Casey Anthony and Karen Murphy: Negligent moms or heartless murderers?

Casey Anthony (left) was found not guilty of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee (right).

A nation is reeling in the wake of Casey Anthony's "not guilty" verdict in the case of her then 2-year-old daughter Caylee's death in 2008. Critics are calling it the 2011 O.J. trial — with evidence stacked against her (duct tape marks on the child's mouth, "smell of death" in her car's trunk, allegations of the young mom wanting to get rid of her kid to lead a party lifestyle with her boyfriend), it seemed Anthony was set to face major consequences. 25-year-old Anthony potentially faced the death penalty if found guilty. However, after just 11 hours, a jury found her not guilty of murder — she was only charged with several counts of lying to investigators.

After such a long, grueling, circus-esque legal process with millions of people following each step of the case, many were ready to bring Caylee to justice. They now face the reality that that will never happen. Anthony is officially free from murder charges and can proceed to live a (somewhat) normal life again.

Defense attorneys argued that Caylee had accidentally drowned in the family pool, and in a panic, Anthony hid her body. At best, this seems like a shabbily-crafted excuse that still reeks of criminal behavior and exceedingly poor judgment. Had Anthony intentionally killed her toddler daughter in 2008, which still remains a high possibility in many spectators' minds, she just got away with murder. 40-year-old Karen Murphy of Prince William County, Va., probably will not.

Murphy was charged with murder after leaving her 2-year-old son strapped in his car seat for over 7 hours unattended. All parties agree that this very unfortunate event was accidental, but because of her neglectful parenting, she faces up to 40 years in prison. According to Prince William police, neighbors could hear Murphy's screams upon discovering 2-year-old Ryan Murphy dead in the family's minivan.

Murphy is set to go on trial soon, and some obvious parallels to the Anthony case come to mind. They are both mothers who in some way aided in the untimely expiration of their young, innocent children. They both are being shunned by the public for their poor parenting skills which ended in the ultimate tragedies. However, Murphy did not hide her son's body. She did not lie to police. There are no allegations that she may have left her son to die purposely. She is obviously distraught, and not just because she faces prison time — but because her child is gone, and it is her fault. The same cannot be said for Anthony, who reportedly participated in a "hot body" contest during the time Caylee was "missing." Though tears stained her trembling face as the jury delivered their verdict, it is unlikely it had anything to do with the loss of her daughter. It was probably because she didn't want to meet the same fate as Caylee — a very, very untimely death — by receiving the death penalty.

Which is worse — a mother who is fatally forgetful, or a mother who quite possibly suffocated her own daughter so that she could shirk parental responsibilities? If Murphy is convicted, while Anthony was not, it is sending the message that with the right lawyers or the right jury, evidence means nothing and nonsensical alibis will fly. Murphy faces enough heartache and distress knowing her actions led to the death of her young son. She should not be able to go scotch-free, but both the parallels and the inconsistencies in these two cases are alarming. There is no doubt that Murphy would have never intentionally murdered her child. With Anthony, however, that doubt remains even beyond her fortuitous verdict.

D.C. radio station diversifies to reach larger audience

For anyone living in the D.C. metropolitan area, WPGC 95.5 has long been a staple of the urban music community — it is the self-professed "#1 for hip-hop and R&B" in D.C. Only recently have listeners begun to hear artists like Katy Perry, Adele, and LMFAO in addition to the usual Chris Brown, Trey Songz, and Wiz Khalifa on 95.5 — but according to the station's program director, Jason Kidd, this is actually WPGC returning to its roots.

"From 1987 to 1997, and off and on in the early 2000’s, WPGC was known as an urban crossover station, mixing urban hits with pop hits," said Kidd.

According to Kidd, the most recent decision to diversify was made based on slipping ratings. The transition has been gradual, and has been undetected by many listeners — possibly because many of the pop songs played on WPGC still have a hip-hop or R&B element to it. Take for example Katy Perry's top-40 hit "E.T." featuring Kanye West, or Adele's "Rolling in the Deep," which is widely classified as Soul music.

