Here is the story of 3 middle school students suspended for refusing to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Yes, this story's been out there for a while now. Cut me some slack for being late in getting to it; I've had a hard week.) I sympathize completely with those students because back when I was in school, I didn't recite the pledge, either. Not for any religious reasons. Just because I think it's wrong to require it.

It astounds me that in a free country, anyone still thinks it's appropriate to require people to pledge allegiance. Requiring a pledge of loyalty is antithetical to the very idea of a free society. Requiring someone to pledge allegiance doesn't establish that the required party respects her country or her flag or whatever it is that you want her to respect. All it shows is that she respects your power to inflict punishment or shame if she refuses. To be truly meaningful, a pledge of allegiance must be absolutely voluntary, uncoerced by school officials or peer pressure.

I went to a pre-school graduation a few days ago where the Pledge was recited. I believe I was the only person who chose not to stand and recite it. Does that make me less of a patriot? Or just a free-thinker who expresses her love of country in her own ways? I resent the intrusion of the national anthem in every sporting event I attend, as if that will make me more of a patriot to engage in that show on a daily basis. I don't think it does. I certainly don't think it makes me less of a patriot that I wish most regular sporting events would stop playing the anthem before every single game.

What I really object to is the notion that there are certain things that we all must do to prove our love of country. Never mind that the flag is not a terribly meaningful symbol to me, I need to stand and salute it. Never mind that the national anthem is usually not sung well when sung at a baseball game, I need to stand at rapt attention with my hand over my heart. Never mind that Congress bastardized the Pledge of Allegiance 50 years after it was written to add two words that seemingly exclude me from being part of the nation, I need to stand and affirm my loyalty. Do these things and your patriotism cannot be assailed (regardless of your stances on things like first amendment rights, police powers, etc); Don't do these things and you obviously hate your country and should move.

Here's the thing: I really shouldn't have to prove my patriotic credentials to anybody. I spend each and every day defending the damn constitution, after all. But nobody else should have to prove their credentials, either. Because I'm such a patriot, I affirm and defend the rights of those students (and anyone else) who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance on command. What truer form of patriotism can there be than standing up for (or in this case sitting down for) our individual rights not to be forced by our government into making any statement?

Stirring up Trouble

I seem to have been stirring up a fair bit of trouble on the internet in the past week or two. I've been kind of growly in person, causing me not to pull any punches via the safety of the internet. I've been finding prosecutors' blogs and commenting on them, challenging their assumptions. In one case, I called the prosecutor absurd. Twice. I'm sure they've loved my blog if they followed my google profile over here. Especially the post that tells how I feel about prosecutors.

I've been getting involved in newspaper website discussions. All of the major newspapers in my region have fairly robust discussion boards. I try to stay out of it, but sometimes I just can't. I usually try to be very reasonable in my tone, but it seems lately I've been a bit more confrontational. There are a couple of commenters in particular whose schtick has gotten old so I've been calling them on it of late. I'm kind of turning the corner from being reasonable to just plain ranting.

Then my friend has a nice, sweet blog. Or it was until I showed up. Lately, it's gotten a bit more, um, active in its discussions. I kinda started that, albeit unintentionally. I didn't even think what I posted was all that controversial, but I guess it struck a nerve. She says she wanted to get her blog back into more political topics and she doesn't mind robust discussion. I hope she means it, because in my current mood I'm having a hard time letting things go. This is the same friend who calls me optimistic for getting into these internet discussions, so she probably does recognize my good faith motives, even if she doesn't agree with my statements.

I guess I'm doing what I set out to do when I started this blog: reach out beyond my choir of like-minded friends and co-workers. That's good. Reasonable discussion between people with differing views is never a bad thing. I just hope I can meet my goal of broaching those discussions in ways that don't just piss people off. Mostly. Some people really need to be called on their b.s. See, there I go again. Stirring up trouble.

You know you're a grown-up when...

the foundation repair guy gives you a quote of $5,000 and you breathe a sigh of relief because you can afford that!

It will wipe out most of my savings account, but I can write a check today for $5,000 without going to credit cards or begging to my parents. And without missing a single mortgage payment.

I feel like more of an adult now than I did when I was admitted to the bar, argued before the state supreme court, or bought my house. Because today, I have established that buying a house was not a foolish pipe dream. I was not going beyond my means. I am a responsible home-owner who can afford to do the necessary maintenance on her house. Who would have guessed?

Happy or Compassionate?

Headline on Yahoo! news today:



"Conservatives Happier than Liberals"



The story went on to explain that conservatives score better at rationalization, which helps them to rationalize away inequalities. Liberals suffer more of a psychological toll from inequalities in their society. As a result, 47% of conservatives described themselves as "very happy" compared to only 28% of liberals.

