Case Closed: An Underrated Gem

 Case Closed 

Or “Detective Conan” in Japan, is a long-running mystery/crime anime about a wiz-kid high school detective named Jimmy Kudo who is reverted to the size of a first grader by a mysterious poison given to him by a shady crime organization. While remaining on the trail of his would-be assassins, he assumes the pseudonym ‘Conan Edogawa’ and stays with his love interest and former classmate Rachel (who remains unaware of his true identity) and her disgraced former detective turned unemployed alcoholic father, Richard Moore.

One of the most striking aspects of the show is the sharp contrast between the kiddy antics of Conan and his new first grader friends in the ’Junior Detective League’ and the graphic nature of the crimes Conan finds himself investigating every week. Unable to get anyone to take his deductions seriously due to his apparent age, he uses a James Bond-esque tranquilizer watch to incapacitate Detective Moore and share his observations using Moore’s voice. The police and witnesses simply assume Moore is using ventriloquism to speak without moving his lips, and the fact that he’s also sitting down with his eyes closed is just an idiosyncratic genius detective practicing his craft. In reality, he’s just an unconscious puppet of the child standing behind him using a voice modulator...

Seriously. Case Closed is absolutely ludicrous in premise and beyond cheesy in execution, but that is all a part of its charm.

I discovered Case Closed when the English dub aired at 3am on Adult Swim when I was a sophomore on summer vacation. The first episode I ever saw was ‘Murder at the Television Studio.’ I was instantly intrigued. It’s hard to believe I’ve loved this show since I was younger than Jimmy and Rachel, but it’s really the little details that drew me into it. The ridiculous theme song (“It was the first new century, in one hundred years...”), the fact that Rachel and her dad have the same last name as me in the dub so I can pretend they’re distant relatives, and the genuine creativity behind the cases Conan solves. There’s so much to love here. 

Case Closed didn’t last too long on American TV; Adult Swim canceled it due to low ratings pretty quickly and Funimation ended up only dubbing the first 5 seasons of a show that’s been on almost as long as The Simpsons in Japan, where it’s had a similar cultural impact. 

I basically forgot about the show after that summer, until one day years later Conan, his gadgets, and the engrossing mysteries he solved randomly popped into my head. I picked up the DVD collections they sold at Best Buy (I realize I’m dating myself a bit here), and even started reading the manga volumes, which are still being translated into English to this day. 

I’m not the only person I know who adores this show. Multiple girlfriends I’ve shown it to absolutely loved it, and I often encounter other fans on social media for whom this show holds a place in their heart. All the absurd pieces of Case Closed fit together to make a enchanting mystery thriller that I simply can’t recommend enough.

Brett Kavanaugh: The Doughy Face of Guilt

Among the many interesting things learned today at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing is that Judge Kavanaugh is not above crying to get himself appointed to the Supreme Court!

Brett Kavanaugh has led a life of privilege. Whining and crying his way out of consequences has worked for him since he was a child. I have no doubt that he'll still be appointed, this is Trump's America after all, but what a bad look.

This was not a trial. It did not follow an investigation into these 30+ year-old charges. What it was was an inquiry into whether or not Brett Kavanaugh is fit to be a Supreme Court judge. If, when presented with facts and evidence, he could make an informed and impartial judgment at a seat in the highest court in the land. The way he, without provocation, offered up conspiracy theories that implicated the Democrats and the Clinton family as the source of all his woes gave us all the answer we needed. Who needs impartiality in their judges? This man just showed us how ready he is to be a star player for Team Trump! His impotent blubbering only aligns him closer to his teammates!

His alleged victim, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, on the other hand, conducted herself with dignity and poise, which is truly admirable given that she was recounting one of the most traumatic events of her life live in front of the entire country. This is something that has haunted her for decades. Republican Senators picked her apart, and she didn't flinch. It's a shame we can't appoint her to the Supreme Court. But we all know this is just a minor delay in this country's ongoing war on women's reproductive rights and civil liberties.


