so, I'm taking classes online through the Art Institute... so, now i have the freedom to travel between Vegas and California, when ever i want.
AND continue my education...
Ill let everyone know how that goes...
-A
Post WI-09
Anyway, the winter quarter of 2009 is finally over, cant say I'm happy or sad, either way it was a learning experience for me, and actually I've decided to maintain this journal, just because its become a habit for me now...
dissent
Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Thomas, argued the Law School's admissions policy was an attempt to achieve an unconstitutional type of racial balancing.
“The Chief Justice attacked the Law School's asserted goal of reaching a "critical mass" of minority students, finding the absolute number African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students varied markedly, which is inconsistent with idea of a critical mass, in that one would think the same size critical mass would be needed for all minority groups.”
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia said, concurring in part and dissenting in part, "Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system."
“The Chief Justice attacked the Law School's asserted goal of reaching a "critical mass" of minority students, finding the absolute number African-American, Hispanic, and Native American students varied markedly, which is inconsistent with idea of a critical mass, in that one would think the same size critical mass would be needed for all minority groups.”
(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Scalia said, concurring in part and dissenting in part, "Law School should be forced to choose between its classroom aesthetic and its exclusionary admissions system."
My Own Argument
Personally I think its ridiculous this case went before the Supreme Court… for one, couldn’t Barbara Grutter just settle on another college? And for two, why couldn’t the admissions department just accept her… its not like its that big of a deal, they probably wasted more money on this case than her entire tuition would have brought them… so… in my mind It doesn’t make sense… there are some VERY stubborn people out there in the world. Maybe they were trying to make a point, but I don’t agree with the admissions policy, honestly speaking here, I would rather have a successful student in my classroom than a dumber student of another race. We go to school at the art institute of Las Vegas, and they have admissions policies too! Based off skill, not gender or race, and trust me I’ve made some friends in admissions since I’ve been here… if there just so happens to be more Hispanic students who are better at practicing law than there are of white ethnic background, by all means go with the majority here… I think an admissions policy based off skill and talent is far better than one based off ethnic quota. It doesn’t make sense, not only that these people wasted money because neither wanted to back down, but also the admissions recipe is kind of lame… it may look like a cherry pie, but it has a sour lemon center!
Rule of Law
The decision of the court was based on the thought that diversity is required in Universities to provide a diverse education environment. The court holds that as long as the final decision is not based solely on race, then it is not unconstitutional. This upheld the position asserted in Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke.
reasoning of the court
The District Court Judge Bernard A. Friedman ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional because they were nearly indistinguishable from a quota system, which is illegal.
The Sixth-Circuit Court turned over the decision of the District Court, claiming that the use of race was to further the compelling interest of diversity.
“The Law School's racial preferences were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored. It held that the Law School's stated objective of enrolling a "critical mass" of "underrepresented" minority students was achieved through considering race as a "plus" factor in the manner approved by Justice Powell in Bakke and described in the "Harvard plan" referenced in Justice Powell's opinion. Finding that the Law School had no "fixed goal or target" for minority admissions, the court rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The Sixth-Circuit Court turned over the decision of the District Court, claiming that the use of race was to further the compelling interest of diversity.
“The Law School's racial preferences were unconstitutional because they were not narrowly tailored. It held that the Law School's stated objective of enrolling a "critical mass" of "underrepresented" minority students was achieved through considering race as a "plus" factor in the manner approved by Justice Powell in Bakke and described in the "Harvard plan" referenced in Justice Powell's opinion. Finding that the Law School had no "fixed goal or target" for minority admissions, the court rejected the district court's finding that the Law School's "critical mass" was the functional equivalent of a quota.”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
decision of the court
“In a 5 to 4 decision involving the University of Michigan School of Law, the United States Supreme Court upheld the "flexible" consideration of race as one factor among many for admissions to public institutions of higher education.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced the decision; joining her in the majority ruling were Justices, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, And John Paul Stevens.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, And Clarence Thomas dissented.”
(http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/gravbol.html)
The Supreme Court’s majority ruling said that the United States Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” They believe that the interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority groups was a tailored use. They also held that in the future, racial affirmative action would no longer be required.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced the decision; joining her in the majority ruling were Justices, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David H. Souter, And John Paul Stevens.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, And Clarence Thomas dissented.”
