Well, I spent a thoroughly depressing afternoon in class today.

My Constitutional Rights professor made us watch a video today on Native American rights--which underlined the fact that they essentially have none. Native Americans have been so abused over the course of history, from broken treaties and nonexistent agreements to outright genocide, that it makes America's claim of equality and freedom quite laughable. We heard today about the "purchase" of Manhatten island by European settlers--a concept totally alien to the various Native American tribes who used the island as communal hunting and fishing grounds during the summer. The settlers were welcomed by the Native American tribes and invited to partake in the rich hunting alongside the native hunters, but the Europeans thought that their gift of gold to the Indians (which the tribes interpreted as a gift; the idea of ownership of land being totally alien to them) had purchased the land. When the Indians returned the following summer to hunt as they always did, they found a walled fortification around the island and were informed that it was now the property of the settlers and that the native hunters needed to find someplace else to hunt.

Then there was the issue of boarding schools for Native American children (which children were forced to attend after being separated from their tribes) and the Catholic Missions built in California.

Anyway, I'm too depressed to talk about this much. It's just amazing to me that there's so much injustice in the world--so many wrongs that can never be set right. And so many evils that society simply has no interest in correcting.
- posted by Jason @ 3:43 PM

 
Why must real people have lead feet?

My International Relations professor seems to be a smart guy. He's a conservative, but I'm okay with that so long as he makes some sense. Up to today, he always had.

But it turns out he's full of shit too.

When class first started today, he was going on and on about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to grant an injunction barring the California gubernatorial recall election, as well as the referendums on two state Propositions, from going forward as scheduled. He spoke very contemptuously of the court, about how they are the most liberal court in the country and how it was "obvious" which way they would decide just based on the judges' ideology. He remarked that he'd "never seen a decision to postpone something based on what MIGHT happen" rather than based on fact (in other words, something that had already happened).

I'm coming to understand that, while he may be very knowledgable about International Relations and some other political areas, he seems to know jack squat about law. I just went and read the opinion for myself. By definition, an injunction is a decision to postpone or prevent something from happening (obviously based on what MIGHT happen, since an injunction would not be possible if the event had already happened). I don't think it's a stretch to say that this is not the first injunction ever to be issued by the U.S. judicial system. Moreover, the injunction order will not actually take effect or be binding until the 22nd of this month (still 6 days away) so as to allow the defendants to further appeal the injunction either in the 9th Circuit or in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Furthermore, the decision was not based on ideology but rather on case law established in Bush v. Gore. The issue then was Equal Protection, the argument being that allowing each individual county to create it's own set of standards for counting votes meant that residents of each county stood a different chance of having their votes tallied. The argument here is almost identical: that 44% of the state will be forced to use their old punchcard systems, which have been decertified by the California Secretary of State as being "unacceptable" and banned from use in all future elections. If 44% of the state is using voting equipment that has been deemed as unacceptable, while the other 56% of the state is using equipment deemed as acceptable, the two groups have, by definition, different chances of having their votes tabulated and are not enjoying Equal Protection under the law.

Where exactly is the flaw in this reasoning? Where does it deviate from existing law? I guess the problem with it is that a Democratic candidate, rather than a Republican one, will benefit most. Can't have that, now can we?
- posted by Jason @ 10:56 PM

 
So I drove to school this morning, and at a traffic light I stopped behind the car. Obviously, this sort of thing happens every day, but today I noticed a sticker on the back of that car that I recognized. It took me a moment to place it, since it's been quite a few years since the last time I saw it, but finaly it hit me: it was an old Transformers logo.

For those of you who may or may not have grown up in the eighties, Transformers was a Saturday morning cartoon that featured two groups of giant robots that could change their shapes into different things: cars, trucks, jets, cannons, etc. The two groups were called Autobots and Decepticons. The Autobots were good, noble, self-sacrificing heroes who protected the world from the evil Decepticons, whose goal was to drain the earth of it's energy and return to their home planet to conquer it.

