Why I am an Absurdist

I have to tell this story despite the risk that my laughter will look mean-spirited. I post on this bulletin board sponsored by a local newspaper. It's a fairly popular bulletin board, and (to my surprise) I've made quite a few virtual friends there. I've met some of the posters, but most of them I know only through the board.

Sometimes (and less often of late), I enjoy spirited discussions on issues of faith and faithlessness and the role of religion. Recently, there was a discussion about miracles. One poster related the story of a girl who had no pupils, and yet could see. Doctors confirmed her sight, though they could not explain it. A miracle, the poster proclaimed! A scientific impossibility, an event with no rational medical explanation… He provided a link to a religious source that described this occurrence as a glorious miracle.

You atheists, he challenged, can't explain this one.

I replied that indeed, without first-hand access to the evidence and an opportunity to talk with the girl's doctor, I could not offer a medical explanation. The poster said that suppose I had that opportunity but still could not find a medical explanation.

I replied that in such a case, I would conclude that our limited medical knowledge simply was not yet advanced enough to understand why she could see without pupils. That our current medical knowledge does not explain something does not mean there is no medical explanation. There is much in science and medicine that remains undiscovered today.

I further explained that the absence of a medical explanation certainly wouldn't cause me to make up and believe an imagined and unsupported explanation that was to my liking -- i.e., a god-inspired miracle. Indeed, I went on, why would the god explanation be any more valid than any other explanation? Perhaps she was cured by a fly with a magic wand, or by an alien with ESP living in a faraway galaxy. Why, I pressed, would the god explanation be any more likely than these "explanations"?

The poster's retort? Ha - he said - because flies can't hold magic wands.

Yes. I'm not making this up. I think perhaps some people live in a reality very different from mine.

Heat Wave

Yes, I know it's been hot, hot, hot. Dozens of heat-related deaths in Arizona, frequent power outages from an overworked power grid, and Boy Scouts passing out left and right in Virginia. (Well, maybe only on the right -- can the name of an organization that fights for its right to exclude gays and atheists be used in a sentence along with the word "left"?)

But here's the thing -- it's summertime. In fact, it's July. July is hot. Sometimes it's very hot and quite sticky. And there it is.

Most of us live and work in air-conditioned buildings. Who are these people to complain? So it's hot when you walk to your car from your office building, or when you hurry from the car to the grocery store. Yes, it's hot -- it's July!

Now, I know some people don't have the luxury of air-conditioning. Sometimes, it's because they can't afford it. Sometimes it's because their power is out. These people have a right to complain, I suppose. But you know, people have lived for thousands of years without air conditioning. It isn't a necessity. Take a cool shower, go to the pool, eat some ice cream, spend a few hours at the mall or in a movie theatre.

Then there's my mother, who says with relish as she pours a glass of wine in her air-conditioner- free house, "Hot, isn't it?" Too hot to cook. Too hot to vacuum. Too hot to do laundry. Nothing left to do but relax on the porch with a glass of wine and the portable radio. Suddenly, the heat of July doesn't seem like such a bad thing.

Anyway, it has cooled off over the last two days. The complainers will have to find a new target.

Words, Words, Words

For a kid whose first word was "dog," the squeaker's vocabulary appears to be overshadowed by his love of onomatopoeia.

Dogs aren't dogs anymore. They are "woof woofs." Horses are "neigh neighs." Sheep are "baa baas." Rabbits are "hop hops." You get the idea.

Oddly, frogs are still frogs. Why is that? He knows they say "ribbet." And turtles are turtles. What else would they be?

The Personal Views of Judge Roberts

Columnist Thomas Sowell has an op/ed piece in today's paper that argues that a Supreme Court nominee's "views" are irrelevant because a judge is supposed to apply the law without regard for his views. I agree with this in principle, but I see two significant problems with his argument:

First, while political and personal "views" might be irrelevant, a judge's legal position on key issues is highly relevant. Judge Roberts either believes that the Constitution includes a right to privacy, or it doesn't. He believes the Second Amendment is a collective right, or he believes it's an individual right. He believes the establishment clause reaches activities that amount to government endorsement of religion, or he doesn't. As a law student, lawyer, and judge, Judge Roberts has certainly developed a legal position -- meaning a position that reflects his understanding of what the Constitution legally supports -- on each of these issues.

