The college admissions offices at several elite institutions were rocked, shocked, and supinely mocked this week as the FBI revealed a widespread conspiracy involving over 50 rich parents buying their children's way into college. To which I say: meh.
Obviously this is something that shouldn't happen. It's unfair to the kids that actually earned their way into Georgetown and USC, when the student sitting next to them had someone else take their SAT exam and the rowing coach was bought off to 'recruit' them (just kidding, these kids aren't actually going to class - they'll buy their grades just like they bought their acceptance letters). Then again, life isn't fair.
I'm not saying life shouldn't be fair, it's just that it's not. Donald Trump probably shouldn't have been able to attend an Ivy League university, but a massive donation from Fred Trump coincidentally preceded his son's transfer from Fordham to UPenn. Because that's how the ultra rich have always done it. You buy a building, and secure posterity's ability to also attend such schools.
The big problem is that these people didn't have Fred Trump money, so they couldn't engage in honest graft and had to resort to smaller, under the table bribes. These remain a no-no in today's society - institutions may be bought openly, but it's a scandal if it's done in private. Sorry if I don't see much more than semantics.
You know what's also unfair? That these kids had every opportunity to get into great private schools in the first place. They grew up in homes absent food insecurity, so there was no distraction caused by hunger in elementary school. Their classrooms were well-staffed with excellent teachers and full of students with similarly successful and likely educated parents. They had every opportunity to learn and had access to the resources that would boost their chances of college admittance. And, when they were accepted to college, they could go because their parents had the money to pay the tuition.
There may be a scandal in this story, but the anger is probably misplaced. Everyone hates these parents for doing what a bunch of other people would do if given the chance. They just don't have the chance.
(insert final rant about economic mobility or something because why not)
(follow rant with some weird defense of capitalism, because apparently we don't believe in capitalism in 2019?)
(poorly formed conclusion)
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
Friday, February 3, 2017
The Lesson of Donald Trump that Art Briles Failed to Heed
Art Briles is a jackass who shouldn't be allowed to coach football again, and any school that hires him should receive the death penalty, or at minimum a loss of scholarships and ban from postseason competition. His transgressions were at best turning a blind eye, and more than likely shielding players from sexual misconduct allegations at Baylor in order to keep them on the field (lawsuits against the school detail instances of victims being told to keep quiet by coaches and possibly being threatened to prevent them from going to the authorities). As such, a scarlet letter should be branded on the members of his coaching staff that were aware/participated in this as well. But the damnedest thing that happened when Briles was released from his position; turned around and filed suit against Baylor.
There's a lot of gumption involved here, and it went even higher. Ken Starr (yes, the same asshole you're thinking of) was Baylor's chancellor and eventually forced to step down due to his complicity. But back to Briles. A Philadelphia law firm hired by the school's Board of Regents concluded that Briles was responsible for creating essentially a black hole of accountability in which "reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared." Delightful. Briles apparently didn't think this was fair, and sued the school for over $1 million because libel because his feelings got a sad.
Funny thing about suing someone for libel, and this is the lesson Trump (may have?) learned about a couple decades ago: your claims become open to investigation and that which you don't want to come out in discovery, comes out. For Trump, he sued an author who claimed Trump wasn't worth much money. Lo and behold, Trump was asked to prove the claim was false, and during discovery it was revealed Trump had grossly inflated his wealth. And this information became public as a matter of court record. (And Trump lost. Because lying.) The lesson: if you're suing someone for contradicting your version of the truth, make sure your version is right. And if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.
Once again, back to Briles. So this fucktard sues Baylor because the school said they couldn't keep a coach that was shielding his rapist players. (And if the media accounts are to be believed, we're talking over 30 rapists in the program, with Briles having personal knowledge of at least one gang rape.) And guess what happens next: the man who sued the school for claiming he shielded rapists has to prove that the school's claim amount to libel, only to have the school provide the evidence that he shielded rapists. Briles dropped his lawsuit today after a small number of text messages and e-mails were released to the public that demonstrated his complicity. Good job: you got what you asked for by having the Regents defend themselves. So once more: if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.