I got a kick out seeing that sticker and immediately started wondering where the driver had gotten it. But a moment later, it occurred to me: what I was seeing was a Decepticon logo.

Now, on it's face--no big deal. It's just a sticker, right? Who cares? But it made me remember something that I'd noticed when I was little. For some reason, I was always virtually the only one of my friends who rooted for the good guys. Most of the kids I knew back then actually liked the bad guys better, and not just on that show. It seemed that they liked the bad guys better than the good guys in virtually every game we kids used to play, and in every show we used to watch. Even as an adult, the Axis players seem to have a sizeable numeric advantage over the Allies in WWIIOL (the Axis, remember, represents Nazi Germany while the Allies represent France and Britain).

I never really understood why that was, and I still don't today. I wonder if that preference could say anything about a person's outlook on life, or might that be reading too much into such a relatively trivial matter? I honestly don't know. All I know is that when I go looking for my own sticker for the car, I'll be shopping for an Autobot logo. It's just what I prefer.
- posted by Jason @ 3:31 PM

 
I just got back from the gym, so I'm kind of tired. A cold glass of water and a soft chair sound very nice right now, but my brain seems to have other ideas.

At the gym there is a bank of televisions. Their sound systems are wired into a series of headphone hookups at each exercise station, so you can watch and listen to whatever is on the televisions while you exercise. Usually it's the news. So while I was exercising today, Headline News ran a story about accused terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui. It seems that a Federal Judge has again ordered that the defendent be allowed to question senior Al-Qaida officers in court. Moussaoui contends that the witnesses' testimony could establish his innocence. The Justice Department, however, has refused to comply with the court order.

I've been thinking about this on and off since it started, but today I realized something. I do, in fact, agree with the judge's position that the defendent should be allowed to present evidence in his defense, but that's not what really bothers me about the situation. My primary concern is as follows:

On several occasions in the last half-century or so, the authority of the courts is the only thing that has stood between us and anarchy. The recognition of authority has prevented some truly horrible things and has served as the final mediator in explosive confrontations. It's fair to say that court authority has prevented the collapse of the United States government as we know it.

Can anyone imagine what would have happened if court authority had been ignored when segregation was ruled unconstitutional? How would things have worked out if the President (I think it was Eisenhower at the time) hadn't recognized the authority of the courts and used presidential authority to enforce the decision, whether he agreed with them or not? What would have happened if Richard Nixon had simply ignored the Supreme Court's decision regarding the White House tapes and steadfastly refused to turn them over? How would things have worked out if the involved parties decided to simply ignore the court's decision in Bush v. Gore? (Many of us might not have liked it, but it was ultimately adhered to anyway.) After all, the courts don't have police forces or armies to enforce their decisions. Their authority rests completely and totally on the recognition of their final authority, and if we decide to summarily ignore their judgements there's ultimately nothing to stop us.

So what bothers me the most is the Bush Administration's willingness to ignore court authority. I think this is a bigger deal than the media's attention would indicate. It's always been recognized that the court makes the final decision and that, even if you disagree with the decision, you still follow it because to do otherwise invites chaos. If the Administration is willing to ignore this court order, on any grounds at all, what else might they be willing to ignore? Had Bush II been in office instead of Nixon, might he have simply cited National Security and ignored the court order? After all, if I recall correctly, the national security argument was used in that case. Where might we be now?

This, more than anything, is what scares the hell out of me about the Bush Administration.
- posted by Jason @ 9:12 PM

 
So I haven't blogged in a few days. It's mostly because I'm trying to avoid a subject that inevitably seems to spring to mind whenever I sit down here. It's as if this topic is beating at the inside of my skull, demanding to be let out to menace the internet at large while another part of me is striving desperately to keep the beast in check. Despite the fact that I want to rant and rave and bitch and moan and tell the whole world, I really DON'T want to talk about it, so I'll ramble incoherently about some other things instead.