That's not to say that a person can necessarily anticipate exactly how Justice Roberts would rule on specific cases, but knowing his legal positions on these issues certainly suggests where he is likely to end up on certain categories of cases. If he does not think the "right to privacy" is a legally supportable right derived from the Constitution, there is no "right" to an abortion. Such a legal position would clearly influence his rulings on abortion cases.

A more difficult question is how much should someone's legal positions matter? While Judge Roberts and I might have different legal positions on the issues I highlighted, the legal profession is all about how "supportable" or "defensible" something is. An argument is either more or less persuasive; it is rarely "wrong."

Should the Supreme Court reflect a variety of legal positions? Is diversity inherently important or meaningful on the Court? (If there is no diversity, what happens to the debate and compromise that leads to both strong critical analysis and pragmatic outcomes?)

Should only "mainstream" legal positions be chosen?
(Who would determine what is "mainstream"? Would permitting only "mainstream" positions mean that the Court would be so weak and ineffective that its decisions would be meaningless?)

I don't know the answers to these questions.

The second problem I see with Sowell's argument is that it pretends that there is no link between one's personal views and one's legal philosophy and legal positions. Perhaps the ideal is that judges should be entirely dispassionate, unbiased, objective interpreters of the law. Their legal approach should develop with no regard for their personal views.

But that is simply unrealistic. It becomes clear fairly quickly where a particular judicial approach is going to lead -- certain approaches are commonly associated with particular legal outcomes. (For example, strict constructionism leads to a finding that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution.) Lawyers and judges are human beings, with all of the flaws and biases that human beings have. In short, they have personal preferences about particular legal outcomes.

Often, it may be possible to set aside one's personal feelings. Most cases do not involves issues that a judge is likely to feel very strongly about. But if a judge has strong feelings about the moral wrongness of abortion, or about the protection of the environment, or the need for prayer in schools, I find it incredible that their personal feelings would not influence their legal approach when cases raise these issues.

Thus, seeking to learn Judge Roberts personal views is just one way of trying to gain an understanding of the legal approach he is likely to apply in controversial cases. His legal approach and personal views are inevitably and undeniably intertwined, because the former develops in response to the latter. Even so, I agree with Sowell that the personal views themselves are not a meaningful yardstick. If the goal is to understand his legal positions, that's what senators should focus on. Trying to use personal views as a proxy makes Democrats look like they don't understand the role and job of a judge.

The Long Goodbye

Susan Torres

Today I am thinking of you, Susan. I remember reading your story earlier this summer -- how you collapsed from melanoma in your 17th week of pregnancy. How your husband had been helping you eat a cheese steak sub moments beforehand. How you left behind a grieving husband and a two-year-old son. I think about how my boy wraps his arms around my neck and says "mama" in a voice that reminds me that I am the most present person in his life -- to him, I am love and comfort and familiarity. I am the huge person who can scoop him up when a scary dog gets too close, pull him to the surface when he slips in the pool and plunges underwater, rescue him when he climbs into a basket and cannot climb out. Indeed, to him I am everything. He presses his cheek against mine, rubs his little hand along my arm, and whispers, "mama, mama, mama." I wonder if your son still calls out for his mama.

And so you linger at death's door, while the baby inside you grows and the melanoma spreads within you. Only machines keep you "alive." Your family, friends, and well-wishers bow their heads and appeal to mercy, fate, their gods, to protect your baby from the cancer so that she can embrace life even when you are finally able to find peace in death. It is your mama self that must linger, the part of you that is the very threshold of life for your little daughter. Hang in there, mama Susan and baby Torres.

http://www.susantorresfund.org/

Only Tuesday

How can this week move so slowly? Can it really be only Tuesday? Must...hang in there...for 3 more days...

How sad is it to live for weekends? Anyway, on to today's musings, for what they're worth.

