COLUMN TIME!!

'
Check out my column this Thursday at KentWired.com!!!


I'm so excited, are you excited??


It's gonna be so amazing!

Makes No Friggin' Sense

'
*Big Sigh*


Okay, so my limited access to the internet is really starting to get to me.  You have to understand that at school I spend the majority of the time I spend in my room on my computer.  Yes, I can access the internet at Jamie's and the library (as yet unvisited by me).  However, there is another problem.  I am suffering from information withdrawal!  I don't have USA Today here at home.  Yes, I can get it at the library, but like I said before, I haven't been there yet.  Besides I've been at Jamie's house since Friday because we went to see a baseball game this weekend.


Okay, a little about the game first.  It was a lot of fun.  I've been to an Indians' game with Jamie and his parents before, but this one was a lot more exciting.  I've also been to a Lake County Captains' game (minor league) which was a lot of fun.  Anywho, we got club seats this time which was WAY better than just going out to eat before the game.  We ate sooo much food.  I'm sure it was bad for my figure, but really, who cares?  There was pizza, hot dogs, hamburgers, salad (which was actually very good, and I'm not generally a fan of salad), peanuts, cracker jacks, popcorn, ice cream, cotton candy, nachos... I could go on and on here, folks.  And the french fries were amazing!  


They did end up losing but they put on a good show for it.  They were down by 2 runs in the last inning with one out and a guy on 1st and 3rd when Shin Soo Choo got up to bat.  It was so much fun because they have all these cool little puns for him, like 'Here's lookin' at Choo kid' and 'I got Choo babe' (and they pasted his face in pictures to match).  Everyone was cheering and yelling Chooooooooooo (and I was yelling Choo Choo) and clapping and making a TON of noise.  He ended up getting another out though, but there was so much hope there.  They'd lost the last game I saw of them (against the same team - the Cincinnati Reds) and I was really hoping they could come back this time.  The next guy up (Kearns) hit what looked like a home run, but the other team caught it and it was all over.  It was kind of sudden.  But I really had a lot of fun, and I can't say that about a lot of sporting events I've been to (not that I've been to a lot of them, really).  


Afterward there was an amazing fireworks show that seemed to go on forever.  It really was a cool night.  Plus, we got Slider figurines holding O-H I-O signs.  Oh yeah, I almost forgot.  We also got a practice ball : D  We got there pretty early, when the Reds were practicing, and one was hit up into the club seats a few sections over and we went and got it.  Jamie was so excited.  : )


Other than this, I'm really hoping to get a job soon, somewhere, but not having a lot of luck finding anything, especially since I don't have the option of driving somewhere.  If I can't get a job, I may try to get an internship (can't remember if I said that in an earlier post).  Also, I set myself a goal for finishing this new book I want to write.  I've only written a short excerpt from it, but I have ideas.  I have yet to finish any of the books I've started or gotten ideas for.  But this one I set a goal for, so hopefully it will end up coming to fruition - I have until the day that I graduate with my BA (which should be May of next year barring any unusual circumstances) to finish it.  One of the things I really want to do in life is write.  And that includes writing at least one novel (hopefully more).  


I think I'm good for the research next fall and I have my columnist job.  Next year is going to be good, I think.  Plus my roommate seems really cool.  I just have to get through this summer without going crazy.  The good thing is that you don't need the internet to write a book (well unless you have to research) and it usually just ends up being a distraction from the writing, anyway.  So hopefully I will get a lot done this summer on that.  I'm thinking I should aim for 1/3 of the book by the end of the summer which should be around 100 pages or so.  I'm not really sure how much that is in a word document, though.  I'll have to see if it says anywhere online.  Oh, internet, how I need thee!


I don't have any rants prepared for today.  I'm pretty much crippled without my newspapers.  How did I ever subsist without them?  I have a little something coming up, but I left my notes for it at home, and alas, no internet there.  It's coming soon, though, never fear.  I do have a few thoughts, though.  I think that the more I learn about how the world really looks, the less rosy that it seems to be.  I guess I'm idealistic, in a lot of ways, but I like to think of myself as a realist, as well.  But I keep hearing about people doing really low things to each other.  I've come to this place where I just understand everyone to be human, whether or not they do "evil" things (I don't like that word anymore).  But what causes people to do horrible things to another human?  Or to an animal?  What causes people to rape, kill, steal, cheat, or lie?  What causes people to hate?  I can't believe that it's human nature.  I personally don't want to do any of those things.  I don't hate a single person in the world.  


And what about the justice system here?  It just seems to messed up, biased, and unfair.  How are there such vastly different sentences for the same crimes?  How can they let someone off on a plea bargain if they're guilty?  Why can't we just forgive people and give them second chances (at least in some cases)?  Why do we lock up petty criminals so that when they get out, they're into hard crime?  Why do we target certain races or classes of people and profile them as criminals?  Why does no one seem to care about "white collar" crimes as much as "lower crimes" such as robbery?


