Well, it appears that Thanksgiving has been officially cancelled. Ben woke up this morning and threw up all over the place. He hadn't even eaten breakfast yet. Now William is complaining that his stomach hurts a little, and he might throw up too. We'd made reservations at a place around here that serves Thanksgiving dinner, but we obviously can't go anywhere now.

I find this really quite depressing.
- posted by Jason @ 10:01 AM

 
There's more where that came from. Near the end of his own dissenting opinion (at which point he is engaged in a rant about the dangers this decision poses to the legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage), Justice Scalia all but admits that the basis for denying homosexual marriage is based solely on a moral judgement imposed by a majority onto a minority:

"If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is 'no legitimate state interest' for purposes of proscribing that conduct, . . . what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,' ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry."
--Justice Antonin Scalia
Dissenting Opinion
Lawrence v. Texas, (2003)

- posted by Jason @ 2:48 PM

 
I'm writing my term paper for Constitutional Law right now. I sure wish I'd found this quote a couple of months ago, for use in discussions with gaffer. (Highlight is mine.)

"It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law. 'Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code.' Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 850 (1992)."
--Justice Anthony M. Kennedy
Majority Opinion
Lawrence v. Texas, (2003)

Sometimes I love the law.
- posted by Jason @ 11:59 PM

 
Must . . . resist . . . WD . . .

I have a great deal of homework to do this morning. I know that if I get on the WD, I'll waste the entire morning there, yet I feel strangely inclined to do so.

Is this procrastination? I hate that.
- posted by Jason @ 7:27 AM

 
So I have to write a 10-page paper for my International Relations class. Problem: I have no freaking idea what I want to write about. It has to be a hypothesis test, i.e. I have to posit a theory and then do research to test it one way or the other. (That's just the way this professor likes us to write things.)

Anyone have any ideas?
- posted by Jason @ 11:53 AM

 
WooHoo!!!

I'm actually having my first piece of writing published next week!! True, it's only an opinion column in the school newspaper, but I've never had anything published before in any form. I find myself inordinately excited, and I'm seriously considering writing columns on a regular basis.

WooHoo!!!
- posted by Jason @ 7:30 AM

 
I have a 1-2 hour gap between my Geology Lab and International Relations on Thursdays, so I usually go to the cafeteria and talk for a while with Dustie. Today was like any other day: we sat and talked (which I find remarkably easy to do with her).

After a while, we started getting into personal issues. She told me about her problems with her ex, and her son, and some of the history involved. For the first time, I found myself telling someone about my own situation, and not in the "skirt-the-issue" way that I usually fall back on. After she had told me about her own life, and some really personal things, I figured I owed her the same, so for the first time I was completely honest and open about it all, and held nothing back. I was surprised: it actually felt really good to tell someone, especially someone who is in a similar situation. I even told her the most embarrasing part, from my perspective as a guy. I won't say I [i]liked[/i] talking about it, but I'm glad I told her.

I like her. I tried not to, but I can't help it. She's smart, mature, caring and nice, and beautiful. I'm in no position to pursue her, of course. We talked about that, too--not with regard to her, specifically, but we mentioned each others' inability to pursue other relationships at the moment. I'm not even sure the feeling is reciprocal (she mentioned a guy in her life who's known her for years, but who she could never be with for various reasons), but I can't help but like her. I hope we can stay in touch after she transfers to University in the Spring.

Anyway, I guess I really shouldn't talk about this much, but it's on my mind. I'm going to have to get around to talking about my situation here. Soon.
- posted by Jason @ 2:40 PM

 
This is the portion of our show in which we thank Annika for getting the money song stuck in our head. All weekend, I've found myself randomly singing "Moneymoneymoneymmoney. MONEY." I have occasionally been completely unaware that I was singing anything and had to have it pointed out to me by other people.

Rest assured that we will take the first opportunity for musical retaliation.
- posted by Jason @ 7:24 AM

 
Insomnia sucks. I feel like I should be in bed sleeping now, but my body seems to have other ideas. I've spent the evening wargaming, reading Newsweek and a book I bought a while back called What Liberal Media? but never read, and surfing the web randomly. I just realized that I don't have school on Tuesday (Veterans' Day and all) and I won't see Dustie until Thursday, so I emailed her. She was supposed to go to an orientation at UC Davis on Friday (I think) so I figured I'd see how things went (hopefully well). Meanwhile, I'm still fighting with my own application. It should be ready by Monday, I hope.

So now I'm blogging randomly because I'm not sure what else I should do tonight. I could read one of the things that I was reading earlier, I could play video games, I could study (yeah right), or I could watch a DVD.

