Sick Day Wisdom

I was really sick today and had to take a day off. I was relegated to my couch and, for the most part, it kind of sucked.



This is pretty much all Ollie and I did all day.



I realized I really like being a part of the grown-up world. But, I did learn some things from my time off.

First -- when you don't have cable, you're limited to a few channels (well, technically 40, but when you eliminate the religious channels and the Spanish channels, we're pretty much down to 6). Most of what I learned today came from these channels.
First, do you know who this guy is?

He is (for now) Alabama Governor Robert Bentley. I learned today from the ladies of The View that all people who have not accepted Christ as their Savior are not his brothers and sisters. News? Not really. Cool for a governor? Nope, not really.
Anyway, I guess it's pretty big news and I didn't really need Elisabeth Hasselbeck (who, of course, found some way to justify this as well) to tell me this -- but, nonetheless, it's where I heard it first.

Then... do you know where this statement comes from? :
"This program is both dedicated to the faithful and presented to the false-

hearted to encourage their renewal of temperance and virtue."

An old favorite, of course, Cheaters is perfect for sick day tv (mindless, entertaining... mindless). It's the first time I've ever noticed that intro line -- pretty poignant for trash tv, huh? I guess it's sort of like Springer's Moment of Truth.
Also interesting, it was man day -- the betrayed were all men. That's sort of unusual for the show. Kind of a nice change of pace. I noticed two things of note: 1- the man will always react with violence (towards the other man... sometimes a betrayed woman will gang up with the mistress in forces against the cheating man... men don't seem to do this) and 2 - the woman typically just doesn't care (usually the cheating man goes through a lot of trouble to make excuses -- the woman doesnt seem to need to).
This parallels the discussion on Good Morning America - they had a story about the increasing likelihood (statistically) that a woman will stray from her marriage. Meredith Viera isn't sure if it's actually increasing or if women are just talking about it more. Discuss.

Also, I learned from my Z-Pack that I am part of only 3% of all patients that will experience stomach pains as a result of taking an antibiotic.

(Apparently, a pretty common side effect with many antibiotics: http://www.medhelp.org/posts/Gastroenterology/Antibiotic-Caused-Pain/show/233796)

So, that was fun.

I also learned a dance today:

Double dream hands, y'all.

Also -- I got an update on Bachelor contestant vampiress girl.

If you don't know her, this is her:

She just wears those. For fun. I guess. She's maybe kinda serious.

Anyway, I found out she voluntarily left the show. Who cares? Maybe no one, but hey, this is my blog and this is what I learned today.

I also tried out a new recipe. I'll call it "cake in a cup":

Get a big coffee mug - put 4T flour, 4T sugar, 2T cocoa in it and mix it around. Add an egg, mix it up. Add 3T milk, 3T oil. Mix well.
Microwave for 3 minutes.

It was awesome (thanks, Dad).

Anyway, I've always said that I could never be a stay-at-home mom (or, worse, stay-at-home-wife) because I'm just not cut out for it. This is still true (I think) -- but Ollie is pretty low maintenance, so maybe I'd reconsider with an actual child. Either way, it seems that there's a whole other world going on Monday-Friday between the hours of 8 and 5. Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. :-)

The Truth About Your Sign

I haven't thought about the Zodiac since some D-Bag asked me about it ("what's your sign") at a bar (no, really, it's so lame that some people think they can make it cool). But, lately it's been all over the news that our signs may have changed.

(http://www.syracuse.com/have-you-heard/index.ssf/2011/01/did_your_zodiac_sign_change_ce.html)

This morning, in Court, I asked every single person in the courtroom (see below, my personality trait: incessantly chatty) their birthdate, so I could tell them their "new" sign. Funny, but it caused an uproar. Most of us probably don't put much stock in our Zodiac sign -- but it's certainly a part of your identity anyway. The news that it may have changed put everyone in a tizzy!

