The Next Big Fight

By guest bloggette, Reenee of Santa Maria.
Check her blog: hastalosgatosquierenzapatos

Get ready folks! The next big fight looming on the horizon will be the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance. It has all the earmarks of yet another fight which will bring out the hubris of those in Congress who still reside in the 50s, among others.

The opposition will have "Those Godless Creatures!" who will stop at nothing to destroy the "American Family." You know, the Liberals. Forget poverty, the disenfranchised, unemployment, women's personal rights, child abuse or the more important issues like "hand to mouth" survival.

It'll be the debate about the pledge that will pit the talking heads against each other. I can see it now: Faith! God! Country!

Facts For Your Consideration

Here are facts and links. You decide, and then if you want, be like Mark Twain who said, "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and a Socialist. It was first published in the children's magazine, Youth's Companion in 1892 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of Columbus' arrival. He initially wanted to add the word "equality," but since women and blacks were not yet equal, he didn't. Some might argue that they still aren't.

The original pledge was:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

First Change To The Pledge

In 1924, the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, at the National Flag Conference, changed the words "my flag" to "the flag of the United States," much to Bellamy's dismay. When he protested, he was ignored; after all, he was only the author. The following year they added the words, "of America."

For the next thirty years, the pledge was recited as:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

During the 1950's the nation was suffering the drizzles as a result of the cold war and the McCarthy communist witch hunts. In 1953 the Knights of Columbus, mounted a campaign to add the words, "under God." As a knee jerk reaction to the fear of "Godless" Communists, Congress added them to the otherwise secular pledge, and in 1954 it became official. (In the 1950's the federal government's mottos changed as well.)

Second Change To The Pledge

The pledge now was both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. When Eisenhower signed it into law he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." Bellamy's granddaughter said he would have resented this second change as well.

Now the pledge was:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic, for which it stands; one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

This country was founded as a secular republic. The U.S. Constitution was first drafted in 1787 in Philadelphia by the Constitutional Convention of the new American republic and was officially adopted in 1789. The first amendment is very clear. It begins with, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." How can that be misconstrued?

America's Founding Misconstrued?

The pledge didn't show up until 103 years later and was quite innocuous, yet some people believe this nation was "founded under God." These are educated people too. But then, look at how George Bush Sr. responded to this question from a reporter for the American Atheist news journal, while campaigning for the presidency in 1987:

Q: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?"
A: "No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Yep, that's what I like to see in any candidate, compassion, tolerance, a good grasp of the history of this country and the understanding of separation of church and state.

What Does Religious Tolerance Mean To You?

To me, religious tolerance means extending religious freedom to people of all religions, even though you sincerely disagree with their beliefs and practices. Religious freedom means that you can believe, worship and witness as you wish; and join with others to express your beliefs.

Was this ignored in the 50s? Yes, due in part out of fear of Communism. As for today, I've not seen too much tolerance in the country lately. It's "my way or the highway" for certain factions, which gives weight to what Friedrich Nietzsche said, "The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad."

The Constitutional Issue Is Not Settled

Since the courts are not filled up enough with polarizing cases, we're going to see a rerun of the Pledge of Allegiance Debate. The same attorney that filed a lawsuit back in 2002 to prevent his child from reciting it is at it again. If you recall, the Supremes weaseled out of having to rule on the issue by saying that this man "had no standing" since he did not have custody of his daughter.

OK, fine. Now he's filed on behalf of three other kids and their parents. Tenacious little guy, ain't he? Prepare for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to weigh in as well. After all, his comment was, "The high court affirmed time and again that such official acknowledgments of our nation's religious heritage, foundation and character are constitutional."

Oh yeah, don't tell me I’ll burn in Hell; I don't believe in it. --Reenee

It Ain't Over Till It's Over

As I was reading the newspaper last week, I came to a screeching halt when I choked on my coffee over the story about the "Reluctant Aquitter." It seems that Jackson juror, Ray Hultman and his wife, are suing to get out of the "after-the-verdict-book-deal." Am I guessing correctly that the missus is also a plaintiff due to the community property rules in this state?

Anyway, this juror is claiming that they were misled by the publisher's representatives and that their "simplicity, naiveté, overly trusting natures, lack of sophistication and inexperience" was the reason they were duped. Excuse me, but aren't those the very attributes that the attorneys want in a juror? Well, OK, defense attorneys anyway.

Immediately after the verdict, both jurors and alternates, 19 in all, gave a press conference where they were all waxing nostalgic about "life long friendships, how close they got, how they'd stay in touch, etc, etc." At this press conference Mr. Hultman said that he and two others didn't initially share the opinion that Jackson was innocent, but the majority eventually convinced the three that the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict. Everyone was slap happy and fancy free.

Then by the time August rolled around, Mr. Hultman gave another interview, this time with with fellow juror Eleanor Cook, where they both whined about being pressured to acquit. This of course came hand in hand with their announcement to write books about the trial, most especially about being bullied. They said in the interview that they believed that Jackson was guilty, but were "railroaded into acquitting him." Mr. Hultman then went on to say that he felt that the other panelists were not educated enough, so he went along with them knowing he'd never be able to convince them that Jackson was guilty. Ouch. Think Roy is off their Christmas card lists?

