Harry Potter
Here in the Bible belt, we have a problem. We actually have a number of problems, but this is one that is particularly irksome. Perhaps its just that I’m an outsider looking in, a recent transplant that doesn’t understand the oppressive mentality of enforced moralistic jargon that tells people to believe one way or stand on hot coals for eternity – which can be quite effective when dealing with easily-led people. I am truly irked by the current crusade against Harry Potter that seems the focal point of life down here whenever a new book or movie about that bespectacled young man appears.
I’m truly surprised by some, who, in fact, rave about the greatness of the Lord of the Rings (the movies, of course – I doubt any of these folks actually read the books) while denigrating a series of children’s books that have a good deal in common, character-wise. The ties are easy to see: look at the four main characters in The Lord of the Rings and the four main characters in the Harry Potter series.
First, we have Gandalf, a wizard, age undetermined, who has great powers and will appear to save the day at the last moment. Compare Gandalf to Albus Dumbledore, a wizard, age undetermined, who has great powers as well and appears on a regular basis to rescue Potter. Next, look to Frodo Baggins. Frodo is an orphan, who inherited a decent fortune from a kind relative: a fortune including a ring that must be used to destroy evil. Harry Potter, Frodo’s counterpart, is an orphan who inherited a decent fortune from his kind parents: as well as a scar from his past that indicates the evil he must destroy. Compare Samwise Gamgee, Frodo’s bumbling but noble buddy, to Ron Weasly – Harry’s bumbling but noble buddy. The primary villains of Sauron and Voldemort both share so many aspects that they need not be listed.
Some of the trouble lies in the fact that many opponents of Harry Potter haven’t read a book on their own that hasn’t been recommended by “preacher” in their entire lives. “Preacher says that Harry Potter is the devil’s tool.” Preacher also tells these people that while Harry Potter, a series of books about a kid trying to survive school with a homicidal ghost following his footsteps, is wrong; the Left Behind books, which describe in detail a wrathful holocaust of five billion people who aren’t Protestant Christians and encourage bigotry against all non-Christians, are just fine.
I don’t have a problem with people who read the books and decide that they are unacceptable for their own children: you have the right, as a parent, to serve as a filter between your children and all forms of media. However, and this is a vast qualification, I do request that before you refuse your children access to something that may encourage them to actually read, you actually read that work, watch that movie, or hear the music yourself before prohibiting it. Who knows? You may discover in those books the same timeless facets of adolescent grief that make them so popular.
It’s striking, really. Fairytales are just fine. The mystical stories of the apocalypse found in Revelation, which scare the hell out of small children, are fine as well. Christian mythology is full of stories that are much more violent, much more frightening, and almost as unbelievable as Harry Potter. Before I’m attacked for my use of the word “mythology,” let me explain (although I’m sure that some people read that word and immediately headed off to their local book-burning revival).
The word “mythology” is accurately used to describe theological beliefs of all sorts that are not believed in by a society. We think it’s just fine to discredit Greek Mythology, even though millions of ancient Greeks believed in it very deeply - deeply enough that their Roman conquerors adopted the views for themselves. We characterize Native American theology as mythology. We call Buddhist and Hindu theology mythology.
What we really mean, but aren’t willing to say, is that we are so egocentric that we will deny all other valid forms of belief because they disagree with our narrow viewpoint. Perhaps the several billion Buddhists or Hindi in the world call our religion “mythology.” Picture this: some dude wanders around with twelve other guys, preaching peace and raising the dead. After he is executed for telling people that they should be kind to one another, he decides not to be dead anymore and gets up, walks around with big holes in his hands, says goodbye to his homies, and then disappears back up into Heaven. This same dude, by the way, who preached love, peace, and all that jazz, will suddenly suffer a schizophrenic personality change when he reappears at the end of the world to kill everyone who disagreed with his peaceful, loving message.
Sounds pretty unbelievable, right? Yet to many millions of people, it is the foundation for their lives. This message of peace, love, and not fucking the neighbor’s wife, it’s actually a pretty good way to live your life. The message of salvation and hope for eternal life is pretty nice too. That doesn’t make it any more a fact than anything that might be read on the cover of The Weekly World News.