(http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/commentary/gravbol.html)
The Supreme Court’s majority ruling said that the United States Constitution “does not prohibit the law school’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” They believe that the interest in obtaining a “critical mass” of minority groups was a tailored use. They also held that in the future, racial affirmative action would no longer be required.
Issue of the case
This case was brought before the Supreme Court after it was requested by Grutter, and the Center for Individual Rights. Two courts had made opposing decisions and so the Supreme Court agreed to look over the case and hear the arguments. Grutter had won in the District Court, however, in the Sixth Circuit court, she had lost.
“This case presents questions about what constitutes a compelling interest that may justify race-based preferences in student admissions at a state law school to applicants from certain racial or ethnic groups. The Sixth Circuit resolved this issue by concluding that the opinion of Justice Powell in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted binding precedent establishing "diversity" as such a compelling governmental interest. The Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits have split on this issue of profound national importance. The First and Fourth Circuits, in cases involving racial preferences in admissions to public elementary and secondary schools, have issued opinions noting uncertainty about whether diversity is an interest sufficiently compelling to justify such preferences.
Even assuming "diversity" to be a compelling interest, this case presents additional questions concerning what constitutes appropriate "narrow tailoring" of an admissions policy designed to achieve diversity. The decision of the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the approach to narrow tailoring taken by this Court and by other lower courts. The Sixth Circuit's de novo review of the district court's factual findings concerning the racial preferences at issue was also an extraordinary departure from the rule that such findings should be reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. “
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The problem was that the University of Michigan Law School said that they wanted diversity on their campus. However, when actual numbers were looked at, African-American’s, Native Americans, and Hispanics were not equal in any sense of the word.
“In practice, the Law School's program bears little or no relation to its asserted goal of achieving "critical mass." Respondents explain that the Law School seeks to accumulate a "critical mass" of each underrepresented minority group. The Law School's ... current policy ... provides a special commitment to enrolling a 'critical mass' of 'Hispanics'. But the record demonstrates that the Law School's admissions practices with respect to these groups differ dramatically and cannot be defended under any consistent use of the term "critical mass."
9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
The point of this case was to determine whether or not the University could select a person over another person based on race, to avoid discrimination. The University argued that this wasn’t the only thing they used to determine who was admitted. They used a point system to add up all attributes.
“This case presents questions about what constitutes a compelling interest that may justify race-based preferences in student admissions at a state law school to applicants from certain racial or ethnic groups. The Sixth Circuit resolved this issue by concluding that the opinion of Justice Powell in Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978), constituted binding precedent establishing "diversity" as such a compelling governmental interest. The Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Sixth Circuits have split on this issue of profound national importance. The First and Fourth Circuits, in cases involving racial preferences in admissions to public elementary and secondary schools, have issued opinions noting uncertainty about whether diversity is an interest sufficiently compelling to justify such preferences.
Even assuming "diversity" to be a compelling interest, this case presents additional questions concerning what constitutes appropriate "narrow tailoring" of an admissions policy designed to achieve diversity. The decision of the Sixth Circuit conflicts with the approach to narrow tailoring taken by this Court and by other lower courts. The Sixth Circuit's de novo review of the district court's factual findings concerning the racial preferences at issue was also an extraordinary departure from the rule that such findings should be reviewed under a "clearly erroneous" standard. “
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The problem was that the University of Michigan Law School said that they wanted diversity on their campus. However, when actual numbers were looked at, African-American’s, Native Americans, and Hispanics were not equal in any sense of the word.
“In practice, the Law School's program bears little or no relation to its asserted goal of achieving "critical mass." Respondents explain that the Law School seeks to accumulate a "critical mass" of each underrepresented minority group. The Law School's ... current policy ... provides a special commitment to enrolling a 'critical mass' of 'Hispanics'. But the record demonstrates that the Law School's admissions practices with respect to these groups differ dramatically and cannot be defended under any consistent use of the term "critical mass."
9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-241#dissent1)
The point of this case was to determine whether or not the University could select a person over another person based on race, to avoid discrimination. The University argued that this wasn’t the only thing they used to determine who was admitted. They used a point system to add up all attributes.