Area radio station WKYS 93.9 has for many years been the primary competition for WPGC, as they both played similar artists and songs — sometimes even at the same time. By beginning again to play pop songs like Bruno Mars' "Just the Way You Are," WPGC seems to be reaching out to a broader audience, something more radio stations may feel the need to do in the near future. With more and more sources of music arising in the wake of a new technological age, radio stations may not find it in their best interest to cater to very narrow, specific genres of music.

Kidd says that a recent tech study conducted by radio consultant Fred Jacobs showed that FM radio was still the top source for discovering new music. But with YouTube, Pandora, and other online sources of music so readily available, what is going to keep the radio industry afloat?

"We can do what Pandora can’t do," said Kidd. "We can entertain, inform, educate and excite the audience with our passions for what we play."

Marylanders suffer lack of personal, economic freedom, study finds

According to a study conducted by researchers at the George Mason University Mercatus Center, Maryland ranks last among all 50 states in terms of residents' personal freedom. It is ranked 28th in economic freedom, and overall -- only seven states are considered to have less freedom than Maryland.

Why does Maryland rank so low? The answer is complex, and takes into account many of the state's oppressive laws. According to the report published by GMU, Maryland imposes restrictions on personal freedoms in a variety of ways. Gun laws in Maryland are "the second-strictest" in the nation -- the state goes through great lengths to curb firearm trafficking, and additionally, the Constitution of Maryland contains no provision protecting the right to bear arms. Maryland also has harsh marijuana laws and weak medical marijuana laws -- and very high drug-arrest rates. There is a lack of rights reserved for same-sex couples in Maryland. Also, smoking bans have been enacted recently, censuring public smoking greatly. Cigarette taxes have also increased dramatically.

The report offers three policy recommendations for Maryland:
"1. Legalize same-sex civil unions.
2. Strengthen the medical-marijuana law and decriminalize low-level possession.
3. Roll back occupational licensing. Examples of licensed professions not always licensed elsewhere include audiologists, occupational-therapist assistants, private investigators, bartenders, tree trimmers, embalmers, well-drilling journeymen, fire-alarm and security-system installers, and boiler operators."

Are Marylanders at all concerned about their relative lack of freedom? This report seems to have shed light on a perhaps once-ineffable phenomena of government imposition in the state. Many Marylanders were likely not aware of the severity of the issue within the state as compared to others like South Dakota and New Hampshire, which were rated very high in freedom levels for residents. In overall last place for freedom, however, was New York.

Making violence sexy: Rihanna's video for "Man Down" sparks contoversy

Pop superstar Rihanna's new video encompasses everything the American public lusts for in entertainment: violence and sex. Unfortunately, however, the two are so entwined that viewers likely won't know how to feel once the 5-minute video ends.

Rihanna's video for her newest video "Man Down" premiered this week on BET, and has sparked controversy for its violent content. The video, set in Jamaica, opens with Rihanna shooting a man dead on a crowded street. The video then backtracks to demystify Rihanna's seemingly unprovoked act of violence -- the night before, she was sexually assaulted by the man she killed.

Critics are upset for a few reasons. Some are angry that a premeditated murder could make its way into mainstream, prime time television in a popular artist's music video. Rihanna did not promote the accepted standard of getting justice through the legal system; instead, the video portrays her ruthlessly taking the law into her own hands. Furthermore, some people are upset that Rihanna did not take this opportunity -- especially because she was famously the victim of domestic abuse in her relationship with singer Chris Brown -- to advocate doing "the right thing." What, however, is the "right" thing to do when you are the victim of such a heinous crime?