Well, apparently we can all relax (I had to send a retraction email to my entire courtroom just now):

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/13/no-your-zodiac-sign-hasnt-changed/

I can honestly say I do not understand the science behind this, but it seems pretty legit to me! Apparently there's more than one Zodiac calendar -- and all of us know the Tropical Zodiac -- which is not the one that has changed (good news for all those with a Leo tattoo!).

In honor of this huge scare (you can't take Pluto away, and then my Aquarius!), I decided to take a look at the traits of an Aquarius, to see where I measured up. Interestingly, the sign you are familar with (determined by your birthdate), is really your Sun Sign. Apparently, it is your Moon Sign that more accurately describes you (calculated by your exact moment of birth) -- coincidentally, mine are the same (Aquarius). Perhaps that's why this is so creepy:

*****************************************************************************

Traits
Good communication skills (do I ever shut up?), sociable (aside from my social anxiety...), idealist (Public Defender, hello), tactless (filter is broken), desires change (some exes have referred to it lovingly as "never satisfied").

Likes

Fame (not sure why I dont have it yet), themselves (am I supposed to admit to this?), privacy (prefer to live alone), eccentricity (let your freak flag fly!), surprises (YES! I dont get enough of these...), living within their means (believe it or not, I'm a regular Suze Ormond).

Dislikes

Emotion, intimacy (disagree, but have grown out of this), taken for granted (may have told someone last night I felt "unappreciated"), being 'pinned down' (uh... yep), senseless extravagance (except on birthdays).

Their own, distinct and sometimes very original opinion, and they are not going to change this opinion no matter what, even if they will be left completely alone. It is very important for these individuals to retain their independence.

Often the Moon in Aquarius individuals have some outstanding abilities in one or another field, and they work like a magnet for those people who share their interests. This is why so often they take a central place in the company of like-minded friends. And even there they somehow manage to keep their uniqueness.

As a result of their character, quite often the Moon in Aquarius folks can become really alone in their personal life, and their constant urge for independence can lead to chronic emotional stress. Hence their susceptibility to the disorders of nervous and circulatory systems, as also those unpredictable changes in their mood. There is an impression that at times they are getting tired of themselves, and to get rid of this tiredness they are trying to change abruptly, as if to become a different person.
To restore after a significant stress, the Moon in Aquarius persons need to have a hobby which they could plunge themselves into, forgetting about the surrounding world.

The Moon in Aquarius parents can be very original. From the early years they will make clear to their child that everyone's individuality is precious, and everyone should be independent. As a result, their kids might not be always properly fed or dressed, but they will become self-reliant earlier than their peers, and their talents will develop more successfully.

******************************************************************************

Hopefully it was interesting to read about me -- and if you skipped over all of it to the end, you wouldn't know that, because of my Aquarius-ism, I love to talk, a lot, about myself. So, this has been fun.

But, for the record, for a moment this morning, I thought I had become a Capricorn. A Capricorn, in a nutshell, is: organized, tidy, practical, has a strong work ethic, conventional, respects authority, is a perfectionist, likes simple food, and hates surprises.

Uhhh... I think I'll stick with Aquarius, thanks.

Go ahead, take your own celestial journey:

To find your Sun Sign:

(http://www.whats-your-sign.com/zodiac-signs-and-meanings.html)

To find your Moon Sign:

(http://www.lunarium.co.uk/moonsign/calculator.jsp?birthDate=2%2F02%2F84&birthHour=8&birthMinute=18&ap=p&regionSelect=US&zoneSelect=US%2FEastern)

Protecting your right to flush in privacy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/justices-pot-flushing_n_808368.html

Some of you reading this are lawyers, maybe even my co-workers, and will find (I think) this immediately interesting.

Others are not and will groan about a boring law post. Excuse me and the fact that I sort of erroneously assume that what I do is interesting to all (although that is immediately obvious if you ever go to dinner with me and I drone on about my cases...). Some may find it interesting for other reasons (ahem, a-put-out-your-joint, a-thanks).

