Posts
My dear Maddie,
We are now in a stretch of days where triple digit heat will be the norm. It is warm. And while your hair is pretty short right now, you're still covered in it. What with being a dog and all. So you're likely to get hot. There is only so much I can do. I can set the thermostat so that the a/c will run during the heat of the day. And I can set out a large bowl and fill it with water every morning.
But I can't make you drink it. How do I make you understand that the water is always there and you should drink from it whenever you want? Instead of just when I get home and put fresh water in it? Because it's starting to really stress me out to come home at 5:30 and realize that you haven't had any water since 8 am.
Please drink your water. All day. I would actually prefer that you pee in the house than that you get sick from dehydration. Really.
Love, Mom
ps-I'm not saying pee at will or anything...
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Monday, June 25, 2012
The hair cut heard 'round the world
Last month, a mother in Utah cut off her daughter's ponytail in open court so the girl could receive a reduced sentence. The daughter's crime had been cutting off the hair of a little girl (whose mother approved this novel approach by the judge).
I first read about this case last week, but refrained from blogging about it right away because I wanted to think about my thoughts. My initial, visceral reaction was that this was a horrible thing for the judge to suggest. And while I am a firm believer in listening to one's gut instincts, I am also a firm believer in not giving in to those initial reactions but instead thinking and reasoning and coming to a better conclusion once the cloud of emotion has passed.
In this case, time and thought have not changed my view that this kind of sentence is inappropriate. Wrong, even. So many of the comments on stories about this case have referred to the concept of eye for an eye, have suggested that this young offender should indeed have done to her as she did to others. Yes, I even saw someone refer to this sentence as the Golden Rule.
But this sentence doesn't follow the Golden Rule. Certainly not the Golden Rule that I learned. The Golden Rule isn't license to treat people as awfully as they have treated you, but rather urges us to treat others the way we would like to be treated. Bullying a kid who has bullied others isn't the way to put an end to bullying. It just turns the rest of us into bullies.
The argument in favor of this hair cutting punishment is in essence the same argument for the death penalty, which you all know I don't agree with. I just can't get behind the idea that we should allow other people's behavior to justify our own. "She did it first so it's ok for me to do it now," shouldn't be a part of anyone's moral code. But a lot of people cite the biblical "eye for an eye" as justification for punishment that is perfectly in line with what the perpetrator did. (Even though Jesus said, "No, don't do that. Turn the other cheek instead." This is why I get a little confused when people insist that the Bible is the source of all morality, 'cause I don't know what to do with those two different verses. But I digress.)
I once attended a baby shower for an 18 year-old prospective mother. It was a depressing afternoon for many reasons, but the stand out incident at this shower was the conversation that followed the mother-to-be's proclamation that the way to teach a child not to hit is to hit that child who has hit someone. Because, see, then the child will know how it feels to be hit and so won't want to do it again. I don't think the adults in the room got through to this girl, so I have since worried about the future of the child. One hopes that a few years of dealing with an actual child has helped her learn some better parenting tools. But when a district court judge thinks it's a good principle to employ at sentencing, I lose some of that hope.
I'm all for judges putting some thought and new ideas into sentencing plans, especially for juveniles. I'm all about trying to reach people who are headed down a bad path and not just pointing them toward a better path but actively starting them on it and helping them stay on it. But putting a mother in the awful position of having to batter* her child in open court to spare her daughter a longer sentence isn't what I have in mind. And it isn't ok. There has to be a better way to teach the bully empathy and compassion without resorting to this knee-jerk idea of "let's bully her and see how she likes it." How about writing a letter of apology? How about doing community service with children who have no hair due to illness or working with some kind of anti-bullying program? Something, anything, other than doing to her the really bad, don't do it again thing that we're punishing her for doing in the first place.
*Batter means to touch someone in a rude, insulting, or offensive way. So, yeah, I'll call cutting off her ponytail rude, insulting, and offensive. I know I wouldn't like it if someone hacked off my hair at the ponytail holder currently in place.
I first read about this case last week, but refrained from blogging about it right away because I wanted to think about my thoughts. My initial, visceral reaction was that this was a horrible thing for the judge to suggest. And while I am a firm believer in listening to one's gut instincts, I am also a firm believer in not giving in to those initial reactions but instead thinking and reasoning and coming to a better conclusion once the cloud of emotion has passed.
