As i was perusing the news as I do every morning I came across this article Now I have been trying very hard lately to be better about working all day while at work and not slacking off by writing a blog about something that pisses me off. I had to stop and take a minute and write about this.
Why does it seem to anyone to be a good idea to make a small star on the Earth? How is anyones mind is that safe. We have zero control over that kind of power and they are going to try and make a star to solve the energy crisis? How about trying to solve the "We just got blown to shit because we tried to make a star" crisis? It seems like someone didn't quite think this one true? I mean yes I am sure that a star would have ample power to solve our power needs, but how can we control that kind of power when people still get killed from electricity, which is only a fraction of the power??
This really brings me to a bigger issue...why does man think he can control nature? I mean nature has proven us time and time again that despite all of our "advances" in technology we are no match for the awesome power of an earthquake or flood, so who thought that we were ready to tangle with the power of an star?? ITS A FREAKING STAR!!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
The insanity defense
Ok so I haven't posted in a while, but its only because I have been very busy. Lots of ideas have been floating around my head and I always had the moment where I said to myself man I should write about that but I didnt. I have a couple spare minutes at the end of today and the first news story that struck me today was the use of the insanity defense.
For those who don't know what it means the insanity defense means that a person is found innocent of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect. In other words they were crazy when it happened and therefore not responsible for themselves. I have been having a moral dilemma recently about this excuse. Now before people jump to conclusion I am not saying that they were not crazy when they did something. People act outside of what they normally would when they are mentally disturbed no doubt about it. The issue I am having is whether or not that is the publics issue.
Bear with me. If a schizophrenic (or whatever mental disease you want to choose) can take medicine to control their condition and murder someone when off the medicine then they can use the insanity defense. I mean you may have been crazy when you killed the person, but you stopped taking your meds and made yourself a danger to society. Isn't that what our court system is supposed to do, protect the public. Now I am also not saying that I think that people should be thrown in jail if they are insane. I think they should be put into a facility for a set amount of time (and beyond if they are not cured) I am not sure if this thought in my head is really what i believe is right, but I am having a really hard time with the insanity defense lately.
The case in MA right now is the John Ogdren case in which he went into a bathroom at his school and killed a random classmate that had never done anything to him. To tell the truth if you plan the crime the the extent this kid did and then you kill them I think that you deserve to be put in jail. I know thats counter to my previous thought of going into a mental health facility, but you killed an innocent kid who did nothing to you.
Thoughts?
For those who don't know what it means the insanity defense means that a person is found innocent of a crime by reason of mental disease or defect. In other words they were crazy when it happened and therefore not responsible for themselves. I have been having a moral dilemma recently about this excuse. Now before people jump to conclusion I am not saying that they were not crazy when they did something. People act outside of what they normally would when they are mentally disturbed no doubt about it. The issue I am having is whether or not that is the publics issue.
Bear with me. If a schizophrenic (or whatever mental disease you want to choose) can take medicine to control their condition and murder someone when off the medicine then they can use the insanity defense. I mean you may have been crazy when you killed the person, but you stopped taking your meds and made yourself a danger to society. Isn't that what our court system is supposed to do, protect the public. Now I am also not saying that I think that people should be thrown in jail if they are insane. I think they should be put into a facility for a set amount of time (and beyond if they are not cured) I am not sure if this thought in my head is really what i believe is right, but I am having a really hard time with the insanity defense lately.
The case in MA right now is the John Ogdren case in which he went into a bathroom at his school and killed a random classmate that had never done anything to him. To tell the truth if you plan the crime the the extent this kid did and then you kill them I think that you deserve to be put in jail. I know thats counter to my previous thought of going into a mental health facility, but you killed an innocent kid who did nothing to you.
Thoughts?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Supreme Court justice retiring....third story??
So today it was announced that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will be retiring at the end of this current court session. This is not a liberal or conservative view on the high court, but why is this the third story on the Boston Globe?? This is a man that has had a personal hand in shaping the way that the legal system of the United States operates. This should be the biggest story in any news paper who's audience hasn't had a deadly shooting, fire or natural disaster today.
The fact the Deval Patrick says the adults failed Phoebe Prince is not as important as this. Neither is the routine Jonathan Papelbon follows before a game.
Local news media get off your ass and cover the real news. Whoever takes Justice Stevens place WILL help shape the way laws are enforced and that should be #1 99% of the time. Period
The fact the Deval Patrick says the adults failed Phoebe Prince is not as important as this. Neither is the routine Jonathan Papelbon follows before a game.
Local news media get off your ass and cover the real news. Whoever takes Justice Stevens place WILL help shape the way laws are enforced and that should be #1 99% of the time. Period
Thursday, April 8, 2010
trying people for someones suicide.
So the story of Phoebe Prince has been an interesting one to say the least. It is sad that a young girl felt the need to take her own life, but I have been having a real hard time coming to grips with the fact that they are trying others for bullying her to death. I am not even saying that that isn't why she killed herself, but I can't help but see a place for abuse of this legislation.
