Category Archives: Injustice

Wow — if you care about breaking stereotypes, read this.

So my dad and I had a lengthy discussion about politics yesterday, and I was saying how it bothered me so greatly that people(mostly men) didn’t like Hillary Clinton “just because” — they essentially had no reason other than not liking a woman in power — and while they never came outright and said that, there was no other reasonable explanation for her supposedly rubbing them the wrong way.

I remember reading a quote from the black lady who ran for president in 72, saying how she faced more discrimination for being a woman than for being black.

Nick Kristof, today in the New York Times wrote: In particular, one lesson from this research is that promoting their own successes is a helpful strategy for ambitious men. But experiments have demonstrated that when women highlight their accomplishments, that’s a turn-off. And women seem even more offended by self-promoting females than men are … The broader conundrum is that for women, but not for men, there is a tradeoff in qualities associated with top leadership. A woman can be perceived as competent or as likable, but not both.

Again, we should be afraid of a society that is so strongly against having a woman in office (not because her name is Clinton) just because she’s female.

Although I agree with my dad, that Obama means hope for so many generations to come — black, white, latino, Indian, Chinese, whatever race, whatever gender, whatever nationality — it still greatly disturbs me in this country that we would allow our fear of women to throw this election.

Now I come from an African family where the male has final say (interesting side note that my mother supports Hillary Clinton– because she’s a woman) so I’m used to a patriarchal society. Now don’t get me wrong, my mom has say in family decisions, this is not King and the rest of us our subservient, but everything runs through the male.

So I can understand that many people may have grown up in similar homes where the authority of the male is unquestionable, or even if there is a balance of power, the mother is restricted to menial house managing duties — cleaning, cooking, raising kids, picking up kids, etc. (The stereoytpical soccer mom)

But it bugs me to no end — in fact, I’d almost rather see Hillary Clinton be president just to make all men bow their heads and lose some of that huge ego we all carry.

Clothing and appearance generally matter more for women than for men, research shows. Surprisingly, several studies have found that it’s actually a disadvantage for a woman to be physically attractive when applying for a managerial job. Beautiful applicants received lower ratings, apparently because they were subconsciously pegged as stereotypically female and therefore unsuited for a job as a boss.

How many times have you heard the “dumb blond” stereotypical jokes, whether they emanate from middle - school adolescents, or from their fathers, the jokes certainly exist.

And when you look at an ad like godaddy, or a music video (even when the feature is the female singer her self — like in the case of Christina Aguilera) you have to ask yourself: is this all women are worth?

If you’ve read my blogs on xanga, or even on Facebook, you’ve seen me write about the value of a woman — and in fact, I’ll post one of my old writings tomorrow.

I’ve jokingly made derogatory remarks about a woman’s potential — so I’m calling myself out too on this issue — but it is inexcusable, unjust, and even perfidious if we as a nation reject the rule of a woman simply because she’s female.

I suspect this is the real reason why 47% of the country does not want her to see President.

This is still, sadly, mostly about image.

White man, white woman, and a black man are in the race. And while I’ve spoken extensively about racism, and my own experiences with it in this town, nothing would hurt more than to see a woman knocked out and not given a fair chance by millions of men and women in America because they don’t like to see this powerful woman. It just tells me that people, racist or not, would rather be ruled by a man — be he non-white — than they would by a woman.

And don’t tell me it’s because she’s uncharismatic because I know plenty of men who HATE Oprah and would never, ever, in a million years even consider voting for her, even though she’s as charismatic as they come.

Think about it all you Obama/McCain lovers — whats the deeper issue behind this Hillary-hating?

Only when we as a nation can ask the difficult questions will we ever break out of our naive mindset — and I don’t think we’ll see that anytime soon.

There is no excuse for denying a woman the chance for leadership, there is no reason for this misogyny, and ultimately the question all Americans, male or female should ask themselves is:

‘Would I want my daughter to be treated this same way?”

Motion picture alliance retracts student blame

In 2005, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) blamed college students for 44 percent of their revenue losses, but more recent figures show that coeds are actually responsible for only about 15 percent.The incorrect figure, blamed on “human error”, indicated that college students were responsible for losses totaling about three-quarter billion dollars, mostly from the illegal downloading of movies, The Associated Press reported. The industry’s total loss to piracy is about $6.1 billion.Some students say the industry’s scapegoating of college students is unfair.