But, for real... I think this is important for everyone.

The Supreme Court (of the US - the big cajunas!) is currently considering a case called State v. King, which comes from Kentucky.

In this case, Mr. King (and for traditional defense-attorney-effect, I'll call him by his first name, Hollis) - was minding his business in his apartment, with some buddies... and some drugs (weed and cocaine, in small amount, to be exact). The police were in his building, on unrelated business (chasing an alleged drug dealer, actually), and noticed the odor of burning cannabis coming from his apartment (uh, apparently someone forgot the towel under the door crack, hello???). So, the police knock, hear "noises that might indicate evidence is being destroyed" (could it be the infamously and poorly-timed toilet flush???) and knock his door down. You can guess the rest - but it didnt end so well for poor Hollis.

So, what? Well, the police did not have a warrant. In fact, they weren't even in the building for purposes of making contact with Hollis. But, under Kentucky law (and the same in Florida, I might add), if there's no warrant, the police can enter your home for "exigent circumstances" (some emergency -- like someone in danger, or evidence may be destroyed). Normally that is what the police are arguing in a toilet flush type case. HOWEVER - if the police create that emergency, they can't reap the benefits of it. In other words (hold on, because this is so circular, you may get dizzy), the police are arguing that they could hear what may be a person flushing evidence -- so if they wait to go and get a warrant, the evidence may be gone. But-- if they never would have knocked, you never would have known the police were there, and therefore never would have started flushing your drugs down the toilet -- and therefore, they can just go get their dang warrant.

Ok -- so, that's basically what the Kentucky Supreme Court found in Hollis' case: the police illegally entered into his apartment, violating his 4th amendment rights, and therefore making all evidence obtained inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court of the US, however, is being asked to reconsider that.

So, what does that mean?

Well, potentially, it could mean that an officer could break your door down if he smelled pot coming from your home... or, for people in my profession, more realistically, if he says he smells the odor of pot coming from your home. Relatively recently, the law changed to say that police could search a vehicle just for the odor of cannabis. After that, the number of officers who smelled the odor of cannabis in vehicles increased exponentially (in my experience, anyway). Many times, the odor of cannabis leads to the search of car where many things (some of them very illegal) are found... but none of them are cannabis. Interesting.

Ok, so I already have the lawyers (ok, criminal defense lawyers?) on my side. And I have those who may at times engage in illegal activities in their homes on my side. This is terrible.

But what about everyone else? How often do I hear the argument: who cares? If they're doing something illegal, they deserve whatever they get, and the police should do whatever they need to get that evidence.

Well, my friends, it's kind of like universal health care. You're against it until you need it.

In my line of work, I tend to hear about searches/seizures when they find something. But what about all of the times they dont? Is it ok with you that a police officer may be able to come into your homesweethome, without a warrant, without a reason, because they think they smell marijuana? because they think you are flushing drugs down the toilet (but maybe it's just diarrhea)?

Most troubling to me are the comments of the Honorable Justice Scalia, as he says with sarcasm, "taking advantage of the stupid criminals... that's terrible and unfair, isn't it"? Well... that is a pretty unfair thing to say, Justice Scalia (who, fyi, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan). I wonder, when do you figure was the last time Scalia was pulled over without reason, or his house was searched without a warrant?

(and for those of you who thought, "well maybe he doesnt commit crimes", I offer you this photo of the man we're talking about here):

(and for those of you who scoff at the idea of racial profiling and believe it doesn't exist, I hope you will someday invite me to your imaginary playland where puppies and rainbows occupy most of your time).