The Perils of Caller ID

I don't always answer the phone when it rings. Sometimes, this is because I check the caller ID and don't want to talk to that person. Usually, "that person" is the local firefighters assocation begging for money. But sometimes it's because I just don't feel like picking up the phone and having a conversation with the name that appears on the caller ID. This doesn't typically happen with my own friends or family, but with my husband's friends and yes, I am embarrassed to admit, with his family at times.

Does this make me a bad person? My husband seems to think so. OK, so that's not what he said. But he did say that he wished I'd answer the phone even when it's for him and he's not home. But the voice mail, the caller ID, I said -- the wonders of modern technology mean that you'll never have to wonder who called and when. Pressing a few buttons on the phone reveals all!

He didn't seem persuaded by this. Indeed, he seemed a bit touchy about my avoidance of the phone and a little peeved that I wasn't more eager to embrace the callers I tend to avoid. (And no, it's not that I don't like some callers. It's that a make a quick cost-benefit assessment. With the squeaker splashing around in the tub, or momentarily quiet while methodically eating pieces of string cheese, or happily nursing, is it easy for me to pick up the phone? Is it worth doing so merely to recite, "no, he's not here right now, can I take a message?" Is it necessary when the caller, however beloved, calls nearly every day and will surely call back in a short time?) I have trouble understanding the urgency of the ringing phone. Shouldn't I be able to use modern technology to make my life even more convenient, rather than less so?

It's not like I'm avoiding people because I don't like them. (Well, except for the firefighters. And I do like them, sort of. I really like them when they aren't begging for money.) It's that it's not always a great moment for talking to people. In my opinion, the inconvenience of answering a call that is not for me when voicemail and caller ID ensure that the intended recipient will know about the call justifies ignoring the phone at times.

Or maybe not. In the interest of marital harmony, I agreed to stop ignoring the phone. So it is that caller ID becomes a warning system, rather than a screening system, in our humble household.

Buying Eyeglasses

Is it just me, or has the cost of a pair of eyeglasses become totally outrageous? Last week I finally submitted to an eye exam, which I've been meaning to do for about 3 years. Naturally, I needed a new prescription for my glasses. I normally wear contacts, but I use my glasses when I read in bed at night. I also think it's important to have a pair in case I have contact lens problems.

I scanned the display and chose a relatively inexpensive pair. My only requirements were 1) not too fragile; and 2) not so small that the rims obstructed my vision. The latter point was a concern because it seems that firms that manufacture glasses for women have decided that women want the teeniest, tiniest, most unobtrusive glasses possible. This is probably true, but I suspect that women still want to be able to SEE through the lenses. Having the rims obstructing one's vision may help women to be ladylike ("Can you open that door for me? I can't see the handle because of these beautifully teeny glasses…") but it sure it isn't practical.

Anyway, I needed special lenses to avoid having super-thick lenses that make my eyes look bizarre. The final price tag? Over $400. That's for one pair of glasses. Happily, I have some health insurance coverage for vision, but sheesh….that price tag just seems absurd.

Are people really complaining about $9 movie tickets while shelling out hundreds for a necessity like a pair of glasses?

Ode to the Weekend

I Hate Strollers

I knew it was a mistake to take the stroller. We went to Artscape in Baltimore on Saturday, mostly to say "hi" to an old high school classmate who was exhibiting and selling some work, but also to get outside and enjoy the glorious sunshine under the bright blue sky. We had a nice time, but I was reminded of how much I hate the stroller in crowds! Trying to find a clear path and avoiding the ankles of fellow festival attendees becomes all-consuming. As soon as we entered the area of the festival, I knew it had been a mistake to bring the stroller, but the car was too far away to bother taking it back.

Vive le slings! Next time, I know to take the sling, no matter how hot it is. After all, we ended up carrying the squeaker nearly the whole time anyway! At least he seemed to enjoy getting out. He watched the people, saw a monkey, drank lots of lemonade, and danced to the beat of the Mystic Warriors.

Indeed, he seemed to enjoy himself more than he did the day before at the petting farm. There, he saw chickens, cows, sheep, goats, ducks, turkeys, a donkey, and an emu, but he seemed wary and unsure of what to think of most of the animals. He did like the chickens, though. More his size, I suppose.