(Co-authored with two other mates years ago — one of the most interesting pieces I’ve ever helped out with…)

In this age of wonder we have arrived at the very apex of technological
advancement, we have pondered the inexplicable intricacies of creation,
and presumptuously we take pride in the establishment of a civilized
society. Yet have we indeed reached the pinnacle of our societal potential? The
history of man is embellished by achievement, yet marred by atrocities, and whilst we
acknowledge these superficial achievements, we pay no heed to the blatant
inhumanity that has been incorporated into the root of in our nation. What age
do we live in that advocates death in place of a chance at repentance, that
establishes vengeance as an integral factor in its judiciary system, that
zealously supports the practice of legalized murder in the name of personal
retribution? We have erred. We have strayed from the path proposed by the
founders of this nation. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness; these ideals
embody the aspirations of our forbearers. This nation was founded upon these
immutable principles; this nation founders gave their lives in the hope that
their children would realize, would actualize these three essential principles.
Instead we have tarnished their legacy, tainting such magnanimous an institution as

Justice with the barbaric, anachronistic practice of capital punishment.
Yet let us for a moment address the issue of cost, as it seems that some are
governed more by the pocketbook than by logic. The morals of America have been
sold, replaced by inherently capitalistic ethics. We are governed by the
dollar; it has infiltrated our minds erasing our ethics, replacing them with
capitalistic greed. So it comes as no surprise that some would dare to measure
the significance of life, in terms of dollars and cents. It comes as no surprisethat some would weigh the significance of human sentience, in terms of tax dollars. It comes as no surprise that the leaders of this nation would dare to place a price tag on life, on liberty, and on justice. Can money nullify
the indisputable fact that over the last twenty years, one hundred and one men have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death due to the fact that they did not posses the financial resources to provide basic representations? Who shall be held accountable for the blood of five innocent men every year? Will we so callously wash our hands of innocent blood? No justification can provide
consolation to the devastated, embittered families of the condemned innocent. The supporters of this depraved institution proclaim that their hard earned tax dollars should not go towards sustaining the life of one deemed unfit to live in our civilized society, that the upkeep of these miscreants drains our tax reserves, therefore the cheap butchery of these malefactors would indeed be a sound solution.

Yet in this fallacious, unfounded argument lies the greatest
deceit of all. In a compilation of data by the state governments of the United
States of America it is estimated that a single case warranting the death
penalty, from point of arrest to execution ranges from one million to three
million dollars. Other studies have even estimated that this figure is as high
as seven million dollars. Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around
half a million each for a sixty year life sentence. Not only is life long
imprisonment much less expensive than capital punishment, but state spending on
capital punishment is directly linked to the degradation of funding available
for expenditure on essential public services. It is Ironic that five hundred
police officers were laid off in the state of New Jersey as a direct effect of
the implementation of the death penalty. It is Ironic that the very entity that
stands between the upholding citizens, and the criminals, between the single
mother in a low-income development and the neighborhood thug, between your
children, and the pernicious, predatory rapists, is being directly weakened by
capital punishment. Yet let us embark on a theoretical tangent. If in fact it
were cheaper to execute these offenders, does this validate the taking of a
human life? Can any value be placed on a human life? When did we decide that
that money is the equivalent of the pursuit of happiness? Or more importantly
when did we come to the audacious conclusion that we could balance the scales
of life with money, and negate a God given right?

