Toddler trapped in washing machine

Earlier this week news surfaced that a baby was placed in a washing machine at a local Laundromat.  No charges were placed on the man who put the baby in the washing machine the mother of the baby said, “she did not think anyone should be charged over the incident.”  Some people like myself think this is absolutely absurd if some puts your baby in a washing machine and starts it, it isn’t a prank is attempted murder.  The article said, “Moments later, as the machine fills and starts spinning, the man and a woman frantically try to open the locked door, before a quick-thinking laundromat employee opens a panel at the rear of the machine and cuts the power.”  Before this is when people started coming over to help the baby out, but they don’t know how.  Let me remind you that the washing machine is on and is filling up with the baby in it so they have limited time before the baby drowns.  The question that is on my mind is who was suppose to be watching the baby at this time?    Also, why didn’t the mother sue or press charges? 

The moment that shocked me most was when the man just dumped the baby in there, and you can see the lady at the nearest table’s face.  She waited until he wasn’t that close to the washing machine to go check on what she was suspicious about.  I wanted to honestly beat him up because how can anyone do that to a baby as a quote on quote prank.

://www.news.com.au/world/man-locks-boy-in-washing-machine/story-fn6sb9br-1226366301583#ixzz1vu8y2RR2

Getting Angry Can Be a Good Thing

The article "Getting Angry Can Be a Good Thing" is about a immagrant rights worker who is  insulted in a racist manor by a friend when she was about 17 and desides she wants to act apon that.  The article starts out like, "I believe a little outrage can take you a long way."  The article then went on to say, "He looked me in the eye and told me that if it happen  (another war), he believes my parents in an internment camp just like the Japanese-Americans during World War II."  In this article she expressed that this gave her the drive to be were she is today, an immagration rights worker.

In my eyes she seems pretty decent because she said she can help 50 people in one day but if anyone doesnt matter how many cant be helped or is turned down it hunts her in her sleep. This women has dedicated her life to helping these people and she has been sent the day her friend insulted her.

I just have one prooblem with this article does she actually believe its alright to be mad and forceful all the time, because she was called furocious?  

Ellishareed said, “I think that when people get angry it can be a negative or positive out come, such as when some people are angry they cant help but be very violent. And sometimes when people are angry a positive out come is when they take action about something that bothers them and maybe upset them so they just want to change it. 

Broadcasting a World of WHiteness

The article " broadcasting a world of whiteness" has to do with television shows producing shows with specific groups of people, mostly white or mostly black.  this article expresses that there should be more shows with a diverse cast.  The article gives an example of a show without a diverse cast, HBO series girls has an all white female cast.  This artle is just another article by someone being overly sensitive.  Not all shows have to be to your likeing apparently if its still on air somebody watches it.  I watch jersey shore and that show has a all white cast.  So as you can see its not about race its about shows that are to your likeing.  I also doubt producers think about racism during casting, its about whos good enough to be apart of the show.
I also should point out that the article says, "Whiteness is too ofter invisible on television, so much the so that this fact is hardly ever pointed out, and for whatever advances "girls" make in expanding the range of women on television, and the sorts of conversation they're permitted to have, it certainly lacks for other forms of diversity."  This is true but also so unintelligently wrong.  people know what they are watching but their is lack of diversity but it is okay as i have pionted out why above.

New Fashion Wrinkle: Stylish Hiding the Gun

The article, “New Fashion Wrinkle: Stylish Hiding the Gun” is about, the new fashion of clothing that can hide your gun.  Since the new law was passed that people who have registered guns with no criminal record can carry a hidden gun.  There are said to be pro’s and con’s of this law.  Pro:  keeps you safe, if someone sees your gun they are sure to not even attempt to mess with you.  Pro:  if you are attacked the hidden gun can come in very handy.  Con: people with no record can also be a pervert.  Con:  hidden guns can go off anywhere if they are misused.  The article said,  “Woolrich, a 182-year-old clothing company, describes its new chino pants as an elegant and sturdy fashion statement, with a clean profile and fabric that provides comfort and flexibility.”  To me it seems as though they take this having a hidden gun trend as a joke it seems as though they don’t care about the safety. 

Student Ellisha Reed says, “I think it’s okay to carry guns as long as you’re the appropriate age.”  She went on to say, “if I was of age I would wear a gun and it keeps you safe.” 

As you can see there a very different thoughts about this new carry gun trend and most are positive which is idiotic to me.  

The article also said, “Not everyone who carries a concealed gun is a fan of the new fashion. Howard Walter, 61, a salesman at Wade’s Eastside Guns in Bellevue, Wash., said he preferred to carry his Colt — and a couple of knives and two extra magazines — in a durable pair of work pants.” All I can say is wow these people are actually talking fashion instead of safety.