After watching this shitshow I think we all need to boof some Xanax!

Dave Chappelle - The Crown King of Comedy

Dave Chappelle isn't just funny, he's the funniest man in the world. His observations on American culture are infused with wit so sharp it wouldn't get past the TSA. Sometimes you'll start laughing before you even realize what was so funny. Your brain reacts to the truth before the joke even hits you. He deconstructs the media and race relations so shrewdly at times you'll forget you're at a comedy show and think you're at a lecture.

He's less a modern day Richard Pryor and more a vulgar Socrates. Being a fan of Mr. Chappelle since the age of ten has informed my writing style. But not just my writing, the way I look at the country I live in.
In this chaotic political landscape, one often finds himself reflecting on his place in society. Pondering and extrapolating society's norms. And Dave pulls this off like a f#$%ing surgeon.

Hopefully one day I'll make someone laugh just once as hard as Mr. Chappelle has ever made me laugh. But until then I'm one devout follower.

The Lone Star State Laughs As Conservative States Reconsider the Death Penalty; Abolish This Barbaric Practice Now!

It is a daunting task to defend the rights of someone accused of murder. No matter how conflicting a concept like this may be the noble spirit of justice must prevail and we must grant rights to even those accused of heinous crimes. This is especially crucial because the imperfect nature of our justice system has led to people being convicted of crimes they did not actually commit. This unfortunate reality extends to people on death row. It is America’s duty to stand as an example to the rest of the world of what it means to be a free, developed, and civilized society and it is unthinkable for a civilized society to put an innocent person to death. Despite its highly controversial nature, Texas is well known for its support and prolific use of execution. To avoid any unnecessary bloodshed brought on by wrongful convictions it is morally imperative that Texas abolish the death penalty.

There is no going back after executing someone. Once someone is gone, they are gone. It would be horrifying to find out that someone who was put to death was actually innocent but, according to recent findings, there is at least one verifiable case of this actually happening. Even more troubling is that it happened in Texas. In his article “Trial by Fire”, published in The New Yorker, journalist David Grann tells the heartbreaking story of Cameron Todd Willingham of Corsicana, Texas.

Mr. Willingham

Willingham was tried and convicted for the murder of his three young daughters by arson and sentenced to death. Concerned with the unconvincing nature of the evidence against him, the Texas Forensic Science Commission hired former CIA scientist Dr. Craig Beyler to review the facts of the case. Dr. Beyler found that the original arson investigation that led to the conviction was based on “flawed science” and that the house fire that took the lives of Willingham’s daughters was actually caused by a faulty radiator. Willingham was simply not guilty. Dr. Beyler turned his report into then-Governor Rick Perry’s office who arrogantly chose to ignore it.

Former Gov. Rick Perry

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed by lethal injection on February 17, 2004 after twelve long years on death row for a crime he did not commit. This is the unthinkable yet inevitable outcome of our state’s reverence towards execution. Willingham’s three daughters were not brought back to life with his death and no one received closure. All that happened was an innocent man was murdered by his home state in front of his father and stepmother. This tragedy cannot be allowed to happen again.

​Despite this grave affair people who live in Texas still seem to be rather proud of the continued use of the death penalty. According to a 2012 poll conducted by the University of Texas and published in the Texas Tribune, 73% of Texans polled either strongly or somewhat support the death penalty. The state has executed almost five times as many prisoners as the next highest state, Oklahoma. This is an alarming statistic. It paints Texas as a trigger-happy, reactionary state with a bloodlust that it fulfills by executing someone whenever it can, not unlike a violent murderer. Murder is a crime of violence committed by someone who has blinded themselves to everything except their wrath. It is the most atrocious sin a human being can commit. Anyone who is capable of violently taking another person’s life is, without exception, utterly disconnected from reality. For the state of Texas to continue to carry out murder under the veil of ‘justice’ is sending the wrong message. 