In this case, time and thought have not changed my view that this kind of sentence is inappropriate. Wrong, even. So many of the comments on stories about this case have referred to the concept of eye for an eye, have suggested that this young offender should indeed have done to her as she did to others. Yes, I even saw someone refer to this sentence as the Golden Rule.
But this sentence doesn't follow the Golden Rule. Certainly not the Golden Rule that I learned. The Golden Rule isn't license to treat people as awfully as they have treated you, but rather urges us to treat others the way we would like to be treated. Bullying a kid who has bullied others isn't the way to put an end to bullying. It just turns the rest of us into bullies.
The argument in favor of this hair cutting punishment is in essence the same argument for the death penalty, which you all know I don't agree with. I just can't get behind the idea that we should allow other people's behavior to justify our own. "She did it first so it's ok for me to do it now," shouldn't be a part of anyone's moral code. But a lot of people cite the biblical "eye for an eye" as justification for punishment that is perfectly in line with what the perpetrator did. (Even though Jesus said, "No, don't do that. Turn the other cheek instead." This is why I get a little confused when people insist that the Bible is the source of all morality, 'cause I don't know what to do with those two different verses. But I digress.)
I once attended a baby shower for an 18 year-old prospective mother. It was a depressing afternoon for many reasons, but the stand out incident at this shower was the conversation that followed the mother-to-be's proclamation that the way to teach a child not to hit is to hit that child who has hit someone. Because, see, then the child will know how it feels to be hit and so won't want to do it again. I don't think the adults in the room got through to this girl, so I have since worried about the future of the child. One hopes that a few years of dealing with an actual child has helped her learn some better parenting tools. But when a district court judge thinks it's a good principle to employ at sentencing, I lose some of that hope.
I'm all for judges putting some thought and new ideas into sentencing plans, especially for juveniles. I'm all about trying to reach people who are headed down a bad path and not just pointing them toward a better path but actively starting them on it and helping them stay on it. But putting a mother in the awful position of having to batter* her child in open court to spare her daughter a longer sentence isn't what I have in mind. And it isn't ok. There has to be a better way to teach the bully empathy and compassion without resorting to this knee-jerk idea of "let's bully her and see how she likes it." How about writing a letter of apology? How about doing community service with children who have no hair due to illness or working with some kind of anti-bullying program? Something, anything, other than doing to her the really bad, don't do it again thing that we're punishing her for doing in the first place.
*Batter means to touch someone in a rude, insulting, or offensive way. So, yeah, I'll call cutting off her ponytail rude, insulting, and offensive. I know I wouldn't like it if someone hacked off my hair at the ponytail holder currently in place.
Bad Justice Scalia
I don't know if I've made it clear before, but I am not Justice Scalia's biggest fan. I think he writes with a level of hostility and vitriol unbecoming in a Supreme Court Justice. I think he misuses dissents (and occasionally concurrences or majority opinions) to shred the idiots who dare to disagree with him. I think he has spoken out politically in ways that a member of the bench should not. I think he should not go hunting with the vice president.
His opinion today in the Arizona immigration case just might take the cake, though. Taking pot shots at the President. Referencing his press conferences (what we in the biz call "facts not in evidence"). Directly arguing against the executive branch's choices on enforcement (which is a policy decision entirely within the executive's discretion, and something that every executive on both federal and state levels has done since the beginning of time).
Will someone please explain to this man that he is not a politician? That his disagreement with how the current administration is enforcing immigration policy should not in any way inform his decision in a law suit?
In terms of inappropriate judicial behavior, surely this guy takes the Supreme Court cake.
His opinion today in the Arizona immigration case just might take the cake, though. Taking pot shots at the President. Referencing his press conferences (what we in the biz call "facts not in evidence"). Directly arguing against the executive branch's choices on enforcement (which is a policy decision entirely within the executive's discretion, and something that every executive on both federal and state levels has done since the beginning of time).
Will someone please explain to this man that he is not a politician? That his disagreement with how the current administration is enforcing immigration policy should not in any way inform his decision in a law suit?
