Constitutional Law: Son of Sam Laws

"It is often jokingly said of those accused of high-profile crimes that when they are captured they are more eager to contact an agent than a defense attorney," (Pember, 2008).

A Son of Sam Law is one that inhibits a criminal's ability to profit from a crime that they committed. The laws are meant to, if the criminal does receive a deal, to hold the monetary gains of that deal for 5 years, usually. During this 5 years, the money is then used to compensate the victim's family while the criminal is able to obtain the remainder after 5 years have passed.

The laws are named such after a New York serial killer who was given the name, "Son of Sam," by the press. He sold his story to newspapers in New York, but the New York legislature enacted the first law to hold the nickname, a "Son of Sam law," to keep him from receiving direct monetary compensation from the deal. 

In 1987, the publishing firm Simon & Schuster sued the state of New York regarding a Son of Sam law that would pend the publication of a book in which a mobster cooperated with the author. The book was titled, Wiseguy, and followed the life of mobster Henry Hill. The boo is also a major inspiration for the film, Goodfellas.

The court ruled against the publishing firm and upheld the law's constitutionality . "The second U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that...the purpose of the law was not to suppress speech, but to ensure that a criminal did not profit from the exploitation of his or her crime, and that the victims of the crime are compensated for their suffering. A compelling interest is served, and the fact that this imposes an incidental burden on the press is not sufficient to rule the law a violation of freedom of expression," (Pember, 2008).

In 1991 the court reversed its ruling and said the law was a content-based regulation and that the statute was over-broad and could relate to a number of literatures, films and other adaptations. And in 2004, a the Supreme Court of Nevada overruled a statute that allowed felons to recovery any monetary compensation from any future forms of expression regarding the crime.

Criminals should not be able to be compensated for the rights to their stories. After they have taken from individuals, whether it be life or possession, a compensation for the story of that act are almost a mockery to the victims. The criminals are almost hired to produce a product if they are allowed to be compensated for their actions, a set of actions denounced by a jury and court, a set of actions made illegal by our laws.

I understand criminals can change, can become remorseful and, after coming to grips with what they have done, want to tell the best story possible, the correct telling of events. Some don't and skew things. But whatever the case may be, there should be no compensation for that story. If anyone should be compensated, an echo from the Supreme Court, it should be the victims.


 

Critical Writing: A Different Look

When most people think of critical writing, it is most likely that they think of academia and the rigorous literature reviews and term papers and blog posts associated with classes at an institution of higher learning. Most of these, I would say from experience, are affiliated with bland, coarse subjects that bear any real interest to the author or, for that matter, any reader outside of the professor or teacher reading them. Sometimes, the subjects are bland to the professors as well.

But critical writing is not confined to the strict structure of the stereotyped academic institution (e.g. literature review papers, assigned blog posts about Constitutional law, etc, etc.). Critical writing branches out into many disciplines such as film (film reviews), food (reviews or opinions on restaurants, chefs, or marketplaces, etc), art (discussion of various works of art, spotlights on galleries, etc,), music (CD reviews, band spotlights) and gaming. The latter I will talk about at length - the same processes of writing apply to gaming writing as they do to other subject-writing, but there are some genre specific details to acknowledge.

First, writing about gaming is similar to other subject-writing in that it employs the same principles.

• Be concise
• Paint a Picture (be descriptive)
• Make writing accessible to genre newcomers, but know the audience (experienced gamers)
• Don't write in huge blocks of text -- break things up with multimedia elements
• Keep headlines concise and pertinent to the subject matter
• Don't give overbroad histories within the text - reference, but don't tell the entire backstory to every Zelda game.
• No cliches
• Use active voice
• Use complete hyperlinks and data tags for searches of your piece (if writing online at a blog or website).
• Punctuation is paramount

Second, critical writing in the gaming world, to most individuals, pertains to the game review. Yes, in recent years more attention has been paid to the societal, emotional and psychological aspects games have been presenting and thus creating critical writing prompts more akin to literary reviews essay term papers, but the classic critical writing prompt in gaming is the review, just as in film.

There are 5 sections essential to a game review:

• Presentation
• Fun factor
• Sound
• Graphics
• Replayability

The structure of the review can be linear, beginning with an introduction, the 5 sections and then a conclusion, or can intersperse the sections in any order, framed by the introduction and conclusion. Any history or anecdotal evidence is included in the introduction and a summation, reaction or any advice (such as if the game would be a good buy for a certain demographic of gamers or a rental for others) is included in the conclusion.