The message Texas is sending is especially grim since this practice is not even achieving the goal it is ostensibly meant to achieve. Senator Ron Paul poised in his weekly column, “If the death penalty is an effective deterrent, why do jurisdictions without the death penalty have a lower crime rate than jurisdictions with the death penalty?” This does not necessarily mean that Texas has five times the crime as Oklahoma, but it does show that we are the most prolific users of a form of punishment that has clearly been proven to be ineffective. Texans should be ashamed of how this looks in the eyes of the rest of the country.

Even more despicable is the fact that while the rest of the nation is appalled at how dedicated to and efficient Texas has gotten at the execution process, other conservative states have begun to abolish this useless and barbaric practice. Nebraska recently became the first conservative state in decades to abolish the death penalty with legislators in Kansas, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Kentucky attempting to follow suit. This is a startling development because conservative states are typically the strongest supporters of the death penalty. However, “Repealing the death penalty may be easier in Nebraska than states where capital punishment is more ingrained in the culture." This is obviously referring to Texas whose pride in the death penalty is well known and something the rest of the nation looks down on. One major reason for our continued usage is the fact that “[the judges in Texas' appeals court] are elected to office and…they require a record of toughness on criminals in order to win re-election." Having to appeal to voters’ bloodthirstiness with executions is sickening.

A look at the monetary statistics may appease those not convinced by crime rates or the inherent morbidity of execution. Would it not be more expensive to keep someone convicted of murder alive in a cell for the rest of their lives than it would be to simply execute them? This is a common misconception death penalty supporters have and the answer is a resounding, “No.” Those convicted of murder must go through two trials. One is to assess their guilt, and the other is to see if their crime makes them eligible for the death penalty. This alone costs Texan taxpayers millions of dollars. The cost of attorney fees for defending someone in a capital case, a case where the death penalty is considered, is four times more expensive than in a non-capital case. Once convicted, the inmate is allowed to file for appeals. The labyrinthine appeals process can take years leaving the inmate on death row for decades. As a result, not only do the costs to taxpayers add up over that time, but the families of the victims have to endure this draining process instead of moving on.

It is the families of the victims that supporters of the death penalty claim deserve to see the prisoners pay for their crimes. The only way for the prisoners to truly pay for what they have done is to lose their life. This ‘eye for an eye’ mentality contradicts many of Texas’ predominantly Christian values. Israel Santana, a criminal defense attorney from Houston and a deacon at his local church, was on his way to Huntsville to watch the execution of Robert James Campbell, the man who murdered his niece. According to his interview with the New York Times, Santana admitted, “I will not lie and say there is not a battle within me… I’m sure in my heart, before the needle is put in, I’ll forgive him.” This is an absurd contradiction of religious values and shows us that even after the long and drawn out execution process those hurt by the initial crime are still fighting an internal emotional battle that either may or may not go away when the prisoner is executed. Campbell’s execution was eventually called off due to his diagnosis of mental illness, so it stands to reason that Santana’s internal struggle is still going on. If the possibility of execution were taken away, Santana could accept that his niece’s killer was in jail for the rest of his life and simply move on. 

Another example of this desire for executions contradicting religious beliefs is the recent execution of Licho Escamilla. According to Texas Department of Criminal Justice records, among Escamilla’s last words were an appeal to the State of Texas, “Pope Francis…has asked the State of Texas to switch my death sentence to life in prison.  But the State of Texas has refused to listen to God’s children, they will have to take that up with God.” For the State of Texas to ignore the Pope himself when at any other time they would adhere to his request is an abhorrent example of death penalty supporters choosing to drop their beliefs momentarily just so they can enact revenge on another human being.

This morbid fondness for killing those who have allegedly killed others needs to cease. There is nothing to be gained by committing a court-sanctioned act of revenge. As the rest of the country seems to be moving on from executions, so must Texas. Our history of dedication to using the death penalty on any who have allegedly killed may be one of Texas’ claims to fame but the support behind it is misguided and cruel. By educating the supporters of the death penalty as to why it is needless, wasteful, and truly a heinous violation of human rights we can hopefully see this practice put to an end once and for all.

