The short answer, we forget about the events in the past, they fade into the back of our memories, it's the way we humans are built, it's neccessary too, because our brain wouldn't be able to cope with having memories always remain in the forefront of our minds.

Why am I writing about this?
When something has happened in the past we most often don't learn enough from it, or at least don't stay committed to any change we vowed to make.

One example, Ricardo Campogiani, a 16 year old boy beaten to death by a group of guys in Stockholm, October 6th 2007. It led to a massive anti-violence demonstration where thousands of people turned up to show solidarity against the violence in society. It was a great accomplishment at the time, but what did it actually achieve? nothing. People unrelated to the victims and perpetrators by now have forgotten all about the demonstration and the urges for a cease to the mindless violence on our streets. From the day Ricardo died until today there will have been other victims just like him, nothing has changed. Laws and policies to ensure a safer society isn't going to come quick either because bureacracy is one of the slowest machinations in society.

Society most of all lacks complete commitment, no follow-through, to learn from history, demonstrations, rallies, celebrity pleas etc, they're in the spotlight at the time, vows are made, everyone nods their head in agreement, that they are changing things by the vows and spoken committments, but when it comes down to it, how much is done? not enough.

How many people like Ricardo need to die before we as a society say enough is enough, mean it, and stand by it. Zero tolerance of violence is quite realistically a utopian dream. Yet, we can do much more than we are doing, come up with new solutions to deal with conflicts, improve safety on the streets with more lamps, citizen patrols etc, educate people more than we are doing at the present about the consequences of violence.

There's a saying, 'time heals all wounds', but if time implies forgetting, it means we're not truly healing. We mustn't forget the past, because it's the only thing we can truly learn from.

A year or so ago, most newspapers were warning the public about global warming with lengthy articles, diagrams and predictions. They painted up a pretty scary picture, now you would have to pretty much search the online versions, archive section to find articles on it. What happened to global warming, did it go out for a spot of cool air or was it just like most news becomes, old, and obsolete. The theories concerning the gravity of it seemed to encompass the whole spectrum of 'people be warned, the end could be near, to, eh whatever. Which is fair enough, who knows what the world can take of our polluting it.

The worst thing though is this scare mongering by the papers and then nothing. This to me is particularly serious due to the following. One, what does it say about the threat of global warming? either it's a threat or not, it doesn't disappear over night. Secondly, at the time of the cover to cover articles about global warming, the newspapers advertised holiday flights on a daily basis, and still do. The travel agencies even have their own section. I mean logically, how could the newspapers be broadcasting global warming as a massive threat and at the same time advertise ways that are known to make it dramatically worse? One scary question is, do the newspapers receive a substantial proportion of their revenue by allowing travel agencies to advertise in their papers, and they can't afford not to have their adverts? If this rhetoric would be accurate, it is a pretty large warning concerning the newspapers claim of objectivity and truth, at least on this matter. Moreover, it would really be a tragic example of how much a newspaper which is meant to inform the people with unbiased information, may be steered by heavy industrial influences.

It makes you wonder which century we really are living in when you still have racist fanatics.
No, seriously, because racism in western societies was created in the 17th Century by the Greeks who associated the colour black with the devil and evil. We all know racist arguments are ridiculous and based on ignorance anyway, but why not clinch the deal just how laughable racism really is with some more arguments against it.

1. Racists today claim for example black people to be inferior etc, etc. The racists don't have a reason for this, it just is. Premise: all racists believe in the devil if they really are the racists they claim to be. Why? If they claim their beliefs to be something else than a coffee break around a kitchen table with a succession of nodding heads and mutters, they should believe in the devil - after all, the colour black was associated with him.

2. All racists should have Greece as their favourite place on earth since that's where western racism originated. Indeed if they are as strong in their beliefs as those following religions, shouldn't they be going on yearly pilgrimages to Greece to celebrate their ideological ancestors?

3. Racism originated in Greece, thus, you would assume the majority of racists should still be in Greece, but they're not.

4. All racist factions must surely have the following membership requirement to be able to join them. 'that the members are not blind from birth' If they do not ban people blind from birth from joining, they are then claiming blind people can see, more importantly, that the blind people can tell skin colour through hearing, touch or some sixth sense.

5. That they have a valid argument against the premise that racism is not limited to the physical boundaries of the cerebral cortex, but is anchored to reality even in the face of the following situation: A highly prominent racist faction leader is still racist if they suffer severe trauma to the brain rendering them firstly, unaware of who they are anymore, secondly, their acquired knowledge during their lifetime is erased, or lastly they are in a vegatative state unable to communicate.

Finally, the most simple argument against racism of all, how do they account for the rules of physiology in terms of skin pigment being the relative hues they are?