The NFL season started this last weekend, and I couldn't be happier. Despite the fact that the Chargers (Haley's favorite team) lost, both San Francisco and Houston won impressively. To top it off, most of the other teams that I kinda' like won as well. Detroit actually looked good for the first time in years, Buffalo trounced New England, and Tampa Bay dominated Philadelphia. Oh, and Houston won. Did I meantion that? On the down side, I realized last night that I'm going to have to change my exercise schedule to Tuesday-Saturday, since it seems unlikely that I'll ever get down to the gym on Monday nights until the season is over. (Still, it's a small downside, so I'm not complaining.)

Meanwhile, gaffer seems to have gone MIA since Sunday, which is weird because he's usually the Energizer Bunny when it comes to political threads. I miss my daily adrenaline rush (and blood-pressure increase), but I'm catching up on my reading instead.

Speaking of reading, I went to the comic shop the other day and picked up my comics for the month. Yeah, I admit it. I read comics sometimes. I grew up on heroes of one stripe or another and I still enjoy the occasional romp into the Marvel or DC Universe. The highlight of this load was JLA/Avengers #1. For any fan of the Justice League or the Avengers, this was an incredible first issue. My two favorite moments:
1) Batman "spends twenty minutes beating up some loon in kevlar" (I always did hate the Punisher)
2) Mjolnir. Superman. 'Nuff said.
There was a lot of other good stuff in there, too: Ultimate Spider-Man, Y--The Last Man, Daredevil, and JMS's Amazing Spider-Man. All in all, it was a pretty good month.

And in my International Relations class, the professor is making us all classify ourselves under whatever school of thought we fall into. It's rather aggravating for me because I don't think I fit firmly into ANY school of thought. I'm a bit of a realist (perhaps more than anything else), but I also subscribe to portions of the liberal and ecological schools of thought. I'll probably blog more on this later, since it's really bugging me, but for now I'll just say that I hate this assignment.
- posted by Jason @ 2:06 PM

 
Oh, damn. Today is my sister's birthday and I completely forgot! It's after 9PM here and I'm trying to get ahold of her, but it might be too late. She's not answering her phone. I feel like such a horrible sibling.

Actually, I don't. Is that wrong? I mean, I'm trying to call her and all, but I think it's more because I feel obligated to. My sister and I have never been particularly close, and I've never placed too much importance on birthdays anyway. Not even my own. The people I care about know that I care, and shouldn't need a special day on a calender for reinforcement. Of much more importance than birthdays, in my mind, is being there for someone, both on a regular basis and for those important moments in life. Birthdays just seem kind of "ho-hum" in comparison.

Anyway, I'm going to try calling her again, and fulfill that obligation of polite society. I don't want her to get offended. For that matter, I don't want anyone I care about to get offended, so I make an effort to do the birthday stuff because I know it's important to them. I just don't get it, I guess. *shrug*
- posted by Jason @ 9:46 PM

 
I know I just blogged a few minutes ago, but I just barely realized that today is opening day for the NFL season!!!!

WOOOOOT!!!!!!!

The Jets play Washington at 6PM tonight. Gotta go check on my chips and dip.
- posted by Jason @ 4:28 PM

 
Is it wrong to be excited that you talked to a girl?

My marriage is . . . well, not good. It's been this way for some time. I could go into all the details, but . . . maybe another time. It's a really long and unpleasant story. The point is that, despite all that, I've always been faithful and never done anything even remotely unfaithful during my marriage, despite the fact that . . . well, family members have encouraged me to retaliate. But today I was reminded again how nice it can be to just talk to a woman, perticularly a beautiful (and amazingly smart) one. She's a classmate in my International Relations class and I'd noticed her before this, but today we happened to strike up a conversation in the hall while waiting for the previous class to leave. We started out comparing notes on the assignment due today, but from there it just kind of sequed into all sorts of political issues. It was fun and we both kind of stretched it as far as we could, neither one of us wanting to go to our seats on either side of the room but having to because the professor wanted to start the class.