Facts of the case...
This case began in 1996 when the University of Michigan Law School rejected Barbara Grutter. She was a white Michigan resident who had a 3.8 grade point average and a score of 161 on her Law School Admissions Test (LSAT). She contacted the Center for Individual Rights. The Center for Individual Right filed a suit on her behalf in December of 1997. They sued, saying that the school’s action was in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It was said that the Law School rejected Barbara Grutter because it used race as a main factor, which gave applicants of a minority race with similar credentials a greater chance at admission. The defendant was Lee Bollinger, who was the President of the university. He worked toward the purpose of achieving racial diversity in the student body.
“Plaintiff Barbara Grutter is a white resident of the state of Michigan who applied at the age of 43 in December 1996 for admission into the fall 1997 first-year class of the University of Michigan Law School. She applied with a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and an LSAT score of 161, representing the 86th percentile nationally. The Law School first placed Ms. Grutter on the "waitlist," and subsequently denied her admission. Ms. Grutter has not enrolled in law school elsewhere. She still desires to attend the Law School. The Law School admits that Ms. Grutter probably would have been admitted had she been a member of one of the racial minority groups to which the Law School gives a preference. (Comments of Law School counsel during oral argument).”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The case first went to the U.S. District Court, to be heard in front of Judge Bernard A. Friedman. He ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional. The case was next taken to the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals in May 2002. This court reversed the decision. This led to the plaintiffs requesting that the Supreme Court review the case, which the Supreme Court agreed to. The Court had not heard a case on affirmative action in education for 25 years, during the Bakke decision.
“Plaintiff Barbara Grutter is a white resident of the state of Michigan who applied at the age of 43 in December 1996 for admission into the fall 1997 first-year class of the University of Michigan Law School. She applied with a 3.8 undergraduate grade point average and an LSAT score of 161, representing the 86th percentile nationally. The Law School first placed Ms. Grutter on the "waitlist," and subsequently denied her admission. Ms. Grutter has not enrolled in law school elsewhere. She still desires to attend the Law School. The Law School admits that Ms. Grutter probably would have been admitted had she been a member of one of the racial minority groups to which the Law School gives a preference. (Comments of Law School counsel during oral argument).”
(http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/02-241/02-241.pet.html)
The case first went to the U.S. District Court, to be heard in front of Judge Bernard A. Friedman. He ruled that the admissions policies were unconstitutional. The case was next taken to the Sixth Circuit court of Appeals in May 2002. This court reversed the decision. This led to the plaintiffs requesting that the Supreme Court review the case, which the Supreme Court agreed to. The Court had not heard a case on affirmative action in education for 25 years, during the Bakke decision.
First Monday in October...Hmm
Today in class, we viewed part of “First Monday in October” (1981). During the snippet from the film, we see Chief Justice Loomis confront Chief Justice Snow on the issue of him not attending a screening of the film “The Naked Nymphomaniac”. Loomis is a “staunch conservative” who fights and argues with Snow throughout the movie, and although they never fully see eye to eye, they eventually learn to respect one another.
My opinion… well I would have to see the whole movie in order to make a clear and thorough assessment, but I can tell you this from what I’ve seen, that woman is a menace! (Just kidding)… On a serious note though, she is very liberal, and I understand & agree with many of her points she brings up. It’s good to see someone protecting virtue and morality but at the same time, people need to have a right to express themselves, and though I’m not a fan of pornography, SOME of it I’m sure can be artistic… the human body is artistic, that’s why we have life drawing classes, and the people are naked! Though I’m almost sure “The Naked Nymphomaniac” lacks passion and creativity, some people somewhere would probably call it beautiful… I understand both chief justice Snow and Loomis’ points of view… my suggestion to the case or to the filmmaker would be to “clean it up” I’m not really sure on the laws of the time, but I would make him put plenty of “warnings” and “caution” and “notice” 18+ etc. splash pages on the beginning of the film…
People have a right to be conservative and not view material such as this, AND people have a right to be liberal and walk around their house naked, but I think that there is a difference between “unchecked” liberalism and “psychotic” conservatism. A nice warm middle ground is where I think America should set its sights. But wait, look at the liberalistic, perverse, insane, absurd, disgusting, pathetic, dangerous, hypocritical, violent, turmoil that our country/world has become today… you fight a good fight CJ Loomis, but it looks like it’s all just gone to hell now… like Snow said, “So its crap. What if it is crap? That's not the point. Crap's got the right to be crap.”
