"you're a good man charlie brown"


Just started Boykin's latest book. So far, he's been very clear in pointing out that the way in which 'down low' is popularly defined can be flawed by presenting a variety of examples of down low behaviour that do not fit the 'black gay men sex with straight women' model. However, he has failed to present an alternative plausible explanation, thus far, as to the reason(s) behind the rise in HIV infections among African American women for some time.

The reading continues.

It's 5:30 AM and I can't sleep. I am currently reading The Story of a Modern Woman by Dixon but became frustrated. I love books that disguise the messgaes they are trying to relay. Dixon is rather explicit. There are times when she deviates from the story and yells her message as if she assumes her audience too stupid not to get it by any other means.

So, I came here. I am really impressed by my last post. I haven't been on this site in a while and I think I actually gave that post some thought. Quite an improvement.

So, I drank last night which means that I should be sleeping heavily at the moment but in my drunken stupor, I decided to have some pepsi when I got in this morning and, like last night, the damn thing is keeping me up.

Anyway, I realy don't have anything to say. I would just like to do something @ the moment than read Dixon's tirades, and watch the television. There are a lot of books in my closet, some of which are anthologies that I could pull down and read but that seems a bit much at the moment. This is laziness to the extreme.

I do plan to get some work done today though, despite my current state. Ah what the the hell, I'll return to Dixon and pray that I fall asleep eventually.

Ok, so this was a waste of time.

So, it's about that time for exams again, and not paying attention at all this semester is now really kicking my ass. Last night, for example, I taught myself a few hundred years of early midde-Eastern history to make myself competent enough to write a take home examination for the class. That was exciting - Muhammad was a cool guy.

Moving on. So I'm here, sitting in the library and trying to make sense of substantive due process. I really thought I understood this concept before and now I realize that I don't. Actually, I think I get it, I simply disagree with it. I've disagreed with a lot of what the Court has had to say recently. Before taking this course, I'd often read that the Rehnquist Court was very conserative and pro-states' rights. Well, Rehnqist and his loyal followers - Thomas and Scalia - might have been, but his other colleagues, including the infamous 'swinger' O'Conner really made up some nifty stuff on the Bench and essentially, to use the words of critics over the last few years, were judically acitve, or in my opinion, over active.

Having relied upon expert analysis in the past in my approach to Supreme Court cases instead of actually reading the damn things, gave me very different opinions than those that I now hold. Experts tend to break things down, rather simply, so that people like me who claim to be 'informed' but who are too lazy to sit and read opinions, can be just that, 'informed.' The truth of the matter is, over the course of this class so far, I've realized that the opinions offered by my arch-enemies on the bench, with respect to political ideologies, are often far more sound than those with whom I self-identify. For all their pomp and arrogance, the Rehnquist trio was actually composed of a group of very intelligent men and it seems to me that, politics aside, these men argued and defended their opinions without allowing their political views to get in their way. Decisions such as Casey and Lawrence, which I have always agreed with, I have now come to realize, were decided on very shaky grounds, and I really do believe, despite my self-proclaimed 'hippy status' that if I were charged with interpreting the laws, as Supreme Court and other justices are, I would have used similar reasoning as did the Rehnquist trio.

Frightening, I know.

The problem, I think, lies with the rather liberal interprative methods that the court has implimented over the last few decades. This morning, as we concluded the section on capital punishment, (Roper v Simmons) we were challenged to think about and articulate our postions on the inclusion of foreign laws and opinions in Court decisions. I strongly believe that Justices are held to the standards of the Constitution only and that It should be their sole guide with respect to decision making for/about the American people. However, I could not help but think about other areas, politically, where I disagree such as the failure of the Government to adhere to standards agreed upon at the Geneva conventions. I also thought it necessary, in the past, that the United States should join the International Court of Justice, yet I now rethink my position and believe that such an alignment would be detrimental to American jurisprudence, although politically, I believe it would guarantee that, among other things, American forces abroad would behave themselves.

