The Fight For Love Is Not Over

Today marks a historic day for LGBT rights in this country. The highest court in the land just smacked down gay marriage bans throughout the U.S., and it's a cause for celebration. But all that was decided today is what the law says about who can marry. It doesn't change the beliefs of millions of Americans who still think marriage is reserved for heterosexuals.

As Roberts writes in his dissent:

"Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view.   That ends today.   Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law.  Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept."

Roberts acknowledges the rising support for same-sex marriage, but argues that by taking the decision out of the hands of the electorate, proponents of same-sex marriage have essentially shot themselves in the foot, achieving their goals at the expense of winning over the hearts and minds of those opposed. To him, votes, not court decisions, should decide the most debated issues of the day.

Of course, if that reasoning always held sway, you'd still have states banning interracial marriage.

Still, it's an important argument to ponder. Just because the right to marry has been won, does that mean the fight is over? Or has today's decision hardened the foes of equality?

One need only look at the civil rights battle fought by African-Americans. Court decisions removed the shields racists hid behind when they segregated and disenfranchised people based on skin color. But the courts couldn't erase the hate, or oust the institutionalized racism that has remained engrained throughout society. Heck, it took until this week for people to even seriously consider removing the Confederate flag from state buildings.  We're 152 years past slavery, and it hasn't been enough time to heal all the wounds.

Today #LoveWins. But as Roberts reminds us, it wasn't won where it should have been. Gutless politicians passed the buck, on both sides of the debate. People in parts of this country can still garner enough votes to gain control over other people's bodies and love lives. Instead of this decision coming from the top, or coming from the masses, it came in sideways. Law seeks to make an immediate impact, but real societal change comes slowly.

The fight against discrimination isn't over. There are many more hearts and minds to be won.

Florida: A Fine Place To Get Shot And Killed

In Florida, a man shot and killed a teenager because he thought the kid looked suspicious. The boy was guilty of buying skittles and iced tea, and walking on the sidewalk in the gated community where his father lives.

The national media has picked up the story and run with it. "The guy was a racist," seems to be the prevailing opinion.

But the race of the boy (or the shooter, a hispanic man), is immaterial. The biggest issue is the law that let the shooter get away with murder.

In Florida, it's perfectly legal to shoot someone and kill them. You will not be charged with a crime. All you need to do is claim self-defense. And that's it. You're off, scot-free.

According to a state website explaining the law:

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself? A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are: Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm; Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.

The problem is... this is all pretty vague. "Serious bodily harm?" What is that?

The page cites an example of an altercation where Florida law wouldn't allow you to shoot someone dead:

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Now, Trayvon Martin didn't have a garden hose. He had a pack of skittles. Iced tea. The only weapon he had were his hands. The man who shot him outweighed him by several pounds and was much older.

We don't know for sure who physically attacked who first. What is clear is that George Zimmerman, the shooter, was following the boy with the intention of confronting him. If it hadn't been for Zimmerman's actions, no altercation would have taken place.

What we have then is a scenario quite different from the one imagined on Florida's government website. This is not two neighbors fighting with garden hoses. In this scenario, a man started a confrontation with a boy, and when the argument turned violent, that man whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the chest.

If this is allowed to happen, with no charges filed, no arrests made, then what precedent does it set?? If this is the way the police interpret Florida's self-defense law, then is anything preventing any of these scenarios:

1. Man decides he wants to kill somebody, anybody. Walks down the street, deliberately goads a stranger into a fight. Purposely loses the upper hand, whips out his pistol, fires. Stranger is dead.

2. Man decides he wants to kill his wife. He shoots her. Puts a kitchen knife in her hand. "It was her or me, officers," he says.

3. Man sees suspicious-looking youths loitering in front of his store. He calls them a derogatory cuss word, tells them to leave the sidewalk. The kids yell back. One youth approaches. The man whips out his pistol, shoots him, claiming he feared the boy had a gun.

In the first scenario, the guy is a deranged lunatic. But none of that matters, according to Florida's self-defense laws. There is no way to prove the man's intentions to kill. All the evidence we have is the encounter on the street. Witnesses who arrive late to the scene may never see what started to altercation. They only see a man being attacked. The killer walks.

In the second scenario, the guy is a calculated killer. But where is the evidence of his intentions? Maybe the wife confided in friends and relatives that she feared her husband. But if she didn't? All you have is a guy trying to protect himself from his knife-wielding wife. The killer walks.

In the third scenario, the guy is paranoid. He sees youths, possibly of a different race, and he assumes they're there to rob his store. He initiates the entire conflict with his paranoia and racism. But he was, after all, outnumbered, and its perfectly understandable that he thought he was going to be attacked. Does he walk?