This rambling diatribe is mostly about calling people names to make me feel better about myself, but it also underlines a non-germane point: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. After one of the gang rapes, Briles commented, "those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" This is the type of victim-blaming comment that fosters a rape culture, and you've fucked up on so many levels:
1. This completely deflects from the problem at hand. We've all put ourselves in dumb situations that, in hindsight, we shouldn't have. Lock your car doors, don't walk down that dark alley, keep your wits about you, etc. This is advice that should be dispensed. It shouldn't be considered a lesson learned. It's not 1900, and you don't get to blame the woman for being raped. You blame the rapist for being a rapist, and then you put him in jail. It really is that black and white.
2. The rape culture you've now fostered. Collegiate football players already have a certain expectation of leniency, begging the question, "how much can I actually get away with?" You protected rapists from being punished. Which sends a signal to those rapists, as well as their teammates, that you will protect rapists in the future. Unfortunately, legal repercussions are required to deter shitty behavior in some people, and you've removed such deterrence. You've now created an environment that allows rape. You may (acknowledge, may) be directly responsible for any future sexual assault that your players perpetrate.
Also, the Board of Regents considered reinstating Briles last summer before the lawsuit. Those on the reinstatement side are also shitty people.
There's a lot of gumption involved here, and it went even higher. Ken Starr (yes, the same asshole you're thinking of) was Baylor's chancellor and eventually forced to step down due to his complicity. But back to Briles. A Philadelphia law firm hired by the school's Board of Regents concluded that Briles was responsible for creating essentially a black hole of accountability in which "reports of misconduct such as drug use, physical assault, domestic violence, brandishing of guns, indecent exposure and academic fraud disappeared." Delightful. Briles apparently didn't think this was fair, and sued the school for over $1 million because libel because his feelings got a sad.
Funny thing about suing someone for libel, and this is the lesson Trump (may have?) learned about a couple decades ago: your claims become open to investigation and that which you don't want to come out in discovery, comes out. For Trump, he sued an author who claimed Trump wasn't worth much money. Lo and behold, Trump was asked to prove the claim was false, and during discovery it was revealed Trump had grossly inflated his wealth. And this information became public as a matter of court record. (And Trump lost. Because lying.) The lesson: if you're suing someone for contradicting your version of the truth, make sure your version is right. And if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.
Once again, back to Briles. So this fucktard sues Baylor because the school said they couldn't keep a coach that was shielding his rapist players. (And if the media accounts are to be believed, we're talking over 30 rapists in the program, with Briles having personal knowledge of at least one gang rape.) And guess what happens next: the man who sued the school for claiming he shielded rapists has to prove that the school's claim amount to libel, only to have the school provide the evidence that he shielded rapists. Briles dropped his lawsuit today after a small number of text messages and e-mails were released to the public that demonstrated his complicity. Good job: you got what you asked for by having the Regents defend themselves. So once more: if your lies will be embarrassing when contradictory evidence comes out, you should probably just stop filing frivolous lawsuits.
This rambling diatribe is mostly about calling people names to make me feel better about myself, but it also underlines a non-germane point: you're either part of the solution or part of the problem. After one of the gang rapes, Briles commented, "those are some bad dudes. Why was she around those guys?" This is the type of victim-blaming comment that fosters a rape culture, and you've fucked up on so many levels:
1. This completely deflects from the problem at hand. We've all put ourselves in dumb situations that, in hindsight, we shouldn't have. Lock your car doors, don't walk down that dark alley, keep your wits about you, etc. This is advice that should be dispensed. It shouldn't be considered a lesson learned. It's not 1900, and you don't get to blame the woman for being raped. You blame the rapist for being a rapist, and then you put him in jail. It really is that black and white.
2. The rape culture you've now fostered. Collegiate football players already have a certain expectation of leniency, begging the question, "how much can I actually get away with?" You protected rapists from being punished. Which sends a signal to those rapists, as well as their teammates, that you will protect rapists in the future. Unfortunately, legal repercussions are required to deter shitty behavior in some people, and you've removed such deterrence. You've now created an environment that allows rape. You may (acknowledge, may) be directly responsible for any future sexual assault that your players perpetrate.