Morals are discretionary, and so is the societal climate of different countries. Perhaps Rihanna chose Jamaica as the setting for her video for a reason -- things that may be commonplace or even the retaliatory norm in some places may evoke utter shock and outrage in other places (read: the U.S.). Though murder is never "right," neither is rape, or stealing bubble gum, or downloading music illegally. Rihanna employed artistic creativity in her video to display the story of a woman -- not necessarily herself in the most literal form -- exacting revenge on a man who has violated and demeaned her. The video seems to suggest that the man took the happy, flirtatious and freespirited nature of Rihanna's character as an invitation to impose himself upon her sexually. The counterattack by Rihanna's character the next day is sort of a symbolic gesture to say that this is not okay. Women should be free to dress, behave, and live as they wish without the threat of being assaulted. Even through the lyrics of the song, regret and despair are expressed: "I didn't mean to hurt him/ Could have been somebody's son." This does not justify the action portrayed in the video, but it's mostly realistic. What woman alive would not contemplate murdering a man who so mercilessly rapes her? Rihanna is not encouraging personal vendettas against rapists. She is merely bringing to visual fruition a situation that probably, sadly, is not so farfetched.

At the heart of the "Man Down" video, however, lies a complex problem involving female sexuality and empowerment. Per the usual Rihanna video, she is gorgeous. Not only is she gorgeous, she is sexually enticing and writhes around like a horny goddess. In a video where a rape is portrayed, how appropriate is it to alternate images of the attack with images of a vulnerable yet undeniably sexually charged Rihanna? She seems to be eroticizing the entirety of the video's events: from her damsel-like struggle with the rapist, to the kitten-esque way she maneuvers her body post-murder.

Either Rihanna is proliferating the feminist movement, or playing into long-standing notions of female vulnerability -- a vulnerability where control can only be redeemed through extreme measures not excluding murder.

Judge for yourself -- full video below:

Environmental prudence: the case for renewable energy sources

The meltdown of Japan’s Fukushima nuclear power plant is responsible for about 11,500 tons of radioactive water being released into the Pacific Ocean. The government says this will not pose an immediate threat to humans -- very hard to believe. However, like many aspects of nuclear power, the threat is not necessarily immediate – but does not equate to nonexistent. The actual cost of nuclear power could be quite grave.

Since the early 1990s, there has been a budding hope for a nuclear renaissance. The earth’s supply of fossil fuels is steadily being depleted, and the United States’ dependence on coal and gas has proven detrimental in many ways. Just this past year, at least 70 coal waste dumpsites were found to have contaminated water supplies with toxic metals like arsenic, lead, selenium, and cadmium. The obvious solution would be to make the switch to nuclear, right? Wrong.

The potential risks of developing nuclear power plants in the United States likely won’t hit us, but it may leave our children or grandchildren reeling.

Though nuclear power plants will reduce greenhouse emissions, it is not necessarily good for the environment. There is uncertainty about containment, decommissioning, and disposal of nuclear waste. Nuclear meltdowns result in blighted lands, barren and uninhabitable. The development of nuclear power plants also require government financial backing, and many, many years of development. The U.S. government cannot afford to go forth with this expenditure, investing in an energy source that is both costly and enigmatic.

The only responsible path for the United States to take is towards renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power.

President Obama promised in 2008 to ensure that 10 percent of U.S. electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025 – something he has not yet made viable strides toward yet.

Proponents for nuclear power often suggest that countries that abandon the idea of nuclear power will likely go to fossil fuels instead, and not renewable energy sources. Governments are unlikely to invest in renewables – but that is a matter of financial hunger and not concern for the safety and longevity of our people, our country, and our earth.

Our actions today will make or break tomorrow.

Renewable energy has longevity, and no adverse effects on climate or human health. The same cannot be said for either nuclear power or fossil fuels such as coal. Critics may blast the shift to renewable energy sources as too expensive and insufficient for the country’s ever-growing energy demand, but if it saves tomorrow, then we should be willing to make some changes today.

Using less power and resources in general is the responsibility of every American citizen. Our earth is not built to endure many of the strains we subject it to. We must begin to develop policies that work with the earth’s delicate ecological balance, and renewable energy is the only option that fits that bill.

The development of more nuclear power may prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back – maybe not this year, or in 50 years, but the uncertainty of it all should be deterrence enough.