker and is already displaying psychopathic tendencies then I think I would only be comfortable around them if they were getting help or being at least moderately monitored.

The San Francisco Dog Mauling

The San Francisco Dog Mauling occurred in the year 2001 when Dianne Whipple was arriving to her home. The attack was caused by two Presa Canarios : a male named Bane and a female named Hera. As Dianne Whipple was approaching her home, Hera, had caused Bane to react and ran out of his home where Marjorie Knoller had him in a leash, dragging her with it. Bane had pinned Dianne biting her repeatedly until Hera joined in as well. Marjorie Knoller, the owner of the dogs jumped in trying to protect Ms. Whipple from her aggressive dogs. Bane had ripped the flesh from Diane's neck which caused there to be lots of blood throughout the apartment. Once Bane had stopped she had left with her dogs leaving Diane to fight for her life. Once Dianne was sent to the hospital she didn't have a pulse for 23 minutes. She was then pronounced brain dead. There were more than 70 bite marks on Dianne's body. Robert Noel, the husband of Marjorie Knoller was never present during the attack but was also responsible for the dogs. As a dog owner, we are held responsible for training our dogs as best as possible. Because the breed of the dog is known as a "bully breed", they are also known for their aggressive tone. During the trial, Marjorie and Robert seemed to be blaming the victim for what had happened which is completely unacceptable. They were charged with second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Because they didn't believe that second degree murder was fair, there was another trail that commenced that revoked that charge. The way that Marjorie Knoller was reacting during the trial seemed to catch my eye the most mostly because she was so emotional when she was on the stand and when she wasn't she was so neutral and emotionless. She and her husband were both held responsible for what happened. Those dogs that they had were also a aggressive breed so they knew that there would be some sort of trouble but I do understand that there was no way of knowing that the dogs would attack that day and the way that they did.

Could you live with a physhopath

In the documentary, we watched in class, "Good or Evil",  we learned about psychopaths. We learned about James Fowland that tested his family and it turned out that he himself had the MAOA gene and brain scans that psychopaths had and psychopath killers had. However, he himself had not killed anyone or done anything crazy. This is because not all people that have psychopathic traits carry out with these deeds. When his family found out about this, they said that it made sense because of the odd way he would sometimes act. This made me wonder, would I myself be able to live with someone if I found out with a psychopath? Does this make them a bad person? Can I trust them?