Harry Potter is not the devil. He is not the Antichrist. Harry Potter is just the subject of a series of books that describe something that many kids wish for: magical powers to help cope with reality; which sucks just as much for him as it does for them (except for that maniac who wants to kill him). Being adolescent has never been easy, and there’s nothing wrong with a daydream (which is what Freud called all creative writing). Kids know the difference between their play and reality; which is probably one reason they do play. Allowing someone an hour or two of escape into the daydreams of another won’t ruin their lives; and so far as I know, most teachers would give anything for kids to read as much as the voracious fans of Harry Potter do.
---
currently playing on miPod - Symphony no 25. - 1st movement - W. A. Mozart
Friday, April 14, 2006
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Morality without Religion?
In response to one of my recent posts, an intelligent reader gave me a fairly challenging assignment. Paraphrased, it went something like this: "How can we have morality without religion? From whence would such moral or ethical codes derive?" It gave me a headache - so, well done - but I have a response. Please note - this is a theoretical response only, one designed to state a possible answer, and I'm sure that there are more than this available; however, I'm not interested in changing the overarching subject area named above, so this will be the only one I present.
Among the strongest instincts in the world is self preservation. The theory of evolution survives because of this principle: flora and fauna will do whatever is necessary to survive. In human beings, the need for self-preservation extends into a rational state - an "if/then" statement - that could be stated thus: "IF I am to preserve those things most important to me, including my life and the lives of those for whom I care most deeply, THEN I must expect that others will wish likewise for themselves."
This communal sense of self-preservation is among the oldest elements in human civilization: the need for a state is predicated upon such. Among prehistoric peoples, tribes would coalesce around the strongest members, those who could not only preserve themselves best, but also train others to do so. The feudal system of governing is based - in part - upon this principle: in exchange for protection from a feudal lord, to whom one paid taxes, one expected a certain level of legal protection for those things held most dear to the self. Of course, this did not preclude corruption - it was merely a basis upon which the system was supported. On a macro-scale, the feudal lord was bannerman to a higher lord. When the realm was threatened, the highest lord of the land would call his bannermen, who would, in turn, call upon "their people," and the collective force - read: ARMY - would protect the land and holdings, thereby the way of life... extrapolate downward.
In a rational, republican system, such as ours, "the people" pay taxes to the Federal government, who, in turn, allocates nationally-held resources for the preservation and protection of those to whom its existence is owed (again, the people).
Where does morality fit in? We'll use a couple of "if/then" statements, with a moral, and further, a legal statement:
-------
currently on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller
Among the strongest instincts in the world is self preservation. The theory of evolution survives because of this principle: flora and fauna will do whatever is necessary to survive. In human beings, the need for self-preservation extends into a rational state - an "if/then" statement - that could be stated thus: "IF I am to preserve those things most important to me, including my life and the lives of those for whom I care most deeply, THEN I must expect that others will wish likewise for themselves."
This communal sense of self-preservation is among the oldest elements in human civilization: the need for a state is predicated upon such. Among prehistoric peoples, tribes would coalesce around the strongest members, those who could not only preserve themselves best, but also train others to do so. The feudal system of governing is based - in part - upon this principle: in exchange for protection from a feudal lord, to whom one paid taxes, one expected a certain level of legal protection for those things held most dear to the self. Of course, this did not preclude corruption - it was merely a basis upon which the system was supported. On a macro-scale, the feudal lord was bannerman to a higher lord. When the realm was threatened, the highest lord of the land would call his bannermen, who would, in turn, call upon "their people," and the collective force - read: ARMY - would protect the land and holdings, thereby the way of life... extrapolate downward.
In a rational, republican system, such as ours, "the people" pay taxes to the Federal government, who, in turn, allocates nationally-held resources for the preservation and protection of those to whom its existence is owed (again, the people).
Where does morality fit in? We'll use a couple of "if/then" statements, with a moral, and further, a legal statement:
- IF I want to remain alive, THEN I must expect that others want the same; therefore, IF staying alive is "good," THEN it must be "bad" to take a life. We'll make a law against murder, but IF someone tries to take my life ("bad") then it is legal to do whatever is necessary to protect myself ("good"). So - murder=illegal, unless in self-defense.
- IF I want to keep my stuff, THEN I should expect others will want to do the same; therefore, IF keeping my stuff is "good," THEN taking it must be "bad". We'll make a law against taking other people's stuff.