In terms of inappropriate judicial behavior, surely this guy takes the Supreme Court cake.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
On Sunday, I saw two articles about what Jerry Sandusky's issues on appeal will be. Mind you, a jury only convicted him yesterday. He hasn't been sentenced yet and a notice of appeal won't even be filed until after that. But already we've got assurances about what issues will be included on the appellate brief that will be filed a year or so from now.
It's time for me to admit something. I'm kind of an appellate snob. I would expect a trial lawyer to pull rank over me because I don't know how to construct a cross-examination or talk to a jury. Just as I always chuckle a little when people, even lawyers, who don't know much about appeals try to tell me what the appellate issues will be. Most people, even lawyers, simply don't have a good grasp of which issues are good appellate issues and which issues no decent appellate attorney would touch with a ten foot poll. There are lots of things to consider, like whether the trial record includes all the necessary information, whether the issue was raised, or raised sufficiently, at the trial level, what standards the appellate court will apply in considering the issues. This is the kind of stuff that people who don't spend their days immersed in appellate nerd land just aren't up on. Which is one reason why I would encourage anyone appealing a conviction to find a different attorney than the trial attorney because you're best served by an attorney who specializes in appeals.
Now today I have seen that Sandusky's outspoken trial attorney will not be handling the appeal (phew, as trial attorneys should never handle the appeals), but his stated reason isn't that he isn't an appeal expert but rather that he will be a witness at the appeal stage.
Hmm... So now I want to do some research into Pennsylvania appellate procedure because such a statement from a trial attorney in my state would prove to me that the trial attorney doesn't know how appeals work. Here in Kansas, we can't raise ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and we don't have witnesses during the appellate process. Other states do it differently, though. So I can't immediately say that this guy is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about (at least not on this topic...), but I'm leaving that possibility open.
I guess the basic point to this post is let's leave the appeal to the appellate lawyers and not declare now what issues they will and will not include in the brief they will submit next year. And outspoken defense attorneys who are already in some trouble for violating gag orders should probably shut up already and turn the case over to the next set of lawyers.
It's time for me to admit something. I'm kind of an appellate snob. I would expect a trial lawyer to pull rank over me because I don't know how to construct a cross-examination or talk to a jury. Just as I always chuckle a little when people, even lawyers, who don't know much about appeals try to tell me what the appellate issues will be. Most people, even lawyers, simply don't have a good grasp of which issues are good appellate issues and which issues no decent appellate attorney would touch with a ten foot poll. There are lots of things to consider, like whether the trial record includes all the necessary information, whether the issue was raised, or raised sufficiently, at the trial level, what standards the appellate court will apply in considering the issues. This is the kind of stuff that people who don't spend their days immersed in appellate nerd land just aren't up on. Which is one reason why I would encourage anyone appealing a conviction to find a different attorney than the trial attorney because you're best served by an attorney who specializes in appeals.
Now today I have seen that Sandusky's outspoken trial attorney will not be handling the appeal (phew, as trial attorneys should never handle the appeals), but his stated reason isn't that he isn't an appeal expert but rather that he will be a witness at the appeal stage.
Hmm... So now I want to do some research into Pennsylvania appellate procedure because such a statement from a trial attorney in my state would prove to me that the trial attorney doesn't know how appeals work. Here in Kansas, we can't raise ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal and we don't have witnesses during the appellate process. Other states do it differently, though. So I can't immediately say that this guy is an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about (at least not on this topic...), but I'm leaving that possibility open.
I guess the basic point to this post is let's leave the appeal to the appellate lawyers and not declare now what issues they will and will not include in the brief they will submit next year. And outspoken defense attorneys who are already in some trouble for violating gag orders should probably shut up already and turn the case over to the next set of lawyers.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
The Princess Movies of 2012
I may be a feminist and a bit of a tomboy, but I've always loved a princess movie. (My name does mean princess, after all.) Especially of the Disney animated variety. I have them all (except the 1937 "Snow White" 'cause I hate that version). Sure, I laugh at the bodies and wonder about the one-day "love at first sight" romances, but they're fairy tales, so I don't look to them for a whole lot of realism.
This past month, I've seen the two newest princess movies. "Snow White and the Huntsman" and "Brave". Fair warning, I will be discussing plot points of both of them without regard to avoiding spoilers, so read on at your own risk.