Essentially, as I realize that I have about half-an hour before Math, and that I need to get another cup of coffee before class, recent theories and implementations such as substantive due process, and "spheres of privacy" which got me into a lot shit with my professor, have created a seemingly 'ever evolving' standard by which the Court must now try cases. These decisions has led to the Constitution becoming more flexible, and in my view, more porous, than it has ever been before. In his dissent in a Capital decision, Scalia asserted that with the Court's "evolving standards of decency" theory, and the prohibitions that it has installed, such as the prohibition against killing minors and the mentally retarded, he argued that at what line would the Court stop in legislating the punishment. For, though one may believe that those are the only two, or two in a few instances in which capital punishment is not permitted nationwide, the Court in the 80's found it necessary to dictate to States that only certain types of crimes, such as premeditated murder, and murder of peace officers and law enforcement officials, were permissible. Now, I agree with 10 yr old children should not executed (and hopefully most of us do) but Scalia has a point, and it's one worth going back to as original cases are brought before the Court, challenging standards that are today held to be 'normal.'

Math calls.

This is my blog and I reserve the right to write whatever the hell I want to here.

I also reserve the right to go into 'anti-social' mode and write this entry after my previous online plans failed. I had some drinks last night and the authorities at my college thought it necessary to upset a gathering (not even a party) of less that 15 people.

Naturally, I, and those with whom I had the pleasure of being with were very upset by the move and it was only necessary to go out to a diner afterwards. To make a long story short, the night ended in complete disaster...or rather the morning ended in complete disaster at around 3 A.M. So much for a fun semester. More later.

So I pulled an all-nighter for no apparent reason. It could be the biggest blunder of my semester yet...actually, no. I had a very fun conversation with a friend of mine, and a few minutes before six this morning, I finished, Interpreter of Maldies, which is the best collection of short stories that I have read in a long time. Then, at 8:15, I was draggging myself across campus to hand in a paper that was due in a mailbox by the earliest 8:30. I wanted to get there early because I didn't want to wait and chat with the profs. who were going to be there. Jumped back in bed, woke up at 2, got some lunch and now I'm ready to tackle American Modernism for my exam at 8:30 in the morning. And, in being clear, I haven't even began to pack yet.

So, apparently we're friends with Lybia again and Bush wants to send troops to the border with Mexico. Personally I think those damn Canadians are a bigger threat. I mean, everyone's afraid of Mexico, before spring break, the health centre at my college advised students about the hazards of unsafe drinking water there. Seriously, if you were a terrorist trying to get across the border into the US, would you risk getting ill off some drinking water, or a smooth ride through Canada? Ok, that my have been borderline something. I am National Security's best friend though, I promise. Hail America.

So, I'm here at the comp trying to write a paper for Native American literature. It's due tomorrow (actually it was due about 2 weeks ago, but we'll get into that later) but since I have ADD (yet to be diagnosed) I went on facebook, which took me to Fox News' group, which took me to the webstite, which took me to a 'speakout' section on the NSA and I decided to add my incoherent two cents. It goes as follows:

If I were President, I would place certain restrictions on what the NSA is allowed to do with respect to spying on US citizens. I light of September 11th and other plots and threats that have been launched against the US since, I understand that the world in which we live in today is vastly different from that of the last decade, or even the last five years. However, the beauty about this nation, and the reason, I believe why it has continued to survive and withstand the test of time, is because certain unwavering principles are in place. Every generation creates a new set of obstacles that must be overcome, yet, the US political system asserts flexibility to overcome those problems and stands inflexible against the deterioration of other staple institutions and ideas. The ability to do these two things, often simultanously, has been the crux of the survival of this great country. Domestic spying erodes one of the cornerstone principles of this great democracy. Disrespecting citizens by violating their right to privacy may seem like the best reaction in light of recent world events, but it will not help to preserve our democracy. Broaching this subject requires an evaluation of the current situation as well as repercussions. Finding other means to deter terror is safter for this country in the long run.

This was my first time writing to Fox so...yeah. Ok, back to discussing Native Americans.

About me

  • I'm sanjay
  • From New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • regular kid
  • My profile

Last posts



ATOM 0.3