The Erosion of Fair Trials: Media Circus and Public Opinion Taint Justice

True crime enthusiasts, bloggers, and pundits always frustrate me. They claim to seek justice but too often undermine its very foundation by injecting bias and speculation into criminal cases. The ongoing saga surrounding the Idaho murder trial of Bryan Kohberger is a textbook example of how outside influences taint our justice system.

On November 13, 2022, four University of Idaho students—Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin—were brutally stabbed to death in their off-campus residence in Moscow, Idaho. Authorities allege the victims were attacked while they slept. A suspect, Bryan Kohberger, was later arrested, with police citing DNA evidence found on a knife sheath at the scene, cell phone tracking data, and witness statements.

From the moment Kohberger was identified, a frenzy ensued. Bloggers, podcasters, and self-styled crime experts wasted no time casting judgment, often ignoring the cornerstone principle of our legal system: the presumption of innocence. Despite pleading not guilty—an act that merely invokes the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—Kohberger became the target of venomous hate and outrage.

Pretrial Publicity: Poisoning the Well

The situation deteriorated further when the local judge approved a change of venue to Boise, Idaho, citing overwhelming pretrial publicity. This decision, intended to ensure impartial jurors, was met with resistance from the true crime community. The same people who demand “justice for the victims” seem to have little understanding of—or respect for—the need for unbiased juries who will base their verdict solely on courtroom evidence.

What’s worse, the dissemination of incomplete or misunderstood evidence fuels speculation. Reports about DNA evidence, cell phone tracking, and eyewitness accounts quickly morph into assumptions of guilt. When experts challenge the reliability or interpretation of this evidence, the public outcry grows louder.

Let’s be honest: in today’s world, jurors are rarely uninfluenced. Despite legal admonitions to avoid external information, many will inevitably Google case details or read media coverage. This reality makes it nearly impossible for defendants, especially in high-profile cases, to receive fair trials.

The Role of Media Pundits

Figures like Nancy Grace—whom I unapologetically dub “Nancy Disgrace”—exacerbate the problem. They parade sensationalized narratives, stoking public outrage and poisoning the well of public opinion. High-profile cases are treated as entertainment rather than serious legal matters, turning trials into media circuses.

For instance, look no further than the Scott Peterson case, where a man was convicted of killing his wife, Laci Peterson, without any actual evidence of her cause of death. Or the Rebecca Grossman case in Westlake Village, California, involving the tragic deaths of two little boys struck by a vehicle. The facts of these cases were obscured by public demand for retribution, often at the expense of objective legal processes.

A Broken System

The Kohberger trial highlights a growing problem in our society: we claim to value fair trials, but our actions say otherwise. True crime fanatics, biased media, and the unrelenting internet chatter all conspire to rob defendants of impartial justice. Even when guilty individuals stand trial, they deserve verdicts rooted in evidence, not in hysteria.

If we are serious about justice, we must take concrete steps to shield our courts from outside interference. High-profile juries should be sequestered from the moment they are selected, stripped of access to smartphones, laptops, and media. Until we address these systemic flaws, the integrity of our justice system will remain under siege, and fair trials will be little more than a hollow ideal.

Journalism: A Career? Not Anymore.

Journalism was once a noble and rewarding career path. The pay was decent, and the profession demanded exceptional talent. To succeed, you needed strong writing skills, the ability to uncover hard-to-find information, and a solid understanding of government operations at all levels. Mastery of the criminal justice system and expertise in filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were essential tools of the trade.

Today, both broadcast and print media are on life support. High-paid reporters and producers have been pushed out, and pay raises are a thing of the past. In fact, some journalists in major markets now qualify for food stamps—a shocking reality for what was once considered a prestigious profession.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has dealt another blow to journalism. AI can take a mediocre draft, polish it in seconds, and churn out copy that reads like it was written by a seasoned professional. AI also simplifies research, providing step-by-step guidance on finding information. It can even draft and send FOIA requests to the correct recipient without you lifting a finger.

Deadlines? They’ve become irrelevant. AI can complete a story in minutes, leaving little room for the painstaking effort that once defined quality journalism. As a result, almost anyone with basic skills can produce work that could compete for a Pulitzer Prize.

The future of news is even more unsettling. AI-powered anchors and reporters are on the horizon, poised to replace their human counterparts. Video journalists and field reporters may still have a role, but they’ll likely follow AI-generated instructions on what questions to ask and which shots to capture.

Institutions like Northwestern and Columbia, long known for training top-tier journalists, will have to adapt. Their focus will shift to teaching students how to leverage AI for news gathering and publishing.

The industry has changed dramatically, and not necessarily for the better. Journalism as a career may soon be a relic of the past, replaced by an AI-driven model that values speed and efficiency over human insight and skill.

Sarah McBride: Breaking Barriers, Sparking Debates, and Maybe Some Bathroom Confusion

The rise of transgender popularity in the U.S. is undeniable. The Internet is full of stories about people—mostly men transitioning to women—embracing their “true” selves. Some even take the ghastly surgical route, which, let’s be honest, isn’t for the faint of heart.

