Forced Abortion and Media

A Texas court granted a Texas teenager the right to have a child against the wishes of her parents.  In two articles, one by Fox News and one by CNN,  we see a divergent view of what actually happened.  While one news source refers to the teenager's lawyer as Carey and the other as Casey (as of my 10:47 am viewing of the web pages), they cherry-pick quotes that gives the appearance that these are in fact two different people.  The Fox News article has Carey triumphantly proclaiming that this is a "victory for life" whereas the CNN story has Casey arguing that Roe v. Wade guarantees the right for women to choose the fate of their pregnancies.  We end up with a feel good story for both sides of the abortion debate at the best, and conscious disregard for the underlying philosophical debates at the worst.

What is also notable is that the lawyer works for an anti-abortion group specializing in pro-life litigation.  However, I question these tactics.  The winning argument, well maybe not for a Texas court, is that is is insane for someone to force any woman to abort a child against their will, regardless of the risk to the person or baby.  Otherwise, parents can undermine the autonomy of a woman in child bearing decisions simply because she is a minor.

There could be a further underlying strategic goal here.  In a case in which a teenager wishes to get an abortion over her parents wishes, she still must overcome the general state interest in preserving life, which courts have been using to justify various hurdles for teenagers to over come to procure abortions.  In contrast, here the state interest doubles down on the teenagers interest in having a child and protects the child from overbearing parents.

We can also look at this the other way.  If the state is so willing to protect a child whose parents are trying to coerce her into having an abortion, why is the state so unwilling to protect a child from coercion from parents forcing the teenager into having the child.  It seems inconsistent to me to say that a parent has no say over child bearing decisions in one case, and in the other case can use anything short of abuse in the other situation to coerce a child.

The pro-choice lobby would be wise to take on more of these easy to win cases to prevent the pollution of workable jurisprudence uphold the reproductive rights of women.  The right to autonomy over ones self requires that there be no overbearing influence forcing action in one direction or another. The pro-choice lobby should see that the Roe v. Wade doctrine is not interpreted to say that coercion is only bad if only done in one direction.

NFL and back in America

Today I'll just give a few thoughts on Sundays Chargers game. The game began with a little deja vu, a kick return for a touchdown on the very first play of the season. It's hard to think that this could be an aberration. As a result, Kaeding is out for the season. It is really hard to pinpoint what is wrong here, but hopefully its a one time thing as most NFL teams manage their special teams with bench players without issue. However, the tone set by this play was apparent in the poor play by the Chargers in the first half. The half was punctuated by Rivers being upset on a 4th and 20 play that Turner was afraid to give the go ahead to Scifres to kick the field goal. The second half proved different, the defense looked better, and despite a pedestrian game for Rivers usual standard, they pulled of the W. The turning point may as well have been Scifres kicking and ugly looking, but good field goal from about 40 yards out. Hopefully this is a sign that the Chargers will be able to handle adversity this season as opposed to fading when it counts. Coach Turner is on the hot seat, and should be on his team to keep their heads in the game. My heart says yes he can, but my brain says no. Lets hope the Chargers show some heart., AND play with their brains this season.

We don't need no education

Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" came up in my iTunes today. I lead me to think about how rebelling against the constrictions of education, in the era that song was written, was an expression of free thought. Today in contemporary America, I feel the tables have turned. Now the people railing against education are typically conservative Christians and libertarians. Pink Floyd sings "we don't need no thought control," indicating that in school, kids are forced to think a certain way, and as a result become little automatons to serve whatever overlord reigns supreme over the education system. The anti-public education right seems imply on the other hand that we don't need no critical thinking. We have everything figured out; there is no need to analyze society, science, or superstition. The claims are based mostly on the creationism vs. big bang/evolutionary theory conflict for conservative Christians, and based on some sort of socialist career decisions by the libertarians.
I bring this up because, when I reminisce, my personal experience was that the public school system 'opened my mind.' If I was to be educated by the cultural institutions of where I grew up, for example, I would not know that condoms existed. It was a select few teachers that, while running school in the draconian manner teens despise, implanted feeling of critical thought over the decisions that were being impressed upon you. Can we blame the free thinking anti-educations movement from the past for bringing us to where we are today, where there is a contempt for the education system, even by those who don't subscribe to right wing ideology?