Anyway, to wrap this up: I take great issue with the disintegration of my Constitution, but obviously it directly affects my work. I just wish everyone understood how important it is for everyone to care about these issues -- perfectly-law-abiding or not. It is funny to me that many times those that harp on 2nd amendment rights (guns) and "patriotism" (with their own very limited definition of patriotism) are often the same people that laugh in the face of the 4th amendment (support it when you need it, universal healthcare, ahem). This is the Amendment that protects your home, your car, and even your body from invasion from the government - and hellooooo - that's a very big deal! And a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has the cajones to say (on the record) that he doesnt feel bad about a violation of those sacred rights because the person they protect is a criminal???

I digress. It's hard to stand on this soapbox for too long in six inch heels.

The only thing I have left to say... it would be really a shame if those awesome "Welcome" mats that say "Show me your warrant" should become outdated and meaningless. I mean... the joke is just too good.

Lessons learned from the crazies

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/westboro-baptist-church-arizona_n_806319.html

I hesitate to post something like this, because it seems that in doing so, in some way I may be helping these ignoramuses spread their hateful message. However, in light of current events, I think it may be important to consider it (although very briefly).

It was difficult for me to get through that entire article without crying. Their hate is obvious and their vitriol palpable. To say that it is offensive is an understatement. This is something we can all (and by "all" I mean, hopefully everyone reading my blog has at least enough reason, logic, and empathy within them to at least give me this much -- although clearly "all" Americans cannot) agree on. So let us begin there.

On Facebook -- on television -- on the blogs -- there is a lot of talk about where the blame shall be placed. It is only natural, I suppose, for people, when faced with unspeakable tragedy, to look for a scapegoat. The only thing worse than unexpected loss is an inexplicable loss -- and so humans will always look for explanations -- to comfort, and perhaps to distance ourselves --

But, in this tragedy -- immediately politicized by the identity of its victims -- our human nature to explain and to blame continues to divide a nation -- in quite the same manner that arguably set the stage for this to occur in the first place (and on and on we go...).

We probably don't new Fox News or MSNBC to tell us that the shooter had mental health problems. But apparently some do need these outlets to blame one side or the other (Republicans or Democrats) for the outlet he found for his illness.

Sarah Palin didn't mean she wanted Gabrielle Giffords dead when she placed crosshairs over her district - but why do it - why defend it? (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sarah-palins-crosshairs-ad-focus-gabrielle-giffords-debate/story?id=12576437)

Jesse Kelly (Gabrielle Gifford's most recent political opponent) probably didn't wish her physical harm when he rallied supporters to "Help Remove Gabrielle for Office" and "Shoot a fully automatic M16 with Jesse Kelly " - but why do it - why defend it? (http://www.allyourtv.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2387:giffords-opponent-held-june-event-to-qget-on-target-to-remove-giffords&catid=78:featurescoveringmedia)

Maybe, instead of going immediately on the defense, politicians with such tasteless campaign strategies as these should admit their mistake.

Conversely, those on the other side should be careful not to celebrate this tragedy as some kind of political gain -- and be careful to remain focused on moving forward as a country, rather than pointing a finger at another while remaining in the past.

And, as a whole -- perhaps we should all keep in mind that the First Amendment is a wonderful thing -- but it doesn't divest us of any responsibility as to how we use it.

And, so -- back to the Westboro Baptist Church -- let us (especially those with a public platform) not forget that there are many crazies among us -- that what is just harmless rhetoric to one (besides the wimpy wussy whiny liberals, that is) is an invitation to another -- that just because you don't mean something a certain way, doesn't mean you shouldn't consider whether someone else will see it that way -- and that maybe it would be more productive to argue using actual ideas, rather than useless insults and finger-pointing.

Let's not let the crazies win - lest we all become crazy ourselves.

Crying out for attention?

Ok, ladies - 'fess up: Who among us has conjured up a fake tear or two, just to get a man's attention?

As an extreme example, otherwise-successful weather woman, Heidi Jones, recently confessed to making up an entire rape story, just to get attention from an ex-boyfriend.

Crazy? Definitely. Extreme? Of course. But maybe not something we can't all, at least intellectually, understand.