Interestingly enough, while researching for this article I found a news story dated June 07, 2005 that Mrs. Cook's granddaughter had been talking to the Associated Press about how her grandmother, talked about wanting to write a book about her jury duty experience, back in February when she was first chosen. She also mentioned the possibility of being on 60 Minutes and the Oprah Winfrey Show. Huh?

There was no way to tell how it would play out as this trial progressed. The Santa Maria Times columnist/romance novelist, Steve Corbett was always writing about jurors behaving badly, or jurors talking to other people about the case during the trial or some other colorful issue, while the "Hang 'Em High" anchors on Court TV were discussing detailed plans on how they were going to draw and quarter Jackson. once he was convicted. The only thing that ever changed was the number of helicopters hovering.

According to Robert Frost, " A jury is a group of 12 people, who, having lied to the judge about their health, hearing, and business engagements, have failed to fool him." Since the extremely organized no-nonsense Rodney Melville presided over the Michael Jackson jury selection, I'd say that's probably a fair statement, since they were chosen so quickly. Judge Melville is an excellent jurist. He's definitely raised the bar, whereas countless others like Lance Ito have done everything they could to lower it, and in some instances, bury it, while becoming a joke. I often wonder why we've been so very lucky to have him in Santa Maria, but i'll be quiet about it so as not to jinx it.

However, once the trial was came to an end, I found that H.L. Mencken's quote, "A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer" was much more appropriate. Since I might be one of the three people in all of Santa Maria that stayed away from the court house, I never saw Thomas Mesereau in action, but after seeing him and his flowing silver locks coming and going on Court TV, I'm going to stick my neck out here and say that he out maneuvered Thomas Sneddon, since his team won.

Andy Warhol said that in the future everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes. My guess is that Mrs. Cook and Mr. Hultman want more time and money to boot. This puts a whole new spin on "doing your civic duty." --reenee

How Long Did You Wait In Santa Maria Today?

By guest bloggette, Reenee of Santa Maria.
Check her blog: hastalosgatosquierenzapatos

Back in the day when doctors were considered Gods, people were required to endure interminable hours in waiting rooms, sitting next to someone who was coughing, hacking and sharing their virus-ridden breath with everyone within a 20 foot range. But enough about yesterday.

(Photo: Virginia Commonwealth University)

There are some little known alternatives to this ugly scenario. There are success stories everywhere about some doctors' offices telling a patient to come in the same day that they call.

No, this is not a cruel joke, it’s really happening out there. Apparently this is happening in different parts of the country, much to the delight of both the doctors and the patients.

What Does A Long Line Of Patients Signify?

For these patients, gone are the days when being booked for months in advance meant "the doctors must be good." There are several ways doctors' offices can achieve what is being referred to as "Advanced Access". Simply put, this means that if somebody wants an appointment, you offer them an appointment today, and not just because they're on death's door.

According to those that have done this, it's not that difficult to implement. It's time consuming and frustrating at its inception, therefore doctors resist it. Among others, the main reason for this resistance is that a completely booked schedule, at times months in advance, translates into guaranteed income. This works as long as the patient remembers he even had an appointment that day.

Then of course, since most doctor's offices are abuzz with more people behind the window than in the waiting room, they're happy with this method as well. However, when the patients that have already waited for what can seem like months when they're sick, have to wait hours cooling their heels in the waiting rooms, not to mention sucking in microbes of every variety, it's not a good thing.

Looking For Advanced Access In Santa Maria

Advanced Access was originally put into practice in managed care environments, but these innovators worked with organizations throughout the United States, Canada and Europe testing and refining their principles. They discovered that same day appointments work equally as well, if not better, in "fee-for-service environments."

In an effort to discover if Advanced Access was being practiced here in Santa Maria, I called several doctor's offices at random. The answer I got most often, after the laughter stopped was, "Our practice is so full that new patients can often wait as much as six to eight weeks to be seen." Followed by, "We keep a few slots open for emergencies in between our follow-up patients" and "if the person only has a wart to remove, then they can wait."

I know that in some if not all doctor's offices, you are a new patient if you have not seen him/her in at least a year. You'd better hope that during that six to eight week wait, whatever it was that made you call to see that particular doctor, doesn't fall off. If you're the patient that has the wart, you'd better hope it doesn't get bigger, develop a life of its own and talk to you.

Anyway, as I continued my research trying to find a doctor in Santa Maria that practiced "same day care," I was told, among other things that I was "nuts," "dreaming," "not thinking clearly," "out of my mind," "had clearly never worked for a doctor," and "didn't understand the need to generate surgeries."

My personal all-time favorite was that I "was so far out there that I needed ropes and a compass to get back to reality."

OK, I'll admit, I'm pretty much "off center." I would put more thought into the other accusations, but right now I'm on my way to find a compass and some ropes as I've not been near reality for quite some time now. --Reenee