*sigh* I'm not saying I have a crush on this girl or anything. I barely know her (in fact, I don't even know her first name; all I ever catch is her last name during roll call), and I'd never pursue anyone so long as I'm still married anyway. But it was nice to carry on such a good conversation with such a smart and, frankly, gorgeous woman.

Anyway, I guess I feel vaguely guilty even though, by all rights I didn't do anything wrong and it's nothing by way of comparison to what's been done to me. But I feel good, too. And conflicted. Very conflicted.

I guess this means I'll have to go into my marital issues at some point. It's a topic I was trying to avoid, since it's rather unpleasant, but I needed to say something about today to someone and I don't have any real-life friends that I see much of. Ah well, if you can't tell an internet journal (and the people reading it) your most personal secrets, who can you tell?
- posted by Jason @ 4:06 PM

 
Exploder posted a column he'd written about the passing of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on the WD today. It got me thinking. Unlike some of the WD particpants, losing Buffy isn't the end of the world for me. I've never seen a single ep from the final season, in fact. Don't get me wrong. I like Buffy a lot. It was very good television and I own all the DVD sets to date. But it never really ignited that fire in me, it never really blew me away like my top-rung shows do. I like it and all, but . . . it's just not quite there for me, if you know what I mean.

Babylon 5 and the West Wing are the two shows that occupy the top-rung right now, and I can't ever see that changing. When B5 ended, it really [i]was[/i] kind of an issue for me, so I understand what everyone's going through when they feel the loss of BtVS. Aaron Sorkin leaving the West Wing was another tough moment (I'll take a look at the new season, but my hopes aren't high). These were two shows that I can honestly say changed me, either in the way I look at the world, in where my interests lay, or in what my ambitions are.

So my outlook on the television landscape isn't quite so desolate as Exploder's. I've got my DVD collections (BtVS, Angel, 24, B5, Trek, and soon TWW, plus lots of movies), so I'm happy. If there's nothing on TV I can just pop something in. And I'm secure in the knowledge that, once upon a time, I never knew that B5, the West Wing or even Buffy would ever exist at all. So it is with whatever will capture my interest next.
- posted by Jason @ 4:18 PM

 
My mother likes to quip, whenever she's sick, that she'd like to chop her nose off and get some relief. It's a little corny, but that's how I feel today. Haley brought home a cold or virus of some sort on Friday, and William caught it over the weekend. Now it's my turn. I went through an entire pack of those little travel-size Kleenex's in Constitutional Law today. What's worse is that it was hard for me to concentrate on law while I'm constantly sniffling, sneezing, or blowing my nose (not to mention the ache I get in my sinuses whenever I'm stuffed up and the weird lack of energy that this--whatever it is--seems to be causing). I really like this class, but today I was just looking at the clock, counting the minutes until I could get out of there. Being sick makes everything unpleasant.

I think I'll go chop off my nose now.
- posted by Jason @ 12:55 PM

 
DAMMIT!!!!

Ever feel like throwing your computer out the fucking window? Here I am, all set to procrastinate on homework and play online instead, but for some reason the system keeps crashing every time I spawn in. GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!!

Sometimes I HATE computers!
- posted by Jason @ 7:33 PM

 
I attended my International Relations class for the second time today. I like it. In some ways, it reminds me of the WD. There are a lot of smart people there and the professor allows us to have open discussions on whatever the subject of the day is. The result is running discussions that resemble threads on the WD. The workload is kinda' high (the amount of required reading is truly staggering) but it's a lot of fun.

Today, while discussing political agendas and international organizations, the topic of world hunger came up. The question was asked: is it desireable to solve or reduce world hunger, and whose responsibility is it? I suppose I should have been prepared for some of the answers, after talking with gaffer and SinisterBrit so much, but I never fail to be shocked by the level of callousness that some people wrap themselves in like a cloak. It would seem to me self-evident that it is desireable to reduce world hunger and famine, and that we all share in the responsibility to work at it. Yet whenever I would say that I want the U.S. to help as much as we can, someone would inevitably come back with "That's nice, but is it really the responsibility of the American taxpayer?"