In sum, I'm glad this additional information just came out, I'm saddened that the news means victims must continue to relive the trauma they incurred, and I consider Briles lucky that there's no father with a shotgun pissed off enough to eliminate the life of someone who has no further value to provide society. That's not something I'm advocating. Just making the observation.
Also, the Board of Regents considered reinstating Briles last summer before the lawsuit. Those on the reinstatement side are also shitty people.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Which Race Has The Smartest Inmate Population?
I want to do this study sometime. Not because I'm particularly interested in issues of race, crime, or any of that jazz, but because political correctness will bear down on the results with the fervor of 300 angry Spartans. I would like to feel that.
It began when I was reading about average prison IQ in general - it appears to going down. This makes sense - 50 years ago most people could find a menial yet somewhat supportive job. Chalk it up to collective laziness or globalization or the destruction of unions or whatever, but that's no longer the case.
When most people could be reasonably expected of being capable of providing for themselves, the prison population would be driven by what we consider "bad people." Those that commit crimes because they get thrills out of stealing, don't value human life, or can't control their addictions. Those people still end up in jail, but the economic realities of 21st century America mean more and more people are left behind. And there's a pretty stark correlation between intelligence and ability to provide for yourself. So low IQ citizens go without, and the likelihood of committing crime (either out of frustration or as a means to supplement income) goes up. And thus, average prison IQ goes down.
I haven't come across the empirical study backing this up, but that logic is pretty unassailable. However, that's not what I want to study. Looking at prison populations, the racial make up is well known. A significantly greater proportion of the black community is locked up than the white community. And we're not arguing causes (environment, opportunity, culture, institutional racism, poverty all play roles to some degree). I want to look at whether the average black inmate is more intelligent than the average white inmate.
The thinking goes like this: whites, on average, have more opportunities than blacks. They, on average, go to better schools, come from homes with more money, are subject to more constructive expectations, and are more likely to have two-parent homes. Therefore, we expect the next generation to hold better jobs. On average, the whites that don't succeed are more likely to fail due to low IQ (and thus lack of use to society) than a black peer due to the issues discussed above. Painting an example: a white citizen with an IQ of 100 holds the same likelihood of achievement as a black citizen with an IQ of 105 (I'm just picking numbers out of the air here) due to those embedded obstacles.
Let's say the level of achievement hypothesized above is a job with a working wage, consumate with the ability to put a serviceable amount of food on the table, rent for a sanitized apartment, and basic health care. It's on the margin, and one IQ point below means that citizen can't lock down a working wage position and is put at a considerably higher likelihood of committing crime. That would mean an IQ of 99 for your Caucasian, and 104 for your African American. Which means whites are more likely to go to jail if they have IQs of 99 and lower. Blacks, with IQs of 104 and lower. Which would create a prison population wherein one race has an appreciatively higher IQ than another.
Other factors go into this, of course. I believe this would be a driver though. I can also never run for public office.
It began when I was reading about average prison IQ in general - it appears to going down. This makes sense - 50 years ago most people could find a menial yet somewhat supportive job. Chalk it up to collective laziness or globalization or the destruction of unions or whatever, but that's no longer the case.
When most people could be reasonably expected of being capable of providing for themselves, the prison population would be driven by what we consider "bad people." Those that commit crimes because they get thrills out of stealing, don't value human life, or can't control their addictions. Those people still end up in jail, but the economic realities of 21st century America mean more and more people are left behind. And there's a pretty stark correlation between intelligence and ability to provide for yourself. So low IQ citizens go without, and the likelihood of committing crime (either out of frustration or as a means to supplement income) goes up. And thus, average prison IQ goes down.
I haven't come across the empirical study backing this up, but that logic is pretty unassailable. However, that's not what I want to study. Looking at prison populations, the racial make up is well known. A significantly greater proportion of the black community is locked up than the white community. And we're not arguing causes (environment, opportunity, culture, institutional racism, poverty all play roles to some degree). I want to look at whether the average black inmate is more intelligent than the average white inmate.
