Peaceful protesters now considered terrorists in the USA

Peaceful protesters now considered terrorists in the USA

The pipeline that’s meant to run from Canada all the way down to Texas isn’t even 75% complete and it’s already causing major problems. 1,040,000 gallons of oil has already been spilled and millions of dollars has been spent trying to clean it up to no avail. 

Large numbers of Americans have gathered in D.C, have held public meetings, created online videos, and some have even locked themselves to equipment in protest of the pipeline. Every action by protesters has been peaceful and non-violent, however, they’re being labeled terrorists. 

“TransCanada is trying to paint concerned citizens as abusive, aggressive law breakers when in fact that describes themselves. They are giving presentations to the FBI and local law enforcement making us out to be criminals and telling our local law enforcement they should be looking at terrorism laws as possible ways to prosecute us.”

Need  reason to worry about the NSA spying scandal? Try this: you legally protest an oil company in y our town, are arrested, and wind up in court facing federal terrorism charges and a personal eternity behind bars. The evidence presented against you was gathered by the NSA monitoring of your telephone usage and social media communications, all at the behest of said oil company, which owns every Senator who sits on the Intelligence Committee in Washington D.C.

Think it can’t happen?

It’s already happening. 

Is America becoming a police state?

First, we find out about the NSA and PRISM, taking and storing all of our phone calls, emails, social media, locations, etc.

And just today it was announced the FBI has been using drones to “conduct surveillance” on American soil, without any policies or regulations on how/why/why they’re used.

Some citizens seem to be okay with this, saying that we need to give up certain freedoms in order to stay safe. However, some citizens are against this, saying the FBI has gone too far and that our rights as Americans are becoming more of a privilege.

What do you think?

Human Superiority

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” -Animal Farm-George Orwell

So, let me start off with a question: Are animals equal to humans? 
To answer this question, we should define ‘equal,’ which is “to be the same in quality and ability.” 
We should also define ‘animal,’ which is “a living organism characterized by voluntary movement.”
So, do animals have the same qualities, and abilities as humans? 

According to the proper definition of animal, humans are animals, also. So what gives humans superiority over the rest of the species? 
Some might answer this with the argument that animals don’t reason, and aren’t as intelligent as we are, therefore it’s okay to treat them inhumanely. 
However, it would be wrong to think that animals DON’T reason, and aren’t intellectual. Animals react emotionally to situations in the same way humans would.
If they’re too hot or too cold they seek appropriate shelter, if they’re afraid they take the fight or flight approach, if they’re happy or grieving they have a way of showing us.
How would animals, such as deer, pigs, cows, or fish, even, be able to survive if they didn’t think?
Even if it were the case that animals didn’t think, would it still be acceptable to violate their rights?
For example: There are some very seriously mentally retarded people that can’t think on the same level as an average human can. If it was okay to kill and eat animals because they couldn’t think, then it should be all right to kill and eat these seriously mentally retarded persons, right?

There is no fundamental difference between humans and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” -Charles Darwin

What mammals did Darwin consider to be ‘higher’? Taking a look at animal cognition studies, there are many mammals that are similar to humans mentally, socially, and internally. Monkeys, for example, have a neuron system that mirrors those in humans. Chimps are able to understand emotions associated with different facial expressions, and pig hearts are similar in size and make up to those of humans, and are even, in extreme cases, the valves are used to replace defects in humans. Studies have shown that pigs, cows, and chickens have the same mental capacity as dogs (which is that of a two-four year old child). If animals are similar to us on so many levels, why are people tossing them by the bucket full into rivers? Or worse yet, why do we slaughter them for consumption every single day?

Getting into the issue of animal slaughterhouses and factory farming is another issue that I’ll get into another time.
But my point is, why do we treat animals, who have the same mental capacity as a toddler, so inhumanely? 
Shouldn’t they have the same rights we do? Just because they cannot communicate themselves, doesn’t give us any right to act cruelly to those who are ‘inferior’ to us. 
We should be protecting the rights of those who cannot protect it themselves..not violating them.