So I'm more depressed, but a more compassionate person? I think I'll take that trade. I'd rather be sadly aware of the inequalities around me than blissfully ignorant. At least awareness brings with it the opportunity to try to change things.

From MSNBC's story today about Jenna Bush's wedding:

WASHINGTON - Talk about hush-hush wedding planning. First daughter Jenna Bush was the last in the family to know she was getting married.

Months ago, her fiancé, Henry Hager, told Jenna's twin sister that he wanted to propose. Then at the Camp David presidential retreat, Hager asked President Bush and first lady Laura Bush for their daughter's hand in marriage.

For weeks, the president and Mrs. Bush kept their lips zipped.

Seriously? Are we still doing this? Asking anybody other than the woman for her "hand" in marriage?? 'Cause I thought it was 2008.

I really don't understand why this is considered a good tradition, or a respectful one. It shows very little respect for the autonomy of the potential bride. What sort of a woman needs to have her parents sign off on her life choices before she even knows there's a choice pending?

I get that it's tradition, but do the people who still follow it really think about why they do it or what it means? I'm not a big fan of holding onto traditions just because it's how it's always been done. It's just how it was done when women were considered something a little less than fully autonomous people. It's just how it was done when men paid dowries to take women away from their parents' homes. I don't think it's how it should be done now, when women support themselves, pay their own way through school, own their own damn homes. Other than reinforcing out-dated, patriarchal stereotypes, I fail to see what purpose this tradition serves.

In the pilot episode of Alias, Sydney Bristow's boyfriend calls up her dad and asks for Syd's hand in marriage. I have always loved Jack Bristow's response. He told the boyfriend he was asking the wrong person. His facial expression and tone conveyed the depth at his annoyance. I think he was annoyed to realize his strong, independent daughter was wasting her time with a doofus who didn't appreciate her. I certainly hope that is the reaction my father would have if any man of mine ever tried this nonsense.

And we're back

Well, that was a really pleasant 7 months. But now it's over. Georgia just killed a guy tonight, officially ending the moratorium on state-sanctioned murder. And now the machinery of death is warmed up and will soon be at full strength. More killings are scheduled for the month of May. Then there's a whole slew of 'em coming in the summer. Yippee.

Why I Shouldn't Watch Nancy Grace

Tonight, Nancy featured the sad case of Erica Rutledge, a single 24 year-old mother whose 6 year-old daughter died in an apartment fire. (4 year-old son survived.) The mother has been charged with involuntary manslaughter. Nancy began the discussion by telling us, with her regular tone of horror, judgment, and disgust, that the "mother" (you can practically feel the air quotes around that word) was out at a club while her poor, innocent child died. The tone clearly conveys that Nancy thinks the woman is pure evil for having the nerve to be at a club ever. Nancy thinks, "She has children! She is not allowed to have any thoughts but those that pertain to those beautiful little angels. Only a truly horrible mother would spend any time at all away from her precious children!" Might have been an appropriate moment for a caller to ask Nancy where her two beautiful children are each night while she's spewing her crap on t.v. But I digress.

My first assumption from the way Nancy spoke of the horrible "mother" was that she must have left the kids home alone. But in that case, I would actually agree with Nancy that the mother is pretty bad to go to a club, and that can't happen. So there must be more to the story. Sure enough, there was a man at the apartment. But Nancy says he didn't even know he was supposed to be in charge and didn't know the kids were there! Well, ok, that's still not great parenting on Mom's part. If that's true. Of course, Nancy takes the man's story at face value and automatically discredits any claims by Mom that she really did leave someone in charge of her kid.

Here, Nancy and I finally fully diverge. Phew! It feels wrong to be too closely aligned to her in opinion. Thank God it never lasts long as she always omits key details. Key details like, Mom didn't leave home until 12:30, so at the time of the fire, she'd been gone for one hour. One single hour. She didn't skip out on bed time or meal time. The fact that this all happened after 12:30 also explains why the man left at the home was sleeping. Ok, so maybe this woman isn't such a terrible mom.

Another pretty key detail that Nancy omitted is this: the daughter wasn't supposed to be home that night. When Mom left the apartment, daughter was supposed to be settled in at a sleep-over. No reason to ask the babysitter man to take care of the daughter because Mom would be home before her daughter came home in the morning. Hardly negligent or irresponsible parenting. For some reason, the sleep-over hosts brought the daughter home sometime after 12:30. So Mom didn't know the kid was home. Seems that this also explains the man's statement that he didn't know he was supposed to take care of the girl. Hmm, now that we think about it, his statement was confined to not realizing he was responsible for the girl.