My point is, the Florida law creates an enormous gray area, where the difference between murder and self-defense comes down to unknowable intentions and differing points-of-view. The law shouldn't be something that rests upon the nuances of a crime. It should rest on the facts. A sure sign that a law is no good is when it's seemingly applied at random.

Trayvon Martin is dead because of George Zimmerman. This is a fact. But the law that allows Zimmerman to remain free? That's based on nothing more than assumptions. What kind of legal system treats the facts of the case with contempt while giving priority to the paranoid feelings of a narcissistic neighborhood watch captain?

Well, the Florida legal system.

It's bad enough the state is known as a place where old people come to die. If shootings like this keep happening, it'll be known as a place where the young come to die as well.

UPDATE (3/20): Slate basically agrees with everything I wrote, in their article, which I read this morning. They provide a few real world examples beyond the Martin case.

UPDATE 2: The FBI and DOJ are now investigating the matter.

Fountain Lady Has Lawyer, But Absolutely No Case

This video is hilarious:



This video is sad: "Fountain Lady" Ponders Lawsuit

The original video posted on YouTube did not identify the woman, and the resolution of the tape is insufficient to identify the woman either. The only reason the woman was identified was because she identified herself as the bumbling texter, gave interviews to newspapers and went on television.

So did the video cause her humiliation? Or did she?

She also claims no one came to her aid. As is apparent in the video, not many people saw her. Only one person in the video can be seen looking directly at the incident... and he approaches the woman to ask if she's alright.

The woman got up and out of the fountain swiftly. She didn't appear injured, just embarrassed. Was this something mall security really had to respond to? This seems like something that's not part of their job description.

But now of course, she's planning to sue.

Given the video evidence, she'd fail in court. The threatened lawsuit is simply a ploy to extract a settlement from a mall owner who probably won't want to spend the money to lawyer up. The woman's lawyer is betting they'll settle for a sum less than potential lawyer fees and court costs. Meanwhile, the woman's lawyer will get a percentage of the settlement and some free publicity for his practice.

The irony is, the woman could have spun this into considerably more money by NOT suing. She could have taken advantage of her comic pratfall, spinning it into ads for cell phone unlimited texting plans or one of those, "Wanna Get Away?" Southwest Airlines commercials. I mean, that crying Britney Spears guy made a few bucks, any YouTube viral star should be able to.

Now she's just another sad example of America's love affair with litigation.

Why I Think Pot Should Still Be Illegal



Yoooo, duuuude. It's four-twenty, man. Fore- twen - tee. 420!!! Haha. You guys know what I'm talking about. Well, maybe not you losers. You don't know what I'm talking about. Or maybe you think you know what I'm talking about, but what I'm talking about isn't what you think I'm talking about. Even though I'm not actually talking, I'm writing. But you cool people know what I'm talkin about. What was I talking about?

Oh yeah. 420. Gathering together a few of your best buds, putting on some Phish, kickin back and chillin until someone says "I really feel like some White Castle," and you say, "Yeah man, me too," and then you drive there and it takes for-evvv-ver but then you eat some chicken rings dipped in honey mustard and you're like, "Dude, who ever came up with a chicken ring?" And your friend is like, yo, "Check it, I can blow a smoke ring through a chicken ring!" And you're like, "Awesome!"

Ah yes. 420. Like Christmas in April, except you burn trees instead of decorating them. And instead of Santa Claus, there's Seth Rogen. He doesn't come down your chimney, he smokes like one. Trust me, those jokes are wayyy funny if you're high.

But some people want to spend 420 gettin all protesty. Seems they want 420 to be less about a secret club of burners gettin high, and more about petitioning the Federal government to legalize Mary Jane. What a buzzkill.

Why you all out protestin? Come on man. It's 420. Spark it up. If you get busted by the cops, it's because you're being stupid. You stanked up your entire apartment building, and the neighbors called the cops? That's your bad dude. Not everyone likes the smell of weed. If it was legal, you'd still be an asshole for making poor old Miss McGillicutty wear a clothespin on her nose.

You got busted while hotboxing on the Garden State Parkway? That's your bad, dude. Fumbling with a lighter while doing 65 MPH? If pot was legal, you'd still be an idiot for driving while intoxicated.

You got busted while burning at a concert? Dude, cigarettes are banned at most concerts and public gatherings now. And there's some 8 year old with their dad sitting next to you. If weed was legal, you'd still be an asshole for blowing smoke all over people who may not want it.