My opinion… well I would have to see the whole movie in order to make a clear and thorough assessment, but I can tell you this from what I’ve seen, that woman is a menace! (Just kidding)… On a serious note though, she is very liberal, and I understand & agree with many of her points she brings up. It’s good to see someone protecting virtue and morality but at the same time, people need to have a right to express themselves, and though I’m not a fan of pornography, SOME of it I’m sure can be artistic… the human body is artistic, that’s why we have life drawing classes, and the people are naked! Though I’m almost sure “The Naked Nymphomaniac” lacks passion and creativity, some people somewhere would probably call it beautiful… I understand both chief justice Snow and Loomis’ points of view… my suggestion to the case or to the filmmaker would be to “clean it up” I’m not really sure on the laws of the time, but I would make him put plenty of “warnings” and “caution” and “notice” 18+ etc. splash pages on the beginning of the film…
People have a right to be conservative and not view material such as this, AND people have a right to be liberal and walk around their house naked, but I think that there is a difference between “unchecked” liberalism and “psychotic” conservatism. A nice warm middle ground is where I think America should set its sights. But wait, look at the liberalistic, perverse, insane, absurd, disgusting, pathetic, dangerous, hypocritical, violent, turmoil that our country/world has become today… you fight a good fight CJ Loomis, but it looks like it’s all just gone to hell now… like Snow said, “So its crap. What if it is crap? That's not the point. Crap's got the right to be crap.”
ILLICIT: The Dark Trade
Honestly I’ve never purchased a “fake” bag or watch or anything of the sort… I have expensive taste and a knock off won’t do it for me. Walking into Louis Vuitton and paying $1350.00 for a signature tote like I did last year for my mother’s Christmas present is more my style. There is something about paying that much money for a bag that is ridiculous and thrilling all at the same time. Downloading music off Limewire on the other hand is something in the past I’ve been known to excessively abuse. That is until I discovered iTunes. When I bought my Mac it came with iTunes and I had an account with them… purchasing songs for a buck doesn’t seem that big of a deal, especially if I like the artist I will buy the whole album… because I’m lazy and I don’t feel like scouring P2P (peer to peer) sites or clients to find what I want. Knowing now about illegal trade and how it affects people’s lives I consider it a bad thing, and I would never purchase a fake because that would be supporting the industry. I know these are intelligent people trying to make a living and perhaps illegal trade does give people jobs, but at the same time, they are capable of finding other sources of income… to hear someone say that it’s the only way for them to make money, or support their family. That’s a “cop out” I firmly believe that people are right where they want to be in life, if they aren’t, they need to change it, or ask for help if they don’t know how… things like buying and selling illegally are dangerous no matter the product. And if you think you’re getting a good deal, you probably are, at the time… but what if your purchase goes to fund the creation of a bomb that blows up your city? In other countries it’s how they do business or, at least some of the time… I think governments need to come together to make an international organization that can have free reign over territories and borders to combat this illegal trade, that would make it faster for governments to catch and stop this activity… that and arresting key members to bring down crime organizations. The world needs to unite to stop this evil and make life a better and safer place for all.
thanks for reading,
-A
thanks for reading,
-A
Smash Who?
“Smash me” doll… what a fun and interesting concept… according to the article I read, the Madoff doll is selling for $100.00 and although it seems like a lot of money to invest in someone you hate/hates you… I’ll bet the satisfaction is well worth it.
So let’s see here, if I were the makers of the doll, I would sell it for around $25.00 just ¼ the cost of the Bernie Madoff doll, but then again, I’d probably sell more. I would have a gallery of popular historical and political figures to choose from and these dolls would sell for 25 bucks. Hammer not included… the mallet would cost an additional $30.00 but if you didn’t want to purchase that, I’m sure the clever minds of the wronged could think of another beautifully disastrous way to destroy their pint-sized figurine, ex. Lighting it on fire, using a chain saw, running it over, etc. there would also be a custom feature where the client could upload a picture of the hated, and with 1-2 weeks delivery time they would have a little mini minion sitting around just waiting to be pulverized. The doll would be durable so that you could spend the afternoon, or however long it takes to destroy… that way people would feel like they’ve got their money’s worth.
