Shout OUT!

HAPPY BDAY to Bella Baggins (7/6) and the BIGS (7/13)

Wednesday, June 19, 2013

2 week notice, now you are on notice!

- I got a friend of mine who put in her 2 week notice.  This got me thinking as she was telling me she was still working...WHY ARE YOU WORKING?  Isn't a 2 week notice like a notice that says, you have me for 2 weeks but I ain't gonna be doing shit!  Serious, who expects quality work from a person no longer bound to that paycheck that comes every 2 weeks or so.

- In sports yesterday, the Spurs failed to look at the Pacers V Heat series and pulled out their best rebounder and player last night in Tim Duncan, and watched as the Heats rebounded the ball and made a critical Heart stabbing 3.  Thank you Ray Allen for reminding us all that if you ignore your history, you are doomed to repeat it.

- Kanye is a father.  People are wondering what type of dad he will be.  They are wondering if his latest album is a reflection of his future tenure as a dad.  It's a fucking album and his baby momma has already been pimping the fetus on her show for weeks now.  CLEARLY, it doesn't matter what kind of father he will be because you know she destined for the Pole.

- Chief Keef has been arrested for speeding, and hit with two paternity suits.  If a rapper doesn't live in Northbrook, does anyone hear about this?

- The NSA is currently spying on you.  The government has been doing this every since the words GOVERNMENT were created.  Quit ur bitching and stop worrying that anyone cares that you like to look at porn.  If ur looking up a bomb, or ways to fuck shit up, then you deserve to be spied on and your house raided by Special Forces and guys who are itching to shoot a terrorist.  This isnt a violation of civil liberties, this is what we all bitch about.  Dont believe me?  BENGHAZI...yeah..go complain now.

- Free festivals are all over the city.  Get out and enjoy one.  No really!  Don't sit at home wondering if your kid has ADHD as you let him play on the tablet for 6 hours.  Don't wonder why u have a spare tire and white walls to match as you sit there watching a cooking show with no food in your refrigerator.  GET OUTSIDE.

i am arrogant..why aren't you!

Friday, June 14, 2013

The untold story behind the of the lack of fathers

I know this blog space isn't always the place for the most serious of topics, but since Father's Day is Sunday, this entry is quite timely.

We like to laugh, joke and tease (myself included) about men who have children they don't know about or don't claim, or "baby's daddies" and the lengths they will go to avoid paying child support, but this isn't one of those pieces.  Absentee fathers have a major impact on our communities, and the domino effects that follow are making the world we live in worse.

First and probably most obvious is the impact it has on boys and young men.  While mother's play a significant role in the lives of all children, at some point a boy needs an example of manhood to follow, someone to teach him not only what responsibility is, but what it looks like.  In too many instances, we have examples of dodging responsibility (and subsequently the negative talk surrounding those actions--which have another impact on the child, but that's another subject altogether) rather than examples of sacrifice in the face of responsibility.  Additionally, boys and young men need examples on how to treat women; often this initial impression is made on how the men his mother surrounds herself with treat her.  If the boy/young man observes men smash and dash on his mother, he will believe this is acceptable behavior--after all his mother tolerates it.  Other than the company a boy's mother keeps, an absentee father means a boys only other examples are what the entertainment industry provides--an industry determined to paint men as conquistadors of vagina.  The end result is men who believe women are objects to be used for their instant gratification who don't take any responsibility for the end result that often comes...another child.  And the cycle continues.

Less obvious is the impact on girls and young women.  Because of the above cycle, women are often forced to raise their little girls with a sense of independence.  While that certainly is not a bad thing, when those girls become women, it can negatively impact how they are able to work within a relationship setting (unless of course she finds a man who bends to her every whim).  The whole "I don't need you" attitude is in direct contrast to a situation (i.e. a relationship) that's supposed to be symbiotic--each person relying on the other for encouragement, strength, etc.  What one lacks the other should have...and be readily willing to provide it.  This blurs the line of the roles that each should play, since mom played all the roles that must mean the girl can play all roles too.  That simply doesn't work where two people are involved--a woman can't be the man and the woman at the same time when there is a man involved.  Women raised without a father also lack an example like the boys above of what a "man" should look like.  This can lead to a lot of trial and error and maybe a few baby daddies of their own.  Perhaps even worse you get a situation that breeds domestic violence--two people raised without fathers who have no idea the roles the other should play or how to treat each other with each trying to "show" the other who's boss (i.e. the girl asserting her independence and dominance; the man trying to assert the same).  And the cycle continues.

