There is a principle in internet discussion called “Godwin’s Law.” It states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” Sometimes, however, it doesn’t even take that long.

The 2nd Appellate Court in Los Angeles recently handed down a decision that required the home-schooled children in at least one family to be enrolled in a government school or a government-approved private school. Of course, the reasons are fairly transparent. The only reason for government to become this involved in education is to have a say in what children are taught. WorldNetDaily points out that the court’s ruling sounds similar to education officials in Germany, whose mandatory government education laws have been on the books since Hitler put them there in 1938 in order to indoctrinate Germany’s children with Nazi ideals.

In this case, the indoctrination taking place isn’t as simple as Nazism; it’s the new liberal fascism. California Senate Bill 777 was passed by the legislature several months ago and it requires government schools to offer only positive portrayals of homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality, and such-like. This makes California the most “progressive” state to date, mandating that in government schools, any opinion is acceptable as long as it isn’t biblical Christianity.

Against this backdrop, the court’s reasoning behind the ruling that homeschool children must be given a government-provided or government-regulated education is particularly startling:

[K]eeping the children at home deprived them of situations where (1) they could interact with people outside the family, (2) there are people who could provide help if something is amiss in the children’s lives, and (3) they could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.

Point #1 is clearly a red herring since it is well established that homeschool children generally are more socially mature than their government schooled counterparts. Point #2 is also curious and I would like to see the full opinion to see what the court was talking about. But point #3 really strikes at the heart of the issue.

“[T]hey could develop emotionally in a broader world than the parents’ ‘cloistered’ setting.” The language implies that children should develop emotionally in a setting other than what their parents are providing. Given the backdrop of SB777, the fact that the children’s father said, “I don’t want to put my children in a public school system that teaches ideologies I don’t believe in,” and the fact that the court held that “sincerely held religious beliefs” don’t extend the 1st Amendment to cover the education of children, it’s pretty clear what the court wants the children to learn.

What is it about a pornographic image that so irks the sensibilities of the Christian right? Is it that porn leads to the inequality of women? Is it concerned with violence and/or discrimination? Perpetuating equality and admonishing violence and discrimination are seemingly unanimous aims, however I wonder if the right hasn’t found a convenient rationale to shadow its otherwise stifling agenda.

The right has fought hard to eradicate the empowerment of women for years, namely by denouncing both sex education and birth control. With regard to porn, however, the right seems justified in assuming the posture of equal rights crusader. Adding fuel to an already strange brew, feminist groups do not seem irked by this position. The two storm the San Fernando Valley hand-in-hand, screaming censorship in concert. Is this the type of armageddon Robertson and Falwell envisioned? Cats and dogs living in harmony, consciously tabling the chase?

Or is this perhaps a more enlightened sect of rightists? Can one be consumed with the disparities of inequality yet all the while pray for the death of modernism? Surely not. While the feminists rail against discriminatory images, the right has discovered a window to better articulate its seedier campaign: namely the abolition of education.

Under the guise of equality the right has every intention of censoring not only the Larry Flynts of the world, but further, any and all information concerning AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, sexual identification, abortion and contraception. Beneath any whisper of progressive thought looms an already established disdain for self-empowerment. Give them an inch and they will take your soul.

Last week the rumblings began to emerge that there is no crime of “attempted murder” in the state of Mississippi. This was apparently prompted by this story which ran in a TV news spot and was discussed on radio programs as well.

“Attempt” offenses are a common law category and therefore, the state would either have to refuse to recognize the crime on the judicial level, or eliminate it at the legislative level. In Mississippi, neither of these appear to be the case.

The Mississippi Code specifically provides for “attempt” crimes.

Every person who shall design and endeavor to commit an offense, and shall do any overt act toward the commission thereof, but shall fail therein, or shall be prevented from committing the same, on conviction thereof, shall, where no provision is made by law for the punishment of such offense, be punished as follows: If the offense attempted to be committed be capital, such offense shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding ten years; if the offense attempted be punishable by imprisonment in the penitentiary, or by fine and imprisonment in the county jail, then the attempt to commit such offense shall be punished for a period or for an amount not greater than is prescribed for the actual commission of the offense so attempted.

Miss. Code Ann. § 97-1-7. Further, a cursory search of the recent state cases turns up numerous cases of attempted murder convictions. Even more apparent is that there is ample evidence in the news. Someone should tell Flora Shearill that there is no attempted murder in Mississippi.

So I don’t know what those police offers were talking about when they told Mr. Register that there is no charge of “attempted murder.” HB 644 makes sense when one considers that the legislature might want to exercise more control over the elements and/or sentences for attempted murder. But clearly, a person can be charged with attempted murder in the state of Mississippi.

When I was in the 10th grade only a decade ago, my English teacher made it perfectly clear: in English, the generic singular pronoun is masculine. If someone wants to object to this convention, he should take it up with the Saxons. This is not difficult and following this rule merely places us in a long line of English-speaking people. But now that I’m in law school, I’m noticing an apparently concerted effort to change this convention. What I don’t see is a good reason for doing so.

The issue has been discussed in many fora, including this representative article. The use of the masculine pronoun is now viewed by our culture as inherently sexist. The alternatives range from illogical to utterly bizarre:”she,” “(s)he,” “he/she,” and, “they” are some common examples, the latter of which amounts to a decision to replace the singular pronoun altogether with the plural. Some of the more creative approaches involve alternating “he” and “she” every time a generic pronoun is required.

The solution to this imaginary problem which legal writers have apparently adopted is the blanket use of the feminine. Therefore, whenever examples are given in law school (and there are lots of examples), all the criminals, tortfeasors, parties, judges, attorneys, witnesses, and victims are women.

Since English has no separate generic pronoun, we obviously have to use something. The compound pronouns (he/she) are unwieldy and the plural pronoun (they) is just simply wrong: Any student interested in the optional seminar should bring their enrollment form to class. That is (and should remain) a wrong answer on the SAT.

So then what’s the answer? It is suggested that using the masculine is sexist. If this is true, using the feminine is no less sexist. Since we are resolved that our only options are sexism or the devolution of the English language, let us err on the side of sexism. Furthermore, though the number of women in the legal profession is increasing, men still constitute the vast majority of American judges, lawyers, and criminals. So if we are going to be sexist anyway, let us do so in a way that is not only supported by over a millennia of tradition, but is also likely to be accurate four times out of five.

Justin Hayden, a 3L here at Mississippi College School of Law and a contributor at The Legal Scoop has noted that law student blogs are a good exercise, not only in in analytical thinking and writing but also in initiative and creativity. These things are not only beneficial in our studies but also demonstrate positive qualities to potential employers.

To that end, I’ve decided to launch this blog. I and the other authors will be using this space to discuss our studies, the law, and pretty much anything of general interest to law students and people in the legal community. As with all such places, the life of this website is dependent upon the interaction of its users. So we will make a deal with you: we’ll strive to provide interesting content on a regular basis as long as you agree to feed our egos by commenting and critiquing. Deal?