Race In America

Hello blog. Race in America is a very important issue. Lately we have been talking about race issues in America as well as reading many articles from CNN. We also read passages from writers Andrew Hacker and Tom Wise. It is important that every race and ethnicity is accepted in our culture. The days of "White America" are long behind us. It may strike most people that racism still exists in our country, but it does not really strike me. People may just not be as verbal about it. I read this one article that was about wasting our energy on racism. Hacker and Wise are both white, and while they probably threw the entire race under the bus in their articles, it is true when they explained that most whites would probably prefer to have blacks seperated. It is a sad truth. People won't say this, but according to Hacker, they are thinking it. In the article I read about wasting energy on racism, the writer explains that there are much more important things to use our energy on, like helping Japan with their crisis. He said that we need to drop everything and fix the planet. It needs to be a communal effort. I agree with this, it doesn't matter black or white, it is a waste of our time and energy to be focused on racism. There are more important things that we could be doing. We could be fighting to save the children in Africa from becoming abducted soldiers instead of focusing on race. I don't want to be like Hacker throwing my race under the bus by writing in a book every prejiduce there is against blacks, and I don't want to be like Wise and explain all of the advantages and privilages that whites have, but I do want to say that the effort could be better. Although there aren't people openly being racist, there are people who think it. Thinking it and not saying it is still wrong, those thoughts shouldn't exist.

What's Going on in the World?

Wisconsin is in a state of concern. Like the NFL, it seems they are also having a problem with collective bargaining. Unlike the NFL, this is something that has escalated into protests and demonstrations. The people of Wisconsin have been protesting the Governor's budget bill, which would deny collective bargaining to union workers. The people of Wisconsin feel like they are being attacked by this bill and that this is a bill that is taking from the lower and middle classes and giving to the upper class. The bill is allowing the governor to profitize by selling state owned facilites to private entities. The G.O.P. is trying to bust up the unions and cover it up by saying it is budget balancing according to Paul Krugman's article "Shock Doctrine, U.S.A.". The point Krugman is trying to make in this article is that this bares resemblence to Iraq in 2003 when President Bush appointed their new leaders based on what he said to be for "loyalty and political reliability". This has gotten to the point that Wisconsin Democrats fleed to Illinois to get away from all of this. 14 democratic law makers of Wisconsin had been taking refuge in the Northern Illinois area. They were being overwhelmed by the number of bills trying to be passed that they felt the only way they could slow it down was to get up and leave, and so they did. The protests had started in Wisconsin but they have also emerged in Indiana and Ohio. Monica Davey reports in her article "Life on the Run For Democrats in Union Fights" states that "Those left in Madison this week, supporters of Gov. Scott Walker's plan to limit collective bargaining and cut benefits, agreed to a brand new rule about paychecks. Direct deposits to senators' bank accounts are now barred for anyone who misses two or more days of the legislative session. Those who wish to be paid their salary must collect their checks in person, on the Senate floor." This is bad news bears for those on the run because they are not going to be present to collect their paychecks if this keeps up.
The NFL is in a state of crisis at the moment, and that is if the union and the owners cannot come to an agreement within the next eight hours there is going to be a work stoppage and a lockout. That is what is going on right now in Wisconsin, there is a work stoppage. The owners in the NFL are mad because they think the players are greedy, and the players are mad because they think the owners are greedy. They are no where close to a settlement. We get that feeling about Wisconsin. They are already in a work stoppage. Union workers have already started protesting. The unions in Wisconsin feel that the governor is being too greedy. Which is true. He is trying to cover up his chances of profitizing by destroying unions and saying it is for fiscal purposes. This is a load of crap. His plan is to sell all of the power plants and heating and cooling companies to independents like the Koch brothers to make him a lot of money. He created a 144 page bill to hide all of the underlying details.
I am not claiming to be some expert on unions and if they are needed or not, but it seems that it happens a lot when there are unions who do not get along with the other side. I am not saying that it is the unions fault or the other sides fault always. In this case it seems as if it is the governor's fault because he is clearly just trying to make more money out of this. In the NFL, though, I think both the NFLPA (union) and the owners are both to blame. They cannot come to an agreement because neither side is willing to compromise. Nobody is ever going to get everything they want, so there always needs to be a compromise. Again, comparing this to Wisconsin, the unions of Wisconsin and the governor need to compromise. I do not know how they can do that because, like I state earlier, I am no expert on this topic, but the only solution is to compromise. It seems that in both scenarios the sides are on two completley different ends of the spectrum, and it has to be about negotiating. The only way to fix a problem is to sit down and talk it out. Each side states what they want and then bargain. This is the best and the most diplomatic way to do things.