Women sometimes try to get sympathy - and it's not just the certifiably crazy ones like Ms. Jones. I think it must be somehow programmed into us -- you get what you want when you cry. (Hello... officer... I'm so sorry.... :-( *tear = no ticket).

But, there seems to be another side to that. I know that, personally, almost every man I've ever known became exceedingly uncomfortable around tears. I always attributed that to their inferior emotional intelligence -- everyone knows, men don't deal with emotions, right? In fact, I've encountered men who actually seemed insulted by my pitiful weeping behavior. One boyfriend once told me that he thought my emotional reaction (crying) during a fight seemed equivalent to his emotional reaction (screaming at me) -- all women I know probably find that to be a ridiculous comparison (and I know I told him it was) -- but not sure if all men would agree. And, of course, we all know about the ugly cry--

(a la Dawson's Creek):

So, what's my point?

There's apparently now scientific data to support the fact that we, women, are actually more UNATTRACTIVE when we cry. Now, I know we may have known it to be manipulative -- maybe even dishonest at times. And maybe, just maybe, some of us value control over our emotions as sort of an overrated concept. But if we find out that it actually makes us, scientifically, evoluntionarily, certifiably less attractive... well, maybe that will catch our attention (I know it has mine).

A study from John Hopkin's University:

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/chemical-signal-in-womens-tears-a-turnoff-for-men

says that a woman's tears actually make her less sexually attractive to men. If you want the scientific details, check out the story -- but let me summarize:

First of all, there are two types of tears: emotional tears, and "I-have-something-in-my-eye" tears, and, apparently, they are chemically different (weird). This study focuses only on emotional tears.

Secondly, men cannot consciously smell the difference between real tears and fake tears, but subconsciously, it seems they are affected (much like the whole pheremone concept).

Apparently, when men sense a woman's tears, their testosterone levels go down. Now, evolutionarily, this probably has a purpose: it causes men to be less aggressive -- you know, so they dont go all "Cave Man" on you while youre in a time of need. However, this also means their sex drive goes down... Could this be the reason behind the age-old question discussed at every ladies' night I've ever been to?? (ie. women seem more into make-up sex than men... maybe it's the tears!)

Also, it seems, that despite the dip in testosterone, men do NOT become more empathetic at the sight of tears.

So... basically... we've had it wrong all along! Tears may send a man into a panic, and may cause him to do things for you out of guilt -- but will NOT cause him to: love you more, think you're prettier, or even to understand you better. I think it just sends off some sort of panic alarm in their brain and causes much confusion.

In conclusion, consider this your science lesson for the day. But, also: think twice before the tears. A low-cut top might prove more effective.

New Years Resolution

My New Years Resolution is simple... I will make my bed - every day.

This may sound strange, as I'm aware that there are many neat freaks among us, all of whom probably consider it frightening to hear that I have never once made my bed (pre-2011), without good reason (such qualifying reasons would include: mymomsaidso, company... yep... that's it).

Looking ahead at 2011, it was really important to me to be more present, on a daily basis... to "live in the now", to use an overused phrase. I felt I was always looking forward -- and while it can be fun to count down the days until the weekend, a party, or your next vacation -- it also sort of makes it easy to take the present for granted.

There's an interesting movement now, called The Happiness Project -- you may want to check it out, if you haven't already:
http://www.happiness-project.com/

The idea is to do small things that will generally change your daily attitude, outlook, and experience when it comes to, well ... LIFE.

I spend too much time giving myself a "pass" -- putting things off until tomorrow (and the next day, and the next day...), and generally, just letting life pass me by, while I try to figure out the next great thing that I will do.

So, for now... I will make my bed. It's a really easy thing to do, every day (who would have thought) -- and somehow, every time I go into my bedroom, it just makes me feel better to see it all organized. And, of course -- it's always ready for a surprise guest! ;-)