In more recent years, the game review has moved to include more multimedia than writing in certain circles (gametrailers.com - yet, writing is still used in the script. Check video at bottom of page), while in others rely almost solely on writing (gamepro.com/Kotaku), while other still use a relatively balanced combination of both (IGN.com).

Critical writing is not just writing, it's writing an opinion based on facts to inform others. Critical writing is meant to sway audiences into seeing the world through the eyes of the author, to expunge information in a tasteful, digestible way. Critical writing is examining an interest, seeing how it does or doesn't contain relevance, how it speaks to audiences, how it interacts with audiences or promotes or doesn't promote and idea. Sometime critical writing is simply why the author like/supports or doesn't like/support something.

Video game reviews show that critical writing doesn't have to be tedious or boring or even, should I say, all that nerdy. If given the right subject and practice, anyone can be a critical writer.

Video Games | Heavy Rain | Review HD

XBox 360 | Playstation 3 | Nintendo Wii

High for Health

In almost every country around the world, marijuana is illegal. Yet some countries, such as Canada, Austria, Germany, the United States, the Netherlands, Israel, Spain, Portugal, Finland, and Italy discriminate its legality on medical lines. And in the United States, 14 states have laws allowing for the use of medical marijuana - Alaska, California, Clorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Virginia is currently attempting pass new marijuana legislation that would reduce punishment for carrying non-medical marijuana and allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana. The plan is being met laughably.

But what is the difference between "medical" marijuana and "street" marijuana? What benefits does medical marijuana have? Medical grade marijuana has two specific strains, Cannibis sativa and Cannibis indica, strains that have been found to be more potent than cannibis strains used in recreational marijuana. Medical marijuana also provides interaction between differing cannabonoids (THC, CBD, CBN) to allow for greater effects and benefits than could singular cannabonoids. Certain strains treat certain medical problems in certain ways making it beneficial to combine or mix strains.

Medical Marijuana is used to treat problems such as arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, fybromyalgia, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and nausea brought on through conditions such as AIDS/HIV and cancer. Medical marijuana can be administered either through pill form or vaporization - the latter method (inhalation) has been proven to be the most effective course.

I'm mixed on the issue. I don't believe marijuana should be illegal at all. I'm not sure medical marijuana is that much different than "illegal" marijuana. They are both, for the most part, grown in similar matters, maybe under different conditions, but the under the same concept. And both produce a high through various strains. I'm not a scholar on this issue, so there may be facts differentiating the two that I have not come across, but if one is legal (medical), in some states, but the other (street/illegal) is illegal, doesn't that seem a little hypocritical? Yes, the individuals receiving medical marijuana are proven to have difficulties that could be alleviated through marijuana use, but individuals that cannot afford to buy medical marijuana may be turning to the streets for marijuana where it is unregulated and potentially dangerous.

Oh,. and legalizing marijuana would bring millions if not billions into the overall U.S. economy. That's a different story.

2010: The Winter Olympics

To be frank, I haven't watched a single minute of the 2010 Winter Olympics from Vancouver, Canada. I've never much been one to watch the Olympics either - I never watched a whole Olympics, but only bits and piece. Mainly, I'm a winter X-Games kid of guy - it happens every year and, roughly, the same people are involved. I can connect with the athletes involved and feel like I know them. I don't really feel connected to the Olympics because I don't follow the athletes that participate in the Olympics.

But strangely enough, I feel a pride well up in me when I see the United States, as of now, leading the medal count with 8 overall medals and tied with Germany and France with 2 gold metals respectively. I suppose its some kind of hidden national pride. But I don't watch it. I'm more of a football guy - no baseball, no basketball, no golf or tennis. Football and soccer and rugby.

But I will comment on a situation that has arisen during this year's winter games - track speed and availability in regards to the death of Luger Nodar Kumaritashvili. Kumaritashvili died Friday, Feb. 12, during a training run at Whistler Sliding Center at the Whistler Blackcomb  resort in British Columbia.

Critics and other athletes alike are voicing concern over the speed of the track. Topping out at speeds above 90 mph, Whistler's speeds are acknowledged by many as non-necessary speeds for luging. Luging speeds of 84 mph are, theoretically, attainable, but not common said Interantional Luge Federation President Josef Fendt (Cnn.com). Moreover, other sled-sport teams, such as Skeleton, Bobsled, and other Luge teams, were concerned before the start of the Olympics due to lack of training time on Whistler's tracks. Apparently, sled teams, except the Canadian teams, were allowed ample training on Whistler's notoriously fast course.

