of all the obstacles posed bv outmoded legalism. Iiidiidualrnrights and proteetions must, according to this philosophy, bernsuperscdecl in the interest of defeating domestic tvrannv andrnexploitation. And when such proteetions have been underminedrnin one area of law, how much easier it is to acceptrntheir dilution in other matters—in drug cases and rape prosecutions,rnin matters of domestic violence and sexual harassment.rnSoon wc are left with a wodd in which the only offendersrnwith their rights intact are professional robbers andrnburglars, whose atrocities seem to offend us so much less thanrnthe crimes of ever-fluctuating social moralitv.rnWe might expect a clear political demarcation here, withrnliberals pushing measures that advance the feminist agendarnand the therapeutic state and conservatives upholding thernlong-established boundaries that defend the individual andrnthe famih. In practice, the lines hae long been hopelesslyrnconfused, with the Supreme Court offering a fascinating microcosmrnof the dilemmas and contradictions in contcmporarrnconscr’atism.rnhi 19SS, the case of Cox v. Iowa struck down a state lawrnpermitting children to testify from behind a screen. JusticernSealia (a celebrated conservative and a Reagan nominee) wroterntellingh that “it is difficult to imagine a more obvious or damagingrniolation of the defendant’s right to facc-to-facc encounter.rn. . . Eice-tO’face presence ma’ unfortunately upset therntruthful rape victim or abused child, but b the same token itrnma confound the false accuser or reeal the child coached byrna malevolent adult. It is a truism that constitutional protectionsrnhave costs.”rnParadoxicalh’, it is this same Court that in 1990 decidedrnb- a 5-4 majority to uphold the radical principle of televisingrnchildren’s testimony in abuse eases (Maryland v. Craig). Thisrncase found Sandra Dav O’Connor in the familiar position ofrndefending whatever regulation seemed convenient to an administrativernbody, while Sealia responded with a scathing dissentrnof the sort that we traditionally associate with extreme liberalsrnlike Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan. (Part ofrnhis philippic noted that “seldom has this Court failed so conspicuouslyrnto sustain a categorical guarantee of the Constitutionrnagainst the tide of prevailing current opinion.”)rnWc could perhaps speculate on how and why AntoninrnSealia and his fellow dissenters found themselves in a minorityrnon what is alleged to be a conservative court. The samernquestions must be posed in the wider society. Why has therernbeen so little opposition to the “Believe the Children” ideology,rnwith all its nefarious consequences? Why have so manyrnconservatives been willing to acquiesce to such a radical transformationrnof American criminal justice and to such an eviscerationrnof constitutional protections? And when did conservativcsrnstart believing that therapists and state agencies werernthe best judges of the conduct and moralitv of the family?rnThe Penny Arcade, Carmine Streetrnby Gloria Glickstein BramernHe’s losing her at the penm arcadernwhere the plav and the outcomes turnrnon small change. Formed of flattened tin,rnthe ducks that swim in straight linesrndon’t even dent when hit. lie raises the gunrnto his cheek, targets the simple thingsrnhe shoots to kill, poised as St. Julianrnbefore a pow erful assault of cats, equippedrnfor violence, knowing what it isrnto be a man, and how a her reacts to a him.rnThe obligations of being bornrnfather and son make him light with fear.rnHe cocks his weapon, sets the sights,rndischarges three times. Bullets go awry.rnShe shrugs at the unwon prizernand touches his arm as if to sa’,rnNot everyone succeeds every time.rnHe puts another dollar downrnand lifts the barrel above her head,rnconcentrating on her encouragement,rnsquints, aims surely, and misses thrice again.rnShe grins uncomfortably at passersbv andrnnotices his blue jeans arc too big;rnhis studded cowboy shirt doesn’t quite fit.rnJANUARY 1993/23rnrnrn