Transgender individuals are making waves everywhere—on police forces, beauty pageant stages, and soon, maybe even as evening news anchors. Many might not win a “Miss Congeniality” award, but beauty is subjective, right?

Enter Sarah McBride, a trailblazing transgender politician from Delaware who made history by snagging a seat in Congress. Naturally, this led to the inevitable bathroom debate. In a building where even finding a decent parking spot is a Herculean task, building a third bathroom might be a stretch. But here’s a simple fix: a sign that says “Occupied—Give Me a Minute” works wonders. Let’s not sweat the small stuff.

Congress, after all, is supposed to represent everyone. Transgender people are part of the fabric of our society, so why not have a voice at the table? The real concern isn’t someone’s wardrobe or pronouns but their loyalty to America and the ability to keep America thriving—secure borders, economic growth, peace and all that jazz.

McBride is a liberal Democrat from Delaware, so naturally, conservatives should be wary. But imagine if McBride becomes the bridge-builder Congress desperately needs. If both sides can ditch the name-calling and focus on what really matters, we might just get somewhere.

In the meantime, let’s give McBride a fair shot. After all, America is a melting pot, and there’s room in the recipe for everyone—even if some ingredients are a little spicier than others.

The Death of Firearms Control in the United States

Any hope of effectively controlling firearms in the United States is dead. While politicians can continue drafting restrictive gun laws, advancements in technology and pivotal court decisions have rendered such efforts largely meaningless.

Today, anyone with access to a $200 3D printer can easily manufacture firearm components. These devices, guided by downloadable computer programs, can produce a perfect frame for a semi-automatic pistol. Since polymer-framed guns like Glocks require no traditional machining, they are particularly easy to replicate. The frame of a firearm is the regulated and serialized component under federal law, but a homemade frame bypasses these regulations entirely, allowing individuals to produce guns in secret. Importantly, 3D printers are common among hobbyists and are used to make a wide variety of items, further obscuring their potential use for firearm creation.

In addition to these technological advances, legal developments have further dismantled gun control efforts. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), redefined the constitutional landscape by striking down laws that impose undue restrictions on the Second Amendment. This ruling has effectively ended requirements for serialization and other gun control measures. Under existing laws, authorities can still confiscate firearms from prohibited individuals—such as violent felons or those deemed mentally ill—but such enforcement happens only after possession is discovered.

This combination of technology and legal precedent creates a new reality where criminals and other bad actors can manufacture untraceable firearms with minimal effort, ensuring an endless supply of weapons. While being caught in possession of such firearms can result in severe penalties, the ease of private manufacturing makes prevention nearly impossible.

The conclusion is stark: the rapid advancement of 3D printing technology, combined with the constitutional protections reinforced by Bruen, has rendered traditional firearms regulations obsolete. Whether for better or worse, meaningful gun control in the United States is a relic of the past.  Politicians just don’t get it. Gun laws only impact the law abiding.  

Gaza and October 7th Reimagined: A Vision of What Could Have Been

Imagine if the people of Gaza had cast aside hatred and chosen friendship with Israel instead. Picture the prosperity that could have emerged from cooperation and trade with one of the most advanced economies in the region. 

Imagine a world without terrorism—where there are no hostages, and Gaza’s homes, apartments, and businesses remain intact, thriving instead of reduced to rubble.

Think of hospitals serving as places of healing, not as shields for terrorist operations. Envision schools dedicated to educating children, nurturing hope, and building futures, rather than indoctrinating the next generation into cycles of violence.

What a remarkable and vibrant Gaza it could have been—flourishing, peaceful, and free from destruction. Yet this vision was sabotaged by intolerant Islamic extremists, whose obsession with hatred and violence has only ensured suffering for generations. It’s a tragedy that could have been avoided, if only wisdom and humanity had prevailed.

The gun laws of the last 65 years dismantled as the second amendment has been re-established.

The 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), delivered a seismic blow to the anti-gun agenda, striking down an estimated 20,000 federal, state, and local gun laws that blatantly violated the Second Amendment. This landmark ruling reaffirmed an undeniable truth: the Second Amendment means what it says and says what it means—the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet, in open defiance of the Constitution and the Supreme Court, blue states have launched a full-scale rebellion. They’ve flooded the courts with resistance and doubled down by enacting even more unconstitutional gun laws. Let there be no doubt: the Bruen decision is a line in the sand, a call to restore the fundamental freedoms enshrined in our Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment is not negotiable.

Children and Firearms: Why Training is Essential

The term “gun safety” has been hijacked by those advocating for gun control, overshadowing its true purpose: teaching the safe handling and use of firearms to prevent accidents. For children, gun safety isn’t a theoretical concept—it’s a critical life skill that could save lives.

Children are naturally curious, especially about firearms. TV shows and movies often glamorize guns, making them seem exciting and mysterious. If a child encounters a firearm, particularly one left unattended, their curiosity can lead to tragedy.

Many parents believe this isn’t a concern because they don’t keep firearms in their homes. However, children visit friends and neighbors where firearms may be present. In such situations, a lack of knowledge or training can become dangerous.