Colbert's De-mock-cracy

I found the entire Steven Colbert SuperPAC transgression of events highly amusing, and impressively, politically relevant. The opinion of (presumably liberal) commentators is that the decision in Citizens United v. FEC, regardless on the constitutionality of the actual campaign finance law, will allow unimpeded growth of the influence of corporations on the political process. This can be done through unlimited spending from Super Political Action Committees, (SuperPACs). I have not read the decision, but I agree with this sentiment. However, a bunch of whining about the results of the decision will have effect. Colbert, TV's out sized mock political pundit, has found a far more effective way of combating this growth. After clarifying his relationship with his employer, Viacom, he was able to start his own superPAC.
What can the conceivable point of this be? He is collecting money from fans of the show, and in return, the donors get their name scrolled on the bottom of the screen. This can be seen as a nice publicity stunt. However, when looking at the write in Rick Parry, with an 'A', commercial campaign, we can establish that Mr. Colbert has done more to shine light on the critical part of this issue. By using the superPAC funds to confuse the democratic process, he is successful in showing us what no one else has been able to; these superPACs have the ability to make a complete mockery of our political process. Those with the most money can subvert, mislead, or simply 'out shout' the other side. While Colbert's mockery makes for good comedy, other mockery can have a much more sinister purpose.

Bike to School Day

Today is the first day I rode my bicycle to school. Initially, I have been nervous about riding in San Francisco because of the hills. The Bike Coalition provides a great resource to map out ideal routes to take while cycling.  Unfortunately, it requires you to remember a lot of of left and right turns to stay on a less steep path. The way to school was great, mostly downhill, and only about 30 minutes. That is a full 15 minutes faster than my bus trip.  The way back home was more difficult. I chose to follow this route known as "The Wiggle."  The Wiggle zig zags it's way up the hills from near the Castro up toward the Panhandle. The path was amazingly flat feeling.  I made a wrong turn up a steep hill, a turn I hope I don't repeat.

Another enjoyable aspect of the day, was watching cyclists interactions with the car driving public. There are enough cyclists, that they feel empowered to yell at people for texting, or running red lights. I observed both of these events today. I saved $4, and probably burned off half of lunch. I think I'll strive to ride 2-3 days a week, but with the time to get to school, it may have to be at least TO school, everyday.

Introduction, Spacing after periods

Hello, my name is Kevin. I am currently a 1L (in law school parlance) at UC Hastings in San Francisco. I've decided to start a blog primarily just to provide a source of writing practice for myself. If something interesting, intellectually stimulating, or simply amusing comes from this, so be it. I will be covering things that I have some sort of vested interest: law, law school, politics, economics, indie rock, travel, and sports.

As I type, I am confronted with the desire to use one or two spaces after the end of sentences. I've read recently in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2281146/), that the common style now is the single space. I am now trying to use one space, but after years of typing classes ramming it into my head to use two spaces, it is incredibly difficult to do. I am glad they have moved toward the single space because I always hated to use two spaces, especially because of the clunky way it would make abbreviations look, such as Mr. I have yet to learn what the preference for the legal profession is, but I'm sure it will serve to confuse me.  After flipping through my legal citations guide, I noticed a few double spaces. Am I ready for the confusion?  I sure hope so.  Are there any grammar or style freaks who love to feel superior? You have a great resource here and I will actually commend you for corrections.

A few upcoming topics I would like to touch include: Steven Colbert's Super Pac and the Citizens United decision, the Republican presidential primaries, how technology allow us to cater media to smaller groups, the San Diego Chargers season, and my first impressions of law school.