The thinking goes like this: whites, on average, have more opportunities than blacks. They, on average, go to better schools, come from homes with more money, are subject to more constructive expectations, and are more likely to have two-parent homes. Therefore, we expect the next generation to hold better jobs. On average, the whites that don't succeed are more likely to fail due to low IQ (and thus lack of use to society) than a black peer due to the issues discussed above. Painting an example: a white citizen with an IQ of 100 holds the same likelihood of achievement as a black citizen with an IQ of 105 (I'm just picking numbers out of the air here) due to those embedded obstacles.
Let's say the level of achievement hypothesized above is a job with a working wage, consumate with the ability to put a serviceable amount of food on the table, rent for a sanitized apartment, and basic health care. It's on the margin, and one IQ point below means that citizen can't lock down a working wage position and is put at a considerably higher likelihood of committing crime. That would mean an IQ of 99 for your Caucasian, and 104 for your African American. Which means whites are more likely to go to jail if they have IQs of 99 and lower. Blacks, with IQs of 104 and lower. Which would create a prison population wherein one race has an appreciatively higher IQ than another.
Other factors go into this, of course. I believe this would be a driver though. I can also never run for public office.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Letting Detroit Burn
Just finished Detroit: An American Autopsy. About the quickest I've ever flown through a book (I'm not the best of readers). Charlie LeDuff the author isn't Steinbeck, but I appreciate how he follows a similar intent - kind of a, it's the system's fault so no one person had control to stop it, but everyone has the responsibility to be responsible. Steinbeck would be down with that.
My last girlfriend opened me up to some solid perspective. There was an intriguing oblivity to be exposed to she brought to the relationship. Ideas like how Robert Moses was good for America, and for blatantly selfish reasons. The discrepancies were bloated - Moses essentially wanted to wall black people into the cities and make it really easy for whites to drive to the cities without actually living among them. Detroit was nothing more than niggers shooting niggers. American society can burn as long as the rich can stay rich. But at the same token, being poor was immoral and if you had a shit position in life you probably deserved it. I'm sure there's a nexus of selfishness, indifference, and ignorance that leads people to believe in the existing power structures while also not understanding why people don't just better their socioeconomic class. It's why I think more conservatives should be forced to take behavioral economics courses.
She used to jokingly refer to Red Lobster as Black Lobster, because only black people would be poor enough to want to eat there. This was regularly thrown in my face with the knowledge my parents wouldn't have been able to afford eating there when I was little. I turned into a bad person during that time; I think I'm getting better.
My last girlfriend opened me up to some solid perspective. There was an intriguing oblivity to be exposed to she brought to the relationship. Ideas like how Robert Moses was good for America, and for blatantly selfish reasons. The discrepancies were bloated - Moses essentially wanted to wall black people into the cities and make it really easy for whites to drive to the cities without actually living among them. Detroit was nothing more than niggers shooting niggers. American society can burn as long as the rich can stay rich. But at the same token, being poor was immoral and if you had a shit position in life you probably deserved it. I'm sure there's a nexus of selfishness, indifference, and ignorance that leads people to believe in the existing power structures while also not understanding why people don't just better their socioeconomic class. It's why I think more conservatives should be forced to take behavioral economics courses.
She used to jokingly refer to Red Lobster as Black Lobster, because only black people would be poor enough to want to eat there. This was regularly thrown in my face with the knowledge my parents wouldn't have been able to afford eating there when I was little. I turned into a bad person during that time; I think I'm getting better.
Monday, July 15, 2013
To Hell With The Jury Selection Process
So, jury duty today. It was just the selection process and I was found wanting, so now I don't have to spend the rest of the week determining whether or not someone REDACTION!!! and their frame of mind in the process. Primary takeaway: the jury selection process is the most awful thing ever. Well, maybe not ever, but I certainly didn't appreciate it.
