Note to self: finish title later

Hey Guys, I would put this post off for a while longer, but i'm leaving to go camping until Tuesday, and WiFi will be a bit spotty. I believe that procrastination is a double-edged sword. I think that doing things last minute leads to a better work, because you spend less time off task while you are working, and your vision for the final product does not change. However, procrastinating too long can lead to incomplete or even un-started final products.
-Eli

Stress

Proposal for yesterday! What are your guy's opinions on procrastination as a whole?

Mind Blowing - and Land Blowing Concept

     Eli has put up the basic history of the nuclear bombs, so I do not feel it is necessary to dive into it. I would like to say that the purpose of nuclear weapons is pointless, because they were made to obliterate a nation as a last resort. However, this would mean that the other nation would also fire off its nuclear warheads, causing utter destruction. I understand that in the past, the bombs were made to end a war, and they served the purpose effectively. However, the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at a primitive stage, but were still effective forms of destruction. It is unnecessary for anything of greater destructive power. Obviously there are are a few exceptions such as the anti-meteor nuclear warhead prepared for a cosmic threat, but other than that, the extra firepower is just overkill. Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous things that humans have invented, but we are making it worse and worse.  An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, but a head for a head leaves everyone dead.

The Only Thing I Want Nuked Is The Leftovers

Hey guys. So, before I write on the topic I want to address the plan for the blog from now on. A proposal will go up every Monday and we will respond by the next Sunday. I apologize on behalf of both myself and Wolter for not responding to this proposal for so long. We have been slammed.
On the subject of nuclear weapons, I could speak on this subject for days upon days. I feel that they should never have been used for war in the first place, only for electrical power, if we could harness it. I think the UN should outright ban them in all countries, and permanently ban it from even itself. Because, guess which countries would have access to the weapons? Those on the security council. Who holds permanent seats on the security council? Essentially the same countries that previously had them before the signing of the act stopping more countries from gaining nuclear weapons(which worked so well). I think that the bombs need to be held from everyone. The only situation in which nuclear weapons should be used is if a country nukes another, the UN should be required to nuclear bomb their military hubs. I would love to debate this further, so put your opinion in the comments below and we can debate there! See ya and allons-y!

This post is the bomb

Hey Guys. This is a topic that I can talk about for ages, so i'll try not to bore you all to death. I'll start with a basic history of nuclear weapons. They were developed during World War II, and in order to put an end to the war, the US dropped two nuclear warheads on Japan. After a few countries had developed nuclear weapons, a treaty was signed, preventing countries from gaining nuclear capabilities after that point. Before this was signed, China, The US, France, Russia, and The UK had nuclear weaponry. Since the treaty was put into place, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Israel have gained nuclear capabilities. I believe that the UN should have possession of nuclear weaponry, but no individual countries. That way, there is a way to hold back countries like North Korea, who have nuclear weapons and won't give them up. That would stop a nuclear war that could destroy the planet, while stopping one rouge country from having all the power. Thanks for reading, despite my wordiness.
-Eli

A Fresh Topic: New and Clear

Hey guys, sorry about the long time it took for me to post; I was a little busy. However I would like to kick this week off with nuclear weapons. Should countries have them? Which countries should have them? What is the point? How do we decide who should have them? And finally, what should we do about it?

Are you Guilty?

My stance on this topic is the same as the Geek's: No matter what the causes were, a crime was committed and it should be punished. I do not think the quote that Geek has posted relates; it is simply saying that if there is doubt, then the people must be punished. I say that they must be proven guilty beyond doubt, and if they are, they should be punished to the full extent regardless of the state that they are in. No matter the reason, if a crime is committed, it is ethically improper. These ethics were decided as a collection of people, and are expressed through the law. Until a law is proven unconstitutional or unfair, then it is assumed that the majority agrees with the law, and therefore no one is above it.

Control yourself

Hey guys. This topic is a hard one for me, as i fall right in the middle. I believe, as geek does, that if there is no way to prove they weren't acting on their own accord, they should be prosecuted. However, if they can prove beyond a doubt that they weren't in control of themselves when they committed the crime, they should be pardoned. I also believe that it should be different depending on the crime. I would be more inclined to give someone a reduced sentence on theft than on murder for example. I fully believe that it depends on the situation.
-Eli

Nothing But a Cliche Quote

Better 10 innocent men are imprisoned, then one guilty one be set free.
We can't prove any person has no choice or memory of the committing of a crime.

Deathly Fear

Hey guys. This is a topic that has been on my mind for over a year now. I have had people and pets dropping left and right. Long story short, this topic is prominent. This issue is not one of being for or against death. I think we are all for it. This is an issue of philosophy, religion, science, and even ethics.
As for the philosophy and religion, I am a Christian, although my faith is most certainly in question at times. If there was the presence of a supreme and all loving god, you would think he would pace out the deaths in a family, unless it could result in a benefit for the family, despite the large amount of grief per time. This may be the circumstances. In the afterlife, as science has shown is most likely to exist, there must be some cure for all Alzheimers, all amnesia, all personality changes. You go through life, changing who you are, and then you die, and boom, there is your spouse, but no longer are you the person they loved. Long story short, it must change you into the person you were at the part of your life that you were best for all your loved ones, while giving back every memory you have ever had. Multiple spouses would have to work out. I think, somehow, it does. This is what is needed.
Say there is a family member, one who is very sick, and the family cannot afford to take care of them, but they find a way to manage. God recognizes that this is a bad situation for them to be in, so, after stretching their wallets and their faith to their limits, he takes the family member into his kingdom. If a lot of the family is sick, the process repeats.  Death can be a good thing, on a family and personal level, which is beyond a whole scientific over population excuse. Still, it would be a little nicer to be able to commune with these dead loved ones.
Now for the ethical bit. Do we extend life when the person is going to die anyways? Is it worth delaying the inevitable, putting them through all that pain and suffering, just to keep them around a little longer, to spend a bit more time with them? It is selfish to want to prolong another's life. It is selfish to try to prolong another's life, even if they want it too. Death is just life's big adventure, when it is time, take it.

