America, Facts, Law, Mainstream Media, Politics, Social Media

The Danger of Basing Your Opinions on Opinions.

adraper

Americans have become overly reliant on others doing our work for us. In our domestic duties we have Rumbas so we don’t have to sweep and dishwashers so we don't have to wash a dish. Then we have people that prepare our food for us and have Doordash deliver it to our doorstep. We have innovated and innovated until we barely have to do anything for ourselves anymore — and this includes forming opinions. We don't need to do research and read to form an opinion because the media will do it for us. STRENGTHEN YOUR POSITION IN THE INFORMATION CHAIN Back in the 80's, we'd have slumber parties and play slumber party games. One of these games was called "Telephone." It's often used as an icebreaker and for object lessons. If you're not familiar with it, it goes something like this — everyone gets in a line and one person begins by whispering a phrase into the ear of

the person next to them. As people turn and pass the information down the line, problems in communication inevitably arise. People would whisper too quietly. Or people would laugh and forget parts of the phrase. And if forgotten they'd fill in the blanks with their best guess. Occasionally, you'd get a guy who purposely tried to mess it up. By the time the last person received the message they had to say it out loud for everyone to hear. The phrase “Jenny went to the store last night and bought a little stuffed weasel that she used to decorate her chicken coop so her chickens wouldn't poop" would turn into something like "Jimmy went to the store and bought stuff so that her chickens could make decorations from poop." ROLES IN THE INFORMATION CHAIN Even small misconceptions or misinterpretations that occur when the message is transmitted can end up making a huge difference in terms of the accuracy of the…

America, Politics, Social Media

Americans ARE Capable of Respectful Social Media Discourse — A Spirited Discussion on Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich Policy.

adraper

Americans are considered the product of a "melting pot" because their backgrounds, ethnicities and habits are so diverse. If they can't even agree on something as simple as a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, how can they agree on social policy? Yesterday I did the unthinkable and posted a truly controversial post on my Facebook feed. I described in specific detail how I construct a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. I felt compelled to discuss this because I consider myself somewhat of an expert. I've probably eaten close to 100,000 peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. And once I refined my recipe I've never felt any reason to vary from my process or PB&J ideology — until today. My recipe was simple: Crunchy peanut butter and fruit jam/jelly and fresh bread. Peanut butter should go on one side of the bread and jelly on the other. And when finished, the two pieces should go right back together matching their original alignment

from inside the bag. The bread has lines on the top of the crust and a distinct shape. This should not be bastardized when assembling the sandwich. I thought my idea was pretty straightforward. Apparently, even discussing the creation of a proper Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich in America is not that simple. The first person who chimed in was Austin Stevenot. I thought my post was really going somewhere when he literally liked my post and commented that he agreed 100%. Although he brought up something that made me think. Having always made my sandwich ONE WAY, I had never considered that someone would want anything other than chunky peanut butter. It seemed Austin was challenging me to see if we shared the same beliefs. Austin Stevenot: Would that be crunchy or smooth peanut butter? From his question, I knew that there would be challengers to my idea of a peanut butter sandwich. My answer was simple. Me: I…

Black Lives Matter, Law Enforcement, Politics, Religion

White Privilege — according to a White guy.

adraper

I am white. And I benefit from white privilege. Before I wrote this, I spent a lot of time soul searching trying to decide how I felt about it. I know that some of you will have a knee jerk reaction to this — especially if you're white. I know you aren't used to being defined by your race or singled out because of it. I also know that you will probably bristle at the word privilege. Privilege makes it sound like we are part of high society, that we've never had struggles and misfortunes or that we've always been treated fairly. Privilege in this sense doesn't mean any of those things. Some in the media purposely confuse privilege to mean you haven't worked hard or earned the accomplishments you've made. They use privilege to mean that everything's come easy to you. I have struggled with my health - I get CT scans for cancer every several months. I have

struggled economically - due to health reasons I lost my business, laid off my employees and had to declare bankruptcy. I have struggled socially with personal relationships - I am divorced. Many Whites in my boat would probably say, "Hell man, if there's one thing my life ain't - it's privileged." And they'd be right. But I still benefit from white privilege. I don't feel guilty for being White. I also don't feel guilty for benefiting from white privilege and neither should you. I'm not here to race shame you. My goal is to help you understand, as I have understood, some ways that I have it easier because of the color of my skin. For those of you who are still feeling defensive, how about instead of acting like we gain a privilege for being White, let's frame the argument in a different way — Blacks lose privileges for being Black. In this way we avoid discussing it as…

Law, Law Enforcement, Politics

“Defund the Police”: Giving Law Enforcement the Right Tools

adraper

In the past few weeks, the nation has seen an alarming amount of instances where law enforcement has broken the law in its interactions with protestors. This is ironic since those that are sworn to enforce the law are the ones breaking it. It makes the situation doubly ironic when the protestors who are being subject to police brutality are protesting just that - police brutality. It's sad to see law enforcement make the case against itself. While some interactions are racially motivated, there are others that have nothing to do with race. I believe that, more often that not, officers encounter situations outside their job descriptions and training. Imagine a scenario where peaceful protestors airing grievances aren't met with police in riot gear riding in military vehicles (which would escalate a peaceful situation) but are met by a mediator, trained in solving complex problems between hostile parties. Force is not the right tool for many situations. It's like law

enforcement has been trained to see things as though a square peg will fit into all the different shapes on the toy. The issue is, the toy has various different shapes that require skills officers don't possess. One shape could be mental illness, another suicide prevention, while another could be a domestic dispute. All of these require the right shape or you end up trying to force the square peg into the round hole. The truth is, this is insanely unfair to the public and to law enforcement. Officers Aren't Equipped to Handle Certain Situations The Academy, a police training organization lists their curriculum and hours required to graduate from their program. Cadets attend the academy for a total of 888 hours. This breaks down to twenty two 40-hour weeks of learning. In other words, cadets go to school from 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. 5 days a week for 5 and a half months. https://theacademy.ca.gov/fire - The Academy, South…

Constitution, Law, Politics, Religion

Who says the government can infringe upon your rights? The Constitution.

adraper

Recently, I've been reading about people who say it's unconstitutional for the government to infringe upon their rights. I'm nearing the end of my third year of law school and am in my Constitutional Law class right now preparing for an upcoming final. The cases that form the precedent for how we evaluate when and how the federal and state government can infringe upon our rights are fascinating and a great read. But the facts are that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Supreme Court is tasked with interpreting the Constitution. Nobody else. This is why their case law is so important - it's how you learn how they interpret the Constitution. In an analysis to determine if the government (here the State government) can infringe upon a right, you must first determine what kind of right is being infringed upon. (We'll leave religion out of this analysis because the Free Exercise of Religion and

the Establishment Clause have another type of analysis.) The right that is being infringed upon is the right to work, to go outside, to hang out with family and friends in gatherings, etc. This is a liberty right and it is considered a fundamental right. A fundamental right is one that is deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty such that neither liberty nor justice would exist if they were sacrificed. This is important because in order to infringe upon a fundamental right, the government must pass the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review. This standard is called strict scrutiny. In order for a government to infringe upon the rights stated above, they must meet ALL of the following elements:1. The ordinance or law is necessary in order to achieve a "compelling state interest";2. The law or ordinance is "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and3. That the…