And that about sums up our weekend. Lemonade and farm animals. Not bad for a summer weekend, I guess.

The Squeaker

Meet the Squeaker

Here he is, having a bikini-clad girl feed him a sweet iced cupcake. I think he's the cutest little thing ever. But I'm his mama. :)

The squeaker is tiny -- only 20 pounds at 17 months old.

But he's quite clever. He knows lots of words, though he uses only one word at a time. I guess he hasn't grasped the whole string-words-together concept.

He likes dogs, turtles, bubbles, and books. He's generally a personable little fellow, though he has recently started to throw little tantrums of frustration. I hope it's a short-lived stage, but who knows. Usually, he lots of fun.

The Lawyering Mama

Joys of Co-Sleeping

My mother cringes every time it comes up, but generally, we like the co-sleeping thing. The squeaker -- downy blonde hair, big blue eyes, the longest lashes anywhere -- seems happy with it, too.

But it has its difficult moments, too. Sometimes, that's because I wake up to find I've been curled around him in an awkward position and my neck aches all day. Other times it's because he pops up bright and early, eying the sheep sheets and declaring "baa baa." And of course there is the challenge of some grown-up snuggling, which is hard to do even when the squeaker is happily snoozing. It's hard to focus on pleasure when there's a cozy, pink-cheeked baby next to you.

This morning, though, the difficulty was that I was missed. As soon as I slipped out of bed and into the bathroom for my shower, I heard him call out for me -- "Mama!!" His papa scooped him up, but the word just rang in my ears. So small. So forlorn. A baby who only wants his mama, but his mama isn't his alone -- she is someone's lawyer, someone's employee, someone's colleague.

Years ago I was intrigued by Toni Morrison's Tar Baby because of heartache of wannabe motherhood that suffused the book. One of the central characters is an accomplished model and traveler with a strong sense of her urban chic self. And yet in her dreams are steeped in the images of motherhood. She struggles to reconcile these two selves -- and yet are they really two selves? Must we perceive our roles as at odds?

Days like today, I have to answer YES. I feel torn in two.

This is, of course, why we love the co-sleeping. I never set out to share my bed with my baby. We had a lovely crib which his papa set up before I even came home from the hospital. I expected that at some point, each afternoon I would hear his cries from the bedroom and go in to find him standing, holding onto the crib rail, his hair sweaty and his cheeks rosy from a delicious nap. But that's not how it happened. He wants us to nap with him, and for some reason, we oblige.

I think my mother believes it's because we are weak: We don't want to disappoint him. We can't bear to hear him cry. I confess there is probably an element of truth to that. But mostly, we've found that snuggling together just feels right. He seems happy and secure. I like to think that his bold and intrepid approach to the world during the day is facilitated by his sense of place at night. Plus, we noticed an odd phenomenon - even when he was very teeny tiny newborn, he wanted to be next to us while we slept. We knew this not only because he cried when he was alone, but also because he could scoot across the bed to press his tiny body to my side. Since then, I've read that even premature babies can sense and move themselves towards a source of heat. It's apparently a powerful instinct that reflects the infant's vulnerability and dependence on his or her people. Once we observed this strange effect, we knew we could not leave him in a crib. We'd be asking him to abandon an instinct that helped him to feel safe and cared for.

Maybe this instinct is more powerful for some babies than others. Or maybe it's relatively easy to overcome it -- once the baby experiences the crib a few times, he or she comes to know a different kind of safety and security. We just never really tried. I suppose it's because for the most part, I cherish those quiet moments in the cool darkness when I get to be just "mama," and not anyone's lawyer.

Musings about Marriage

Recently, I was reading about statistics that show that people who live together before marriage are more likely to get divorced later on.

Why would this be true?

My guess is that people who live together as a "try-out" for marriage have unrealistic expectations about what it means to be married. They expect to "fit" together naturally, as if a successful relationship is based on just "finding" the "right person" -- i.e., one's soul mate. When things don't work out easily (and why would they? what relationship is completely free from tension and disagreements?), the partners figure that it is not a "good fit" and they abandon the relationship. This leads to "serial" relationships, where a person co-habitates multiple times and is increasingly convinced that it's just a matter of finding the right person. So they never develop the tools that are needed to establish a successful marriage, which have far less to do with finding the "right person" than with learning how to communicate, compromise, and cooperate with another person.

