Chicken Fingers - Children
1. The weird title for this blog post stems from the RSVP cards on my wedding invitations (arrived today). See, there's a list of 4 dinner options for the reception. The final is listed as "Chicken Fingers - Children." Yep, we're only serving the best quality children for dinner at my wedding!
(There, I said it. I know every single one of you who gets it will be thinking that. And I know you'll know it's saying we offer chicken fingers for the kids. Now that I've pre-empted you, you can just order the chicken marsala and be done with it.)
2. Yesterday, one of the fact patterns the lecturer used mentioned a "Meredith Grey." I did a double take, thinking of everybody's favorite former Slant editor, currently surfing the web under the name "g". Apparently there's this TV show called Grey's Anatomy that everybody else but me is watching. (If it ain't on a DVD, I ain't watching it. For that matter, if it ain't 24, Lost, The Shield, or Deadwood, I probably haven't seen it. Oh, and occasionally House.) So....I learned 2 things. (1) I'm not up on pop culture. (2) Major TV characters are named after my friends, slightly misspelled. Also, John Malkovich characters are named after me.
3. The Slow Death Of The American Dream. Remember the idea that anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps? The driving idea of America - anybody can start at the bottom, work hard, and make it to the top....or at least to a comfortable middle-class life-style. It was nice while it lasted. Welcome to the second coming of the Gilded Age.
You owe it to yourself to read that article before you can talk about class issues in this country. Maybe one day we'll wake up to the reality of poverty and once again take education seriously. Meantime, we're becoming more and more stratified.
4. The Laws Are All Changing. Aside from being the title to an awesome New Pornographers song, that statement is a fact of life. Just three days ago, I learned that when the police violate a defendant's 4th or 5th Amendment rights, the evidence discovered as a result of that violation is excluded (including any evidence they would not have discovered but for the violation). In a ruling today about a violation of the (rather perfunctory) "knock-and-announce" rule, the Supreme Court suggested the Exclusionary Rule may be severely restricted. Today's case is rather limited, but if the Court carries through on its implications, we may see (a) a lot less evidence excluded and (b) a lot less respect for the 4th Amendment.
See the analysis here at SCOTUSblog.
As Jeff and Mike point out, it seems limiting our constitutional freedoms is in vogue.