What I find so exciting about both of these additions to the princess collection is that they aren't love stories. Romantic connections do not rest at the center of either of these movies. Now, of course, Snow White did have to have a hint of love because you can't tell the story of Snow White without the apple and the kiss of true love. But they did it in the best, most unobtrusive way possible. There was a prince character, who in the 1937 version would clearly have provided the kiss. He also had the added allure of a childhood friend lost when the Evil Queen divided the kingdom. So both he and Snow had this naive sense that perhaps they should be together. But before the apple, Snow does kiss him (or at least a person she thinks is him). A chaste, closed-mouth kiss. But as she pulls away, the viewer can tell that the kiss wasn't what she had thought it should be. That it was disappointing. Not right. So then when she does fall into the apple coma and does need to be rescued, the saving kiss comes from the other guy, the one who has actually gotten to know grown-up Snow and it represents more of a promise of what might be. The best part of it all, though, is that he doesn't stick around to see her wake up. So when she does come to, she's alone and makes quite an impression walking out into a courtyard filled with people mourning the death of the person they thought could defeat the Evil Queen and save the kingdom. She gets to give a rousing speech (not exactly on the order of the St. Crispin's Day speech, but, hey, not everyone can be Henry V and not everyone can have William Shakespeare for a speechwriter) and then she gets to lead an army in an assault on the castle. After she defeats the queen, there's no big kiss, no romantic declarations. There's just a coronation. And a slight smile in the direction of the guy who kissed her awake. But the point is that it isn't about Snow White finding true love and being rescued. It's about Snow White reclaiming her kingdom as the rightful heir to the throne. The guy just existed to satisfy a minor plot point.
Then we move on to "Brave." First, as an aside, I read one review proclaiming that the movie lacks heart and I just have to wonder what the hell movie that reviewer saw. Because it wasn't the one that had me crying last night. But, anyway, this movie has got to be the first princess movie in the history of princess movies to have nary a whiff of romance. Not one bit. And it is so delightfully refreshing. There is talk of the Princess Merida's impending betrothal. And there is a gathering of the Scottish clans involving a challenge between 3 potential suitors. But from the get-go, it is readily apparent that none of the suitors are at all suitable. One of the suitor voices was provided by the guy who plays Dr. Owen Hunt on "Grey's Anatomy" so I had been expecting one of the suitors to be acceptable, even if they mutually rejected the idea of an arranged marriage. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was no possibility of a love match. Instead, the central relationship in the movie is between Merida and her mother. Which in and of itself is refreshing as so many princess movies involve motherless princesses. The plot dilemma is resolved, Merida and the other first-borns of the clans are now going to be allowed to choose their own spouses, and all is well. And in the end, there is not one hint of a possible suitor or boyfriend or flirtation for Merida. Every previous princess movie would have had a stable boy who bickered cutely with the princess and then helped in the crisis. But not this movie. This movie knew that romance had nothing to do with the story it had to tell.
Say what you will about either of these movies in terms of script weaknesses or odd acting (what was with that accent at times, Charlize?). But in terms of stereotypical princess movie plot points, these two do not get stuck in the same old ruts and neither of these gals needs a man to rescue her or even help her out much. Well, Snow White needs several hundred men in her army, but there's no mistaking who that army is following into battle. Her journey is all about retaking her rightful spot as Queen. Merida, too, is more focused on coming to accept and embrace the leadership and diplomacy parts of being a princess than the arranged marriage, proper lady elements she has so far resisted. In fact, she is liberated from those princess duties her mother had previously tried to impose on her.
What a difference from the original Snow White who was rescued by her Prince Charming she'd barely met. Likewise for the Princess Aurora. Ariel risked her very soul for a guy she'd never yet spoken to. Cinderella fell in love at first sight to a guy who couldn't pick her out of a line-up the next day. Even Rapunzel couldn't free herself from her adoptive mother/kidnapper without the help of a random guy who just happened to find her tower. (Though I can't knock that one because I think Flynn Rider, as voiced by Zachary Levi, is one of the best voice performances I've ever seen. They should seriously consider an Oscar category for that and he should have won.) Heck, even the first "Princess Diaries" had Anne Hathaway's character finding a cute boy to kiss. These two princess movies break that mold. Finally.
So, yeah, I'll take these princess movies. Where the princess is on the path to ruling, where her princess-y responsibilities are about leadership, not decorum and pretty dresses, and where she has better, more interesting stories to tell than a story of romantic love.