Bottom line, how come the world makes no friggin' sense?

Don't Govern Me!

`
First of all, I'm going to start off with something completely unrelated to my topic for the day.  I am sooo soo excited because the Stater (on-campus newspaper) is looking for columnists for next fall, and I have been thinking lately about how I'd really love to do a column in the paper.  And now I have a chance!  All I have to do is submit a 500 word sample before Monday, along with a resume, and short note (and by e-mail too, so no scary interview - at least yet).  I cannot say how excited I am about this.  And I soo hope I can do it!!


Okay!  Now back to the topic at hand.  I was reading USA Today during my break this morning and came across yet another article about a Supreme Court case.  And yes, I am miffed about this one, too!  Here's the gist of the article.  The Court was ruling on a law which was "used to prosecute a Virginia man who advertised videos of dogfights" and which "covered 'any depiction' in which 'a living animal is intentionally maimed, mutilated, tortured, wounded or killed.'"  The Court voted 8-1 against the law, saying it was written "too broadly, potentially covering hunting and other activities that would not always be deemed cruel."  That's fair.  I'm not upset about this because it's a logical argument, and the Court's opinion "invites Congress to craft a law targeting only 'crush videos'" which they explain "typically show women's heels digging into small animals."  I agree that the law was too broad and the language should be narrowed, but read what comes next.


Okay, here's the juicy part.  USA Today describes the opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts, as a "forceful, often derisive, rejection of the government's arguments."  Roberts even described them as "'startling and dangerous.'"  I don't see how this law warrants that kind of a reaction.  How is it dangerous?  Or startling?  The law was crafted for the protection of animals, and that's not exactly an unworthy cause.  Think of young, angry boys (or girls, perhaps) watching videos of someone that they look up to who mistreats animals.  Those little boys are going to go out and do the same thing.  (And as a side note, it's actually a symptom of conversion disorder, which is often later diagnosed as a more serious psychological disorder).  We all emulate those we want to be like.  So yeah, I see a problem here.


It gets better!  Roberts also gives us this little gem, "'Our Constitution forecloses any attempt,' he wrote, to outlaw speech on the basis that it simply 'is not worth it.'"  He also called the law "'a criminal prohibition of alarming breadth.'"  Uh, don't you get the feeling that he's going a little far.  Like the people who wrote the legislation were purposefully trying to take any rights they could get away from the American people?  Um, yeah, everyone knows that elected officials undergo a werewolf-like change as soon as they enter office, becoming tyrannical overlords of the type that spend the majority of their time practicing their evil laughs, rather than leading the country, right?  Or am I getting this all jumbled up...


There are just too many people today who are trying their hardest to paint the government as some Big Brother type organization constantly scheming up new ways to screw over the American people.  And yes, a lot of politicians are corrupt, but a lot of other ones are just trying their hardest to make the country a better place and a more equal place.  I won't get started on this, though, because I could write a whole other post.  Back to the point!


The Virginia man from whom this whole debacle originated, says that he was selling the dogfight videos for education on pit bulls, not the promotion of illegal dogfighting.  And yes, that argument makes little sense at all.  I will concede that the government came back with the weak argument that "prosecutors would go after only the most 'extreme' cruelty."  There is just no way to ensure that, and the weak language of the law could be used abusively.  But this is my favorite part!  Stevens then said, "'Not to worry, the government says... But the First Amendment protects against the government:  it does not leave us at the mercy of noblesse oblige.'"


Shock!  Awe!  What did he just say?  Yes, he said the government is trying to practice their noblesse oblige on us.  Um, wait, isn't noblesse oblige a reference to the 19th century French concept of the king's right to take whatever woman he wants, regardless of her marital status?  Yeah, I can imagine you smacking your forehead right now, too!  


The only dissenting justice said in support of the law, that "the court could have upheld the law to cover only crush videos and dogfighting videos."  Okay, so why didn't that do this?  Maybe I don't understand court rulings that well, but I've had some exposure to how the process works, and the judicial branch was given rights to effect legislation through their rulings.  So it really shouldn't have been a problem to specify the reach of the law or at the very least recommend changes to the language of the legislation.


Other arguments in favor of this ruling:  "'The mere fact that speech is offensive doesn't justify banning it.'"  Even though it was mentioned earlier in the article that the Supreme Court has approved stipulations to First Amendment rights regarding obscenity.  That's why you can't swear on television.  And that's offensive, but it doesn't really cause little kids to go out and kill other living animals.  Also, "'We don't say we're only going to allow speech when it has social value or speech that we all agree with.'"  Okay, well this is different.  Because it has to do with actual lives.  Living animals.  Who are tortured and killed for entertainment.  And it is wrong. So I sincerely hope that a new law is passed, with more specific language, that can protect harmless animals from being abused for others entertainment.  