-------
currently on miPod - "Pennsylvania 65000" - Glen Miller
Wednesday, April 05, 2006
Give Gates the Finger!
I hope that someday, flying monsters from outer space will come to earth and eat Bill Gates. It looks like it may take that for the rest of us (read: non-Windoze drones). The justice system sure isn't working on it: despite an antitrust lawsuit (that could never win here in Georgie Porgie Bush's America), Micro$oft continues to engage in the same dirty tricks and deceits that got it to the top in the first place. A recent article posted on ZD|Net discusses a new round of pure crap spewing from the toilet that is Bill Gates's pen (or word processor - I wonder if he uses Office at home?)
Evidently, Micro$oft is urging its "Partners" - computer retailers who, for a reduced cost, are allowed to package Microsoft products with new PCs - to refrain from selling computers without a pre-installed operating system, that is, without the latest version of Windows, as a "security" measure. Riiiiiiiiight. Windows as a "security" measure - this is an oxymoron. Aren't all spyware programs, as well as most trojan horses and viruses aimed at exploiting all of the horrendous holes in Windows? People who buy PCs without operating systems are - guess what - likely buying them thus because they don't want to shell out hundreds of extra dollars for Microsoft products. Because they want to install Linux. To ensure that "Partners" are complying, they're requesting lists of PCs sold without OS-s, without which "Partners" will not get their lovely discount - which will hurt their business immensely.
I hope Gates, Ballmer, and co. die in a fiery plane crash soon.
Evidently, Micro$oft is urging its "Partners" - computer retailers who, for a reduced cost, are allowed to package Microsoft products with new PCs - to refrain from selling computers without a pre-installed operating system, that is, without the latest version of Windows, as a "security" measure. Riiiiiiiiight. Windows as a "security" measure - this is an oxymoron. Aren't all spyware programs, as well as most trojan horses and viruses aimed at exploiting all of the horrendous holes in Windows? People who buy PCs without operating systems are - guess what - likely buying them thus because they don't want to shell out hundreds of extra dollars for Microsoft products. Because they want to install Linux. To ensure that "Partners" are complying, they're requesting lists of PCs sold without OS-s, without which "Partners" will not get their lovely discount - which will hurt their business immensely.
I hope Gates, Ballmer, and co. die in a fiery plane crash soon.
DeLay DeClines DeNomination - DeFying DeDisbelief?
I suspect that I'm not alone in my claim that it was Tom DeLay who, directly or no, drove me from the Republican Party. Yes, I'm one of the few, the proud, the unheard, the moderates. For years, I considered myself a moderate Republican - a true conservative, unlike the insane neonazis under whose auspices we currently reside. Let me explain: I believe in fiscal responsibility in a conservative sense. I believe in social libertarianism (never fiscal libertarianism - unchecked capitalism has had disastrous social consequences throughout history): the government should stay the hell out of my personal life.
How did roles get reversed? Semiotically, I presume. Indeed, few political signifiers connote as many signs as "conservative:" it can mean (as it once did), a limited role for government beyond those duties specifically called for by the preamble to the Constitution, that government is established in order to "promote the general welfare" and "provide for the common defense." It can also mean (as it does now) conserving longtime social beliefs despite a continually evolving culture (another historical deathtrap - social conservatives in the South led to the Civil War). Hey - what about environmental conservation, which calls for the responsible stewardship of natural resources? In one sense, environmental conservation and Goldwater conservatism have a lot in common concerning definitive terms: both call for responsible stewardship - one of natural resources, one of social and fiscal resources. The key term, here, is "responsible," something of which neoconservatives know nothing.
Responsibility. Conservation. Stewardship.
Neoconservatives strive to promote a single worldview, ignoring any who dissent with even part of that view. Responsibile social policy does not shut out any views, rather, it weighs all concerns equally and comes to a fair compromise that, indeed, "promotes" the general well-being (welfare in its original sense). Dissenters in the neoconservative view are treated as subhuman: think of homosexuals and Muslims. We're spending trillions of dollars a year intervening abroad because of some screwed up sense of moral responsibility to subdue the heathen via crusade - a term applied to our present war by top governmental officials.