Critics also voice concern over the protection provided on the course. Many of the metal columns lining the track for support are un-padded and exposed - Kumaritashvili hit one of those un-padded girders. 

But others are not so fast to blame anyone or anything in particular. Dr. Kevin Plancher, a doctor for the U.S. Ski and Snowboard team, said athletes, being competitive by nature, can sometimes push themselves too hard, inviting greater chances of injuries (Cnn.com). He continued, "We have to educate our athletes to what they should or should not be doing," (Cnn.com). And since the accident, many athletes have confessed that they do not see Luge as a dangerous sport.

"But luge athletes will be the first to tell you they are more driving technicians than adrenaline junkies, and when pressed about why they would participate in a sport that's so dangerous, several concede they don't consider the sport to be that risky," (Cnn.com, David Epstein).

But all concede that Whistler is faster than most tracks, if not the fastest track. And the question is raised: do sled sport, Luge, Skeleton, Bobsled, have to be so fast? Yes, teams are racing against each other, but only in time-trial. This is not Nascar where each sled team races alongside each other towards a fininsh line. If track speeds were decreased in order to promote the safety of athletes, the same priniciples of competitiveness would still survive and the racers would race the same ways, just at slower speeds.

Just a thought.

A little about fast-food

Every day, millions of people around the globe stand in line to order fast-food. They're on the go - late for work, late for class, taking the kids to soccer practice, watching the baseball game or just too tired to cook. It's got to be fast, it's got to be now, it's got to be instantaneous and rewarding and, most importantly, good.

But good doesn't always mean healthy. America, where fast-food is king, contains the highest percentage of overweight individuals at about 35 percent. Some 1 in 3 Americans are overweight, a ratio not seen in most European and almost no Asian countries. One of the culprits - fast food.

Americans eat fast-food, sometimes, for every meal in a day and for many meals throughout the week. And everyday, Americans are exposing themselves to certain dangers over and over again. Fast food contains high amounts of sodium, cholesterol, sugar, carbohydrates, and fats (saturated-fat, trans-fat and non-saturated-fat). A majority of food served at fast food joints contains, in one meal, more than, or equal to, the maximum daily allowance of calories - some meals contain more than 2,000 calories.

For example, occasionally I enjoy Dairy Queen's 1/2lb., Flamethrower Grillburger - it's a 1/2lb., of meat slapped between two Kaiser buns with jalapeno bacon, lettuce, tomato, and pepper-jack cheese. It tastes great, but here are the caloric facts that have kept me from eating one everyday:

Calories: 1010/ 108 percent of daily value
Calories from fat: 630/ 125 percent of daily value
Total Fat: 70g                                                                                    
Saturated Fat: 25g

Publish Post

Trans Fat: 1.5 g
Cholesterol: 185mg/ 62 percent of daily value
Sodium: 1540mg/ 64 percent of daily value                                                                              
Total Carbohydrates: 42g/ 14 percent of daily value
Dietary Fiber: 2g/ 8 percent of daily value
Sugars: 9g
Protein: 56g

(Most fast-food web sites have nutritional calculators that give an idea of caloric intake and the overall nutritional value of foods served at their restaurants).

It's not just McDonald's, or all fast-food for that matter, that's contributing to the obesity problem in America, the obesity problem that is, to some extent, spilling out into other countries. It's a combination of easy meals and sedentary lifestyles. But we won't get into that here as that's a whole other discussion.

But think about fast-food and what it means to you. Stay home and cook a meal every now and then, even if it is time consuming and gets in the way of things. It's healthier to cook at home...and it costs less money. Don't be a sizeable part of the over $100 billion a year Americans spend on fast-food. And don't get me wrong - I love fast-food...just not all the time.

This Sing-Along's not so Horrible

I'm not a fan of musicals. Musicals, as a whole, are corny and although fictions just as most movies are, seem exceedingly fictitious in their overall verisimilitude. Often, the plots and stories of musicals are undermined by the ridiculousness of the overall framework and construction, but mainly the way in which the dialogue is presented - in song.