I couldn't control myself

Hey Guys, I know that geek hasn't posted yet (He will), but this is a topic on my mind, and I didn't want to forget it. I just saw Civil War, and it raised  question in my mind (you'll know how when you see it). Should someone be held responsible for an act that they (A) unknowingly committed, or (B) had no control when committing. this should lead to some good discussion. Sorry Geek for posting this before you had time to respond to the last one.
-Eli

Mine pales in comparison.

Hey Guys, as I mentioned before, this is not my favorite topic. but i'll give a brief response. Without death, overpopullation would happen quickly, the world would be starved for resources, and there would be struggles for power that would never end. So while it may be hard when we lose a loved one, overall I am pro-death.

A Grave Statement

     I must say that I haven't experienced death of family members as much, and the one's I have are all more distant relatives. However, I must say that death is something we all must deal with, nobody can live forever, and eventually people you know will die. I don't necessarily (like the Geek said) think that shedding tears is the only way to cope with death, just perhaps the most common. For those who cannot seem to get past death, I have one statement. There is only one thing that can stop you from going on with your life, and that is your own death, not someone else's. Anything else is just your mind telling you that you cannot go on, but even that can be overcome.

Hey Guys,
Geek came up with the next prompt, after days of procrastination, and asked me to post it for him. It's not my favorite topic, but it will work. What are the benefits and detriments of death.
-Eli

Terrorism (Too tired for a pun): What should we do?

     I think that terrorism is a major issue in modern society and the US should take some steps to help combat terrorism. However, keep in mind that it is a balancing act when we are talking about homeland security. There most certainly should be some level of surveillance (information about terrorists isn't going to just appear on their screens), but not to the point where it infringes on people's privacy rights. While proponents of heavy screening and surveillance argue that it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, many critics say that it is implied in the 4th Amendment, no search without a warrant. After all, the intent of this amendment was to protect privacy. I see the validity of both points, and I think that the current level of surveillance is fine, although the government should cut back on tracking individual emails and phone calls, that seems like a large waste of money. However surveillance cameras have been a huge help, and the government should really keep that up.
     When we speak about fighting terrorism abroad, then the circumstances changes. I don't think we should be involved in foreign conflicts under the label of "terrorism" when it is simply civil war i.e. the Israeli mess. Under the pretense of "terrorism" the US has planned over 3 Billion dollars worth of foreign aid to Israel (foreignassistance.gov) , and this year half of the aid sent to Israel was military aid (CNN). Now, I think that is an absurd amount of aid to be sending a country which wants to fight the "terrorism" that Palestinians are taking out, when they are really just fighting for independence. On the other hand, they shouldn't just completely withdraw from the game, they should combat terrorism when necessary, when they know exactly where the threat is, and how they will strike. For example, the famous assassination of Osama Bin Laden was a very bold step in combating terrorism abroad. Overall, I think we should try and reduce our meddling, and cut down to only what is necessary to accomplish something important.

Oh dear...

Last edition of this post didn't post. Hey guys, I am very busy right now and feel that we already may need to take a break from posting. But as for terrorism. They rule by terror, the fear that comes with anticipation. DON'T BE AFRAID. They have only as much power as you give them by being afraid. They are the monster in the worlds closets, when they still collected scream. BTW IT ALSO TOOK DOWN MY GUN CONTROL POST!!!

Can't pun this one (too serious of an issue.)

Hey guys,
I believe that this is a difficult topic to have one "right" answer on, because as the situation changes, our response as a country needs to change. Ii firmly believe that any answer having to do with the treatment of all Muslims, or any religion for that matter, is not the way to go. When it comes down to it, a very small portion of Muslims are extremists. (Btw, I am Christian, not Muslim, so don't just blame my opinion on the assumption that I am Muslim.) I do believe that the nation should be able to monitor phone calls to areas outside of the country. This can help the government anticipate the next attack before people are killed. I am neutral on sending troops to help out in the middle east with the war on ISIS. I can understand it if the solders want to be there, however, many members of the armed forces join in order to protect our country, and it is wrong to have them risk their lives in order to help some other country if they don't want to. But, if there are people willing to serve in this manner, then I am all for helping out. It's when people are forced to risk their lives that I dislike the idea. As for ISIS's online recruiting, I say that we should attack it with all that we got. Hack their websites, remove their accounts, anything to stop it from spreading. As I said in the begging, there is no one size fit's all type of answer.. Keep this in mind when you are commenting, and coming up with the "perfect" solution.
-Eli

A terrorizing topic

Hey guys,
Since geek is being slow, I have decided to move things along. The topic that I am choosing for today is what do you believe we need to do about terrorism, namely ISIS, in the middle east.
-Eli