F Charlie the Tuna

As many know, I have an intense hatred for Charlie the Tuna. Why you ask? Simply put, he's a sellout to his own kind. Let's examine:

Job: Charlie the tuna sells tuna, HIS OWN KIND! I don't sell humans, because that would be cannibalism. The least he could do would be to sell out some other kind of animal or preferably a plant. See: the bumblebee on Bumblebee tuna selling tuna, not bees. And the chicken of the sea Mermaid following suit. For less predatory selling: Tony the tiger, the Trix Rabbit, Tucan Sam, the Golden Grahams bear, and the Quisp thing all selling cereal, and the Vlasic Stork selling pickles.

General Appearance: Charlie lives out of water, as seen in the current wave of MasterCard commercials that depict him doing dishes at a corporate mascot dinner party. Charlie also wears a hat with his name on it, and somehow has a good enough vision plan to afford glasses. Where did he get all the money?

From selling his people out.

KC

High Fallutin'

I have ten pages left to read for my constitutional law reading, due tomorrow, and I can't stand much more. The material is so devoid of life. I fail to see any utility in it whatsoever.

So much of the reading focuses on history. But any reading of history focusin not on the future impact, but on the immediate impact of legislation, without regard for social, military, and economic history, and focusing squarely on legal theories and ancient texts, fails miserably.

Constitutional law should to some extent delve into history in order to understand originalism / constructionalism. But I take issue with the nonsensical theories mentioned in the discussion sections of the text. These theories go on and on about justificaiotns for the passing of amendments. They attempt to forge one consistent, overarching theory explaining the constitution and / or its constituent parts.

I see no value in the various authors' arguments. There appears to me to be no utility whatsoever in arguing such consistent theories, when in fact the Constitution is such a polyglot, a jigsaw puzzle of disparate and disconnected politicking, and compromising. Specifically, it seems to me that the legitimacy of the fourteenth amendment is wholly uniteresting. Was the amendment illegitimate? From a strict sense, yes. The Congress did not meet, because the South had seceded from the Union. To the victor go the spoils. The book inquires whether any Federal military presence can effect amendments by the same logic. The answer is a clear and convincing 'no', it would seem. In two-hundred and fifty years of U.S. history, only once has the country gone to war against itself. And in order to repair the Union (an entirely functional / utilitarian argument), changes need to be made. The Constitutional justificaiton for an amendment seems wholly irrelevant.

Statistical Considerations in Criminal Law

We've been covering sentencing recently in criminal law. The chief end of sentencing is to protect the public. We may sentence to punish, to keep offenders away from the public, or to rehabilitate. But what is the best manner to do this?

We have statistical data that tell us who is more likely to reoffend. Should we sentence those who are statistically more likely to reoffend based on race/gender, etc.? If the true goal is public safety, the answer is yes. However, this ignores several important issues.

First, the offender has not actually done anything to indicate that they (as opposed to their statistical class of people) will reoffend. With regard to rehabilitation, there is little correlation between these programs and preventing future crime. But if there is a minor correlation, we as humans must allow criminals to be rehabilitated. If we do not take these factors into account, I believe we deny that people have the power to change, and ascribe to criminals an almost certain fate.

What of criminals' demeanor? Should we base sentencing off of good behavior when many criminals will game the system to get out earlier? And what of apologizing to crime victims as basis for more lenient punishment? Many defense attornies advise against apologies becuase they open the door for civil suits. Aain, I believe the best course of action is to allow convicts to be released for good behavior on the slim possibility they may be genuine. In a sense, we should believe people's actions until they prove otherwise. This is strikingly similar to our innocent until proven guilty standard in criminal actions.

What about apologies? Victims often want apologies more than anything else. Here, I believe we need judicial reform in not opening civil suit liability if a criminal apologizes. This would promote less civil litigation if victims are truly satisfied with the reslt of their criminal trial and would also lower prison terms for those who are contrite.

Nightly Musings

I've decided to start blogging before I head to bed. We'll see how long this lasts.

Penning (typing) your thoughts is a valuable process. It's a sort of a catharsis for the mind, easing tensions and promoting positive reflection and growth. But what is the proper venue for expressing your thoughts? And further, just how explicit should you be in your opinions?

For me, these two items are inextricably linked. First off, the appropriate forum for dumping one's thoughts, at least for me, is online. Typing allows me to post my thoughts rapidly. I don't have much free time, and the more words per minute I can type, the faster I can free up mental capital.

Non-electronic methods fail me for a number of reasons: I have terrible penmanship, my paper trail is consistently moving, and I don't much like reading my own penmanship. Some other electronic (non-online) might be feasible, but I've tried keeping a simple text file or word document with little success and the possibility of a hard drive crash causing me to lose the data.

So, online I post online. But with the web, comes the disadvantage, that I have to couch my thoughts so as not to disparage others explicitly, write in vitriolic tones, or make myself appear otherwise unprofessional.