Although fiction presents to the audience a sequence of events that have never occurred and are make believe, in all realms of possibility, the sequence of events could, possibly, occur in the real-world (science fiction and fantasy aside). Here, the audience can connect with the film and believe the actions on screen are in some way real. But in the real-world no one sings to one another - dialogue is simply carried out through speech. The verisimilitude of the musical is severely hampered by the unbelievability of the story through song.

Yet, I make an exception. Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is, yes, a musical. It is a musical set within a fictitious world of fiction. What I mean is that the film knows itself to be fiction - it does not don an air of reality and thus the audience all ready knows, from the outset, the film is not to be regarded, on the surface, as a  catalyst for commentary of the real-world. The audience expects something different of the verisimilitude.

Another reason I enjoy this musical lies within the overall production of the film. Penned and filmed during the WGA (Writer's Guild of America) writer's strike, Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog was originally released in a series of episodes released online and filmed on the small budget of $200,000. There were very little constraints placed on the production as the film was viewed as a web show and no big studios were involved. And the quirky mise-en-scene (the overall look of the film) lends itself to the indie, pseudo-superhero film that it is. The props, costumes, and chiaroscuro are consistent to the overall plot and story, as well as production and feel of the film.

 And that is another reason the film is great - it's about superheroes and villains that aren't so "super" or "villainy."  The characterization is surprisingly rounded considering the film is a mere 42 minutes in length and the shift of the villain as the antagonist to the villain as the protagonist throughout is quite intriguing.Moreover, the sing-along parts reflect the absurdity and comedy of the film making the film, overall, much more cohesive than if the dialogue and song had been of a more serious nature.


 Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is a short film that doesn't take itself seriously and thus allows the audience to accept it as a musical and a superhero comedy, an unlikely combination of genres.

Economics: Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory is an approach used by social scientists to understand human behavior. The approach has long been the dominant paradigm in economics...," (Green, 2002).

This theory is a fundamental framework for understanding "rationality" in relation to economics. And here, rationality simply means that individuals make well deliberated decisions - individuals reason with themselves before purchasing items or making other economic decisions. This is the theory of weighing costs and benefits.

While there are many sub-theories within the overarching theory of rational choice, the main tenant of the theory posits that individuals regularly, and logically, make decisions based against what constraints face them at any particular time (e.g. money constraints, market constraints, sociological constraints, etc., etc...). Most scientists and theorists that support this theory openly acknowledge that this model does not completely reflect reality and the complex structures of choice faced in everyday situations. Yet it is a good model for constructing an understanding of the ways in which individuals rationalize choices.

Individuals maximize their benefits while minimizing their costs through careful consideration of different courses of action. Individuals, according to this model, have infinite amounts of time available in the decision making process.

A rational choice analysis of the market for fresh tomatoes, for example, would generally involve a description of the desired purchases of tomatoes by buyers, the desired production and sales of tomatoes by sellers, and how these desired purchases and desired sales interact to determine the price and quantity sold of tomatoes in the market. The typical tomato buyer is faced with the problem of how much of his income ( or more narrowly, his food budget) to spend of tomatoes as opposed to some other good or service. The typical tomato seller is faced with the problem of how many tomatoes to produce and what price to charge for them, (Green 2002).

Common sense tells us that individuals have sets of outcomes based on sets of decisions. For example, based on whether the tomato buyer buys a tomato, walks away from the stand with nothing, or chooses another vegetable (if applicable) the outcomes vary. The latter would propose a new set of options that would lead into more complex tributaries of decision. Nevertheless, concepts such as strict preference (an individual prefers one particular thing, but could swayed to another), indifference (an individual does not prefer one item over the other), completeness (individual actions are ranked, thus setting up a hierarchical, decisional framework), and transitivity ( an individual prefers one thing over all other things), are all just that, concepts.


Another interesting concept is that of dynamic inconsistency. This concept relates to how individuals view the present and the future when determining what decisions to make. Moreover, to better understand this before talking about it, this concept champions the idea of multiple-selves - each individual is composed of the present-self, the future-self, the past-self, etc., etc.This concept is based on the idea that the decision-maker's selves cannot always (and to be more distinct, hardly ever) agree with one another, fighting among themselves about which decisions to make.

The important concept to know when discussing dynamic inconsistency is that rational choice theory predicts that all of a person's selves will agree with each other at some point (more often than not) and become time-consistent. But this take on dynamic inconsistency is backed up by empirical data that is found to be common in all human instances - it is inherent - it is not a special case relegated to the theory of rational choice.

