is it possible to have more fun at any job than at one working with children? i don't think so. these kids freakin' crack me up. witness:

i notice, as connor puts his shoes back on, that he's not wearing any socks. i ask him where his socks are. he responds, with a straight face, 'i'm grounded.' 'you're grounded?' i don't understand. he explains that he left his socks all around the house and so he was grounded - grounded from wearing socks. that is the best thing i've ever heard. i'm definitely going to remember that punishment.

matt, at the world-wise age of 13, asks me, 'do you have any kids?' i must have given him this no-way-are-you-out-of-your-mind look when i replied 'no,' because he looked at me like it was the most natural thing in the world for a nineteen year old to have children. i explained i probably wouldn't even think about children for almost ten years. he just couldn't wrap his mind around that one.

i watched this little kid wander off into a field and return with a dandelion in his hand, give it to his mom, and hug her. definitely had tears in my eyes. definitely a softy.

watching jimmy try to ride his scooter down various slides is the funniest thing in the world. i swear, if i ever come into money i'm financing his network tv show, titled 'geez jimmy.'

we christened hallie 'mildly retarded with a vengeance.' ok, we're evil. but no matter where you work, you always need someone to make fun of.

i swear this one kid, daniel, has a crush on me. we walked to taco bell today, and he kept wanting to hold my hand and he insisted on sitting next to me in the booth. this is endlessly adorable.

aah, i love kids.

***

on a more serious note - this ruling of the pledge of allegiance as unconstitutional. you know, i'm a big separation of church and state fanatic. and, just as a point of reference, i'm not all that religious a person. but even i could never imagine attacking 'in god we trust' on our currency or 'one nation under god' in the pledge. when i heard this news, i was definitely shocked. banning the pledge seems as outrageous as a constitutional amendment banning flag burning (heavenly unspecified deity forbid).

so when i got to the park this morning, i had a conversation about it with my fellow supermisers, one of my particularly rah rah atheist friends. she's all about this ruling, naturally. and while i still think it's kind of an extreme step, here's the conclusions i've reached: the pledge hasn't always said 'under god.' what's so wrong about simply 'one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'? pretty much captures what we're about without excluding any americans.

and, in my opinion, the 'god' referred to in the pledge and on our money does refer to the judeo-christian god. you can mince words and take it in whatever context suits you - but to my mind, it's excluding a lot of groups. say higher power if you mean higher power. but it says 'god' because they mean god. and anyhow, even 'higher power' is going too far - that excludes us atheists and agnostics. the diary lani's entry linked to says this: 'The 'under god' line simply means that we, as a nation, recognize that there is a higer power than us.' we as a nation do not. many of us do not.

so, look, i've never had a problem with the pledge or my currency. i've never had a problem with attending a church service now and then when it's more convenient for everyone else. i'm not one to raise a fuss. and maybe 'one nation under god' is not a violation of church and state - i wouldn't necessarily say that it is. but there is a point to the argument.