I really don't understand this kind of thinking. Inevitably, it seems to boil down to people not wanting to sacrifice any of their own money to help someone else. Several people said things like "I'm sorry they're starving, but it's not really our responsibility to fix it for them. It's their responsibility to fix it themselves." How could anyone have so little empathy for a fellow human being in pain? How could someone sleep at night knowing that they have a full larder, full bellies, and a warm place to sleep while actually opposing the idea that we give a little of what we have to provide others with the same. One guy (a very heavyset guy, bordering on obese, with greasy black hair and wearing slacks and a polo shirt) even asked "Why should we put money into solving other countries' hunger problems when there are still people here, in America, that go hungry?" I countered by telling him that I run into arguments against helping even our own hungry people on a regular basis, usually from the same people who would also object to helping hungry people in other countries. He had no answer for that (after listening to him talk on other subjects, I imagine it's because he's one of those very people who would argue against taxpayer money going to help American victims of hunger, but I don't know that for sure).

I just don't understand it. Am I in the minority? Do the majority of people all around me really care so little for other people? How could one sleep at night knowing that their constant refrain is "me me me"?

It's interesting to me how people seem to develop natural interests and inclinations seemingly from birth. I can't say that my parents were the biggest influence in my life. Surely they were a big one, but I found myself drawn to things that they looked down their noses at from a young age. I grew up fascinated by heroes. Whether superheroes, Star Trek characters, Lord of the Rings, or whatever, the common thread through all of my interests seemed to be that they portrayed good people who worked essentially in the service of others. To this day I have a hard time watching shows like Seinfeld because I just don't feel any connection to the basically selfish, inconsiderate, and self-serving characters portrayed in them. I like reading books about people who give of themselves to help or protect others. Buffy is like that, too. She's got to be a liberal, IMO, because I can't see many conservatives feeling that responsibility to protect the world from evil. Rush Limbaugh would surely market his abilities and make as much money as he could prize-fighting or something. Gaffer would insist that the best way to defend people against vampires is to expect, and in fact to demand, that they learn how to protect themselves. Just because Buffy has abilities that make it possible for her to realistically fight them, while most people would simply fall victim to the stronger and faster creatures, wouldn't make it her responsibility to help them.

It reminds me of a time I ate at McDonalds a few years ago. I was in line behind a young boy who looked to be around 10 years old. He had a bit of money in his hand and, when he got up to the counter, ordered a small ice cream cone. It turned out that he didn't have quite enough money. He short 10 or 15 cents. The little boy looked truly crestfallen when the cashier told him, and he looked helplessly at his money while the cashier looked helplessly at him (not without sympathy, to be fair, but not really making any effort to help him either). Without really thinking abouyt it I fished some change out of my pocket and, just as he started to walk away, located a dime and a nickel and dropped them on the counter. To my shock, the boy and the cashier both looked at me as if I'd grown a third eye. I didn't really consider it anything remarkable at the time, and I probably wouldn't even remember the event if it hadn't been for their reaction. The boy did end up using it, but he (and his parents when he went back to his table) spent the rest of the time glancing suspiciously at me. All I'd done was give him a few cents to get his ice cream cone, but somehow I'd become this strange man in McDonalds that you tell your kids to stay away from. That was the first time it hit me that our society really has become about fending for oneself, and not about sharing. It made me immeasurably sad.

Maybe it's my own fault. Maybe I was stupid to gravitate toward such altruistic role-models. Maybe I should have focused on ways to make money to provide more comforts for me and mine. Maybe I should follow Rush Limbaugh's lead and pursue my Jabba the Hutt look more. I don't know for sure, but I seem to have gone wrong somewhere to have such vastly different outlooks on responsibility and morality than so many other people. What do they know that I don't?