Before I attack anyone else, this was my facebook status yesterday - just to get it out there that my lead up to the whole proceedings were just as flippant as the next person, and probably more so; particularly in the face of the George Zimmerman verdict just being released and the emotional racial wounds that whole thing generated.
True to form, sitting on the first floor of the courthouse at 8:30 this morning I was joking with the people around me about bad excuses to get out of serving, which is normal. Nobody wants jury duty (unless you're unemployed. Apparently then you're entitled to $40/day). And when I got to the selection process and saw that the defendant was black, the first thought in my mind when asked what I do was to reply I handle public protection budgets for the Senate Majority (while having the advantage of being mostly true, it also implicitly identifies me as a law-and-order Republican that, justifiably or not, carries enough connotation to scare off a public defender).
End of the day, I didn't. I was part of the second group of potential jurors interviewed, and the attorneys pretty much gave away the case and the defense during the selection process with the first group, so I knew that when asked to how judge when someone's being truthful, replying "someone's reputation and the consistency of a story" would automatically cross me off both the prosecutor's and defense attorney's list - any other discussion re: my family in law enforcement and any family being in trouble with the law was unnecessary to get released (I probably should have admitted to my knowledge of the McDonald's on Pearl as well).
I think it's ok, and even expected, to joke about not wanting to be there. Be honest - you don't want to be there. But I was sitting about ten feet from the defendant while a judge and two lawyers joked with the jury and trivialized the proceedings. All the while, a guy whose future is about to be decided sits right there listening to people joke about knowing a certain employer and how duty might interfere with their kids' day camp.
I get why it happens. The lawyer that fails to connect with the jury loses, because people base decisions not on facts but how something makes them feel (see: Anthony Weiner's mayoral run, etc, etc.). You have an obligation to your client to joke throughout the very serious and consequential proceedings in order to give them the best chance of winning. Likewise, the judge has every right to make the courtroom feel safe so that people are the most open about their thoughts and experiences. That's how you best select a jury. So I don't fault the players; just the game. And it seems like the best remedy is to not have the defendant in the room at the time (for the record, in 1984 the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of a public trial also extends to pretrial hearings. It's definitely part of the process and the defendant should be there. There have aso been a couple interesting and cases this century affirming the public's right to view pretrial hearings if you're interested in that sort of thing.)
So the dude needed to be there. But at the same time, his future was joked and bandied about for about six hours today. A necessary part of the process, sure. Still offensive enough to make my stomach churn. And for the record, although several quips were made, once I sat down in seat #4 I struggled to find my sense of humor while those sitting next to me laughed at how funny kids stealing from the cookie jar are.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Building a New Cuckoo Cuckoo Nest
Apparently Anders Behring Breivik (mass murderer from Norway) is getting a psychiatric ward built solely for him.
I oppose the death penalty, and I think I can give a pretty enlightened argument to support my position. This, however, is a step too far. The Slate article also discusses how prison officials announced plans to hire "friends" for Breivik because they’re unwilling to restrict him to solitary confinement but also do not want to subject other inmates to him, worried he may try to take hostages. The "professional community" will have tasks that include playing indoor hockey and chess with Breivik.
I think it's fair to say society has no use for this man. Without a use for him, there is no reason to maintain him. I won't protest his early retirement from life.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Cops
I've watched a lot - and I mean a lot - of Cops in my day. Recent episode has one of my favorite clips ever:
Monday, September 19, 2011
Why Kansas >>>>> New York
A couple weeks ago, the following offshoot of conversation transpired on the Facebook:
Dave Toan October 8. Mark the Date.
September 7 at 3:08pm · Like · 2 people
Kathleen Digan no thats my birthday. you cant do this on my birthday.
September 7 at 3:08pm · Like · 1 person
Dave Toan OMG - I wondered why my idea was so perfect!
September 7 at 3:09pm · Like
Kathleen Digan not to be selfish...you are all clearly invited to stout on my birthday at stout that evening to see me drink the birthday jug.
September 7 at 3:09pm · Like · 1 person
Dave Toan Watching Nora hit 'like' is kinda creepy
September 7 at 3:10pm · Like
Dave Toan and you're invited to 'aroudn the world' after you finish your birthday jug at Stout.