You think legalized weed would be a free-for-all fun-happy-land with weed at every corner drugstore? Guess what? The government would tax the shit the same as cigarettes, you'd probably be paying just as much as you do now. Grow a plant in your backyard? You could, but when was the last time you grew anything? What are you, Farmer John? You got a degree in botany? Face it dude, you killed that cactus your girlfriend bought you. You'd still be buying from other people.

We live in a country that's slowly pushed cigarette smokers to the outside of everything. Legalized weed would put you right next to them. And you'd still be reprimanded for being high at work, high at your sister's piano recital, high at school. Just because it's legal doesn't mean everyone's gonna suddenly be okay with you ripping into a bag of Doritos, babbling about the hidden message in the Lord of the Rings movie and falling asleep at your desk. They'll still think you're an idiot.

Sure, there would never be a situation where you couldn't get pot. But think about it. That means no more road trips to your friend at college in Vermont because it seems the whole Northeast has suddenly gone dry. No more of those moments when you're meeting two guys from the Bronx at the rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, just because your local boys fell through. No more searching for that one nugget you swore you dropped somewhere behind your dresser two years ago. No more being that kid who shows up to the party, and makes a dozen friends just by uttering those four magic words, "Yo, anybody wanna burn?"

Instead, you'll have Edwin Schrint, band geek, showing up behind the Denny's with a pack of Marlboro Ultra Danks, forcing you to find a new hangout spot to avoid him.

When the person who handed you your first joint said, "Everybody's doing it," they didn't mean "Everybody." They meant, "Everybody cool, everybody adventurous. Everybody fun and unconventional. Everybody interesting and daring." They didn't mean Mrs. Bitterman, the teacher who gave you an F for not showing the work on your math test.

Keep the potheads out of jail. Fine. But don't suddenly say, "Pot is legal," and open the door to everyone not cool enough to figure out how to smoke, discreetly and privately. Don't take away the rituals (Febreeze, a wet towel, Pure Citrus Air Freshener) and the secrets that make burning such a unique bonding experience. And in a country where smoking-related illness costs millions of dollars, and millions of lives a year, don't suddenly send the message, "Smoking is Ok because its legal." Why open that can of worms?

I've been around enough people who smoke to know that there are some people who just shouldn't smoke. The fact that it's illegal causes most stoners to be smart. To be careful. To be considerate. To not overdo it. Make it legal, and some of the space cases just may float off the grid entirely.

So reduce the penalties if you want. Get rid of jail time. But don't take away the one thing that makes pot cool. That's just not... cool, man.

Justice, War Zone Style

Soldier kills a fellow soldier in a hit-and-run accident. Multiple witnesses, and a confession. The verdict? Not Guilty.

Killer Cats

The New York Times has an interesting article about wild cats decimating the bird population throughout the world, especially in island and seashore habitats. One bird lover took it upon himself to shoot the offending furballs.

"For the cats, it’s easy pickings. They’re popping birds like they were M & M’s." -cat shooter Jim Stevenson.

Here at Adam's Life, we believe cats are just like people (and dogs are just like really dumb people). As such, some are cute and cuddly, and others would make Ted Bundy afraid.

So I'm not sure shooting them is the answer. The guy who shot the cat didn't catch the cat in the act of eating a bird. How did he know that the cat he shot was one of the bad ones? Maybe that cat was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, lured to the bird's nesting grounds by some of his cat frat brothers, in some sort of cat hazing ritual. Maybe that cat just came to the bird nesting grounds because that's where all the hot female cats hung out. My point is, that poor cat was executed without due process. And that's just un-American.

So what do I propose? How do we solve the feral cat problem? Simple, my friends...

Cat jails.



Two "Cat Jail" Prototypes

In every municipality dealing with a feral cat problem, we set up special tribunals to try accused cats. Each cat will be assigned a public defender, and the prosecution will have to prove that the de-feline-dent actually committed a crime.

If convicted, the cat will receive a sentence anywhere from community service (forced to pick up trash along the highway) to life behind bars (I don't believe in the death penalty).

Now, I know what you're saying. This will cost taxpayers billions. It will make a mockery of the criminal justice system. Billions, you say? Well how much are we spending on the war?? A mockery of the criminal justice system? Um... hello, remember this?:


The System Doesn't Work

Cat jails will work as a deterrent, making feral cats think twice about attacking endangered birds. And they can pay for themselves... just charge admission to cat lovers, turning each cat jail into a sort of petting zoo.

The more I think about this, the more I'm convinced it will work. So write your congressman. Tell him you don't want another cent of your taxpayer dollars going towards the war, and you want it all directed towards cat jails. It's the only humane way to deal with this problem.