It makes me sick. I suppose that most who, like me, formerly identified themselves as moderate Republicans, have either become independent, or, like me, conservative Democrats. Just what is a conservative Democrat? I'll lay it out for you:
Fiscal responsibility:
How did roles get reversed? Semiotically, I presume. Indeed, few political signifiers connote as many signs as "conservative:" it can mean (as it once did), a limited role for government beyond those duties specifically called for by the preamble to the Constitution, that government is established in order to "promote the general welfare" and "provide for the common defense." It can also mean (as it does now) conserving longtime social beliefs despite a continually evolving culture (another historical deathtrap - social conservatives in the South led to the Civil War). Hey - what about environmental conservation, which calls for the responsible stewardship of natural resources? In one sense, environmental conservation and Goldwater conservatism have a lot in common concerning definitive terms: both call for responsible stewardship - one of natural resources, one of social and fiscal resources. The key term, here, is "responsible," something of which neoconservatives know nothing.
Responsibility. Conservation. Stewardship.
Neoconservatives strive to promote a single worldview, ignoring any who dissent with even part of that view. Responsibile social policy does not shut out any views, rather, it weighs all concerns equally and comes to a fair compromise that, indeed, "promotes" the general well-being (welfare in its original sense). Dissenters in the neoconservative view are treated as subhuman: think of homosexuals and Muslims. We're spending trillions of dollars a year intervening abroad because of some screwed up sense of moral responsibility to subdue the heathen via crusade - a term applied to our present war by top governmental officials.
It makes me sick. I suppose that most who, like me, formerly identified themselves as moderate Republicans, have either become independent, or, like me, conservative Democrats. Just what is a conservative Democrat? I'll lay it out for you:
Fiscal responsibility:
- Don't worry about the rest of the world when problems at home are too great to enumerate. Instead of spending trillions of dollars a year fighting a war on two fronts, one of which was begun for no reason other than "he tried to have my daddy killed," keep our military within our borders, where they can protect us. Don't spread them out all over the board - any kid who's played Risk can tell you that it's damn near impossible to conquer Australia because it's too easy to defend: one avenue of attack, and defenders concentrated in that one avenue.
- Don't spend money we don't have. "Pay-go" was a brilliant policy: if you need to increase spending on something, make sure that you either have the revenue or can cut spending elsewhere. Or eliminate "no-bid" contracts - those are irresponsible as hell.
- I suppose it all boils down to this: don't cut taxes (revenue) and increase spending (outlay). You get one or the other, but not both.
- Again, not fiscal libertarianism, which espouses unchecked capitalism. Legally, a corporation may be an individual; however, socially, a corporation has no conscience. Historically, unchecked capitalism led to the creation of Communism - Karl Marx got to witness, firsthand, how kind capitalism was to the children of Victorian England.
- The government has no business telling people how to live. Sure, spout off all of the propaganda that Preacher tells you about the Founders and how Christian they were, but remember, at least half were Deists (look it up - a novel idea, I know). All of our "temples of democracy" resemble pagan architecture - for good reason.
- Religion has no place in the public sphere. There is absolutely no evidence that religious zealouts are any more moral and decent than agnostics and athiests. Want proof? Remember this: nearly every massacre throughout history had religion and morality at its core. Want proof? I'll give you a brief rundown: The Crusades, The Inquisition, the English civil war, American Slavery, the Holocaust, the Bosnian conflict, September 11. How many wars were caused by athiests?
Friday, March 31, 2006
Media Double (La)crosses Rights of the Accused
First, if you didn't read my last post, about Amendments four through eight (deconstructed for dummies), I encourage you to do so. It will put the following entry in an accurate light. Recently, the Duke University men's lacrosse team has been under heavy fire because of an alleged rape that took place at a party on March 13 [the Raleigh News & Observer has a special section on its website devoted to the issue with all coverage to date]. Unlike the media and students around the school, I will not discuss whether the allegations are accurate or not: I believe that any ethical human being will agree with the statement that if the allegations are true, if three men gang raped and sodomized an escort in the bathroom of a house during a party, they should each receive the maximum punishment afforded by law, and that any who knew about the rape and did not report it should be beaten with sticks and jailed for aiding & abetting.
The last statement is the most important: any who knew. Evidently, the forty six members of the team who were present at the party have all submitted DNA samples and willingly stopped competition until the allegations are cleared. None claims to have any knowledge of the alleged incident.
