It's MY blog

Apparently, my blog last Sunday decrying the horrific Supreme Court decision to revoke Roe v. Wade ruffled a few conservative feathers, as I suspected that it would.

In my opposition to the ruling, which overturned a Constitutional right for the first time ever in this nation's history, I wrote "What is this country?" It seems at least one reader obliquely questioned my patriotism, then gave me a civics lesson on the First Amendment of this "beautiful country" that allows me the freedom of speech to "cheerlead" for my "team."

This reader also stated that I was too dramatic, too emotional and not factual enough.

Another reader defended the Justices who, during their confirmation hearings, promised to abide by stare decisis (long-standing legal precedent), then seemingly perjured themselves as they voted to rescind the nearly 50-year-old Roe decision anyway. This reader suggested that last Sunday's blog was "an opinion piece and not a peer reviewed article" and also claimed there was too much emotion and not enough facts.

Say what?

Okay, here we go. It seems I need to write yet another clarification on exactly what a blog is, how I resource my material, why I write it in the first place.

The easiest way to explain the purpose of my blog is to compare it to a letter to the editor. In my 30-plus-year career as a journalist, I've seen enough such letters to know that they are often emotional, sometimes flawed, but almost always legitimate in bringing a different or new perspective to the argument.

My blog is my opinion. It can be emotional. Some blogs that I've written have brought tears to my eyes as I type, others have released the steam out of my ears. So what? Thomas Paine was pretty emotional when he wrote Common Sense. Thomas Jefferson got emotional writing The Declaration of Independence. And while I hardly compare myself to their greatness, as a writer, I can appreciate their emotion. 

My blogs are not "articles" in the journalistic sense of the word. They are hardly ever breaking news. They are hardly ever in-depth investigations. But they are opinion pieces.

My blogs don't need peer review. I am not writing for a medical journal or a law society. I'm writing for myself. In last Sunday's blog, I consider my "peer review" to be the 50 years of precedent set by Roe; the polling that shows 65-70 percent of Americans wanted to keep Roe, and, most importantly, my readers who support my views in my blog. I get peer reviewed by my readers every time I publish my blog – even from those who disagree with me.

My sources are the mainstream media, including NBC, CBS, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, The New Yorker, The Atlantic, Rolling Stone and several others. Those institutions are where I gather my facts, because they are in whom I trust. I consider anything that is not mainstream to be either propaganda or, worse, conspiracy theory. But that's me. Believe what you will.

I write my blog for free. It is not monetized. There are no ads. I make no money from it. I am beholden to no one.

•   •   •

Now that you are acquainted with what my blog is, let's try this little exercise:

I believe the current Supreme Court is illegitimate (opinion) and radically extremist (opinion). Five of its members are leaning to the right, with four of them – Sam Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett – having been nominated to the bench by Republican presidents (George W. Bush and Donald Trump) who lost the popular vote (fact). Another, Clarence Thomas, was nominated by George H. W. Bush (fact).

The Electoral College is responsible for this injustice (opinion and fact) because this antiquated system erodes our democracy, allowing for minority rule (fact). The voting system needs to become one man, one vote (opinion) for it to be truly a democratic form of government (fact). Judges also need staggered term limits (opinion) to eliminate super majorities on the bench and render opinions that reflect the will of the people (opinion).

Or we can expand the Court, as Lincoln did during the Civil War (fact).

I could go on. The current conservative lean by the court results in a strict interpretation of the Constitution (fact). That's how we get opinions based on the founders 240 years ago that have no relevance in a modern world of AR-15s and, well, abortion rights (opinion). We need a Court that interprets a living, breathing Constitution (opinion).

There is it. If you disagree with me, that's fine. That's what America is all about. If you don't agree, then write your own damn blog (emotional fact and opinion).