Spotlight figures would be, Chris Crocker because of how annoying he is, Jerry Springer, because of how he’s such an instigator and ruins the lives of people who are already messed up… let’s see, what else… oh yes let’s not forget Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. As well as the current president and the past presidents for the last 30 years, nothing personal but not EVERYONE likes you…um, I think we should let this go now, before I get carried away…
One can only hope that soon though, somebody finds a “healthy” outlet for their anger, maybe people would quit killing one another, they can just smash a tiny replica… then, your only out 25 bucks and not 25 years to life…
Thanks for reading,
A
So let’s see here, if I were the makers of the doll, I would sell it for around $25.00 just ¼ the cost of the Bernie Madoff doll, but then again, I’d probably sell more. I would have a gallery of popular historical and political figures to choose from and these dolls would sell for 25 bucks. Hammer not included… the mallet would cost an additional $30.00 but if you didn’t want to purchase that, I’m sure the clever minds of the wronged could think of another beautifully disastrous way to destroy their pint-sized figurine, ex. Lighting it on fire, using a chain saw, running it over, etc. there would also be a custom feature where the client could upload a picture of the hated, and with 1-2 weeks delivery time they would have a little mini minion sitting around just waiting to be pulverized. The doll would be durable so that you could spend the afternoon, or however long it takes to destroy… that way people would feel like they’ve got their money’s worth.
Spotlight figures would be, Chris Crocker because of how annoying he is, Jerry Springer, because of how he’s such an instigator and ruins the lives of people who are already messed up… let’s see, what else… oh yes let’s not forget Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein. As well as the current president and the past presidents for the last 30 years, nothing personal but not EVERYONE likes you…um, I think we should let this go now, before I get carried away…
One can only hope that soon though, somebody finds a “healthy” outlet for their anger, maybe people would quit killing one another, they can just smash a tiny replica… then, your only out 25 bucks and not 25 years to life…
Thanks for reading,
A
"Used Cars" – Crime List
Group Members: Aaron – Clint – Mike – Lilane
The following is a list of all the crimes i could find thoughout the scenes of "Used Cars" im sure there are more, but this is what my team and i came up with:
Misrepresentation - bragging about having a mile of cars
Slander – the men misrepresenting the woman
Framing – the men made it appear the woman was using false pretenses to obtain business
Modifying records - the unauthorized editing of a commercial
Violation of copyright laws – unauthorized use and modification of protected video feed
False advertising (forgery) - numerous accounts
Assault – teacher slapping the main character
Threatening – teacher threatening to “teach a lesson”
Vandalism – breaking the mirror
Harassment – man going around emptying salt and disturbing the peace
Theft (from the house where the man was sleeping)
Lying under oath - saying, “yes” to having a mile of cars
Bribery (paying people off) - buying a politician
Sexual harassment – “coping a feel” while helping the lady down
Driving without a license – 250 student drivers NOT occupied by a licensed adult
Speeding – 250 cars exceeding 20+ over the speed limit
Following too closely – numerous accounts
Driving without proof of insurance - 250 accounts
Operating a vehicle with no registration - 250 accounts
Reckless Driving - numerous accounts
Reckless Endangerment - numerous accounts
Failure to use turn signals – numerous accounts
Failure to yield – numerous accounts
Fleeing the scene of an accident (hit and run) – accident with the cop
Assault – fighting in the backs of the trucks
Attempted Murder - numerous accounts
Driving on the wrong side of the road – highway scenes
Using water based paint (laws and regulations) – against safety for chemical reasons
Contempt of court – arguing with the judge
Illegal crossing of railroads – jumping the tracks
False advertising – to the old woman
Deception – to the old woman
The following is a list of all the crimes i could find thoughout the scenes of "Used Cars" im sure there are more, but this is what my team and i came up with:
Misrepresentation - bragging about having a mile of cars
Slander – the men misrepresenting the woman
Framing – the men made it appear the woman was using false pretenses to obtain business
Modifying records - the unauthorized editing of a commercial
Violation of copyright laws – unauthorized use and modification of protected video feed
False advertising (forgery) - numerous accounts
Assault – teacher slapping the main character
Threatening – teacher threatening to “teach a lesson”
Vandalism – breaking the mirror
Harassment – man going around emptying salt and disturbing the peace
Theft (from the house where the man was sleeping)
Lying under oath - saying, “yes” to having a mile of cars
Bribery (paying people off) - buying a politician