An example of time inconsistency is: Students, the night before an exam, often wish that the exam could be put off for one more day. If asked on that night, such students might agree to commit to paying, say, $10 on the day of the exam for it to be held the next day. Months before the exam is held, however, students generally do not care much about having the exam put off for one day. And, in fact, if the students were made the same offer at the beginning of the term, that is, they could have the exam put off for one day by committing during registration to pay $10 on the day of the exam, they probably would reject that offer. The choice is the same, although made at different points in time. Because the outcome would change depending on the point in time, the students would exhibit time inconsistency (Wikipedia). 

There are more examples and sub-theories dealing with rational choice, but, for the sake of the economic slant of this post, these are the most important. These are the main points stressed when this theory is applied to economics as opposed to other sociological sciences.

But these concepts seem to apply and only hold true in the face of ideal, self-contained instances and don't hold as much weight in real world situations as there are a wide array of circumstances affecting the decision making processes of individuals. And, it would seem, that if rationality were the sole actor in decision making, other theories would not exist due to rationality's implicit role in every day life. We must think of market values and fluctuations, inflation, political and economic health, and the overall idea of rationality itself. What is rational to some may be irrational to others - rationality depends on situational events and individual ideologies.

Sociology: Theories on War

War has existed from the moment man realized he could kill. Wars have been fought for a plethora of reasons:  from power and resources to women and honor to religion and ideology. It seems there is nothing worth attaining peace for - for every stride taken in the name of peace, there is a stride taken in the name of war, a rebuttal to that peace.

Scholars have long debated the rationals and reasons behind war, what facilitates it, what keeps it going, and what ends it. And there are varying theories that attempt to answer these questions that take into consideration, among other things, economics, governmental ideologies and systems, societal norms and mores, and individual and small group decisions. Therefore, governments and societies in general, are invested in the study of war as war serves two key roles: chief shaper and fundamental liquefier of states.

One theory posits that nation-states are fundamentally concerned with their own security. This theory implements an  "interstate/anarchic" system, one that pits each state against the other. Each state is subject to the unforeseeable actions of the states which border it and the desires and plans of the peoples within those states. Any thing could happen at any time. Security, this theory suggests, can only be maintained through military power, not diplomacy or any other action.

This "interstate/anarchic" theory does raise interesting and pertinent points and, as a theory, is logical. Yet, history does prove that military power is not the determining factor of security as diplomacy and other factors often way in when considering politics and inter-governmental structures. 


Leaders are often influenced by societal norms and mores within any particular nation-state. These held values and principles can negatively or positively affect the outcome of any political process. These stresses of what the populace expects weigh heavy, most of the time, on the minds of politicians, if for nothing more than chances at re-election. This thought stems from a theory which hypothesizes that bureaucratization is a chief factor in declaring war.

And many nations have fought wars that are not economically sound or what is best for national security, but over territory, religion and ideology. Sometimes, these choices are irrational, they are based on fear, hate, passion, and self-interest. Sometimes, these choices ignore best interests of the nation as a whole and executives and bureaucrats ( or in some cases the populace as a whole)  become temporarily blinded by short term aspirations.

The concerning factor is uncertainty. War breeds from uncertainty. War breeds from impatience. War breeds from constriction. 

For example, take the American Revolutionary War. Under constraints put on the colonies by the British monarchy and, to some extent, parliament, the thirteen colonies banded together in revolt. The sociological structure shifted from that of the controlled to that of the free (or less controlled as the fledgling government grew).

Uncertainty, as a cause of war, can be seen through the Holocaust. Before WWII, the German people were all ready on shaky ground with those of Jewish heritage and descent. But economic depression took hold in Germany and the socialist movement gained more and more support. The conditions grew ripe for the German people to act on their uncertainties, uncertainties that the Jews were the cause of all German problems.

Ideology leads to war. The spread of Communism throughout the world suring the 20th century can attest to this. Many nations, including the United States, were sucked into conflicts of ideology - East v. West, Capitalism v. Communism, containment. And here, war needen't be categorized as open conflict: the Cold War, although, as the name implies, one of no open militarisitc agression, was still a war. It was simlpy a war of ideology and social constructs.


But a steadfast, concrete theory of war will forever be elusive. The factors that lie behind the armed conflicts around the globe are far too intricate to boil down to one cohesive theory. War is erratic, unpredictable. It is the one societal occurrence that is the most terrifying. War is not isolated - whole societies become involved or don't. There is no picking and choosing.