“One nation, except Jews, with liberty and justice for all.”
What? That is insulting? It’s unconstitutional?
There are more Americans who consider themselves atheists or agnostics than there are American Jews. 
(And there’s probably a lot more in the closet, afraid to admit their beliefs because of the discrimination they’d face if they did.) But apparently non-believers don’t count and don’t matter to many Americans.
Because right now, what many of us hear when the pledge is read is “One nation, except you.”
The pledge of Allegiance didn’t used to have those words “Under God.” Those were added in the 50s, during the McCarthy era, to show that we weren’t like those godless commies. But what it did was immediately exclude Americans. The irony of excluding Americans and then immediately saying “indivisible” is lost on them.
So be kind. Refuse to say “Under God,” explain why to other Americans, and be inclusive instead of exclusive.
I’ve seen more than one post from people complaining that AOC was supporting Bernie instead of Biden because she was one of the people nominating him at the Democratic convention last night.
That’s not true.
Bernie delegates are required by the rules to vote for him on the first ballot. If Biden did not get a majority, then they could switch their votes on the second ballot.
And under the rules, someone has to officially nominate him and someone has to second the nomination. Someone has to do it.
So someone did, and she seconded it. It was a formality. She had already long ago endorsed Biden. She spent most of her sixty seconds talking about issues that were important to her and then, at the very end, seconded the nomination because it had to be done.
Now we can discuss whether politically she should have done this (as opposed to letting someone else take on that job), but that is a separate issue.
As a lawyer who works with DAs and AGs every day, allow me to say: they’re not all bad. Some are even liberal Democrats who want to see justice done, help victims, and stand up to bad cops.
And not all cops are bad, either. I know, I work with them every day, too.
So I’m really sick of my fellow liberals saying “You can’t support Harris for VP — she’s a cop!”
To place them all in the “bad” category is like when we defense attorneys try running for office and people say “You can’t vote for them. They’re on the side of criminals!”
No, we’re on the side of justice, and that can be fought by both DAs and defense.
I personally want more Democrats to run for DA and AG. But when my fellow Democrats consider that a disqualifying factor, then I guess I won’t expect a lot of reform coming. (If you want to make change, you have to be in the room where it happens.)
So let’s see how terrible this cop was in California when she was a DA and later an AG. Hmmm. Well, she refused to enforce the state’s death penalty. She took felony marijuana arrests and reduced them to misdemeanors and refused to even prosecute the misdemeanor marijuana arrests. She set up a hate crimes unit to help LGBTQ victims and refused to defend California’s Proposition 8 that prohibited gay marriage. She stopped prosecuting young prostitutes, realizing that they were the victims, and worked to provide them with support to get out of their situation.
And when she ran for AG, the police union refused to support her.
So much for “but she’s a cop.”
If hydroxychloroquine worked, we liberals would be thrilled. We’d be the most pro-hydroxychloroquine pushers out there, because we actually like healing people (hence our drive to pass national health care for the past 100 years).
We like facts. And if we are proven wrong by a fact, we generally change our views to fit the facts instead of just ignoring or denying the facts.
If the most Trump-supporting scientist* discovers a cure, we will cheer. And if suddenly it is discovered that whoops, hydroxychloroquine really does work, we’ll be lined up to take it and will encourage everyone else to do so as well.
Whenever I say this, I get people sending me links to articles about how this trial or that trial looked promising, and then they say “therefore, we should all be using it.” No. No, that’s not how it works.
To reiterate: When and if the medical community as a whole recommends it, then I will be thrilled. Why shouldn’t I be? Don’t we all want a cure?
But that hasn’t happened yet and for anyone to recommend taking something that the FDA has not approved for the virus is irresponsible and reckless.
And it certainly doesn’t help when the people most recommending this are Donald Trump and crazy people who claim that viruses are spread by demon sperm and there is some vast conspiracy to keep this from the public.
If there is some vast conspiracy to keep it from everyone, then why? What reason? I don’t get it. Why wouldn’t (a) we want everyone to get better and thus save lives and the economy and (b) the companies want it approved so they can make money?
If there is a conspiracy, who does it benefit? The argument that Big Pharma is keeping this from being used makes absolutely no sense, especially since much research is done in the rest of the world and in universities where medicine isn’t about profit. In the rest of the civilized world, finding a cure will save governments lots of money, so there is absolutely no reason to hide a cure if one existed.
If it is approved and accepted, obviously we will all cheer and say good. It’s not like we’re going to ignore science like Trump supporters.
*if there is one
I’m shocked I have to say this, but obviously: Not all police.
If I say I am against police brutality, it doesn’t mean I am against police any more than saying I am against sexual assault means I am against sex.
I would think that most police would also be against police brutality, right? Just like most of the lawyers I know are against dishonest lawyers.
But whenever I say something like “Gee, those police sure are attacking peaceful protesters” I get “Why are you against police?” I’m not. Why is that so hard to understand?
Maybe people don’t want to understand. Maybe they just can’t figure out a way to defend these secret cops who confront peaceful protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas while dressed as if they’re going into a combat zone.
I deal with police every day. I’m a criminal defense attorney. And the vast majority of police are decent, good people that I have no problem working with.
But not all of them.
I see police as falling into two categories, really. There are the “Boy Scouts” who are doing their very best to be good guys and help people. And then there are the “bullies” who became officers because they like the power and like pushing people around. Anyone who denies that the second group exists is not paying attention.
Speaking out against the bullies is something we should all be doing. It’s something the “Boy Scouts” should be doing too, but too often, they remain silent and support their fellow officers when they should be speaking up.
And this is nothing new. History is full of stories of police, guards, and others with authority who abuse their authority — especially in totalitarian regimes of the kind Trump apparently wishes he ran.
So when I post something like the cartoon above, I am not attacking all police — I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a protest movement against police brutality being met with police brutality, thus proving the point. Nowhere in there is the statement that all police do this.
The sad thing is that this police action has led to more violence. The mostly peaceful protests have been met with officers in riot gear tear-gassing mayors and teachers and mothers who are armed with nothing more than leaf blowers, and now some people are saying, “Fine, you want violence? We’ll give you violence.” This doesn’t help. Meeting violence with violence is exactly what they want, because then Trump can go on TV and say “See? Re-elect me to protect you against these protesters who are protesting me and my policies and who will most likely go away if I do.” (There’s not a lot of logic on the Trump side.)
But back to the main point: Shouldn’t we all be against police brutality? Isn’t that something everyone should say is not the kind of thing we want in a democratic society?
Steve Sack
ventrellaquest.com 