This past month, I've seen the two newest princess movies. "Snow White and the Huntsman" and "Brave". Fair warning, I will be discussing plot points of both of them without regard to avoiding spoilers, so read on at your own risk.
What I find so exciting about both of these additions to the princess collection is that they aren't love stories. Romantic connections do not rest at the center of either of these movies. Now, of course, Snow White did have to have a hint of love because you can't tell the story of Snow White without the apple and the kiss of true love. But they did it in the best, most unobtrusive way possible. There was a prince character, who in the 1937 version would clearly have provided the kiss. He also had the added allure of a childhood friend lost when the Evil Queen divided the kingdom. So both he and Snow had this naive sense that perhaps they should be together. But before the apple, Snow does kiss him (or at least a person she thinks is him). A chaste, closed-mouth kiss. But as she pulls away, the viewer can tell that the kiss wasn't what she had thought it should be. That it was disappointing. Not right. So then when she does fall into the apple coma and does need to be rescued, the saving kiss comes from the other guy, the one who has actually gotten to know grown-up Snow and it represents more of a promise of what might be. The best part of it all, though, is that he doesn't stick around to see her wake up. So when she does come to, she's alone and makes quite an impression walking out into a courtyard filled with people mourning the death of the person they thought could defeat the Evil Queen and save the kingdom. She gets to give a rousing speech (not exactly on the order of the St. Crispin's Day speech, but, hey, not everyone can be Henry V and not everyone can have William Shakespeare for a speechwriter) and then she gets to lead an army in an assault on the castle. After she defeats the queen, there's no big kiss, no romantic declarations. There's just a coronation. And a slight smile in the direction of the guy who kissed her awake. But the point is that it isn't about Snow White finding true love and being rescued. It's about Snow White reclaiming her kingdom as the rightful heir to the throne. The guy just existed to satisfy a minor plot point.
Then we move on to "Brave." First, as an aside, I read one review proclaiming that the movie lacks heart and I just have to wonder what the hell movie that reviewer saw. Because it wasn't the one that had me crying last night. But, anyway, this movie has got to be the first princess movie in the history of princess movies to have nary a whiff of romance. Not one bit. And it is so delightfully refreshing. There is talk of the Princess Merida's impending betrothal. And there is a gathering of the Scottish clans involving a challenge between 3 potential suitors. But from the get-go, it is readily apparent that none of the suitors are at all suitable. One of the suitor voices was provided by the guy who plays Dr. Owen Hunt on "Grey's Anatomy" so I had been expecting one of the suitors to be acceptable, even if they mutually rejected the idea of an arranged marriage. So I was pleasantly surprised to find that there was no possibility of a love match. Instead, the central relationship in the movie is between Merida and her mother. Which in and of itself is refreshing as so many princess movies involve motherless princesses. The plot dilemma is resolved, Merida and the other first-borns of the clans are now going to be allowed to choose their own spouses, and all is well. And in the end, there is not one hint of a possible suitor or boyfriend or flirtation for Merida. Every previous princess movie would have had a stable boy who bickered cutely with the princess and then helped in the crisis. But not this movie. This movie knew that romance had nothing to do with the story it had to tell.
Say what you will about either of these movies in terms of script weaknesses or odd acting (what was with that accent at times, Charlize?). But in terms of stereotypical princess movie plot points, these two do not get stuck in the same old ruts and neither of these gals needs a man to rescue her or even help her out much. Well, Snow White needs several hundred men in her army, but there's no mistaking who that army is following into battle. Her journey is all about retaking her rightful spot as Queen. Merida, too, is more focused on coming to accept and embrace the leadership and diplomacy parts of being a princess than the arranged marriage, proper lady elements she has so far resisted. In fact, she is liberated from those princess duties her mother had previously tried to impose on her.
What a difference from the original Snow White who was rescued by her Prince Charming she'd barely met. Likewise for the Princess Aurora. Ariel risked her very soul for a guy she'd never yet spoken to. Cinderella fell in love at first sight to a guy who couldn't pick her out of a line-up the next day. Even Rapunzel couldn't free herself from her adoptive mother/kidnapper without the help of a random guy who just happened to find her tower. (Though I can't knock that one because I think Flynn Rider, as voiced by Zachary Levi, is one of the best voice performances I've ever seen. They should seriously consider an Oscar category for that and he should have won.) Heck, even the first "Princess Diaries" had Anne Hathaway's character finding a cute boy to kiss. These two princess movies break that mold. Finally.