The local press is having a field day. I'm sure you can imagine the contents of the stories: 'Elite University covers up crimes!' 'Duke Rapists are "LAX" [the abbreviation for lacrosse] in moral values' and other such crap. Because of the hideous nature of the allegation, and the racial factor - the alleged rapists were three white boys (no true man would ever brutalize a woman) and the victim an African-American woman - the coverage has been nonstop since the allegations came to light. I will note here: although racism is foul and ugly, I feel that rape is a far more disgusting and brutal crime, therefore, I will not discuss that portion of the story.
What is disturbing is the complete disregard for due process and the rights of the accused evinced by the media coverage. It took several days for the defense to be afforded the opportunity to speak out against the way in which the media and the prosecution are handling the case [Story: N & O]. Two days prior, the local rag printed a screaming headline across the front page stating, "15 players had prior charges." What they didn't tell you was that the prior charges are nothing more than charges commonly leveled at college students: public intoxication, urinating in public, and underage possession of alcohol. Columnists lambasted the players, all of whom maintain that nothing happened, to come forth and "tell the truth." To this I ask, "What if they are?" Nobody wants to hear that.
Coverage such as this denies due process and impartiality from the outset. It is a means by which a newspaper can sell copies, a means by which it can stir public outrage. Again, if the allegations are true, then all involved, from the rapists to others who knew, should face the maximum punishment afforded by law. However, if they are innocent, truly not guilty of the crime of which they have been accused, we all know that headlines devoted to their innocence will be relegated to page 3B, for a single day's issue. After public crucifixion, after this inflammatory coverage, these players will never be believed innocent, and none has, as yet, even been charged with wrongdoing. No Grand Jury, no indictment, no charges, just allegations that have yet to yield any evidence other than testimonial.
I'm sorry to say, testimony, if true, cannot convict when there is testimony that contradicts it. I'm only sorry to say this if the testimony is true. The reasons for this are longstanding: there have been far too many false allegations of wrongdoing in the past: for reasons of vengeance, of character assassination, of longing for attention, even of an overzealous imagination. "Rapist" is a label that follows a man throughout his life. It is also one of those labels that, once applied through allegation, is nearly impossible to remove. I know of two men at my undergraduate institution who were accused of rape by former girlfriends who were mentally unbalanced. These men had to literally prove their innocence, completely in conflict with the constitutional rights of American citizens: eventually the stories of the accusers were proven unfounded: one was visiting her parents at the time of the alleged rape; the other was with her current boyfriend at the time.
The student body and local citizens have taken to the streets of Durham, screaming for blood. "What if it were your daughter?" they ask those who believe in the rights of the accused. Well, first of all, I doubt that all five thousand of the protesters were parents of the alleged victim. My daughter hasn't been born yet, but that is a different issue, one entirely dependent upon the nature of the individuals involved. If I believed them true, I'd probably head over with a bat, despite my espoused disgust with vigilantes. In all, I think that a statement made by one of the protesters to the media sums up the case (and the confluence of the new "yellow journalism" with culture and inflammatory rhetoric) perfectly.
The statement? "I'm outraged that legal rights are used to quiet this issue." [story] Legal rights are what separate us from tyranny. Legal rights may save that very speaker from a false claim some day.
---
currently playing on miPod - Symphony no. 2, 1st movement - by Ralph Vaughan Williams.
The last statement is the most important: any who knew. Evidently, the forty six members of the team who were present at the party have all submitted DNA samples and willingly stopped competition until the allegations are cleared. None claims to have any knowledge of the alleged incident.
The local press is having a field day. I'm sure you can imagine the contents of the stories: 'Elite University covers up crimes!' 'Duke Rapists are "LAX" [the abbreviation for lacrosse] in moral values' and other such crap. Because of the hideous nature of the allegation, and the racial factor - the alleged rapists were three white boys (no true man would ever brutalize a woman) and the victim an African-American woman - the coverage has been nonstop since the allegations came to light. I will note here: although racism is foul and ugly, I feel that rape is a far more disgusting and brutal crime, therefore, I will not discuss that portion of the story.
What is disturbing is the complete disregard for due process and the rights of the accused evinced by the media coverage. It took several days for the defense to be afforded the opportunity to speak out against the way in which the media and the prosecution are handling the case [Story: N & O]. Two days prior, the local rag printed a screaming headline across the front page stating, "15 players had prior charges." What they didn't tell you was that the prior charges are nothing more than charges commonly leveled at college students: public intoxication, urinating in public, and underage possession of alcohol. Columnists lambasted the players, all of whom maintain that nothing happened, to come forth and "tell the truth." To this I ask, "What if they are?" Nobody wants to hear that.