Nancy had a fire investigator on to discuss the possible causes of the fire. They think it started in Mom's room. Could have been mechanical. Could have been matches. Could have been a lit cigarette. Nancy instantly discredited the first two possibilities. Mom clearly left a lit cigarette in her room. Couldn't have just been random chance, couldn't have been the little boy who was sleeping in that room playing with matches, and the fire investigator couldn't possibly be wrong about what room the fire started in.

So let's recap: According to Nancy Grace, Mom is evil, irresponsible, and should go away for life because her daughter died in an apartment fire while Mom was out at a club. A fire that Mom undoubtedly started by leaving a lit cigarette in her room. Her little lackey, Sue Moss, who clearly aspires to be the next Nancy, even emulating the contemptuous huffs, the snarky comments, and the sneer, was right there agreeing with Nancy on everything.

Now let's de-Nancy Grace this story and find the reality. A single mom went out for an hour or two. Is she really not allowed to go out once in a while? We have no knowledge that she does this every night or that she ever leaves her kids alone to go clubbing. She left her 4 year-old at home with a friend and her 6 year-old at a sleep-over. How on earth does anyone get criminal behavior out of this scenario?? That's not even negligent parenting! Even if the guy wasn't the best babysitter in the world, so what? She didn't leave her kids home alone and the fact is that the guy got the boy out of the apartment. He says he didn't know the girl was home or he would have gone for her, too. So the babysitter fit the main criteria we have for babysitters: take care of the kids if some emergency happens.

Now, maybe she did leave a lit cigarette (hardly a proven point and requires a lot of faith in fire science, which I do not have), but the crux of Nancy's complaint with this woman is that she's such a negligent, irresponsible person for leaving her kids to go out. The real question I have is what is up with the sleep-over hosts who brought that girl home so late at night? Did they make sure the adult at the home knew the girl was back? Did they try to call the girl's mom? If they just brought the girl home and let her slip inside the apartment, don't they at least share some morally responsibility for the girl's death? Several times in my childhood, my parents had to take one of my friends home from my house at a weird hour. They never did so without making contact with the friend's parents. My parents would have walked that girl to her door, knocked on it, and made sure the babysitter woke up and saw the girl was back home. Isn't that what any adult entrusted with the care of another woman's child should do?

The bottom line here is that this all only happened a few days ago. Nancy doesn't know all the details. There is no final report from the fire investigator. No witnesses have yet testified in court. We don't really know any of the witness statements in full. No one seems to know any information from the sleep-over hosts. Basically, we don't know jack squat right now. The investigation and trial process usually helps flesh these things out pretty well. The picture at the end of a trial is usually pretty different from the picture a few days in.

And here's what's so wrong with Nancy Grace. She doesn't know much at all about how this situation will appear once all of the witnesses testify and all the evidence comes in, but that doesn't slow her down at all in passing judgment. She has already got this mother convicted in her mind. She got there by ignoring details, assuming others, and accepting at face value any piece of possible evidence that points to her conclusion. She dismisses with much derision anyone who dares to speak a word in defense of a suspect. There's no room for sympathizing in any way with the person who has been branded the suspect. (At one point, she made a very nasty comment about Mom crying in the courtroom. Nancy told her to stop crying about being in the jailhouse orange. Gee, Nancy, she couldn't possibly have been crying for her dead daughter, now could she?) She speaks with contempt of the presumption of innocence, due process, and defense attorneys. All this from a former prosecutor who is supposed to be respectful of our system of justice.

And people eat it up. Every single caller starts with, "You're the greatest Nancy," "Love your show, Nancy," or "Yours is the only show worth watching, Nancy." And my favorite, "Thank you for all you do for victims, Nancy." Makes me sick. No wonder we have more people in prison than any other country. This nation is just full of idiots who always want to blame, judge, and condemn others. No thoughtful analysis of evidence, thank you. No careful consideration of the individual's actual moral culpability. No honest recognition that sometimes people just die and there really isn't anyone to blame. At least not from Nancy Grace and her dittoheads. (Yes, I'm borrowing from Rush here, but it really fits, because no one who calls in to Nancy's show ever expresses any dissent.)

So this is why I shouldn't watch Nancy Grace. It isn't entertaining or edifying. It just pisses me off. And it adds to my ever-increasing dismay about our general public's attitudes towards crime and those unfortunate enough to be suspected of committing crimes. But I'm kind of addicted to getting pissed off and I do think it's important to keep tabs on the bad, sensationalist media types so we can try to counter them. Still, I can't keep doing this to myself. My blood pressure doesn't need to be so high and I can't take it upon myself to debunk each and every one of her shows. So I'm not gonna watch her again. Not for a long time. At least, not until tomorrow night!


(The last two sentences are quoted from one of my favorite movies. Maybe a bit obscure as a quote, but it's always been one of my favorite moments. Points to the first person who can identify it!)