Hmmmmmmm

Upon reflection, I think I'll make some popcorn and watch a DVD. Maybe if I lay in bed long enough I'll fall asleep.
- posted by Jason @ 1:25 AM

 
Last one. I really wanted a Smallville quiz. I've tried really hard to not answer the questions so as to get the character I like best. Still, I find myself inordinately pleased with the results. *Does a happy dance*


You would be Clark. There is an air of mystery
about you because you are afraid to reveal
everything about yourself. You're afraid of
what people would think if they knew the real
you. You're sweet, but can sometimes be too
over-protective of those you care about. You
like to play the hero. (Please rate this quiz)


Smallville Character Quiz
brought to you by Quizilla
- posted by Jason @ 7:32 PM

 
These character quizzes are pretty freaking cool. The Buffy quiz inspired me to look up others. I'm in disbelief as to what my first result was. This is from a general sci-fi character quiz:

An accomplished diplomat who can virtually do no wrong, you sometimes know it is best to rely on the council of others while holding the reins.

"There are some words which I have known since I was a schoolboy. 'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.' These words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie -- as a wisdom, and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged."

*Unreasonably happy*
- posted by Jason @ 7:20 PM

 
It appears that I am

'Superstar' Jonathan Levinson

"If you really want it, you can make anything happen."

What "Buffy" Character Are You?

I'm not quite sure what to think about this.
- posted by Jason @ 7:11 PM

 
I thought it might be interesting to post that case brief I mentioned yesterday (for which I recieved 100%, by the way). Feel free to skip it if you're not interested in legal opinions, but personally I find this stuff fascinating. I'm strongly considering a career as a lawyer.

NAME OF CASE: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, (1978)

FACTS

In order to remedy a trend of near-exclusively white admittance to the medical school at the University of California at Davis, two separate admissions programs were set up to determine who would be included in the school’s entry class each year. "The regular admissions program worked in the customary way: applicants were evaluated on the basis of the undergraduate grades, standardized test scores, letters of recommendation, extracurricular activities, and an interview. The special admissions program was for applicants who indicated that they were economically or educationally disadvantaged, or were black, Chicano, Asian, or Native American." Sixteen seats were reserved in each entry class of one hundred to be filled from the special admissions pool. Despite numerous white applicants claiming poverty, the special admissions program only admitted students who fell into one of the designated minority groups.

Allan Bakke was a white, male applicant to the University of California at Davis medical school. "He graduated with honors in engineering from the University of Minnesota and was a Vietnam veteran. He worked for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and received his master’s degree in engineering from Stanford." His application was rejected both in 1973 and in 1974. Somehow, he obtained information on the other applicants admitted through the special admissions program and discovered that the applicants who had been admitted in place of him were vastly less qualified than he. "Bakke sued for admission, claiming that the university’s dual admissions program violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Bakke was vindicated in both the trial court and in the California Supreme Court (though only the supreme court was willing to actually order Bakke’s admission). The university quickly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Do Affirmative Action programs violate the Equal Protection rights of majority citizens as enshrined in the 14th Amendment?

RULE

Amendment XIV
CIVIL RIGHTS

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Precedents:

Justice Powell’s opinion (as excerpted in our text) cites Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the States of New York, (1967), when he posits that "it is not too much to say that the 'nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure' to the ideas and mores of students as diverse as this Nation of many peoples." Thus, he justified the interest of achieving ethnic diversity as a compelling interest for the university.

ANALYSIS

Justice Powell rejected three of the four basic arguments employed by the university. In each case, respondent argued that the use of a suspect classification was necessary for the following reasons:
1. "Reducing the historic deficit of traditionally disfavored minorities in medical schools and in the medical profession;" Justice Powell responded that "Preferring members of any group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake. This the Constitution forbids."
2. "Countering the effects of societal discrimination;" however, Justice Powell held that, in essence, the university has no business in seeking to ameliorate such problems—that is the role of government, with it’s greater resources, accountability, and oversight ability.
3. "Increasing the number of physicians who will practice in communities currently underserved;" the university, however, had failed to provide any evidence that their chosen method would actually remedy this ill, or that it was even geared toward doing so, as Justice Powell pointed out.
4. "Obtaining the educational benefits that flow from an ethnically diverse student body;" this final justification, however, proved much more compelling for Justice Powell. "[Ethnic diversity] clearly is a constitutionally permissible goal for an institution of higher education."

Justice Powell went on to outline methods by which an applicant’s race could be taken into account by an admissions board without race becoming a solely determinant attribute and without violating the rights of non-minority students. The system employed by the UC Davis medical school, with its separate admissions program which shielded minority students from competition with the larger body of applicants, was unacceptable but a system in which race merely became one factor among many would be more tolerable. "In enjoining petitioner from ever considering the race of any applicant, however" Justice Powell states, "the courts below failed to recognize that the State has a substantial interest that legitimately may be served by a properly devised admissions program involving the competitive consideration of race and ethnic origin."

CONCLUSION

The Court voted to overturn in part and uphold in part the decisions of the lower courts. The use of UC Davis’ specific method of affirmative action was ruled to be in violation of the 14th Amendment, but the court also ruled that race and ethnicity could be taken into account in other ways that did not completely exclude non-minority candidates from competing for a portion of the available seats.