Sexual harassment – “coping a feel” while helping the lady down
Driving without a license – 250 student drivers NOT occupied by a licensed adult
Speeding – 250 cars exceeding 20+ over the speed limit
Following too closely – numerous accounts
Driving without proof of insurance - 250 accounts
Operating a vehicle with no registration - 250 accounts
Reckless Driving - numerous accounts
Reckless Endangerment - numerous accounts
Failure to use turn signals – numerous accounts
Failure to yield – numerous accounts
Fleeing the scene of an accident (hit and run) – accident with the cop
Assault – fighting in the backs of the trucks
Attempted Murder - numerous accounts
Driving on the wrong side of the road – highway scenes
Using water based paint (laws and regulations) – against safety for chemical reasons
Contempt of court – arguing with the judge
Illegal crossing of railroads – jumping the tracks
False advertising – to the old woman
Deception – to the old woman
"Grand Theft Auto" Lawsuit
In July 2005, Florence Cohen who is 85 from New York was upset when she purchased a copy of “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas” for her 14 yr. old grandson without knowing the game contained un-lockable sexually explicit scenes. She brought charges against the makers of the game “Take-Two” and “Rockstar games”. The game itself had been rated M for Mature, by definition means the game can only be purchased by those that are 17+. Florence Cohen then attempted to turn the case into a class action lawsuit, encouraging anyone who claims to be shocked and or offended by the hidden content to jump on board. Accused of being engaged in false, misleading and deceptive practices, Rockstar Games and Take Two Interactive regret that consumers may have been exposed to content that was not intended to be accessible in the playable version of ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’.
Personally I feel as though this grandmother had no right to file suit against the makers of a well-known “provocative, and or damaging” video game. She must have known, not only by the rating of the video game, but also the scenes and graphics covering the packaging that this video game would not be suitable for a 14 year old boy. I think it’s interesting that her problem was not with the fact you can run around, swear at people, shoot them, run over them, steal things, or become involved with organized crime; but the fact that there was some sexually explicit material. COME ON!!! Kids will learn about sex, and sexually related things from school, friends, parents, television, and yes… shocking but also video games. I DO NOT think that she had a right to sue these companies, because to be honest if you have a video game that involves violence, drugs, killing, you absolutely have to have sex… it’s seriously almost a vital part of a degenerative game. So, my statement to the old lady, “who cares, your grandson is going to see death, drugs, violence, and tits throughout life… get used to it!!”
Thanks for reading!
Personally I feel as though this grandmother had no right to file suit against the makers of a well-known “provocative, and or damaging” video game. She must have known, not only by the rating of the video game, but also the scenes and graphics covering the packaging that this video game would not be suitable for a 14 year old boy. I think it’s interesting that her problem was not with the fact you can run around, swear at people, shoot them, run over them, steal things, or become involved with organized crime; but the fact that there was some sexually explicit material. COME ON!!! Kids will learn about sex, and sexually related things from school, friends, parents, television, and yes… shocking but also video games. I DO NOT think that she had a right to sue these companies, because to be honest if you have a video game that involves violence, drugs, killing, you absolutely have to have sex… it’s seriously almost a vital part of a degenerative game. So, my statement to the old lady, “who cares, your grandson is going to see death, drugs, violence, and tits throughout life… get used to it!!”
Thanks for reading!
Megan Meier - MySpace Tragedy
Today I heard about Megan Meier, a 13 year old girl who committed suicide after an on-line breakup with a fictitious boy named “Josh Evans”. The fake account was created by three women; Lori Drew, Ashley Grills, and Sarah Drew. Sarah and Megan Lori who is 49 years old was convicted of three misdemeanor charges of unauthorized access to computers. The parents of late Megan Meier, Ron and Tina stated they have received no apologies from the women who are responsible for Megan’s death. “They’ve absolutely offered no apologies,” stated Ron, and they seek justice. “Although the drafters of the federal constitution were men of vision, they could not, of course, foresee the changing needs of our country and its people in the years to follow.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg. 5) the board of aldermen in the Meiers' hometown, Dardenne Prairie, Mo., passed a law making Internet bullying a misdemeanor in the town, and apparently Lori Drew faces a possible sentence ranging from probation to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine for each misdemeanor count.