We honor single mothers for overcoming many trials to do an amazing thing--raise a productive member of society on their own.  But just because its done every day doesn't mean it should be.  This Father's Day if you know someone who needs to be in their children's lives, encourage them to be active participants.  Because despite all that mothers continue to do, the lack of fathers is hurting our communities more than we can tell on the surface.

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

Shit is real, got me feeling ISRAELIAN

On June 3, 2013 the United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of a Maryland Court tossing out a man's conviction for rape, where the primary piece of evidence linking him to the rape was gained incident to an arrest unrelated to the rape.  In doing so, the Supreme Court opened the door to police taking DNA samples from an arrestee.  Non-lawyers everywhere are going nuts about how crazy this is.  I'm here to tell you how crazy it isn't.

I'll start by saying the majority (the five justices whose decision is now law) fucked up.  There is no question that their reasoning is flawed based on other elements of Maryland's statutory scheme (which I won't explore here.  Just know that the court says the purpose of the DNA sample is to help ID people, yet the statute presupposes you already know who the person is since there's information that must be included with the DNA sample when it is taken).  Justice Scalia in his dissent argues that taking a DNA swab is an unreasonable search because the swab is taken for the purpose of investigating another act of which there is no other evidence.  Under the law there must be some idiom of suspicion before a search can be granted, and even then a warrant is more than likely necessary.  But searches incident to arrest do not require a warrant; the suspect is already in custody and assumes the arrest had valid probable cause.  Once at the station the police can ask you to strip, go through your pockets and purse and even ask you to provide a urine or breath sample (assuming you're arrested under suspicion of driving under the influence of drugs/alcohol).  The type of search has to be rationally related to the reason for the arrest; asking someone arrested for battery to get naked, squat and cough is not a search rationally related to the crime of beating someone's ass.  Collecting a sample of the battery suspect's DNA however might be rationally related to the crime of beating someone's ass--that DNA may end up being a valuable piece of evidence should other identification become a problem.

What is glossed over throughout the opinion however is that building a database of criminal information is not problematic.  Building a database of violent offenders post conviction is not an issue; the FBI already does it.  When someone is arrested, it is completely constitutional to take their picture, capture fingerprints, note scars, tattoos or other markings...and add them into a database.  Each fingerprint (and information tied to the prints) are given a unique identifier called an IR number.  The majority opinion suggests that DNA evidence gathered subsequent to arrest is like these other methods (fingerprinting, photographs, etc)...but never argues that the point of doing so was to perform a completely valid reason of building a database of information on criminals.  The majority specifically avoids suggesting replacing fingerprints with DNA, but doing so would have made its decision more valid.

This is where collection of DNA is not crazy.  The state's interest in the cases of people like James Holmes, Adam Lanza and Nidal Malik Hasan is such that it vastly outweighs their privacy rights.  These people allegedly pulled assault rifles out on defenseless people and allegedly pulled the trigger allegedly killing many. I'm pretty sure having a database of nut jobs like these is constitutional.  No not people who may be mentally ill or have a history of mental illness, but a database of people who are charged with crimes against people (aka "violent crimes" although all violent crimes aren't always violent, like for instance burglary).  Collecting DNA in these cases is certainly related to the crime for which they are arrested--it could very well be evidence in that case.  Collecting a DNA sample for a DUI or other crimes against the state or property...not so much.

Everyone should calm down with regard to the police collection of DNA evidence (the FBI and NSA's project to build a face recognition database should be much more problematic).  The collection is certainly a search, but it has to be rationally related to the crime committed.  Better yet--just don't break the law and you should be fine.