Musings on the origin of species

    The question of origination has plagued scientific minds since the inception of man. Where did we come from? How did particles go from living to non-living? Using every principle of physics, chemistry, and biology, scientists have yet to come to a conclusion. There are many theories that have been applied to the question of the origin of species, and these are a few which are still applicable today.


  Panspermia was the first cited theory-being mentioned in the 5th century by a Greek philosopher by the name of Anaxagoras (The word panspermia is of Greek origin, meaning seeds everywhere.) The theory suggests that organisms originated on other planets, embedded themselves into chunks of rock, and eventually arrived on Earth via meteors. Once the matter was on Earth’s surface, it evolved into proteins from amino acids, and eventually evolved into life.

  Abiogenesis, also known as spontaneous generation, is another popular theory. It’s the idea that life on Earth could have arisen from inanimate matter. Simply put, life began in water as a result of the chemicals in the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, which would then evolve into all species. Early concepts of abiogenesis were extremely simplistic. –Rotting meat was soon covered in maggots, and so it was assumed the meat had evolved into maggots.—This was the most accepted scientific explanation for the reproduction of living things as recently as a few hundred years ago.

  Inorganic incubation is essentially the same theory as abiogenesis, with the exception of the formation order. Instead of the amino acids forming first, and then evolving to a cell-like structure, scientists had the idea the cell came first and was later filled with amino acids. It was thought the first cells were really not living, but inorganic ones made up of iron sulfide, and they were not formed at the Earth’s surface, but in totally darkness at the bottom of the oceans instead.

  Creationism is the theory that the universe and everything in existence was created by the will of a supernatural being. The pertinent verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1, states: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”. Following this proclaimation, the earth is presumed to have been created in a period of six days; and on the seventh day “he rested”. While there are various forms of creation theory, there are also many metaphysical systems besides the likes of Christianity which cite a form of “intelligent design”; the roots displayed in the first few verses of the Bible are adequate.

  Scientific evolution theory is arguably the most popular theory to date . This theory relies strongly on the Big Bang theory, which was the beginning of the formation of matter. This eventually lead to the creation of planets, Pangaea, and life on earth as it evolved over millions of years. The theory of evolution suggests that all living organisms come from the same ancestor. As the population grew into larger groups, smaller groups would break away and evolve independently to eventually diversify into a new species. *The Big Bang Theory is the idea that the universe originated sometime between 10 Ga and 20 Ga years ago from the cataclysmic explosion of a small volume of matter at extremely high density and temperatures. Long story short, the universe began with a super-powerful explosion, and continues to expand.*

  Despite the vast amount of widely varying theories which exist to explain the origin of life, contemporaries must resort conclusions derived from inductive reasoning only on the basis of probability, as there is still no definitive proof as to which theory (if any yet devised) are correct. Perhaps, if the human race manages to overcome the odds and extend it’s survival a few more decades, current theories will have either gained strength or the sanction of the scientific community. Rest assured, even if man enters another stone age, the spirit of curiosity which drives us toward questioning our existence will not cease until mankind has drawn it’s last breath and the last neuron has fired.

A old try at Slam Poetry

I wish someone had told me that my dreams weren’t going to become a reality. 

Years and years I’ve spent with these high expectations and aspirations,

and people have held them the same…. when they’ll only crumble to dust.

Some say, “you can do anything you set your mind to” 


“if you believe you’ll succeed.”

I wish these applied.

Sure, if I were wealthy, I could reach every goal of mine within a year of graduating college.

For me, it will never happen.

My dream house, car, pet, living location, even the college of my choice have vanished.

I’m being told only now that I’ll never get out of here, 

I’ll never be able to afford the things I want.

I’m being told to 

come back




Well, since birth, this has been my reality. 

It’s a confusing situation. 

I wish I would’ve been told this from day one, 

then there would be no dreams to rip to shreds. 

I would have grown up with real ‘realistic’ goals for myself. 

An old prose.

Like really, really old. Like ~6 years ago “old”.


Feeling close, yet so far away from those around you.