First off what is bullying? I tried to google the legal definition in Massachusetts, but couldn't find any so this will have to do.
"A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself."
Let me put out a scenario for you right. Lets say that your teenage son doesn't get along with your neighbors teenage son. They go to the same school, but are fine there, its only when they are at home that its a problem. They like to call each other names and bluster about like young adults (boys) are prone to do.
Now lets say that the neighbor boy kills himself. Lets ASSUME for this scenario it was unrelated to what your son is doing. Obviously there is no way to prove that, but for a second lets assume. Now his family could say well your son bullied my son and now my son is dead therefore its your fault. Well in this assumption we know that this isn't the case.
Obviously thats just a thing that could happen, but in there is one very important factor...THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT. Bullying doesn't equal suicide. And its not even considered negligence or anything like that. Maybe in this case it doesn't apply, but the thought needs to be put forth before it becomes a law. What about the first person who isn't nice to someone, but isn't the cause of their suicide...what about them?
By making legislation against bullying they are saying that its never ok to do anything that anyone doesn't like. Can you say the beginning of the end????...I can
First off what is bullying? I tried to google the legal definition in Massachusetts, but couldn't find any so this will have to do.
"A person is bullied when he or she is exposed, repeatedly and over time, to negative actions on the part of one or more other persons, and he or she has difficulty defending himself or herself."
Let me put out a scenario for you right. Lets say that your teenage son doesn't get along with your neighbors teenage son. They go to the same school, but are fine there, its only when they are at home that its a problem. They like to call each other names and bluster about like young adults (boys) are prone to do.
Now lets say that the neighbor boy kills himself. Lets ASSUME for this scenario it was unrelated to what your son is doing. Obviously there is no way to prove that, but for a second lets assume. Now his family could say well your son bullied my son and now my son is dead therefore its your fault. Well in this assumption we know that this isn't the case.
Obviously thats just a thing that could happen, but in there is one very important factor...THERE IS NO WAY TO PROVE IT. Bullying doesn't equal suicide. And its not even considered negligence or anything like that. Maybe in this case it doesn't apply, but the thought needs to be put forth before it becomes a law. What about the first person who isn't nice to someone, but isn't the cause of their suicide...what about them?
By making legislation against bullying they are saying that its never ok to do anything that anyone doesn't like. Can you say the beginning of the end????...I can
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
technology is overrated
So it's been a while, but lets get back into things.
The rain has stopped in MA so that's a huge plus and the current temperature in Beverly is 83 degress. Glorious.
Now onto technology. As some know MF and I have gotten rid of cable all together, a monumental step many have said. I say nay. I think its a great step. I was worried that I would miss it and that I would be bored and have nothing to do, while that isn't the case at all. One we still have netflix and the ability to watch movies, but also I think that your mind is forced to move onto something else when TV isn't there to occupy it. I have plans for this lack of TV (including an hour of guitar playing a day, more reading and more character development.)
This leads me to a thought I have probably 10 times a day. Why can't I just move into the woods and live. Well obviously there is the lack of knowledge enough to live in the woods. That could be learned though. The other thing is the idea that life would be worse. We wouldn't be able to enjoy any of the modern amenities such as lots of TV and things like that. We would have to get some sort of small job to support electricity as I am pretty sure MF would leave me if I said I wanted to live in a hovel in the woods with out electricity. But you could find a perfectly good house in Maine and live there and have minimal contact with all these fancy technologies. Cutting out technology all together would be bad, but keeping very to nature and only enjoying those technologies every once and a while would make me sooo happy.
I wanna go to the woods!!!
The rain has stopped in MA so that's a huge plus and the current temperature in Beverly is 83 degress. Glorious.
Now onto technology. As some know MF and I have gotten rid of cable all together, a monumental step many have said. I say nay. I think its a great step. I was worried that I would miss it and that I would be bored and have nothing to do, while that isn't the case at all. One we still have netflix and the ability to watch movies, but also I think that your mind is forced to move onto something else when TV isn't there to occupy it. I have plans for this lack of TV (including an hour of guitar playing a day, more reading and more character development.)
This leads me to a thought I have probably 10 times a day. Why can't I just move into the woods and live. Well obviously there is the lack of knowledge enough to live in the woods. That could be learned though. The other thing is the idea that life would be worse. We wouldn't be able to enjoy any of the modern amenities such as lots of TV and things like that. We would have to get some sort of small job to support electricity as I am pretty sure MF would leave me if I said I wanted to live in a hovel in the woods with out electricity. But you could find a perfectly good house in Maine and live there and have minimal contact with all these fancy technologies. Cutting out technology all together would be bad, but keeping very to nature and only enjoying those technologies every once and a while would make me sooo happy.
I wanna go to the woods!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)