So, yeah, I'll take these princess movies. Where the princess is on the path to ruling, where her princess-y responsibilities are about leadership, not decorum and pretty dresses, and where she has better, more interesting stories to tell than a story of romantic love.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
I am so trying to be zen with my life as it is. It isn't bad. I have lots of friends. I have a great dog. I have a great job and a cute house. I just go home alone every night, which really sucks and is harder than I remember from the period before I got to go home with someone.
But I'm trying. I'm trying to be ok with being the favorite of my friends' kids. Kids all love me. Especially, they love my hair. Curls hook kids. And I make great faces and I'm fun and I'll read to them and I think I'm good at talking to kids appropriately for whatever age they are. So I'm trying to be ok with the idea that I'll never have one of my own because I'm Auntie Sarah to lots and lots of kids.
And I'm trying to be ok with the fact that I'm alone because I won't settle. I could probably have a boyfriend if I would have settled for 5'1 guy or Mr. Wants to Sit in His Backyard and Think guy or any number of other guys who my friends all think are beneath me. (Of course, I'm also constantly told I'm too picky...)
I'm trying so hard to be ok with the idea that I'm just too awesome to be hooked by anyone else. But it's really hard. Because the truth is I am so lonely, I could cry. Every night, I could cry. Not could. I do cry. And it's so hard to know that Mr. WoSiHBaTG has a girlfriend, someone who is also too good for him but just gave up and settled. And all the other people around me who aren't as smart or aren't as fun or aren't as hot as I am but yet found that someone. But that's ok, right?
But it isn't. And I'm not ok. I am so, so lonely. No amount of fabulous nights out with fabulous friends, even when I am the center of attention, will make up for the fact that at the end of the night, I am alone. I walk home alone. I go to bed alone. I pay the mortgage alone. I deal with the dog and the car and the burnt out light bulbs and the stupid front door and the yard and all the rest of it alone. I don't want to, though. I just want someone to help out, to share the burden. To make sure I have birthday plans or that I get home ok. Or just to help me feel that not every single thing is a frustrating, stupid chore that I can't avoid.
No matter how much of a front I put on, I am not ok with any of it. But there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
But I'm trying. I'm trying to be ok with being the favorite of my friends' kids. Kids all love me. Especially, they love my hair. Curls hook kids. And I make great faces and I'm fun and I'll read to them and I think I'm good at talking to kids appropriately for whatever age they are. So I'm trying to be ok with the idea that I'll never have one of my own because I'm Auntie Sarah to lots and lots of kids.
And I'm trying to be ok with the fact that I'm alone because I won't settle. I could probably have a boyfriend if I would have settled for 5'1 guy or Mr. Wants to Sit in His Backyard and Think guy or any number of other guys who my friends all think are beneath me. (Of course, I'm also constantly told I'm too picky...)
I'm trying so hard to be ok with the idea that I'm just too awesome to be hooked by anyone else. But it's really hard. Because the truth is I am so lonely, I could cry. Every night, I could cry. Not could. I do cry. And it's so hard to know that Mr. WoSiHBaTG has a girlfriend, someone who is also too good for him but just gave up and settled. And all the other people around me who aren't as smart or aren't as fun or aren't as hot as I am but yet found that someone. But that's ok, right?
But it isn't. And I'm not ok. I am so, so lonely. No amount of fabulous nights out with fabulous friends, even when I am the center of attention, will make up for the fact that at the end of the night, I am alone. I walk home alone. I go to bed alone. I pay the mortgage alone. I deal with the dog and the car and the burnt out light bulbs and the stupid front door and the yard and all the rest of it alone. I don't want to, though. I just want someone to help out, to share the burden. To make sure I have birthday plans or that I get home ok. Or just to help me feel that not every single thing is a frustrating, stupid chore that I can't avoid.
No matter how much of a front I put on, I am not ok with any of it. But there's not a damn thing I can do about it.