Grann, David. "Trial by Fire." NewYorker.com. The New Yorker, 7 Sept. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2015. 

Ramsey, Ross. "UT/TT Poll: Texans Stand Behind Death Penalty, by Ross Ramsey." The Texas Tribune. N.p., 24 May 2012. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

Paul, Ron. "Death Penalty: The Ultimate Corrupt, Big Government Program. "The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. The Ron Paul Institute, 14 June 2015. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.

Jablonski, Ray. "Other Conservative States May Follow Nebraska in Abolishing Death Penalty." Cleveland.com. Northeast Ohio Media Group, 31 May 2015. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.

Walpin, Ned. "Why Is Texas #1 in Executions?" PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 29 Nov. 2015.

Erb, Kelly Phillips. "Considering the Death Penalty; Your Tax Dollars at Work." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 1 May 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2015.

Fernandez, Manny, and John Schwartz. "Confronted on Execution, Texas Proudly Says It Kills Efficiently." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 May 2014. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.

"Offender Information." Death Row Information. Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 14 Oct. 2015. Web. 05 Dec. 2015.

Jurassic World is the Worst Film of the Summer; Better Luck Trevorrow!

When you express an opinion that goes against the popular consensus people tend to tear you apart, dub you a cynic who can never be satisfied, or think you're just making an effort to appear unique. Especially when you're vocal about how much you hate a movie that just had the biggest opening weekend of all time.

Well take all those box office stats and shove them up your ass. Jurassic World was garbage, plain and simple.

The only reason this movie is so successful is nostalgia. Everyone so desperately wants to be wowed again like they were with the first Jurassic Park that director Colin Trevorrow can just mimic the first film with impunity. Plus that iconic John Williams score plays no small part in putting many more butts in theater seats than this movie deserved.

Jurassic World depicts brand new morons making the same mistakes as the characters in the first film. After the disaster on Isla Nublar 22 years ago one would think the people in charge of the theme park would spare no expense to take proper safety precautions in the event of a breach. Like say, an underground bunker or a reliable method for mass evacuation. This movie could've shown all the tourists being ushered to safety and it wouldn't have done anything to diminish the tension in any way. It might have even made the movie more palatable to have just the essential personnel running around trying to capture the Indominus Rex instead of being some mean-spirited disaster movie where random innocent people are eaten by CGI pterosaurs. But I guess the filmmakers didn't have faith that we cared enough about the main characters for their struggle to be compelling. And they would be right.

Bryce Dallas Howard plays Claire, the operations manager of Jurassic World who is such a workaholic she neglects her two nephews who are there to visit her. She's also too busy to realize running around managing a theme park in a Central American jungle might be slightly easier if she didn't only wear high heels. Chris Pratt the impossibly charming Parks & Rec vet plays Owen Grady, the expert trainer of the Velociraptors who spends his free time working on his motorcycle. Vincent D'Onofrio plays the transparent InGen security head who is vocal about wanting to use the raptors as weapons. B.D. Wong reprises his role from the first film to establish continuity, because he had such a huge role back then. I think he and D'Onofrio appearing does more for Law & Order continuity.

When the "I-Rex" breaks out, the two kids are taking a tour of the jungle in a spherical glass orb that has to be driven by the passengers (in this case the older brother.) That's actually less safe than the jeeps that were set on rails in the first one. There's even an instructional video featuring Jimmy Fallon playing onscreen in front of them while they're supposed to be driving. We're told the orb is built on gyroscopic technology that will keep it upright at all times, that is unless they bump into any one of the hundreds of dinosaurs in the jungle. When the bloodthirsty I-Rex catches up with them we're treated to a scenario that plays out exactly like the scene with the two kids from Jurassic Park 1.

The rest of the movie plays out as predictably as possible. All hell breaks loose, every armed security guy gets killed off one by one, and eventually the bad guy is eaten by a raptor who ignores everyone else for some reason. After all attempts to recapture the Indominus Rex fail, Claire releases the T-Rex for an all-out dinosaur brawl! The only way this is different than the end of the original Jurassic Park is this time the Velociraptors are actually helping. The 'good' dinosaurs eventually push the 'bad' one close enough to the pool area for prehistoric Shamu to finally and mercifully gobble up the Indominus Rex.