I read an interesting review of a book about marriage on the Post's web site a few weeks ago. In short, the book argued that the "downfall" of marriage has nothing to do with gay marriages or living together. Rather, it was the shift to marriages based on "love" (rather than on strategic economic and social relationships) that led to a rising divorce rate. When "love" is the underpinning of marriage, (1) the marriage exists at the whim of an emotion that naturally waxes and wanes, and (2) there is no reason not to end the marriage when one has "fallen out of love."

When people recognize that by marrying, they forge a particular economic and social construct (rather than just partner themselves "in love") they are more likely to hang in there during the rough spots, and they are more likely to look for a partner with whom they want that kind of broader economic and social relationship. Just being "in love" isn't enough -- a smart person looks for a partner in a broader sense (i.e., can I work with this person to have a family; to live in a financially stable way; to establish, develop, and maintain a network of relationships with other people; to grow individually and professionally, etc.).

When you take this broader approach, it helps to highlight the shortcomings of possible partners. For example, a very controlling or dominant partner might hinder one's ability to establish and maintain relationships with friends and family. A chronically unemployed or underemployed partner undermines financial stability.

These may seem like obvious shortcomings, but people partner themselves all the time with people who clearly inhibit their economic and social interests because they "love" them. I suspect that people who believe that "love trumps all" are the most likely to get divorced, because when it comes down to it, not every moment of marriage is infused with feelings of love. You need something more to get you through the rough spots -- trust, commitment, and a sense of being valued by your partner. These are deeper and more powerful and complex emotions than the whims of "love," IMHO.

On Harry Potter

Everyone has finished the latest Harry Potter book but me. I haven't started. Every conversation is filled with the lurking threat of spoilers. It's a dangerous world out there.

We plan to read it aloud, if the squeaker will cooperate. When you're 17 months old, cooperating means "not crying or screaming." But we'll see.

Welcome

Welcome. Hope to post more than once in a blue moon.

A bit about me: I'm a happy young liberal feminist absurdist existentialist. I'm married and have one child. I'm a lawyer, but not forever, I hope.

Today's Topic: My Take on the Supreme Court Nominee Roberts

Seems like a smart choice to me. The guy seems very intelligent and accomplished, and I find his reputation for dispassionate legal reasoning somewhat heartening.

But make no mistake -- if this guy is a strict constructionist, which is extremely likely -- his comments that Roe is settled law are meaningless. From his perspective as a lawyer or judge below the level of the Court, of course Roe is settled law -- he would be bound by Supreme Court precedent as a lower court judge, and he would have to work within the current legal framework as a lawyer. But once he's ON the Court, he's a member of the only judiciary body with the power to unsettle that law. For the first time, he would not be bound by it. And frankly, I don't see how a strict constructionist could rule any other way except to overturn Roe.

He would basically be an addition to the Rehnquist/Scalia/Thomas bloc of the Court. I would expect him to limit church/state separation, reproductive rights, and the power of the federal gov't under the commerce clause. Generally, this should make conservatives happy and liberals cringe.

But it will be tough for liberal advocacy groups to voice an effective challenge to him. It's very hard to explain to the average joe what "strict constructionism" means with regard to their ability to obtain birth control, get an abortion, attend a public school graduation that doesn't include prayer, marry the partner of their choice, and rely on federal agency efforts to keep our air and water clean and our workplaces, consumer goods, medications, and foods safe.

Since strict constructionists don't need to be "against" any of these things to hold that there is no constitutional right to them (as in the case of privacy rights, marriage rights, and separation of church and state) or, alternatively, no government power to regulate them (environmental regulations, worker protections, food and drug regulations) it is hard to find language in any decision penned by Roberts that would alarm the average person, even if that same person might be alarmed if they understood the likely legal position that Roberts would take on key social issues.

A very clever choice. Confirmation will be relatively painless.