Thursday, June 29, 2006

Ex Post Facto


There is a family in rural Kentucky that has a pet lion. They call the animal "Kitty". Darn clever of them, don't you think? Barry Collins bought this cat at a flea market a few years ago when it was young cub. There is no indication WHY he bought it, I guess it was part of him being his clever, interesting self. Now that the beast weighs 400 pounds, the neighbors want him to get rid of it.


The Floyd County government is considering an ordinance prohibiting Collins from keeping his lion. Needless to say, there is a lot of resident support for such an ordinance.


Whether or not it was the brightest move to bring a lion into this neighborhood, or his family for that matter, is not the question. Despite the fact that Collins has three kids (ages 5, 3, and 1) and his house is within feet of his neighbors, he should be able to legally keep the thing.


Here's why: He previously satisfied all laws and licenses that apply for this kind of thing. He undoubtedly keeps Kitty in a pen that all officials deem safe enough not to arrest him for keeping a public nuisance (or danger). The most important reason, however, is that if the ordiance gets passed that prohibits keeping these typ of pets in Floyd County, it will be an "ex post facto" law as it applies to Collins. "Ex Post Facto" is a legal term which means "after the fact". The Supreme Court of the United States already ruled in Calder v. Bull, (1798) The ruling prohibits officials from creating a law to "punish" someone for doing something that was legal when committed. I use the word punish in quotes because removing a beloved family pet is surely punishment, even though no jail terms of fines would most likely be involved.


This reminds me of my own experience with my old Dodge Charger I bought in high school. I replaced the seats (because I had no foresight) and removed the seat belts. Subsequently, the State of Indiana passed a law requiring the use of seatbelts. I always screamed that if I ever got cited for not wearing mine in the car, I would take it to court citing it being "ex post facto". Yeah, I would have probably lost, but you can't tell that to college student who knows everything.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006

Oh no, I'm one of THOSE guys.

I can't believe it has been that long since my last post. The problem is that my computer will not allow me to do it anymore. I think someone sabotaged it.

I have been working out for weeks, now. I haven't lost a ton of weight but I have rearranged a lot of it. I do tend to feel better.

Today I told Erika that I had a great workout this morning. That is the first time I have ever used that phrase I think. I used to hear it from people all the time but I never used it. The reason that it never escaped my tongue before is because I never really knew what it meant! A great workout? Let's see, you took a bar with heavy disks on the ends and lifted them repeatedly in some manner. Forget about the fact that there is no constructive reason to do this. I mean, you didn't stack something or build anything. You just moved dead weight in hopes that the muscles you used to move it might get bigger while you sleep. I am digressing.

Anyway, here is the skinny on the "great workout": It means that you feel all your muscle groups are bulging in a way that it gives you some kind of high. I had that high today. I have to admit, it is pretty awesome.

So, here is what you can get out of this post today. Next time some fitness type tells you that they had a great workout, the proper response is, "You're high!"