- posted by Jason @ 7:03 PM

 
Arnold Schwarzeneggar is a retard. I'm sorry, there's simply no other way to say it.

Apparently, he is upset at Calif. Attorney General Bill Lockyer (himself an elected official) for telling the press that he had spoken to the governor-elect about the, ahem, "groping" accusations leveled at him and that he had recommended Schwarzeneggar cooperate with an independent investigation. The statement coming from the Schwarzeneggar camp indicates that Schwarzeneggard is "disappointed" with Lockyer. They accuse him of presenting himself as the governor-elect's personal lawyer and then releasing their conversation to the public in violation of Attorney-Client Privilege, and they say Schwarzeneggar is reconsidering whether he would turn over the results of the investigation to the Attorney General's office.

Which leads me back to my original statement. Arnold Schwarzeneggar is a moron. The Attorney General is not the governor's personal lawyer. There should not have been anything Lockyer could have said to convince him of that. It's simply not the way the government works. No Attorney-Client Privilege exists between the governor (or the governor-elect) and the Attorney General. If Schwarzeneggar was able to be convinced of this, it would only underline my personal belief about him from day one: he has no freaking idea what he's doing. I haven't even graduated with a political science degree and I know this.

My gut tells me it's going to be a looooooong 3 years.
- posted by Jason @ 6:55 PM

 
Must . . . have . . . coffee (chai tea, actually).

I have to brief a Supreme Court case for Poli Sci 5 before I go to class today. We're looking at Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, (1978), which decided the issue of affirmative action. It's interesting, though slightly infuriating sometimes. After centuries of discrimination against minorities, one would think society would be permitted a certain number of years of leeway in which it might employ programs to correct that discrimination. While it might be true that, in a void with no other considerations, Affirmative Action might violate strict interpretations of Equal Protection, I see no other way to remedy the historic inequality that stretches back to before the founding of this country. Yes, by definition, that means that some minority candidates will recieve jobs and opportunities instead of better-qualified majority candidates. That's the nature of the thing. There's no other way to ever buck the trend. Otherwise, we'd simply be embracing a society in which only white people are suitably qualified to hold the reins, because historically they have the most experience and they're the only ones allowed to obtain any more experience.

In other news, I spoke to Beth on the phone yesterday. She sounds pretty much like I expected her to, but I found out that she's a good 6 foot 4, meaning that I'd probably look ridiculously small standing next to her.
- posted by Jason @ 7:44 AM

 
In other news, I just discovered that I've been summoned for Jury Duty.

ARRRRGGGGHHHHHHHH!

It's not that I'm opposed to serving on a jury, it's that this is a remarkably bad time. I only have permission to postpone until my next school break (finals are the week of the Dec 18th here, so I asked for the monday after Christmas: Dec 29th), but if I actually get onto a jury it could very well drag out into the next semester. I HAVE TO finish my next semester, because I'm only 1 requirement away from transferring, and if I can't finish that I won't be able to transfer in the Fall. Plus, there's childcare expenses that we may not be able to afford if I have to be there all day while Haley is at work. GRRRRRRRRRRRRR. The summons notice (along with California Code of Civil Procedure Section 204) makes it very clear that "No eligible person shall be exempt from service as a trial juror by reason of occupation, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or economic status, or for any other reason."

I always swore that I'd take time off from work to serve jury duty, because I think it's important to do so, but I kinda' hoped that I'd actually have graduated by then and be in a position where it's reasonably feasable. Now I don't even know if I'll be available for classes next semester (my mother had to serve on a jury for MONTHS a while back). I'm just incredibly frustrated right now.
- posted by Jason @ 8:41 AM

 
I'm tired. I hate getting up in the morning. On the other hand, I found a concentrate mix for my Chai Tea at Starbucks, so mornings have been noticeably better for the past week or so. I've never been much of a coffee person, but Chai tastes kind of cinnamony and milky (plus it's got, like, twice the amount of caffiene as coffee--yay).

In other news . . . well, I guess there isn't much other news. The 49ers won yesterday (but after losing to the freaking ARIZONA CARDINALS!!!! last week), so I'm relatively happy. I'm just trying to ignore their 4-5 record and concentrate on my hope that they can dig themselves out of this hole. I'm going to be working on my university applications today (ugh--I hate filling out forms, even though I do want to go to college). I managed to repair the scratch on the back of one of my Bablyon 5 DVDs (it actually looks worse now than it did before, but it plays without any problems and that's what counts).

So in short, my life's been pretty dull over the last few days. When that happens, I usually try to wargame a bit, just to bring some coolness to my day, but dunno if I'll have time today. [shrug] On the other hand, Beth's Stupid Thing (from over the weekend) amused me enough that maybe I don't need anything else cool to happen. That was a really gutsy thing to do!
- posted by Jason @ 7:50 AM