Sexual Assault investigations may be flawed

SA Counter suit

A recent counter suit was won by a male who was accused and subsequently found guilty of sexual assault at UC Davis in California.  Why I feel this is an ethical issue isn't because of the assault which is a horrible thing to do to anyone, but because there is such an overwhelming desire to treat the accused as guilty until proven innocent.  I have been falsely accused and I know firsthand how you are treated once the accusation is made public, everyone of my peers immediately ostracized me and it took me months, if not years to regain the standing I had before even though I was found innocent because they wonder if I was in a position to be accused wasn't I wrong in the first place and rarely let that thought go.  I will not address the guilt or innocence of the accused, but I am glad that he won because investigations of this type are often done with closed minds, schools want to get the investigation over with so it doesn't affect incoming students, the victim wants to move on as much as possible and the accused was probably in the wrong.  With this verdict, maybe school and other institutions will ensure a thorough investigation and better evidence before passing judgement, and maybe if investigations are done better, both real victims will chance coming forward and false victims won't be so quick to accuse.

GOP candidates weigh-in on abortion

Well, it's presidential race time and once again topics that shouldn't be topics are all the rage again.  I am in the military so I tend to align more with the conservatives on most subjects but this is one that I am tired of.  The fact that candidates have to continually pander for money and makes statements solely to appease donors is disgusting to me, but this subject is one of the worst.  No government should have the necessity or desire to tell us what to do in our private lives unless our private lives are in direct violation of the laws.  As someone who has experienced an abortion with someone close, many ask me how I can be pro-choice (which in the name should say it all), and I tell them that no person has the right to tell me what I can or can't do with my body and that should be everyone's stance honestly.  The fact that donors and even the whole party expects their representatives to support such an old fashioned point of view is disturbing in this day and age.

Polygamous Marriage in Montana

It seems everyone could see this coming from a mile away, we have all heard the rhetoric against same-sex marriages.  "What's to stop a man from marrying a dog?" or this exact example, "Whats to stop a polygamist from marrying multiple wives?", with the former example all I have to say is "Really?"  However with the latter I feel it is less black and white, I have friends who live the polyamorous lifestyle who accept they will probably never have a legal marriage, but that doesn't make them love less or different than my wife and I, other than it is just two of us.  I personally feel that marriage is personal thing and that the government should stay out of it, if three people can love each other enough to commit for life then who are we to stop them?  With the risk of getting into a much bigger issue, I think the bigger problem with marriage these days is that it isn't viewed as a life commitment anymore, but until it no longer works.  With that view in mind, what possible harm can come from people who love each other joining in marriage that doesn't already exist?

I'm going to tackle a subject that has been bothering me a great deal lately, the fact that it seems to be normal to get offended by everything.  One of the great things about this world is that there are so many different cultures and within those cultures, individuals.  So with so many individuals, one can only expect to have differing viewpoints and more often than not it should be embraced as this defines us as individuals.  Lately however, it is becoming more and more common to be offended and then you start seeing pressure to "correct" whatever offended the people.  Just because I don't like what you are doing or saying, it does not give me a right to  change you, or as we see, coerce others into forcing you to change to appease our offense of your actions or words.  There is no good outcome from forcing our views onto others, we should be embracing the differences and having logical arguments stating our stances and accepting that we might not always see things similarly.

NRA executive blames pastor

I imagine many people will be using this story as point of reference, I want to address the comments stated by the executive.  Let me first begin by saying I am a proud and responsible gun owner, I take my right to carry very seriously and I hesitate to enter businesses with "Gun Free Zone" stickers on the front.  With that being said, what this executive is saying is ludicrous.  "It would never have happened if they allowed guns into church", this is supposed to be a time to mourning and a time to focus on what can be done to prevent it in the future, NOT time to press your rhetoric and further your own causes.  To do so shows a complete lack of class and only hurts whatever cause you were pushing to begin with.  This event should NOT be an "us vs. them" story any more than it already is, it should be a "what can we do, TOGETHER?" kind of story.  Keep your "causes" separate.

Same Sex Adoption

I am linking to the recent news that the Michigan governor signed into law the right to refuse same-sex adoptions based on faith.  However, this is a much bigger issue than just this law, this is about basic human rights and how backwards we have become in our thinking.  I am straight and married, one of the best guys I have worked with in years is gay and just got married in Oklahoma, and my brother in law is gay as well and there is ZERO difference in the way we love our significant others.  In this day and age, if any company was allowed to refuse services based on race they would be lambasted and be forced to either close or change their ways and yet we are saying that exact same ideology is OK as long as it is for same-sex issues.  The only thing that should prevent an adoption should be an proven unfit home or unfit parents, there are many hetero couples who are unfit to be parents and they are still allowed to adopt and that is what is wrong with this whole scenario.

Ethical Journalism

I took the "ethics in the news" description literally for this assignment because it seems as though there is very little in the way of ethical journalism these days.  I used the above apology from Brian Williams as an example of journalists being unethical in their delivery of news to further their "credibility" and in turn, attract more viewers instead of honest, thought provoking news reporting the public needs to form valid opinions.  Another instance that comes to mind is the end of Dan Rather's career where he was embroiled in accusations of failing to verify the authenticity of reports used in an attempt to discredit the President at the time George Bush.  In failing to verify the truth of the documents, he ended what was a great career and called into question many of the stories he reported on throughout his career.  It is said that to have a successful democracy, freedom of the press has to exist, but the public requires honest, ethical reporting of world events.  With so many journalists attempting to outdo the others on the news they deliver instead of factual reporting, they are failing the masses that rely upon them.