In my own personal opinion I think this woman should be shot. What kind of 49 year old immature “bitch” would do such a thing to a 13 year old girl?! This story makes me so angry, to know there are low life, petty, disgusting, ADULTS in this world who like hurting younger innocent people. I feel as though this mother and her daughter had no business bullying Megan, they were both aware of her fragile mental condition, they were aware she was depressed and taking medicines, and to inflict emotional distress on a suicidal person is just stupid. “Both ethics and morals are concerned with standards of right and wrong.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg. 19) How could they have not known the outcome of their childish, stupid acts! I am outraged and I sincerely hope these women pay for destroying a family, ending a life, and causing grief to the remaining family members.
Thank you for reading,
Aaron Taylor
In my own personal opinion I think this woman should be shot. What kind of 49 year old immature “bitch” would do such a thing to a 13 year old girl?! This story makes me so angry, to know there are low life, petty, disgusting, ADULTS in this world who like hurting younger innocent people. I feel as though this mother and her daughter had no business bullying Megan, they were both aware of her fragile mental condition, they were aware she was depressed and taking medicines, and to inflict emotional distress on a suicidal person is just stupid. “Both ethics and morals are concerned with standards of right and wrong.” (Essentials of Business Law, Liuzzo, pg. 19) How could they have not known the outcome of their childish, stupid acts! I am outraged and I sincerely hope these women pay for destroying a family, ending a life, and causing grief to the remaining family members.
Thank you for reading,
Aaron Taylor
EOC Week 1 Comment
I went to Evelyn Lee's BLOG and read her post on the first weeks EOC.
i left the following comment:
I agree with what you said, just like many other groups of professions, or other groups of people in the world, everyone is put into a category based off their profession. I don’t think generalization is fair but it’s pretty much the way the world works. I think that lawyers can be used for "good or evil" just like everyone else, they create their own path in life.
i left the following comment:
I agree with what you said, just like many other groups of professions, or other groups of people in the world, everyone is put into a category based off their profession. I don’t think generalization is fair but it’s pretty much the way the world works. I think that lawyers can be used for "good or evil" just like everyone else, they create their own path in life.
What do you think of lawyers?
My opinion on Lawyers… well, I believe lawyers are misunderstood people, most of them striving to do well in society, trying to protect people and help those who need representation. The world is a mean place, and without the legal representation of a lawyer, most people would be “overrun” by the government, and other people. Personally I have not had to “deal” with a lawyer, but when I was a young child, I was fascinated by courtroom movies, where a man, or woman would stand and speak with passion… and the entire room would listen to them! They have meaning and bring justice to those who deserve it. Personally I think we should all be thankful for having lawyers around, it’s not like an average person can walk into a courtroom and do what they do… besides the fact that they can dominate a courtroom, and eloquently persuade a situation, most of the time lawyers are found researching, reading and writing, sitting behind a desk… its only about 10% of their time can they be found in the court room. So, the next time you want to bad mouth a lawyer, think about what would happen if you were in the Bellagio hotel, and slipped while exiting the shower, there were supposed to be non slip, grip pads on the bottom of the tub, but there weren’t. Would you sue for your broken hip? Who would you call? A lawyer… so, to summarize my opinion… I think lawyers are very useful members of society, and I also believe they provide a great service for the public… the day might come when I will need to call on a lawyers help, and probably the same for you!
Thanks for reading!
Aaron
Thanks for reading!
Aaron
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Latest:.
I have to say that 2017 has been epic interesting... Thinking about the past several years and wrapping that up in a blog post, a blog t...
-
My opinion on Lawyers… well, I believe lawyers are misunderstood people, most of them striving to do well in society, trying to protect peop...
-
I have to say that 2017 has been epic interesting... Thinking about the past several years and wrapping that up in a blog post, a blog t...