I'm aware that all Jurassic Park films require suspension of disbelief since cloning dinosaurs is physically impossible and the premise is basically just absurd. But given that, this movie is still riddled with dino-sized plot holes that I was sure everyone would find insulting. As it turns out, I had too much faith in humanity. This movie is so successful we'll no doubt be seeing it's brain cell-murdering sequel two or three summers from now. But I won't be there.

SEN. WENDY DAVIS FILIBUSTERS SB5 OUT OF EXISTENCE, BUT THE GOP STILL WANTS YOUR UTERUS

Republicans in my home state of Texas groan as the omnibus abortion bill that passed the House dies via remarkable filibuster in the Senate. 

Had they had their way and SB5 had passed, "standards" (read: hurdles) for an abortion clinic would have been set so high that all but 5 of them would have to shut down. It also would have been illegal for a woman to have an abortion after 5 months, because of the inaccurate ethical dilemma of a baby that age being able to feel "pain and happiness." It's actually 24 weeks. 

And let's just extrapolate what raising these "standards" would entail.

 It would mean that a girl who needs an abortion who lives anywhere across the incredibly vast state of Texas where it's highly likely she would have no access to a clinic would somehow have to find money to travel to one of the five abortion clinics not shut down, see a doctor twice, get an ultrasound and have it shown & described to her before she could get the procedure she needs. Is the GOP truly acting on behalf of women in Texas, or torturing them until they align to their draconian moral code?

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH: GUN LAWS MUST CHANGE

America has seen an utterly disturbing rise in the number of shooting incidents in recent months. The mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012 had a death toll of twenty-six, most of the victims being children under the age of nine. In July of that year, a shooting at a midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado took the lives of twelve people and injured 58. Nowadays, mass shootings like these are becoming more and more commonplace and American citizens are forced to live in fear of their own neighbors. The truth is that there is something that can be done to prevent more of these atrocities from occurring. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that American citizens vote to enact new gun control regulations.

People in general might think that criminals will just be criminals and simply eschew or circumvent stricter laws such as universal background checks. At a Senate hearing on gun control, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin stated, “Criminals won’t go to purchase the guns because there will be a background check. We’ll stop them at the original purchase.” (Castal). His explanation for the effectiveness of a more stringent background investigation process is that the very presence of it will be a deterrent for criminals who desire to purchase a gun.

Also mentioned at the hearing was the fact that, since 1994,  “background checks required of licensed gun dealers… had prevented 1.7 million prohibited purchases.” (Castal). This is a very reassuring number, demonstrating the fact that background checks have prevented nearly two million gun-related crimes. Criminals will still continue to act illicitly, but the clear fact is there is some legitimate progress being made.

A rational citizen is left to wonder what even causes a person to want to commit a murderous crime with the help of a gun. A Facebook follower of journalist Nick Kristoff suggests “these crazed killers, arms freaks…and haters” view the publicity and infamy of mass murder as motivation. Another follower suggests, “Our culture is to blame - not guns.” These statements are certainly valid. Criminals could find other ways to gain access to guns even if they are strictly regulated or outright banned. Although more stringent laws would no doubt aid in the mission of preventing gun-related violence, it is ultimately up to the people of America to alter the way they view violence and it’s consequences.

James Eagan Holmes, the lone gunman responsible for the theatre shooting in Aurora, Colorado was considered by both relatives and acquaintances to be mentally unstable with homicidal tendencies. Before the shooting he had even dyed his hair orange in an attempt to look like The Joker character from The Dark Knight, indicative of his irrationality and detachment from reality. Despite his unstable nature, he was able to purchase four guns, legally, over a period of two months. He also purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition off of the Internet. If he had been subjected to a proper background investigation or a personal evaluation, there is no possible way he would have been able to amass such an arsenal and there is no doubt that all of those people in Aurora would still be alive.