Mock Trial Response

Hello Blog, here is my reaction to the trials we just did.
Case 1:
Elyse Roberts vs. the District of Columbia is a civil case about sexual harrasment charges in work place. It was about an alleged case of sexual harrasment where office mates, one male and one female did not get along. The trial took us four days and the outcome was that the District of Columbia was guilty of the sexual harrasment charges in a 10-1 vote. I did not agree with the result of this trial for a few reasons. Yes, it was made clear that Elyse Roberts was a poor lawyer and that she deserved to be transferred. The fact that she was transferred was a remedy to the situation, indirectly. The reason I disagree with the jurors decision was because they based all of their judgments off of the expert witness, and Phd with a background in sexual harrasment in the workplace. The problem with this is that he only talked to just the plaintiff. He never got to hear from key witnesses like Fran Troy or Sandy Yu. Never even got to hear from the accused, Kevin Murphy. I think the fact that our class is a sympathetic one is the reason for this outcome. Our jury was one that sympathized with the victim and I knew this going into the trial because in our last set of cases that had to do with the death penalty it was very rare that our class chose to give someone the death penalty. I think the facts that set everyone over the edge were that he hung up pictures from a swimsuit magazine and wrote Elyse's name on it. Also, that Fran Troy and Sandy Yu did not attempt to do anything besides handle it informally by talking to Kevin. One other thing that made Kevin Murphy look bad was that he was always making jokes with some sort of sexual reference to them, whether it be about her and him, or a joke about gays, but I still didn't think this was enough to make him a sexual harraser. He was just joking around and nobody else was offended. I would have needed a little more to change my opinion. I would have needed to know that his words started turning into actions, or that she was fired because of this.
Case 2:
In the case of U.S vs David Jones, the victim, Susan Williams claimed rape against her then boyfriend, David Jones. This was very one-sided case and it seemed the entire time the jury had one thought on their minds... innocent. That happened to be the outcome, and it was unanimous. There were just a lot of facts that did not add up, or the prosecution did not get them out because it did not make sense why this guy would rape her. He had no motive. Yes, it was true that Susan Williams was withholding sex from him because she didn't want to get hurt, but they had had sex three weeks prior to this event and it seemed like a reasonable idea that he might have been able to again. Things like her saying no, but continuing to kiss, threw this case for the prosecution. The fact that she didn't leave until like 10 or 15 minutes later. Another thing that was made aware was that Susan Williams didn't even consider this rape until the school counselor put this idea into her head. That was enough for me to say it wasn't rape. To change my view I would have needed some sort of circumstantial evidence that would have made it clear that she was raped. It is not enough to just have her testimony and an expert witness who only met with her. The character witnesses for David Jones proved that he is no rapist.
I think sexual harrasment is something that is pretty much ignored. It is something that people just turn away from and pretend not to know that it is going on. I think what people need to know about sexual harassment is that it is very serious and that it follows you around once you are charged with it. I really don't think DHS has a problem with sexual harrassment just because of the environment that we live in and how we were brought up. Rape is also a very serious offense, and if you are charged with it, then you will most likely get jail time. I think the thing that the second trial did the best was show that you need to just take things one step at a time and if you are getting mixed signals stop and talk. The whole thing about the Susan kissing him but also saying no was misleading to David because he thought she was being playful like she had been in the past. I will leave you with what Kramer told us on the way out of class that day, probably some of the best advice you will ever need, he said to us "if there is anything I want you to come away from this trial is that... No means no, just ask if you can have sex." Then on the way out class he reiterated it to me and a few buddies by just simply putting "remember, no means no, just ask". This is great advice because if you ever get into a situation like that with a girlfriend, you should hold up for a second and ask because if you end up going to far she might want to charge you for rape. Rape is not a big issue at DHS, just like sexual harrasment, because it just doesn't happen here because of how we are brought up. It is not something that we are really worried about.