It has also been stated that capital punishment acts as a crime deterrent. That
by instilling the fear of punishment by death will deter a possible offender
from committing their crime. By making such a presumption we presume that the
people who commit these crimes are in full possession of all their capacities,
that murder is always premeditated, and that these criminals stop to access the
pros and cons of such an act. Yet the basis of many an argument supporting
capital punishment is that by committing as irrational an act as homicide, it
is clear that the criminal, has lost the ability to discern right from wrong
therefore, they have relinquished their status as a human being and deserve to
be slaughtered as animals. So in affect the two arguments are antithetical,
conflicting and nullifying one another in such an obvious and palpable manner.
How does a society that has established itself as the moral standard for the
rest of the world, which esteems itself as the most civilized and advanced,
still practice such a primitive, ineffective, obsolete means of crime
prevention? Why does our country still at the dawn of a new century linger upon
the ethical relic of an eye for an eye? It has been argued that the homicide
rate has dramatically decreased since the reinstatement of capital punishment
nation wide, yet there exist a plethora of external factors that could
influence this decline. Would we rather believe that practiced barbarism is an
effective way of instilling fear into the public, or that we as a people have
matured, have grown and have become more civilized? It has been established
that capital punishment is an inadequate means of crime prevention. Therefore
what is the purpose of capital punishment? Does it exist as a means to gain
personal retribution for the victims loved ones? Taking the life of another
cannot possibly fill the void of the loss of a loved one, of a father, a wife,
of a child. Capital Punishment should not be used as a tool of vengeance to
punish murder with murder.

The existence of the death penalty derails the
purpose of our criminal justice system that exists to rehabilitate, not
condemn. We must strive to find more humane ways to make these people repay
their substantial debt to society, if in case reintegration is not a plausible
option. By working, the criminal inadvertently has the opportunity to once
again contribute, even if in a minor fashion to the society that he or she once
plagued. In essence what we would have is free labor. One of the most
recognized cases of the criminal contributing to the betterment of society is
the case of Leopold and Loeb. Leopold and Loeb were nineteen years old when
they committed “The Crime of the Century.” In 1924, they kidnapped and
brutally murdered a fourteen year old boy; the only apparent motive being to
see if they could succeed undetected. They were both spared the death penalty
and sentenced to life imprisonment. Together, their accomplishments includes:
work at hospitals, instruction of illiterates to read, creation of a
correspondence school, significant developments in the World War II Malaria
Project. Please do not misinterpret our words. Know that we believe that
nothing can nullify such heinous a crime as murder, but know also that by
willingly aiding in the destruction of another human life, we are naught better
than they. We the people of the United States, and being so, have a direct
obligation to uphold the highest of moral standings on every last facet of our
society as we embark on a quest to usher less fortunate nations into the role
of democracy, of liberty, of justice, and of freedom. We cannot afford to seem
hypocritical in the eyes of our international peers. The United States should
exemplify that rehabilitation; that repentance takes precedence over
condemnation and death. Let us be a source of moral clarity for this earth, not
a detriment to its morality.

The very concept of capital punishment is in itself, morally redundant.
It is true that one cannot seek to condone the reprehensible act of murder;
it is a sordid affair, and perhaps the most deplorable action ever partaken by
man, yet to punish a murderer by murder? There can be no gain in this. One could
argue that by supporting Capital punishment we are aiding society by ridding
it of its unwanted elements, and in effect improving the general welfare of
the common man. In theory this concept has its appeal, in practice this
concept has manifested itself again and again in the history of mankind. We have
come to know it as Genocide. We are human; we must be humane lest we live as
beasts acting purely on stimulus, propelled by the need for immediate
gratification, constantly striking out in retaliation, abandoning the notion of
preconception, of thought, of rationale. Rationale, after all this is all that
separates humanity from the lesser beings, the ability to discern right from
wrong, to take action whilst perceiving consequence. Where in case we might
falter, our ingenuity has created a failsafe. It is known as Law.
By incorporating this practice into the law of the land, we set an extremely
nefarious precedent to the actual concept of law. Is the purpose of law, and
the criminal justice system to preserve order, and stem the occurrence
of vigilante like action, or does law exist to facilitate the concept of
vengeful retribution? If so we have indeed created a fascinating paradox.
There are a multitude of reasons why capital punishment cannot be
allowed to continue in The United States of America, or in the entire world. If it
is not evident by now that no amount of money can be worth a human life, even
though it is less expensive to preserve it; If it is not evident by now that
capital punishment does not act as a crime deterrence in any measurable manner
and is not an effective tool for vengeance; If it not evident by now that the
morally redundant affair of killing someone to repay another’s debt is
illogical, than maybe it never will be. However, we acknowledge the struggle that
our forefathers, the oppressed and disaffected of many a nation, embarked
on a perilous quest to establish a land free of the evils that they had left
behind. A land that advocated three essential ideals. Life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. We trust that we the people make the right decision and
oppose this immorality indivisibly as one nation, with liberty and justice for
all.