The Problem with “Don’t Touch” Rules

Standard advice like “stop, don’t touch, and call an adult” often falls short. Curiosity and excitement can easily override these instructions. Without a deeper understanding of firearms, warnings alone are unlikely to prevent accidents.

The Solution: Hands-On Training

The answer lies in proper education and hands-on training. Ideally, this training should come from a professional who can teach children:

1. How firearms function

2. Safe handling practices

3. The consequences of misuse

A key part of this training should include allowing children to actually fire firearms under controlled, supervised conditions. With proper safety glasses and hearing protection, children can see, hear, and feel the power of a gun when it’s fired.

This firsthand experience is invaluable. It demystifies firearms, satisfies their curiosity, and fosters a profound respect for their potential danger. Once children understand the seriousness of handling a firearm, they are far less likely to engage in reckless behavior if they encounter one elsewhere.

Understanding the Consequences

Another crucial part of training is teaching children the life-or-death stakes involved with firearms. They need to understand that a single moment of negligence or misuse can have permanent and devastating consequences. This knowledge reinforces the importance of following safety rules.

Once properly trained, children are far more likely to heed instructions like “don’t touch and call an adult.” Their curiosity is addressed, and they’ve developed a healthy respect for firearms through firsthand experience.

A Lesson for Parents Too

Even if you dislike firearms, prioritizing your child’s safety means overcoming that bias. Proper education isn’t about encouraging firearm use—it’s about preventing accidents. Participating in the training process with your children can also deepen your own understanding of gun safety and help foster mutual respect.

The old saying, “curiosity killed the cat,” is a stark reminder of how unchecked curiosity can lead to tragedy. Equip your children with the knowledge, skills, and respect they need to stay safe. Their lives—and the lives of others—may depend on it.

It’s Time to Unequivocally End the Drug War: Embracing the Benefits of Legalization

For decades, America has fought a losing battle against drugs. Despite billions spent and countless lives disrupted, the demand for narcotics only grows. Law enforcement seizes tons of illegal drugs every year, yet this represents only a small fraction of what flows freely to consumers. The drug war has failed, creating a trail of violence, corruption, and injustice in its wake. It’s time to abandon this broken approach and embrace the benefits of legalization.

The Endless Cycle of Prohibition

Prohibition has fueled an epidemic of overdoses, most notably from fentanyl, now the leading cause of drug-related deaths. The harder law enforcement works, the more resilient the drug trade becomes, adapting with deadly innovations. The resulting black market has empowered violent cartels and corrupted public officials, from law enforcement officers to court actors.

History offers a clear lesson: Prohibition doesn’t work. Just as the end of alcohol prohibition dismantled bootlegging empires, legalizing drugs would strip cartels of their profits. By regulating these substances, we can ensure safer products and redirect resources to address the underlying causes of addiction.

The Hidden Corruption of Drug Treatment Programs

One of the most overlooked failures of the drug war is the rise of what can only be described as treatment cartels. Many court-mandated drug treatment programs have become profit-driven operations that exploit addicts rather than help them. These facilities often serve as little more than “get out of jail free” cards, offering ineffective, short-term treatment to fulfill legal requirements.

The problem is simple: addicts who are coerced into treatment with no desire to recover. Meanwhile, these programs enrich their operators, who profit from the revolving door of court-mandated clients. Legalization would eliminate the need for these predatory systems, freeing resources for meaningful, long-term rehabilitation initiatives.

The True Cost of Prohibition

Beyond its failure to curb addiction, the drug war has inflicted widespread harm on innocent Americans. Law enforcement agencies routinely seize cash, raid homes, and destroy lives—all under the guise of fighting drugs. Rogue actors within the system exploit this for personal gain, further eroding public trust. Yet none of these efforts have slowed the drug trade or reduced the tragic toll of addiction.

Meanwhile, our streets are overrun with homeless individuals that have surrendered to addiction. These people need healthcare, housing, nutritious food, and meaningful rehabilitation—not criminalization. Involuntary hospitalization and compassionate care should replace punitive measures, ensuring that addicts are treated as patients, not criminals.

The Economic Case for Legalization

The production costs of most illegal drugs are comparable to everyday commodities like coffee or sugar. It’s prohibition that drives their prices sky-high, creating immense profits for cartels and corrupt officials. Legalization would remove this profit motive overnight, making drugs affordable and reducing the financial desperation that leads addicts to commit robberies burglaries and even murders.

Moreover, the billions currently spent on the drug war could be redirected to fund healthcare, housing, and education.

A Safer, Healthier Future

Ending the drug war would transform our society. Legalization would dismantle cartels, reduce corruption, violence and shift our focus from punishment to care. By addressing addiction as a health issue, we can provide long-term solutions that restore dignity to individuals and safety to our communities.

It’s time to face the truth: the drug war has been an unmitigated disaster. Legalization isn’t about surrendering to addiction—it’s about embracing a smarter, more workable approach. By ending drug prohibition, we can build a safer, healthier, and more just future for all Americans.