Maybe the Virginia guy had a good, albeit twisted, intention for his videos.  But does that give him the right to exploit dogfights?  Some people have huge gambling problems connected to dogfights and thousands of dogs are killed through this "sport" every year.  Maybe he was trying to raise awareness about the problem, I don't know.  But the real issue here is the ridiculous, hostile, and, honestly, infantile language given by the Chief Justice, and I'm sure, other members of the Court.  The law was created to protect animals and stop the spread of violent videos depicting animal cruelty.  I agree that the language needs to be tweaked, but the essence of the law is benevolent.  And a simple, 'the language of this law needs to be narrowed and specified,' would have sufficed.

Injustice System

`

*Before you read, I'd just like to let you know that I've made it so you don't have to sign in to comment now.  But I do ask that you please put your name at the end of your comment if you don't sign in, so that I know who wrote it.  Thanks!*

Every morning, I pick up the Daily Kent Stater and USA Today (and throw away the Sports section).  Today, there was a big news story in the Stater about the ongoing murder trial of a Kent State student.  The details of the trial are quite interesting and I've been following them since the news of this student's hospitalization after the assault which took place near campus.

But the murder trial is not my concern for this post.  I was reading the latest news about a key eyewitness testimony in the case.  The young man in question had been driving the defendant and another young man also being charged with murder on the night that the assault took place.  But one of the sort of side details tucked into the article reads like this:  "[the young man] first appeared in front of a grand jury Nov. 24, 2009 and pleaded "the Fifth" on the advice of his attorney, [name].  As he left the courtroom, he was charged with two counts of obstruction of justice and then booked and sent to [the county] jail, where he stayed until Dec. 24." 

Maybe I don't know that much about the justice system, but I do have an innate sense of human justice which is frantically waving red flags at me every time I read this.  The Bill of Rights was designed to protect the people's rights.  The fifth amendment is supposed to protect people from self-incrimination.  How is it possible, then, that they could charge him with obstructing justice right after the trial?  How is that justice at all?  So he is allowed to plead the fifth in the court room, but as soon as he is out of that "safe haven," they can instantly arrest him for using his rights?  This smells like a devious loop-hole; like those who are supposed to be protecting our rights are playing the system in order to take those rights away in the name of, I don't know, "justice."  It's absurd!  And besides that, he was put in jail for an entire month for this "crime."  When reading the text of the amendment, it seems this is not actually against the law, per se:  "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."  But I have to say that it goes against the spirit of the law.  Judges and policemen should be there to protect our rights, not take them away.

I've always had a problem with the way the justice system works in regard to the amount of time criminals have to serve.  Sometimes murderers get 20 years in prison.  Sometimes they are put to death.  Does taking another life have gradations like this?  (And, just as a side note, I'd like to say that I am against the death penalty, but that's a subject for another post.  And I'm also against unnecessary jail time, but, again, let's save that for another day.)  I understand that not all crimes are equal and that every crime has to be judged based on the circumstances.  But sometimes the rulings really make absolutely no sense.  Does it sound right to you that using your Constitutional rights can land you in jail for a month?  Let me know what you think.

The other case I read about today in USA Today was about the Supreme Court case in which a Christian organization at a law school is suing the school because they took away funding from this organization for denying gays and non-Christians membership or participation in their group.  The school had anti-discrimination laws set up for every organization on campus, so they weren't treating them unfairly.  The group's argument was that "its members had a First Amendment right to limit participation to people who subscribe to their beliefs, including a ban on homosexual relations."  And that "making groups admit students who do not accept their message is a 'frontal assault on freedom of association.'"  But what angers me about this case is some justices are using the argument that 'you wouldn't want an atheist coming in and leading Bible studies or a bunch of atheists taking over the group.'  That kind of thinking is not even pertinent to the discussion.  The question was really, do they have a right to discriminate based on sexual orientation or religion.  And the law says that no one should be discriminated against based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion or disability.  No one should be exempt from that.  Not only that, but some justices have made the argument that allowing atheists or gays into the Christian group would be similar to allowing racist skinheads into the NAACP!  That was actually a comment by one of the conservative justices in USA Today.  I didn't make it up.

The whole argument is ridiculous.  We are talking about basic human and social rights.  And no one has the right to discriminate.  It is a slippery slope once we start condoning discrimination for religious organizations.  Conservatives hem and haw about how we came to this country for religious freedom and we fought the Revolutionary War for these rights.  (Which, I might add, was just not a huge reason that we fought the war.  But people like to make it out to be more of an issue than it ever was.)  Well, does their right to Christianity then trump others' rights to be Muslim or homosexual or atheist?  It's a joke, and it lessens even more my faith in our justice system.  Certainly some of the justices' views are colored by their religious affiliations.  Colored to the point where they often cannot see past them.  And when these justices are making rulings about important national issues that effect every citizen of this country, I would like to see a little less blindness and a little more impartial justice.