Cartwheeling

Friday, April 30, 2010

Those folks over in D.C.

So remember when the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage? (I did a news story on this, by the way, and it's in my resume reel if you want to see it! )

I was thinking the other day, after a discussion with my very insightful husband :)
Marriage law has long been interpreted as being under the jurisdiction of states; essentially, most believe the federal government has no business regulating marriage.

When you apply for a marriage license, it's issued by your state. Regardless of your opinion on gay marriage, one thing is clear: marriage laws are getting stickier and stickier. It seems that congress will eventually have to take a stand because it's just silly to be married in one state and not another. But I digress.

So, marriage law is left to the states. Well the District of Columbia legalized same-sex marriage in March. But D.C. is not a state. Doesn't some city council have no business making marriage laws?
But then, more or less, D.C.'s version of a "state legislature" is the federal congress itself (more or less). But wait, isn't the federal government supposed to keep its nose out of marriage law?
Well here's a bit of a pickle. Does anybody else see this as not quite right? If it were only from a jurisdiction standpoint, I don't see how the D.C. council was authorized to make that sort of decision. (those of you who actually know what you're talking about with regards to law, I'd love your input)
It seems to me that this needs to be decided by a bigger body. Why not get Congress involved?

And here's another point: a BYU law professor that I spoke to said this just looks like officials trying to force gay marriage down peoples' throats; nobody in D.C. voted on this issue either and he believes that such a hot topic should be taken to popular vote.

How do you feel about this? Doesn't this all feel terribly sketchy?

Thursday, April 29, 2010

a momentous occasion

I obtained my learner's permit Wednesday (on the first try, might I add) and am now learning to be a responsible driver thanks to my dear husband. I thought I should immortalize the moment in a drawing of my own creation.
I call it:

Andrew teaching Lydia how to drive

Ode to Internet

Oh internet, how I love thee when thou flowest quickly
uploading images before I can run to the kitchen and back,
and opening pages with the first try,
before I even click refresh three times.

Monday, April 19, 2010

On reporters...

One of the things I appreciate the most about my broadcast teachers is that they are real, honest-to-goodness, down-to-earth human beings. Not fancy shmancy academics (although I do love academic learning, but let's face it, a lot of very intelligent people have high opinions of themselves and live outside of the realm of "normalcy..." whatever that might be), not terribly arrogant either, but just real people that are good at what they do. I think that's because ideally, a reporter should be a... normal human being! Somebody likable enough to be on TV and not irritate viewers' brains out, someone with a sense of humor, someone who can handle stress... and someone who can deal with all kinds of people. I get the impression that seasoned reporters develop a great deal of empathy, without getting too involved themselves. I feel like they've found just the right balance of curiosity in all aspects of life, yet they can stay detached from all the drama.
Good reporters have a good sense of self-respect and take care of their appearance, without looking too over-the-top runway-model-ish. They have a pleasant voice and know how to talk like REAL people; they can get in a conversation with a rock and still come out looking intelligent. And they make you feel like you're the most important person in the world when they talk to you.

That's just the short list of qualities a good reporter should have, a list of qualities that I'm going to try hard to obtain.

Basically, I think good reporters make not only good professionals but also awesome, interesting human beings.