September 7 at 3:10pm · Like
Kathleen Digan shut up you all know you need my organizational skills to plan it...i planned both the prom and the ball at my high school.
September 7 at 3:11pm · Like
Dave Toan Not having attended a school with a ball, I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who planned one. I once hosted a dorm-wide ping pong tournament, so, pretty much, suck it.
September 7 at 3:12pm · Like
Kathleen Digan im gonna come over to 18 and fight you dave. im wearing pearls and heels today, both of which i will use as weapons. be ready.
September 7 at 3:13pm · Like
Kathleen Digan (sarcasm font would be lovely to have for this thread)
September 7 at 3:15pm · Like
Dave Toan "Quick, Brendan James Boyle, call security - a minority is trying to infiltrate our corridors!"
September 7 at 3:17pm · Like
Kathleen Digan the sgt at arms love me dave. they will totes take my side over yours
September 7 at 3:18pm · Like
Dave Toan Maybe, but high school grammar teachers the world over hate you right now.
September 7 at 3:19pm · Like
Kathleen Digan oh wow i didn't know they taught grammar in kansas dave!
September 7 at 3:20pm · Like
Dave Toan http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/states/uschartsat.html - If you scroll down to 'k' (that's the letter after 'j'), you'll find Kansas sitting at #4. But y'all tried hard too, I'm sure. SAT and ACT Average Scores by States law2.umkc.eduRanksings of states by SAT and ACT average scores.
September 7 at 3:26pm · Like ·
Kathleen Digan hey look its the grammar cowboy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-o1P2WTKUKNOW-TV - The Grammar Cowboy
www.youtube.com
1991 - A University of Houston student edutainment project. "The Grammar Cowboy...
See More
September 7 at 3:26pm · Like
Nora Elizabeth dont you two have jobs?
September 7 at 3:30pm · Like · 1 person
Kathleen Digan Also nora, dave and I were taking part in important bi partisan bonding. This is your govt at work.
September 7 at 3:55pm · Like
Dave Toan ditto
September 7 at 4:00pm · Like
So then I started typing this: KS v. NY
I originally set out to prove how much greater Kansas was than New York using SAT scores, which are indicative of intelligence, which is indicative of likelihood to commit crime. But apparently KS has much greater crime rates than NY, so, fail.
Dave Toan October 8. Mark the Date.
September 7 at 3:08pm · Like · 2 people
Kathleen Digan no thats my birthday. you cant do this on my birthday.
September 7 at 3:08pm · Like · 1 person
Dave Toan OMG - I wondered why my idea was so perfect!
September 7 at 3:09pm · Like
Kathleen Digan not to be selfish...you are all clearly invited to stout on my birthday at stout that evening to see me drink the birthday jug.
September 7 at 3:09pm · Like · 1 person
Dave Toan Watching Nora hit 'like' is kinda creepy
September 7 at 3:10pm · Like
Dave Toan and you're invited to 'aroudn the world' after you finish your birthday jug at Stout.
September 7 at 3:10pm · Like
Kathleen Digan shut up you all know you need my organizational skills to plan it...i planned both the prom and the ball at my high school.
September 7 at 3:11pm · Like
Dave Toan Not having attended a school with a ball, I'm immediately skeptical of anyone who planned one. I once hosted a dorm-wide ping pong tournament, so, pretty much, suck it.
September 7 at 3:12pm · Like
Kathleen Digan im gonna come over to 18 and fight you dave. im wearing pearls and heels today, both of which i will use as weapons. be ready.
September 7 at 3:13pm · Like
Kathleen Digan (sarcasm font would be lovely to have for this thread)
September 7 at 3:15pm · Like
Dave Toan "Quick, Brendan James Boyle, call security - a minority is trying to infiltrate our corridors!"
September 7 at 3:17pm · Like
Kathleen Digan the sgt at arms love me dave. they will totes take my side over yours
September 7 at 3:18pm · Like
Dave Toan Maybe, but high school grammar teachers the world over hate you right now.