Being oblivious to those whom are

reaching out, grasping to save you.

Maybe oblivious isn’t the right word.

How about


Neglecting to care for those offering help.

Neglecting people who truly love you.

Neglecting to give a damn

about anything in life anymore.

Constant arguments

“slipping up”

“falling behind”

“not being good enough”

Not good enough?

What is the criteria for

“good enough”?

A perfect body?

A beautiful soul?


4.0 GPA?

Material items?

I’m sorry

I don’t possess any of this.

I don’t have a ‘perfect’ body

Everyone’s perception of perfect is different.

I’m far from any definition, though.

Not popular


far from a 4 point

I’m extremely pretty


I’m sorry

I don’t fit

your mold of





Jean Paul Sartre on Existentialism and Indeterminism

“Humans are not only free, but condemned to be free; condemned to create themselves and their own reality.” Jean Paul Sartre’s quote addresses two theories: Existentialism and Indeterminism. He believed that man is not only ‘condemned’ to be free, but we also have the freedom to make decisions entirely on our own. I agree with Sartre’s theory of existentialism and indeterminism based on the fact there are numerous real world examples that clearly demonstrate humans have the freedom to make decisions free of external forces and can attribute their own meanings to the world around them.

Existentialism is the theory that humans are entirely free, and are thus responsible for what they make of themselves. Sartre was an atheist, which, I believe, influenced his diction in saying that we are ‘condemned’ to be free. Since there is no God, no moral laws exist; therefore individuals are free to make their own decisions and will be held responsible for the outcomes. A high school dropout, for example, isn’t forced by any outside factor to make that decision. They didn’t have any predisposition to doing it, either. Dropping out is a choice they are able to make entirely on their own, without the forces of anyone (i.e., God or the Devil) or anything (i.e., society) making them do it.

When Sartre said we are condemned to create our own reality, he was referring to the free will we have to make decisions and to deal with the consequences. Free will goes along with indeterminism, which is the theory that humans are able to make their own decisions based entirely on deliberate choices, instead of preceding events or conditions. Let’s say I have two test to study for: algebra and English. I can freely choose to study for one, the other, or both. The decision to only study for English instead of algebra had not been previously decided, therefore, I had the option to choose what to study for.

Sartre combines both existentialism and indeterminism in his quote. To further show how much evidence there is of both, let’s say you’re walking into a store and there is a man with a donation bucket sitting outside. What do you do? You could either donate money or ignore the man. There is nothing forcing your decision, it’s entirely up to you. Now, let’s say you choose to ignore the man. Was your mind already made up before you saw him? Or did you choose an option while approaching him? The fact that there is nobody telling you which to choose and the decision wasn’t previously decided shows that Sartre’s theory of existentialism and indeterminism are both likely true.

There are many arguments that can be made against both theories. Taking a look at existentialism, one could say that the government is a controlling force in our lives. The government enacts certain laws that tell us what we can and cannot do, and therefore we base all of our decisions on the expectations of this external force. However, this can easily be argued against. Laws are broken all the time. Humans are guilty of theft, destruction, and even murder. If government were really the controlling force in all of our decision making, then there wouldn’t be any crime at all.

There are also many arguments that can be made against indeterminism. If you look at Newtonian physics, the argument is that everything in the universe operates according to a fixed set of knowable laws. If a glass plate falls from a certain distance at a certain speed, you will (in theory) be able to predict how many pieces it will shatter into. However, if you look at the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is impossible to predict where an atom will hit when being shot repeatedly from the same spot. There was no pattern; the atoms hit randomly by chance.

There are many examples in life that show humans are not being controlled or guided by any outside forces, nor is everything that happens based upon previous events. Existentialism can be confirmed from the ostensible ability of humans to attribute their own meanings to the world. Indeterminism, likewise, manifests itself in the practice of human understanding and can be freely stated to exist and therefore falsify determinism. I believe that Sartre’s existential and indeterminist outlooks are correct; this believe creates a world of opportunity, interpretation, condemned to experience cultivation from the mind.