Thursday, May 11, 2006

A Whimsical Blog

I need to write a blog to warm my brain up for the research I'm about to resume as to what constitutes a "state" action when you're looking for equal protections violations, and whether or not a sexual assault could be a violation of equal protection. It's a really twisted issue, and could very well be one of those questions that isn't in any precedent because it's just too dumb. It's really true, though - the hypothetical questions we address in classes and on exams are never as strange as real life.

Regardless of the legal research I am or am not doing right now, I want to write a blog. A good friend of mine (ok, my boyfriend Mike) was reading my old blogs and thought some of the ones I wrote early in my blogging were really funny. I don't really blog like that anymore. I've become issue-laden, both with personal "issues" and with political issues. All the time, this serious stuff.

Part of the reason my writing has changed is because law school is really good at squishing the life and personality out of your writing. I've gone from thinking in poetry to thinking in bullet points. I have found myself writing the normal e-mails to people and finishing them with a three sentence summary of my main points. Clarity and precision, as few words as possible, topic sentence for each paragraph. Like I said, it squishes the personality and charm out of my writing really quickly.

Although writing bullet pointed e-mails to boys is very effective. I think maybe they always work in bullet points. Men are like waffles, women are like spaghetti. (Gosh I wonder what ever happened to Cara Sawyer! Does anyone know?)

So, whimsical writing. Yep. I can do that. I bet I could even make a bullet-pointed list about how to go about writing whimsically.

Wait. Ugh.


Wednesday, May 10, 2006

What is Scarier?

There's been a lot of talk about rape these days. There's a scandal going on at the University of Wisconsin because of their procedures in investigating sexual assault claims by students. It brings up the arguments that are brought up in every sexual assault case it seems: it's not right to re-victimize the victim, but we need to protect the accused from false charges of rape when there is no evidence.

I have to say, I disagree with the rationale of that argument, not because I like the idea of false charges, but because if I need to decide between the dangers and costs to society of incidences of falsely charged men and the dangers and costs of raped women who have no justice, I'll choose the falsely charged men.

What benefit is there to drawing the line of when we'll convict people and when we won't just far enough past where men can be held accountable to protect them all while leaving women who have been victimized physically and emotionally out in the cold because there is no proof? Sure, innocence until proven guilty, I'm ok with that. But what is evidence? Can the damage to the woman be evidence, or does it have to be eye-witness testimony, screams heard by neighbors and DNA? What about women who are coerced into sex who suffer mentally, who lose their jobs, run up high medical and psychological care bills, are disowned by their family and face disbelief and dismissal by society? Is that so much better than what a man faces when he's accused of sexual assault?

People say that the laws that protect the sexuality and identity of an accuser are unfair to men who want to defend themselves. I say tripping over ourselves to protect the reputation of men while leaving women victims to fend for themselves is a sad statement of who society values more.
What a Week!

Sunday was my last exam. YAY!! I've been sleeping, on average, 5 hours per night MORE than I slept for the last two weeks. Plus naps.

Monday I had a trial. By "had" I mean I was the attorney for the defendant in a small claims trial. A real trial, with a commissioner and a plaintiff asking for money. The commissioner called me "council"! It was a tremendous experience, and I learned a lot from it. Plus, I won, which is never bad. :) I won my first trial!!

Also, as of today, I have lost 20 lbs, which is 10% of my initial weight. I lost 20 lbs this semester. That's a huge deal. I am so very proud of myself, and thankful to those around me who supported me in this. I feel so great!

So, it's a good week. I have to put in some more hours at the DOJ before Friday, but that's it. Now it's just take-care-of-me time until work starts the week of the 23rd of May.

Hope you're doing well too!

Saturday, May 06, 2006

I can't think of much that I want to do less than take this exam tomorrow. Well, the taking of the exam isn't so terrible. It's more the preparing for the exam today. Wouldn't have been so bad if I had started, say, yesterday. Oh well.


Chicks are cute, and peeps are awesome. This is a double-whammy.

Wednesday, May 03, 2006

Moussaoui will Die in Jail:

I think it's very interesting that Moussaoui has been sentenced to life in prison rather than death.

I have a somewhat different view of the death penalty than most, so I'll explain that before explaining what I find interesting about the decision. To me, death isn't a bad thing. It happens to all of us, and my personal beliefs of faith are that death isn't the end, and that death isn't bad. I believe very important things happen after our deaths, and that these things are not punishment, even to the most evil people. Therefore, to me, death is not a punishment.

I don't generally support the death penalty. It's used very unjustly in far too many cases. I do understand, however, a viewpoint that says if a person is just too wrong, too evil and dangerous to exist in our society, that death could be the most humane thing we could do for them, rather than keeping them in a cage for 50 years.

I do think that life in prison is a greater punishment than death. As such, I'm glad to see Moussaoui rot in jail. I have heard he said the verdict meant he won, but I think he probably would have said that regardless of the verdict. He's mean like that. I think the verdict could be seen as a statement to the world that we are not like the evil people who flew planes into buildings. As a nation of primarily Christians, I think it is noble to "turn the other cheek" in a highly publicized trial. The decision espouses the ideals that most Americans claim to hold and defend.

Of course, this is just one verdict, decided on the facts of the case and not the ideals of a nation. The jurors were not spokespersons for our nations morals or religious convictions. Still, knowing these Americans could look at the facts in a highly inflammatory case - where Christians cried for blood and the government sought to use Moussaoui as a focus for our rage - gives me hope.

(nice post, huh? can you tell i should be studying?)