September 7 at 3:19pm · Like
Kathleen Digan oh wow i didn't know they taught grammar in kansas dave!
September 7 at 3:20pm · Like
Dave Toan http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/states/uschartsat.html - If you scroll down to 'k' (that's the letter after 'j'), you'll find Kansas sitting at #4. But y'all tried hard too, I'm sure. SAT and ACT Average Scores by States law2.umkc.eduRanksings of states by SAT and ACT average scores.
September 7 at 3:26pm · Like ·
Kathleen Digan hey look its the grammar cowboy! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-o1P2WTKUKNOW-TV - The Grammar Cowboy
www.youtube.com
1991 - A University of Houston student edutainment project. "The Grammar Cowboy...
See More
September 7 at 3:26pm · Like
Nora Elizabeth dont you two have jobs?
September 7 at 3:30pm · Like · 1 person
Kathleen Digan Also nora, dave and I were taking part in important bi partisan bonding. This is your govt at work.
September 7 at 3:55pm · Like
Dave Toan ditto
September 7 at 4:00pm · Like
So then I started typing this: KS v. NY
I originally set out to prove how much greater Kansas was than New York using SAT scores, which are indicative of intelligence, which is indicative of likelihood to commit crime. But apparently KS has much greater crime rates than NY, so, fail.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Tosh.0, Doobies, and Other Non-Intellectual Pursuits
My sophomore year I almost got a job doing database entry for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, and the only questions they asked were if I had ever smoked marijuana or been convicted of a crime. Anyone seeking a security clearance is asked the same question on marijuana - this government is serious about preventing hardened criminals from infiltrating the system. Yet assuming the nation becomes more reasonable and legalizes the substance, is this question still appropriate? Personal feelings of how idiotic present drug laws are aside, it begs a pondering.
The reversal of a law denotes an acknowledgment of either 1. misplaced judgment in crafting the original statute; or 2. a change in circumstances making the original reasoning no longer relevant. An altered marijuana policy scenario is likely both - present policy is wrong, which was reflected by a change in public opinion which shifts to legalization. However, there's no real moral high ground in breaking the current law - it's a law you're expected to abide by, even if you don't agree with it. A democracy is generally better off when people follow the laws prescribed by government. Problems arise when individuals only obey what they believe should apply to them, for no individual should be above others.
So, is it appropriate to expect a security clearance seeker to have abstained from the sticky icky, even after its legal reception? While I believe it should not be a question directly asked, abstinence remains an expectation. Though the codified criminal code is currently an infringement on civil rights, there is no moral righteousness in subverting it. Public defiance for the purpose of bringing attention to the issue is one thing - rolling a doobie and watching Tosh.0 in your living room is not. You've broken the law, yet in doing so failed to influence the trajectory of marijuana policy. Because even if I can provide a damn solid case against current policy, to say I'm more judicious than our lawmakers is more pretentious than cause for absolution - even if it's true.
The reversal of a law denotes an acknowledgment of either 1. misplaced judgment in crafting the original statute; or 2. a change in circumstances making the original reasoning no longer relevant. An altered marijuana policy scenario is likely both - present policy is wrong, which was reflected by a change in public opinion which shifts to legalization. However, there's no real moral high ground in breaking the current law - it's a law you're expected to abide by, even if you don't agree with it. A democracy is generally better off when people follow the laws prescribed by government. Problems arise when individuals only obey what they believe should apply to them, for no individual should be above others.
So, is it appropriate to expect a security clearance seeker to have abstained from the sticky icky, even after its legal reception? While I believe it should not be a question directly asked, abstinence remains an expectation. Though the codified criminal code is currently an infringement on civil rights, there is no moral righteousness in subverting it. Public defiance for the purpose of bringing attention to the issue is one thing - rolling a doobie and watching Tosh.0 in your living room is not. You've broken the law, yet in doing so failed to influence the trajectory of marijuana policy. Because even if I can provide a damn solid case against current policy, to say I'm more judicious than our lawmakers is more pretentious than cause for absolution - even if it's true.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)