Amazon fire deforestation.


Amazon rain forest destruction is detailed objectively and accurately in this article published for Tony R. Elliott (Insert: Ed Smith).

og: amazon
Fires in the amazon rain forest have surged this year.


og: map
This is a map of amazon rain forest fires that have increased dramatically this past year.

By now, most have heard about the fires burning in the Amazon rain forest. So far this year, the number of fires is said to have topped 75,000 or more. Many environmental organizations would have us believe it is due to climate change, but in a vast area of over 2 million square miles that has an average annual rainfall of over 7 feet, it would be quite impossible for natural fires of this magnitude to start.

Most of the fires are intentionally set by people clearing the land for farms and ranches while some are cleared for oil exploration and overall property development. This has been going on for decades and is the main reason behind the fires we are hearing about now.

In May, 2019 the Waorani tribe in Ecuador won a court battle against the government to keep them from auctioning off some 7 million acres of their land to oil for oil and gas exploration.


With such a court ruling favoring a tribe over big oil in Ecuador, many countries who have the Amazon jungle are speeding up the land grab before more tribes are encouraged to file lawsuits. Thus, we now have many more individuals and corporations burning off land in the Amazon jungle than ever before.

og: amazon
This is another view of intentionally set fires to deforest the amazon.

If the Amazon jungle is to be saved from destruction, a large portion of it must be protected by a government, similar to many protected areas in the US and the world such as the Great Barrier Reef, Australia to the National Park system here in the US.

With the rising population in South America the need for more energy, a higher production for food, and a growing economy are necessary to sustain it. Making any effort to reduce or stop development in the Amazon jungle next to impossible. The only viable solution is to realize it is a world problem and have various countries commit to helping Amazon jungle countries have what they need while preserving one of the last great wilderness areas left on the planet.

Saving the Amazon from destruction boils down to just how devoted the rest of the world is to this endeavor. The responsibility rests with all of us.

Written By: Tony R Elliott

UNIVERSAL DIGEST is pleased to be a conduit for our contributing authors. This article was produced being mostly unedited. We do not claim credit; we simply want to make it more available to the general public. The opinions of the authors are not necessarily the opinion or stance of this website.

Pass it On:
Pass it On:

Why Body Cameras on Public Officials May Be a Horrible Idea

Why Body Cameras on Public Officials May Be a Horrible Idea

The reason for this article is not to stir up controversy, nor try to gain attention by pom pom waving for an alternative idea, but rather to hopefully cast a glimpse into the mind of the human collective and learn from what society has shown us in the past. With the recent incidents between public servants and the public itself, a loud drum beat for  police officers to wear  body cameras has been heard from civil rights leaders, politicians, ratings-focused “news” shows, tenured professors and local politicians looking to stay in office.  Even some local police chiefs after meeting with politicians or community organizers have come out in favor  of body cameras.

On the surface it does seem like a wonderful idea. Sort of a why not sort of  thing.  This way we can see “first hand” what transpired during  the interaction between civil servant and public citizen. Video evidence to solve the situation once and for all. Keep public violence, looting and disobedience  at a minimum because we can see what happened.  All of this sounds logical, but I offer that this may create more problems then  any  body cameras may offer to help.

First, reaction, timing and professional responses often happen on instinct, a literal hundredth of a second response to a situation that may be developing before the public servant. As some one who stopped  a gun holding assailant who was robbing a bar I was bouncing in, I reacted, I did not wait to see if my body camera was angled correctly to provided those who judge the best line of sight or sound.  I saw a situation, reacted to it, and disarmed the man with the gun. Why would we ever want a public servant to wonder if the camera offers the best angle for the servant to be cleared of any wrong doing.  Reluctance to act and react can lead to death.

Think about it,  we as a society, are creatures of habit. When we hear of an interaction between a public servant and the public, how much time goes by between the time you hear of the situation, and your thoughts wondering where is the video?  Do we want to live in a society where conviction in courts or even in public opinion rests on video and not in the  gathering of all the evidence? If the video itself becomes the paramount decider of innocence or guilt, I hearken back to my first  reason why body cameras my be a bad idea. May a public servant hesitate to make sure the “camera is rolling” or the picture or angle of interaction shows best to those who may view?

Dashboard cameras  do not hinder decisions, they are stationary and generally give a good  view of what  is recorded.  A body camera can not offer  these intangibles.  “Experts” will be called in questioning what the camera does not show, or side conversations or question the legitimacy of the video itself.  A “cottage industry” of “expert body camera interpreters may spring up” and cause  the murky video legitimacy testimony clog  and hinder all other evidence that may be presented.

While not a direct correlation think about this, when ever we hear of a religious issue  being brought to court, we often hear the term “separation of church and state”  as if this is written in the Bill of Rights, it is not, it came from a judges decision in a court case. It is now dogma, may we with body cameras see the same type of dogma, where if the camera does not show it, it didn’t happen or does not exist?  The  establishment clause in the first amendment is law that has morphed into some thing else.

May body cameras on public servants which may risk the lives of those who wear them, create a situation where all other evidence takes a back seat to “lights camera action?”  I worry this may be true.

Darren Redmond

June 12th 2015

Authors Note

Darren Redmond has over 20 years of direct managerial experience in the fields of Marketing and Sales. In addition he holds a Masters Degree In Education.  Darren Redmond has also coached on the Collegiate level; Division one Softball and Division Three football

Pass it On:
Pass it On: