My closest attempt at being a lobbyist.

For my biology class, the discussion board topic this week was:

Fuck.
Oh how I wished my name was Adam or Kyle...
Anything but Matt (right now).
Haha.
 
I sat there, for about 10 minutes contemplating, while also reading some of my classmates responses to this topic.
Which by the way, a lot of my classmates are either (flatout) dumbasses, who don't read the guidelines of first names and what your supposed to write about...
Or they purposefully and strategically chose to fuck the guidelines, and write what they personally felt, cause they didn't have the moxie to do otherwise. Lol.
 
Either way, I feared my response wouldn't get points (very much needed) for not obeying the guidelines, so I began to reason with myself, what (the fuck) would anyone have to say in opposition to paying the wrongfully accused?
 
What heartless human being would confidentally support that opposition?
 
Right then and there, a light bulb clicked.
I thought about Thank You For Smoking.
The tobacco industry would be capable of putting a positive spin on this one.
 
I guess its not so bad that my name is Matt, after all.
Even though, I completely don't agree with the opposition, I reasoned with myself that if I want to be a decent writer (which I do), that I would inevitably have to write about things I don't necessarily agree with.
 
So, here's my attempt at being heartless:
 
-----------------------------
 
Dear citizens,

My job is to protect and serve. With the best evidence possible, I need to act and serve accordingly. If the evidence tells me to contribute to putting a man/woman in jail and in this process, giving him/her fair trial, and if they are convicted off that crime, then I am simply doing my job as a sheriff officer. Now, seeing many of these people that I have personally brought down, get retried to find out through DNA testing that they have only been wrongly accused, shocks me. Irks me. Surely, it pains me to see many of these people do time. But statistically, my job is to act accordingly, with the best evidence possible. Time changes, technology changes, mistakes will be made because of this. We are all products of a flimsy system, equal to a "beta" version; there is really no way of being definitively correct all the time. There is always going to be mistakes, and who's to say that the retried aren't guilty because of flawed, inaccurate, or outdated DNA testing? So I don't believe its fair that a man simply doing his job, especially being that involves the safety of a community, should be held responsible by paying a financial penalty.

-----------------------------
 
Eh?
It's not completely a disasterous attempt, I'd say.
 
 
///