I wish I knew, for sure, who was right and who was wrong. It would be nice if life came with an instruction manual. I could just look this up and know for sure whether I should prioritize helping other people or myself. I guess I'll just have to muddle through life, though, constantly wondering what the right thing to do is. It would make life immeasurably simpler if I just knew.
- posted by Jason @ 3:22 PM

 
Knowledge is a funny thing. A little knowledge in one area can make you believe one thing, a little in another can make you believe something completely different.

So I spent most of yesterday studying for my International Relations class, which I have later today. One portion of the test touched on the military tribunals being used for the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay. Now, I had a discussion about these tribunals not too long ago on the WD. What I ultimately came up with was that I didn't have a better idea. How to try these people is a tough issue, given that we don't have law enforcement in Afghanistan and so much of whatever evidence we have against them would not have been collected under conditions admissible in court. Since I couldn't think of a better way of handling it, I concluded that I couldn't really oppose the tribunals because the only other option would be to let them all walk free or simply be executed with no trial.

Well, now I find myself back on the other side of the fence again. The text touched on what some of the actual rules will be for these tribunals, something that the media doesn't do very often. Most of the time we end up getting some short, vague description of the procedures for the tribunals before the article moves on to reactions from various people, but it's these rules that I now find more disturbing than any reaction from a civil rights organization. To quote from my text:

"The differences between procedure in a civil court and the proposed military tribunals are small but significant: In the military tribunal, evidence can be admitted "if it would have probative value (supply proof) to a reasonable person." The government can introduce classified information, including hearsay, and that information is not read out publicly in court so that the accused can respond to it. Conviction requires only a two-thirds vote as opposed to a unanimous vote to convict in a civilian court."

Now, I can appreciate that there are matters of secrecy involved in this, and I can appreciate that there are difficulties involved in prosecuting these people due to the nature of what they do, the organization they belong to, and the way information is and has been gathered regarding them. But to not read out the charges in open court is not only unfair, but it totally defeats the purpose of having a trial to begin with. What's the point if they're not allowed to know what they're being charged with and can't defend themselves against the charges? That "reasonable person" language could literally mean anything. It's basically carte blanche for the government to intrduce whatever "evidence" they want. It doesn't matter if it's flawed or unreliable because if they simply classify it the accused won't get a chance to defend himself anyway. Then there's the issue of only requiring a two-thirds vote on the jury. I would think that this would be one rule you adamantly wouldn't change if you're trying to ensure that the system is as fair as humanly possible. How exactly do we know that justice is, in fact, being served if we don't bother making the entire jury agree one way or the other as is done in the civilian world? The government may as well just take the accused out back and shoot them in the head, because it would be about as fair as this tribunal system.

While I was willing to concede, prior to this, that some technicalities of the legal system might have to be abridged for these prosecutions simply due to the nature of the situation, that's not the only thing these rules are doing. I'm forced to conclude that the concern over security matters is more of a ruse than anything else, legitimate as some form of it might be, that is being used to cover the creation of a system in which the entire apparatus is weighted against the accused and in favor of the prosecution. It's a Kangaroo Court, plain and simple. These people have little to no chance of being acquitted due to the system being used, and I'm in disbelief that such a thing is happening in the United States.

With apologies to Iago, I think the fears of living in a police state might not be just rhetoric after all.
- posted by Jason @ 7:14 AM

 
Gah!

I woke up way too late today. I have a bad habit of doing that when I don't have to get up in the morning. I stayed up 'till nearly 4AM playing WWIIOL before I realized how late it was. I didn't get many kills, sadly. We were doing most FB runs, but I did manage to get a kill on a Panzer IIIh that was trying to sneak into Avesnes all by his lonesome. There's something very satisfying about getting a kill against an enemy when you know it's a real person on the other end and not an AI routine. The competitiveness is cool.

I watched Blade last night for the first time in a few years. It was even better than I remembered. It might be sacrilegous to say, but if I were to go vampire hunting I'd rather have Blade with me. Buffy can stay home. *ducks* It's just a guy thing, I'm sure.
- posted by Jason @ 2:21 PM