Monday, June 18, 2012
Finally, the Roger Clemens mess comes to an end
So after 5 years, 2 trials, 10 weeks of evidence, and 10 hours of jury deliberation, the feds have nothing to show for their prosecution of Roger Clemens. Nothing except a bill for who knows how many taxpayer dollars.
And we paid for this, jurors took 10 weeks out of their lives, and Roger Clemens spent 5 years fearing the consequences of a federal conviction over what? Yes, we can try to pretend that it's a really big deal when someone lies to Congress. But in the end, this was about whether some guy took a performance enhancing drug while playing baseball. Let's not pretend that people don't lie to Congress, and about things that matter a whole lot more than steroids in baseball. Yes, I definitely fall in the camp of those who think some lies are worse than others. Because they are.
The lesson to be learned from this (and from the John Edwards result) is that maybe federal prosecutors (or prosecutors in general) can do a better job of deciding which cases to prosecute. Not every crime that can be charged should be. There's a popular notion that suggests we all on average could be charged with about 3 felonies a day. We're not all running around committing burglaries and batteries and other obvious crimes. But there are a lot of things we all do without even realizing that violate some obscure federal law. The point is that federal prosecutors have to exercise a lot of discretion in choosing who to pursue charges against and who to leave alone.
Roger Clemens is a high profile guy and would have been a big prize. But he also isn't exactly a bad guy threatening the safety of his neighbors. And while a lot of people think he did lie to Congress, even if he did, his motivation wouldn't have been profit or skewing public policy on some topic that would affect millions of Americans. His motivation would have been to protect his baseball legacy. Some people might think that is tied to a desire to earn more money through endorsement deals, etc. But I doubt that. Either way, though, if he lied to Congress, it wasn't something that adversely affected public policy. And so the federal prosecutors deciding whether to pursue charges against Clemens had a credible, defensible basis for deciding not to pursue these charges while still charging others who might lie to Congress on matters of substance.
Clemens will get his comeuppance in the baseball court, anyway. Everyone thinks he's a cheater, so he won't be elected to the Hall of Fame. Mark McGwire is proof of that. For a guy who rose to the top of the game, I don't think there can be much worse punishment than being shunned now. If only the feds had recognized that before they wasted a whole lot of taxpayer money (MY money!) pursuing a charge that wasn't all that big a deal in the first place.
And we paid for this, jurors took 10 weeks out of their lives, and Roger Clemens spent 5 years fearing the consequences of a federal conviction over what? Yes, we can try to pretend that it's a really big deal when someone lies to Congress. But in the end, this was about whether some guy took a performance enhancing drug while playing baseball. Let's not pretend that people don't lie to Congress, and about things that matter a whole lot more than steroids in baseball. Yes, I definitely fall in the camp of those who think some lies are worse than others. Because they are.
The lesson to be learned from this (and from the John Edwards result) is that maybe federal prosecutors (or prosecutors in general) can do a better job of deciding which cases to prosecute. Not every crime that can be charged should be. There's a popular notion that suggests we all on average could be charged with about 3 felonies a day. We're not all running around committing burglaries and batteries and other obvious crimes. But there are a lot of things we all do without even realizing that violate some obscure federal law. The point is that federal prosecutors have to exercise a lot of discretion in choosing who to pursue charges against and who to leave alone.
Roger Clemens is a high profile guy and would have been a big prize. But he also isn't exactly a bad guy threatening the safety of his neighbors. And while a lot of people think he did lie to Congress, even if he did, his motivation wouldn't have been profit or skewing public policy on some topic that would affect millions of Americans. His motivation would have been to protect his baseball legacy. Some people might think that is tied to a desire to earn more money through endorsement deals, etc. But I doubt that. Either way, though, if he lied to Congress, it wasn't something that adversely affected public policy. And so the federal prosecutors deciding whether to pursue charges against Clemens had a credible, defensible basis for deciding not to pursue these charges while still charging others who might lie to Congress on matters of substance.
Clemens will get his comeuppance in the baseball court, anyway. Everyone thinks he's a cheater, so he won't be elected to the Hall of Fame. Mark McGwire is proof of that. For a guy who rose to the top of the game, I don't think there can be much worse punishment than being shunned now. If only the feds had recognized that before they wasted a whole lot of taxpayer money (MY money!) pursuing a charge that wasn't all that big a deal in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