Coverage such as this denies due process and impartiality from the outset. It is a means by which a newspaper can sell copies, a means by which it can stir public outrage. Again, if the allegations are true, then all involved, from the rapists to others who knew, should face the maximum punishment afforded by law. However, if they are innocent, truly not guilty of the crime of which they have been accused, we all know that headlines devoted to their innocence will be relegated to page 3B, for a single day's issue. After public crucifixion, after this inflammatory coverage, these players will never be believed innocent, and none has, as yet, even been charged with wrongdoing. No Grand Jury, no indictment, no charges, just allegations that have yet to yield any evidence other than testimonial.
I'm sorry to say, testimony, if true, cannot convict when there is testimony that contradicts it. I'm only sorry to say this if the testimony is true. The reasons for this are longstanding: there have been far too many false allegations of wrongdoing in the past: for reasons of vengeance, of character assassination, of longing for attention, even of an overzealous imagination. "Rapist" is a label that follows a man throughout his life. It is also one of those labels that, once applied through allegation, is nearly impossible to remove. I know of two men at my undergraduate institution who were accused of rape by former girlfriends who were mentally unbalanced. These men had to literally prove their innocence, completely in conflict with the constitutional rights of American citizens: eventually the stories of the accusers were proven unfounded: one was visiting her parents at the time of the alleged rape; the other was with her current boyfriend at the time.
The student body and local citizens have taken to the streets of Durham, screaming for blood. "What if it were your daughter?" they ask those who believe in the rights of the accused. Well, first of all, I doubt that all five thousand of the protesters were parents of the alleged victim. My daughter hasn't been born yet, but that is a different issue, one entirely dependent upon the nature of the individuals involved. If I believed them true, I'd probably head over with a bat, despite my espoused disgust with vigilantes. In all, I think that a statement made by one of the protesters to the media sums up the case (and the confluence of the new "yellow journalism" with culture and inflammatory rhetoric) perfectly.
The statement? "I'm outraged that legal rights are used to quiet this issue." [story] Legal rights are what separate us from tyranny. Legal rights may save that very speaker from a false claim some day.
---
currently playing on miPod - Symphony no. 2, 1st movement - by Ralph Vaughan Williams.
Constitutional Conundrum (4-8)
Okay kiddies. This week we're going to talk about the rights of the accused. Amendment IV of the United States Constitution states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Interpreted for idiots, this means that law enforcement (from the guv'ment right on down to the local Barney Fifes) cannot perform any of the following actions without a warrant supported by probable cause (probable cause, just in case you were wondering, does not mean "just because your skin is brown and/or you are Muslim"):
Why discuss this now? What does this have to do with media and rhetoric? There is an interesting commingling of society, media, and rhetorical agency where these five amendments are concerned. More on this in my next entry.
- enter your house and look for evidence that a crime has been committed
- look through your e-mail and library card checkouts to see what you're reading and to whom you are talking
- monitor your phone calls placed citizen to citizen: even abroad, you have all of the Constitutional rights of an American citizen. Your buddy may be monitored if he is not a citizen, but only his voice can be recorded or transcribed.
- look through your car
- do anything that the Patriot Act says they can do.
- Nobody can be charged with a capital crime (big-time felonies) unless indicted or presented to a Grand Jury (unless you are a soldier - they can trample your rights all they want to because you signed your body and soul over to the government). Only soldiers can be held without due process - not citizens, even during time of war.
- You can't be tried for the same crime twice, even if new evidence surfaces at a later date.
- You cannot be forced to testify against yourself. If something you say will be held against you in court, you don't have to speak. You don't even have to justify it. If something you say may be interpreted as incriminating, even if, in context, it is not, you don't have to say it. It's not a cop out, it's a means to protect innocents from overzealous prosecutors
- If the government confiscates or takes your belongings, including land, for itself, you have to be paid.
- VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
- VII - In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
- VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Why discuss this now? What does this have to do with media and rhetoric? There is an interesting commingling of society, media, and rhetorical agency where these five amendments are concerned. More on this in my next entry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