An article by Randy Krehbiel and Rhett Morgan details President Barack Obama’s proposals for curbing gun violence. One promising suggestion was the President’s executive order that “no federal law prohibits doctors or other health care providers from contacting authorities when patients threaten to use violence.” In the time before the Colorado shooting, Holmes was a psychiatric patient at Anschutz's Student Mental Health Services and the University of Colorado. This fact, along with his aforementioned homicidal inclinations, should have acted as a red flag and prevented his purchases. By supporting President Obama’s new executive order, Americans can ensure that someone like Holmes cannot gain access to guns and ammunition.

However, it would appear that President Obama’s proposals are having a tough time gaining the support of the American people. This is why there needs to be a change in the way violence is viewed by the general public. It should be clear to Americans that by pitting together mental instability and easy access to weaponry, a heinous crime is possible at any time in any place. If citizens would take this into consideration, there would be no more mass murders like the one in Aurora.

The new legislation being proposed in Congress is reassuring, but what of this country’s current gun laws? The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution states that, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The language of this amendment is far too broad and simplistic. It is too malleable to the whims of those who would seek to twist the intention of the founding fathers for their criminal plots. Tom Head, author of an article on the meaning of the Second Amendment states that, “the Second Amendment is no longer valid, having been intended to protect a militia system that is no longer in place.” The amendment was written as part of the Bill of Rights in the late 1700’s, after the Revolutionary War, which called for an armed civilian militia to stand against a possible British invasion. This was a time long before the Internet, high capacity magazines and advanced modern weapons. At that point, handheld weapons consisted of muskets that took several minutes to load after firing each individual shot. That is a far cry from the automatic assault rifles and pistols of today. When writing the Constitution, the founding fathers were not concerned with a citizen committing mass murder with a gun because at that time it would have been unfeasible. Gun-worshipping citizens would still use the language of the Second Amendment to wrongly support their stockpiling and uninhibited use of weapons, but the fact is people who admire guns in such a way are certainly not the type of people Americans should trust with weapons.

However, there are instances where a rational, mentally sound American citizen should be allowed to own a gun. In Chris Castal’s article describing the hearing on gun control reform at the Senate Judiciary Committee, one witness states that guns can act as “the great equalizer for women.” Women are indeed subject to violence from physically dominating male assailants on a regular basis in America, and having a gun could act as either a deterrent for the would-be attacker, or as a life-saving measure for the victim. It is important that a woman be able to protect herself, but the problem of violence could be addressed by resolving the underlying issues.

Today’s economic climate has led to an increase in violent robberies and muggings, crimes which women are often a prime target for. This increase in crime and the general sentiment of hopelessness because of the economic recession has created an atmosphere of fear among the people of the United States. There are a plethora of possible solutions to this problem, such as better mental health care resources. Someone who would see it justified to rob or to murder an innocent woman for money or material is definitely not of sound mind, and help in that regard could prevent violence.  Also, education for women in the use of self-defense tactics or even martial arts could help prevent needless violence. Using a gun should be a last resort for a potential victim and not a kneejerk reaction.

Enough is enough. America cannot stand idly by and let this dreadful problem continue to get worse. Gun enthusiasts may feel their rights are being trampled on, but with a broader and more open-minded look at possible new regulations, they should be able to see that the purpose of these new laws is not to oppress them, but to save innocent lives.

Castal, Chris. “Oklahoma mom’s self-defense becomes part of gun control debate in Washington” NEWSOK. Newsok, January 31, 2013. Web. March 22, 2013.

Various. “New debates on U.S. gun control from around the web. What do you think?” IssueWiki. July 23, 2012. Web. March 22, 2013

Krehbiel, Randy and Morgan, Rhett. “Oklahoma delegation views on gun curb plan mostly negative” Tulsa World, January 17, 2013. Web. March 22, 2013.

Head, Tom. “The Text, Origins, and Meaning of the Second Amendment” About.com Web. March 22, 2013